explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2625: Field Topology

2022-05-29T13:31:15Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ Replaced rambling explanation of the "Football" field with a much simpler explanation.

{{comic
| number = 2625
| date = May 27, 2022
| title = Field Topology
| image = field_topology.png
| titletext = The combination croquet set/10-lane pool can also be used for some varieties of foosball and Skee-Ball.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by SOMEBODY HOMEOMORPHIC TO YOUR DOG - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Field Topology is [https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Topological_field a subject in mathematics], but in this comic, Randall has taken the term literally. The comic strip depicts a situation where the common practice of multi-use athletic facilities has been organized by the "topology department" and constructed to be shared by all sports whose normal playing fields are {{w|topology|topologically equivalent}}. (Not to be confused with {{w|Field (mathematics)|mathematical fields}}, or the {{w|Fields Medal}} prize -- although successfully {{w|Straightedge and compass construction|constructing}} these fields might lead to medals of one kind or another being granted).

In topology, shapes which can be smoothly deformed into one another without adding or removing holes are considered to be "equivalent". Note that a topological hole is an area of the nominal space (or area, or other manifold) through which nothing restricted to this topology can pass. In describing a real-world archway, for example, this would be where the material of the arch is, not the actual 'hole' passing ''through'' the constructed arch, which is the path that one indeed may (or must!) pass through to get from one region of the layout to another. A loop is a path across the allowable territory of a topology (or a viable circuit to make through the world it describes) that end up where it started. If a loop cannot be tightened (ultimately adjusted to take a shorter path) down to a single point, then it must be wrapped around at least one 'topological hole' (i.e. through a physical one), and you have separately unique paths (or points, i.e. on different disconnected topologies) where you cannot adjust one loop to take the route of another, without severing a looped-path and reconnecting it.

{{w|Baseball}}, and {{w|tetherball}} are played on fields without any holes that the ball or players can completely pass through, so they are ({{w|Group (mathematics)|grouped}}) (physically and mathmatically) into one continuous field without holes. The goals on a {{w|soccer}} field presumably do not create holes because the goalposts and crossbar are connected to the field by the net, so the goals and field are topologically equivalent to a smooth disc. Any path taken into and out of the goal (any number of times) is topologically equivalent to one that does not go into this pocket of space at all.

{{w|Volleyball}} and {{w|badminton}} are played on a court through the center of which passes a net suspended from poles, and the {{w|high jump}} has a bar that contestants jump over. The space bounded by the bottom of the net (or bar), the supporting poles, and the ground can be considered to be a hole, a path over and under the net/bar cannot be simplified to one that does not, so their fields all have one "hole".

A basketball court has two physical pathable holes, the nets. Parallel bars can be thought of as two rectangles and thus as two topographical "holes". Both have opportunities to path through either (or both) structures, and so the material of the structures define a hole in the topological abstract of the playing 'surface'. Since we are told that these sports fields belong to the Topology Department - and are not necessarily generalized to all sports fields - we may safely assume that their "football" field is for "American football" and uses the older H-shaped football goals rather than the more modern Y-shaped ones. An "H" shaped goal creates a topological hole under the crossbar at both ends of the field. A more modern football field with Y-shaped goals would have no holes.

The lane dividers in a swimming pool create bounded holes on the 'playing surface' equivalent to the number of lanes. And each hoop in croquet is a hole with one edge bounded by the playing surface. Similarly, as mentioned in the title text, this configuration is also {{w|homeomorphism|homeomorphic}} to a {{w|foosball}} table (with each rod sustaining the player figures above the table defining a hole) or a {{w|Skee-Ball}} lane (which is even more straightforward, as it is just a plane with several holes in which to throw balls).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A row of four signs, each held up by two posts, followed by a row of four roughly lozange shapes, one for each sign. The signs and lozange shapes are shaded as if three-dimensional objects, all being flattish with a small third dimension. The four oblongs are presented at an oblique angle, as if they are in "front" of the signs extending towards the viewer. All but the first oblong have various numbers of holes "through" them.

zero holes: "Baseball. Soccer. Tetherball."

one hole: "Volleyball. Badminton. High jump."

two holes: Basketball. Football. Parallel bars."

nine holes: "Olympic swimming. Croquet."

Image caption: "No one ever wants to use the topology department's athletic fields."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Sport]]

Talk:2625: Field Topology

2022-05-29T13:23:18Z

SteveBaker:

First [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 12:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is football on the two-hole field? Where are the holes? I don't think the goal posts in American football introduce any since they're not closed. Maybe it's soccer? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.88|172.69.68.88]] 12:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: I think it is because the goal posts extend into infinity and the topological definition of a hole: something you can draw a circle around that you cannot contract to a point. [the user placed a horizontal rule instead of a signature by accident.]

:Well, you might still be able to call them holes. They would be if they were fully rectangles. --[[User:BlackBeret|BlackBeret]] ([[User talk:BlackBeret|talk]]) 12:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: Gridiron football's field contains two areas (the endzones) that can be thought of as not being part of the "normal" field of play, for lack of a better way of saying that pre-coffee. Association football likewise has the areas within the nets. [[User:Noëlle|Noëlle]] ([[User talk:Noëlle|talk]]) 13:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: My immediate thoughts were also that football (soccer) and football (gridiron) are the same, or indeed the other way round. In both cases the closed hole (assuming not a Y-like vertical holder, but H-like as per rugby football) plays no more or less topological part. Threading through the hole from behind has no relevence in either, and in fact defining it as a region that is 'a special enclosed gap with meaning' (which doesn't really matter in the topology sense, just like golf would be a topologically hole-less surface and as a coffee-cup's inside 'dimple' doesn't count, just its handle-hole that makes it equivalent to a doughnut) actually counts for something in association football. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 13:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

:: It's not the space bounded by the goal that is the 'hole' - it's the goal post itself (or in the case of the high jump, it's the bar, not the space under it). The reason soccer doesn't have 'holes' where the goals are is that they're positioned on the edge of the playable area - you can't play around the bars, because as soon as you cross the goal line you're out of play. And it doesn't matter whether it's a Y-shaped or H-shaped goal - topologically, they both form one continuous 'hole'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 13:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

::: I don't think that's the reason why soccer doesn't have holes. The goalposts in football are also outside the playable area, and so are the poles in volleyball. I think soccer is listed as zero-holes because soccer goals are typically not fixed to the field, and are instead separate objects that can be dragged around and removed from the field. On the other hand, the same is true of volleyball and badminton nets (and those nets contain many holes!) so the comic seems a bit inconsistent.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.146|172.70.175.146]] 14:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

:::: Speaking from a "football is soccer" nation (well, mostly, the exceptional subregions would argue that it's rugby) a soccer goal is typically ''not'' draggable around the field, but permanent (or a unit frame that has to be painstakingly hoisted out of the ground if you ''don't'' want them in your football stadium, when you repurpose it for other purposes) and it's only the optional net that gets added to the park's permanent goalposts for the official five-aside competition evening or day of the weekend. Draggable goalposts need a further level of intermediate organisation that goes beyond the typical "shipping container with windows cut in it (with shutters bolted over them) as a cheap changing room/officials' cabin" that might be found near the edge of the field but rarely even has as much as a corner flag left in them, between games".
:::: I presume that US 'football' posts are considered holes because they are an infinitely-tall window (even though the delineating poles only reach so high) that is a meaningful slice (where the goal is, you have to loop around it in mutually different unsimplifiable paths to reach the other side), but then that should make for ''two'' holes per end, if you count getting a field-goal and then returning round the sides (or vice-versa) as another valid surface-path.
:::: ...but, yeah, I can imagine the problem of definition (and cultural famiarity) here is going to produce more problems even than the understanding of topology. One of the less internationally-accepted comics, this. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177|172.70.85.177]] 18:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
: O_O . Randall is united-statesian, so football means the thing where you tackle each other and hold the ball in your hands. I've never been into football, and I've always seen it with two large goal posts with a horizontal bar between them. The hole is formed under the horizontal bar. When I played football in computer games, you had to get the ball over the horizontal bar. After this, I'll search the web to see if the horizontal bar still exists. Regarding soccer, there aren't two holes because the nets are closed at the back. You cannot pass through the field structure by going through a goal: you bump into the net the ball bounces off of when a goal is made. So, Randall is considering soccer fields topologically equivalent to a plane (ignoring all the holes in the netting). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.229|172.70.114.229]] 14:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
: I looked up the goal thing and found that what I was imagining are called H-frame or H-style goal posts. Not the norm; the have two posts instead of one. I'm a weirdo that I thought they were what was up. But Randall could have been thinking of H-frame goals. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.63|172.70.230.63]] 15:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
::Many high school and amateur football fields still use H-frame goals. The resulting space can be used as a goal in some other sports. That does raise the question of why they didn't just have one field with lots of holes, and just plug the ones up that aren't needed for the sport being played. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.191|172.70.134.191]] 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Tetherball, in many variants, does contain an obstruction -- the pole, which you're not allowed to touch. The Topology Department is getting tired of having to switch out the fields. [[User:Noëlle|Noëlle]] ([[User talk:Noëlle|talk]]) 13:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
:But you can surely jump over it, so it's topologically the same as a zero-height pole... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 13:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
:Tetherball does not have a *hole*. The pole, rope, and ball are just a stretched out bit of the continuous surface.

Croquet has six hoops and a peg. How does that make for nine holes? Is it including the opponents' two balls as holes? And if so, why aren't opposing players counted as holes in the other sports? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 13:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquet#Nine-wicket] 'Nine-wicket croquet, sometimes called "backyard croquet", is played mainly in Canada and the United States, and is the game most recreational players in those countries call simply "croquet".' (Wikipedia) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 18:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

American football goals are Y-shaped. Rugby goals are H-shaped. Did... did Randall get those confused? Also, I fail to see how basketball and American football get two, croquet gets a bunch, but soccer gets zero. Aren't soccer goals (in-game at least) basically the same shape as croquet wickets, just waaaay bigger? Granted, I don't know anything about topology and I came to this wiki specifically cuz I'm dumb, so I'd love if someone could splain this all for me ;) --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.170|172.69.69.170]] 13:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
:The soccer goal has a net, so the ball can't go through it. Topologically it's just a wall (Randall seems to be ignoring all the tiny holes in netting, presumaby because they're smaller than the balls so they're insignificant to the sports). [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
::I agree with that explanation - the net is the only thing that makes the soccer field not to have holes. It should be included in the comic explanation.
::The hole for the volleyball only makes sense taking in account that the bottom of the net doesn't reach the floor, although this space is not used in the game.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
::I agree about soccer; the explanation should be that soccer goals (with net) are topologically part of the plane. The same is true of ice hockey, even though you can travel "around" the net, it is topologically part of the field with no holes. As for (American) football, the topology only makes sense for H-shaped goals, which are more often seen on primary/secondary play fields than in higher level play. [[User:Aramisuvla|Aramisuvla]] ([[User talk:Aramisuvla|talk]]) 16:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
::Agreed. Soccer goals are shaped such that their bottoms connect smoothly to the ground in a single continuous piece. So they are topologically equivalent to the plane. This wouldn't be the case if not for the back part holding the net. That's unlike basketball hoops, which are actual holes. The holes in football must be referring to the H-shaped uprights that were standard until 1967 in professional leagues and are still seen in some high school fields and even a couple college fields. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.128|172.70.131.128]] 03:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
::EDIT: I should point out that the net actually has, like, hundreds of holes. But I think the net here is being treated as a continuous sheet. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 03:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:::I mentioned all the little holes in the net in my comment that you're replying to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The group link pointing to group (mathematics) doesn't bear any relation with the sentence or the comic. I would remove the link.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 14:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
: The joke seems important to me because their no consideration of the word 'field' being a math pun, and it raises the idea in readers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.74|162.158.79.74]] 15:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:When I first saw the comic title I assumed that part of the joke would be a pun on the word "field" being used for both sports and math. And even though the comic doesn't explicitly make this joke, I'll bet it inspired Randall. It's worth mentioning. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In rugby (both League and Union) the goalposts are within the field of play: significant game activity takes place behind them. This is not the case with soccer. I have no clue what difference this makes topologically.{{unsigned ip|}}

I've been thinking about this classification system, and can't quite work out the baseline for it. I think we're supposed to assume that the whole 3d manifold is represented in a 2d 'field', or at least any path through the air flattened to an arbitrarily thin surface 'bulge' during topological rationalisation. But there are several possible field-of-play definitions we can be using...
* A single valid 'play' or traversal
** For ball-sports (or indeed other play-objects) this could be where the item can travel. But in this case I think almost 'all' codes of football are Type 1 (first of the topologies) as almost every football code deals with both 'goal' and 'endzone' (where valid) as the same as a hole (dimple) in golf... It goes into it and it might as well come out of it again, there's no continuation of play 'through the defined' space, and so the topological hole (the barrier defined the scoring membrane's edge) never comes into play. Unlike in Gridiron, where a touchdown doesn't even need the 'ball' to touch the ground, rugby (league and/or union, and possibly further derivatives) requires this and a player can fail to score a Try if (s)he passes bodily over the line but is unable to plant the ball (not allowed to throw/drop it) and I'd have to check what happens if the defending player(s) keeping them sufficiently off the ground (assuming that's done in an allowable fashion) returns the intended scorer back over the line via a circuitous route around /back-through the suspended goal-mouth (above the cross-bar, between the verticals)... They keep changing those kinds of technical rules, so I can't be sure of the current technicalities involved. Likewise, a volleyball or shuttlecock that passes under the net-top-edge is out of play, so it is really a Type 1 under this definition. (Might as well be a solid barrier, floor-to-top-height, rather than a thin bar or a partial net.) The basketball case is interesting. Although a dunk ends the play of the ball, I'm not sure if the path of a ball ''up'' through the hoop does not. In that circumstance I could believe it is a Type 3 case, but if that's a game-stopping thing then Type 1. Croquet is indeed a varying number of paths through (I ''think'') an unordered set of holes, or at least nothing to say that they can be taken out of order (or 'un-passed-through'), and you can't necessarily restrict a 'play' to one shot at a time if certain conditions allow you to play on, so dodging in and around all scoring zones defined by the hoops gives you something like.
** For player/competitor/participant movement, similarly passing under the bar is not valid for the High Jump. I don't think there's anything to stop such transitions upon the Parallel Bars, but it is much more a feature of the ''Uneven'' Parallel Bars, whereas from what I've seen of the sport, the even-variety tends to be topologically used much as the pommel-horse. Players of football (American variations certainly, rugby of course, proper football if you don't bother with the nets) are not restricted from passing through the scoring area (either way) on a circuitous path that may be off the field of play but isn't off the field ''of players''. For the Olympic Swimming, I'm not suring porpoising over and under the lane-delineations is a thing, so I would have said that (under this definition), it should be a number of entirely disconnected Type 1 'zones', with no valid movement between them at all. So far as I'm aware, there are no rules for/against croquet ''players'' passing through hoops (intentionally or perhaps because they severely annoyed an opponent) so maybe that stands in this case, too. Ditto for basketball, if hoisted. Although in both cases it may prevent the balls passing through immediately afterwards, without game-stoppage to resolve the issue.
* If it's a game's-worth of play, then the status of the basket in basketball (unlike the pocket in snooker/pool/some-versions-of-billards) might be defined by the topological-hole-that-is-the-physical-hole's-edge, rather than treat it as the old basket-with-bottom from which the precusor to the net-ring almost immediately evolved. And the same could be said about the suspended scoring-hole (whether supported as Y-post or an H-post, the lower limb(s) are merely physical necessities that play little part in the gameplay specifics except as a general hazard to avoid, it is the crossbar and verticals-to-infinity (and the infinity itself) that is the gap through which a circular path cannot be rationalised back to a point). For most of the rest (including the participant-paths, with there being nothing to stop the traversal of a footballer of whatever stripe jumping the cross-bar, but that may only mean something in the topology of some variations, as far as the game is concerned...) it seems meaningless. Even in an Aussie Rules field with four 'posts' per end, and probably more interest in whether jumping onto an opposing player is against the rules or indeed an entirely legitimate and expected tactic.
* The general arena-wide area is a further superset (perhaps with no additional complications, i.e. exactly congruent) of the field-of-play(er) definition. For coin-operated table-top games (foosball/table-football) the path from each goal may (additionally to any on-top topological loop-disconnections) force passage of the ball underneath and out into the new-play insertion spot. So add a couple more (unidirectional) paths, at least. Or six for a coin-operated pool/etc table, and I assume the Skeeball (not something I'm familar with, at least by that name) is defined that way already...
Sorry, I found I needed to say a lot more than I thought I did, so the first point (and sub-points) went on a bit and I cut down what I might have said for the following points. I may come back to re-edit this. I've got a handy little table, in mind, but I'm not sure it'll work much better to summarise everything I've been cogitating about for most of today while away from the keyboard... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:The "hole" in the goalpost in American football is relevant for field goals, not touchdowns. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it's relevent for either. The field-goal passes over the crossbar and between (but also maybe above) the raised verticles, but that route is topologically the same as one above the crossbar but wide, which is in turn the same as one rolling along the ground and wide... Or indeed carried across just like most touchdowns (any that isn't run through the middle of the H-post', un-netted but otherwise soccer-like 'goalmouth' lower section).
::Possibly running around the post(s) that support the field-goal defining beams counts as the path around the topological hole because any change to that route that attempts to transform it to a useless loop within the main field of play must either (at some point) pass through the support for the crossbar or else wholly through the region that defines (in one direction, at least) the goal-scoring area. Can anyone get Word Of God in his intentions, here? It looks weird, to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 03:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As has been alluded to, this must be an American university's topology department. A rest-of-the-world university would include four holes for cricket. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.191|172.70.134.191]] 17:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this is my (not yet properly tabularised, or properly wikimedialinked) idea of all the kinds of information I'd suggest go in there. But it's a monstrocity and I don't want to remove the very useful existing information already in the Explanation (that may even be better/more accurate than my interpretation). ...so here it is for review. If anything in it is useful to anybody else as inspiration for future edits then... well, your choice!
*Click to expand:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed leftAlign" style="width:100%">
Competition
|-
Field diagram
|-
Usage description
|-
Topology
|-

'''Type 1 Field'''
|-
(First image in comic.)
|-
Any path looping around this area can be moved at will and shrunk to just one point that could result from any other path.
|-
A homogonously flat lozange surface with no other notable features.

'''Baseball'''
|-
(Partial!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball#/media/File:Baseball_diamond.svg
|-
The playing area for baseball contains many important physical features for scoring and playing purposes, but is essentially one flat area (and continuous airspace) when you disregard the elevation of the pitcher's mound or even the outfield fence and stands (for any ball that carries that far, upon being hit).
|-
Randall explicitly classes this in the Type 1 diagram, and there isn't any obvious reason to argue this point.

Association Football ("'''Soccer''''"/"Football")
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Football_pitch_metric_and_imperial.svg
|-
An unobstruted rectangular playing area with a goal formed of two vertical posts connected between the tops by a crossbar. In official competition (and where otherwise desired) there is a net stretched behind each goalmouth to stop any ball that passes completely through it (with or without hitting any of the posts), although games can be played with no net in place, or in street/schoolyard situations by goals defined only as a goalpost-like markings painted upon a solid wall (hitting the wall within the bounds of the painted line constitutes a goal, give or take arguments about whether it counts if it hit the line).
|-
Stated by Randall as a Type 1 (a single unobstructed zone), which is likely due to the 'pocket' of the net-backed goalmouth being nothing more than a straight extension of the playing area.
However, an un-netted set of goalposts might be considered a Type 3, with each set of goalposts defining an impassible frame (the hole in the topology, ''not'' the same thing as the physical hole formed by the goal-frame) within which the balls can freely pass and return ''not'' through the goalmouth, or vice-versa.

'''Tetherball'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tetherball_in_Georgetown,_Seattle,_Washington.jpg
|-
A ball attached to a cord anchored at the tip of a pole that is in turn stuck in the ground.
|-
Although the mechanism used to allow free swivelling of the tether around the pole may be quite complex (including being looped around a helical thread to help register how many excess orbits of the pole the ball has made in either direction), the basic premise can be simplified to a single extrusion from the playing area, which is topologically identical to a playing area with no extrusion at all. Thus Randall properly states this as a Type 1 variant.

'''Type 2 Field'''
|-
(Second image in comic.)
|-
Any path that canot be shrunk to just one point will be pass around the unpassable hole in the topology.
|-
A homogonously flat lozange surface with a single central hole in it.

'''Volleyball'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volleyball#/media/File:VolleyballCourt.svg
|-
A volleyball court consists of a flat area disected by a raised net in the centre. Valid shots pass over the net, but it is possible for the ball (or players) to pass between the net and the floor.
|-
Randall lists this under the Type 2 diagram. An argument can be made that the net could effectively reach to the ground, or questions asked about anchoring the net top/bottom to the posts at either side with separate straps (adding left and right 'passages' between the elements of the obstacle that is the net) but he clearly intends the loop around the hole to represent the ability to passing over the net one way and under the net the other (or vice-versa) as a topologically irreducible loop.

'''Badminton'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Badminton_court_3d.svg
(Note that this diagram completely abstracts the under-net area away.)
|-
The net setup is very similar to volleyball, i.e. raised above the ground, with very similar rules regarding valid shots between the areas on each side.
|-
As with Volleyball, Randall feels justified in this being classed as a Class 2, having similar reasons for this as well as possible arguments against.
(Note that another form of {{w|Badminton Horse Trials|Badminton}} is arguably far more topologically complex!)

'''High Jump'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1912_Platt_Adams5.JPG
|-
A bar supported at height between two supports. The idea is to successfully pass over the bar (without knocking it off, the bar being only supported to the supports, not firmly attached to them), although a competitor who decides to abort their attempt mid-run might well choose to pass underneath to default the attempt with the least physical and organisational aftermath.
|-
With an 'above' and 'below' path to potentially loop around (though not in a single jump), Randall chooses to ascribe this as a Type 2. If a competitor displaces the bar, during a failed jump, it can morph the topology into a Type 1 scenario

'''Type 3 Field'''
|-
(Third image in comic.)
|-
Any path that canot be shrunk to just one point will pass around one ot other ''or both'' of the holes in the topology.
|-
A homogonously flat lozange surface with two holes in it, towards each end.

'''Basketball'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Basketball_terms.png
|-
Played upon a court, at each end of which is a tall pole (or supporting wall or other structure) from which a 'basket' is projected over the playing area. The earliest baskets were an actual closed-bottom basket, but this required climbing up to retrieve balls successfully landed within them. By removing the bottoms of the baskets and, later, using just a hoop (with or without a bottomless net). Points are scored by sending the ball through the basket-loop ''from above'', to be retrieved for further play as it exits below.
|-
Topologically, the edge of each loop is directly connected to the ground, so it can be smplified as a two-hole Type 3 field (the hole in the field is the impassible rim in the basket-loop). This does not preserve the orientation (or intended unidirectional nature) of the basketball-shot, but this is Topology's fault, not Randall's!

American/Canadian Football ("Gridiron"/"'''Football'''")
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_field#/media/File:AmFBfield.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_football_field.png
|-
A unobstructed rectangular playing area and two 'Endzones' at each end. Goalposts are either of an "H" shape or essentially a "Y" (crossbar, upper verticals and a single utilitarian post, usually set back beyond normal playing area with an extension over to hold the crossbar directly over the goal-line. The verticals are tall but are also conceptually projected upwards without limit, for scoring purposes, should a field-goal/etc be kicked high enough to exceed the structures.
|-
Stated by Randall as a Type 3 (a topological hole at each end of the field), which ''may'' represent the bound surrounding the elevated goal-scoring area. Alternately it represents the physical structure of the H-shaped posts which rationalise down to the open-backed ground-touching goalpost footings and the crossbar.

'''Parallel Bars''' or perhaps ''Uneven'' Parallel Bars
|-
PB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlejandroonParallelBars.jpg
UPB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paksaltoliukin.jpg
|-
The Parallel Bars are two horizontal bars supported at roughly hand-height, upon which a gymnast will perform various hand-supported feats strength and coordination. The participant will not usually fully use the space beneath either bar (and between the two supports for the bar), but a will needs the opportunity to grip fully around the bar, especially when the other hand is released for a complicated body movement and it would be impractical or a different discipline entirely to used a 'filled' bar-support.

The Uneven Parallel Bars are two similarly supported bars but at two different (and greater) heights, with the performance being generally that of keeping the grip of both hands (or knees/etc) on either one or other of the bars whilst rotating around its axis, when not actively transfering across between the bars themselves.
|-
Effectively two loops (as per basketball hoops but in a different orientation and scale). The Type 3 topology suggested by Randall is more meaningful for the use of Uneven Parallel Bars, but is probably applicable to the 'even' version in its own way.

'''Type 4 Field'''
|-
(Fourth image in comic.)
|-
Any path that canot be shrunk to just one point will pass around at least one (and possibly several) of the nine holes in this topology.
|-
A homogonously flat lozange surface with nine small holes dotted into it.

'''Olympic Swimming'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swimming_pool_50m_2008.svg
|-
In competitive swimming, a swimming pool is often delineated into lanes (for Olympic purposes, Lane 0 to Lane 9, though usually not all will be used) by floating barriers and other markings. These provide a limited amount of wave-reduction but mostly keep competitors from inadvertently drifting across or into each others' paths.
|-
Randall considers this setup to require nine 'holes' in the competition area, presumably where the floats pass along the surface of the water, to make a Type 4 field of competition. He must then consider it perfectly possible for competitors to pass under ''or over'' these barriers, at will, with complete disregard for the usual competition (and risking disqualification). Otherwise, it might be best considered as (up to) ten ''separate'' Type 1 arenas, with just one swimmer in each.

'''Croquet'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_croquet_equipment.JPG
|-
A game in which a number of metal hoops are placed in the ground such that a given number of players (or teams of players) must each propel their own ball(s), and possibly those of their opponents, through each loop either directly with their own mallet or through contact between balls.
Many variations exist with differing numbers of hoops and variations of rules and winning conditions. Randall appears to favour the "Nine-wicket Croquet" popular to North America.
|-
The topological simplification of nine hoops across a flat surface can be thought of as the Type 4 topology displayed.

Table Football ("'''Foosball'''"/"Table Soccer") - as per title-text
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foosball_garlando_aerial.jpg
|-
An enclosed playing surface with (typically) eight rotatable and extendable bars supporting representative (soccer) 'footballer' figures, ready to strike a small ball across the surface, as might be desired by the two or more opposing players who are each able to control the movements of half of the 'bars' (each team's-worth having a goalkeeper, defence, midfield and attacking 'layer'). By skill and/or luck, the aim is to propel the ball into the opposing's player's goal.
On coin-operated games, often the playing area is usually sealed off from direct manual interference, and a ball that goes into the goalmouth finds itself in a lower chamber that stores the ball(s) and deposits them via some feed to carry the ball back up and 'thrown in' towards the centre of the table to start the next attempt at goal.
|-
With eight bars across, and potentially two goalmouth sinks, this may not actually add up to a nine-hole Type 4 field of play. But presumably Randall is thinking of a version that does.

'''Skee-Ball'''
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skee_Ball.JPG
|-
An arcade game in which a ball is propelled by the player to land in (according to skill) one of various holes in a target-ridden surface (to return back to the player for another go).
|-
It would depend upon the exact confuguration of Skee-Ball machine but, again, Randall seems to think this matches the Type 4 topology.

Further (football) examples, unmentioned

Australian Rules Football ('Aussie Rules'
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Footygroundfix.svg
|-
An unobstructed oval field with four simple vertical posts upon the perimiter arcs at each end.
The ball passing between the (taller) central pair of each end's posts (projected upwards indefinitely) is a Goal. Passing between the outer posts and the adjacent central one (or bouncing off these) is a Behind.
|-
Type 1 if the protruding poles are rationalised to zero, without respect to scoring zones. Four ''or perhaps six'' topological holes (two or three per end) if respecting the imaginary projections indefinitely upwards for scoring purposes, depending upon if you care about chirality of the ball path.

Gaelic football ('Gaelic') - fields also used for Hurling
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_football#/media/File:Gaelic_football_pitch_diagram.svg
|-
An unobstructed rectangular field with an H-shaped set of goalposts at each end, the area below the crossbar often being netted, while the upper verticals being nominally considered as projecting upwards without limit.
Valid balls sent over the crossbar and between the verticals are awarded Points; those sent into the netted goalmouth are Goals (equivalent to three Points for scoring purposes).
There is no in-play use of the area behind the line of the goalposts, unlike various other football codes with similar-looking posts.
|- Topologically, probably considered a Type 1. Goal-shots are into a 'pocket' extension (if nets are used), and Point-shots are topologically indistinguishable from passing over any other part of the boundary line.

Rugby League/Union ('Rugby'/'Rugby Football'/'Football')
|-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union#/media/File:RugbyPitchMetricDetailed.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league_playing_field#/media/File:NRL_Rugby_League_field.svg
|-
An unobstructed rectangular playing area and two 'In Goal' areas continuing on behind the 'Try Line' upon which the H-shaped goalposts sit.
The field of play extends into this area, the lower parts of the vertical posts play no purpose other than to hold the upper elements in the air. A 'Try' (roughly equivalent to a Touchdown) can be scored by placing the ball somewhere over the line or by touching the base of the (often padded) posts.
The cross-bar and the verticals upwards of it (towards and bounded at infinity) count as the hard boundary of a scoring area for "conversions" (taken immediately after a try) and other kicks (penalties and drop-goals).
|-
Might be treated as Type 3 (two holes), unless concerned about whether balls kicked through the goals or taking across the try line weave back one or other side of, or between, the lower vertical posts.
Alternately, is a Type 3 for the lower (not more special for scoring than any adjacent lower area) frames, while the open tops (meaningful for scoring purposes) rationalise as topologically irrelevent.
</div>
(TL;DR; - It's too long, you may not want to read it...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.213|162.158.34.213]] 21:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The extended discussion in the explanation about the issues with "two-holes for football" goes away if the goals are the H-shaped kind rather then the Y-shaped kind. Since the comic specifically states that these fields belong to the Topology Department - and are NOT generalized across all sports fields - then we can use the "two hole" information to deduce that the department's fields have the H-shaped kind...which solves 100% of the confusion and eliminates the long (and excessively intricate) digression about other weird forms of "football" with different topologies. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2622: Angular Diameter Turnaround

2022-05-22T15:18:00Z

SteveBaker: /* Comments */

== Congratulations, you won a brand new galaxy! ==

Your new galaxy will be delivered in only 3 billion years, to a drop-off point only 1 million light years from your home planet. With this cutting-edge protogalaxy, which will be mature upon delivery, you will find incredible features such as:
* supermassive black hole
* exotic space-faring lifeforms
* intriguing dense matter that does not emit radiation; you'll never have enough
* unique and enthralling galactic formations, each with ancient magical myths told in history by the space-faring lifeforms
* and the ability to grow brand new stars of your very own!
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.247|172.70.114.247]] 00:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

== Comments ==



Slightly creepy, NGL[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.10|172.69.34.10]]
: Warning, horrible content: The universe was created by the severed bloody hands of google employees convincing phone manufacturers to ditch the previous phone backends and explode the google play store throughout reality in a mess of intergalactic gore. Our planet developed from an angrybirds download, nourished by the decaying corpse of the owner who played it all their life. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.209|172.70.110.209]] 20:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

So apparently this is a real thing, which I never knew [[wikipedia:Angular_diameter_distance#Turnover_Point]] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.81|108.162.221.81]] 20:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Could be related to comic 1422, what with both containing expanding phones analogous to some cosmic structure. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.105|172.70.130.105]] 21:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
:[[1422]] has been crapped. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.221|172.70.126.221]] 21:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

So confusing…I thought that 13 billion years ago they had flip phones. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Before this explanation is marked “complete” it had better mention that “sinking into dilute blood” is a terrible (one could even say ignorant or stupid) description of red shift, completely missing the fundamental cause and completely distorting the effect. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.159|108.162.216.159]] 23:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
:Pretty sure that was just a description of its appearance? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.125|172.70.210.125]] 10:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
::Randall implies this was an analogy among people who knew the physical underpinnings well. But I agree that it, and the concept of mobile phones, are neither pleasant nor appropriate at all for the outer reaches of our universe. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.63|172.70.230.63]] 15:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I assumed the reference was that very old cell phones (1990s etc.) were enormous - think carphones; technology allowed them to shrink (giving, say, the Nokia 8850 I owned in 1999 and the original smallish iPhone), and then recent phones have (on average) grown again as the benefits of a larger screen area have been seen to outweigh the convenience of a smaller device. Also older phones tended to have batteries that lasted longer, mostly because neither the screen nor the processor were pulling much power. It's not just that the original iPhone was smaller than current ones (nor, for some of us, does the original iPhone count as an "early cellphone"). Am I alone in this interpretation? The description (at time of writing) didn't seem to cover that.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.121|162.158.159.121]] 10:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The phone model shown doesn't look that much like a Samsung Galaxy. More like an iPhone. Oh, well. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I hope we'll be able to procure a charger for our galaxy before it runs out. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it just wonderful when your favorite comic strip teaches you something fundamental, important, and which you had no idea of prior to reading it. This is definitely one of XKCD's crowning glories (although, admittedly, not all that funny!). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

== Hooray! ==

Something good is happening!!!!!! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.215|172.70.126.215]] 21:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
: No. It just means you can't get a date tonight. Again. (I presume you're the "crap"per, right? Eager to fill your own worthless life by making ''everybody else'' actually feel useful... How ironic.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.36|172.70.91.36]] 00:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
:: I thought it was just a visitor I worried I had badly depressed with my story of severed google hands, wanting to add positivity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.112|162.158.79.112]] 00:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
: the "crap"er is a bot called "Explain xkcd server admin". -> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:Explain_xkcd_server_admin/common.js [[User:Firestar233|Firestar233]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|talk]]) 00:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
:: Yes, same (style) as the umpteen previous times. No imagination and rather boring.
:: Now I'm limited in what I can do (still, been reverting pages left right and centre, to hold my bit up) but the "Hooray!" commenter (as, I suspect, the one who 'wished the crap would happen again' the other day, or words to that effect) seems to be very much like someone's idea of taunting us, thus proving that he (if you'll excuse that assumption) can't get laid and for some reason they haven't discovered the more solo method of getting their rocks off, so he's rubbing up against us and trying to generate the satisfying feeling of friction in his groin.
:: (You know when your dog has a favourite stuffed toy? Like that.)
:: Pretty boring, really, for us. But small things amuse small minds. And maybe that's the reason why. Also having small... 'feet'. Too shy to show his 'feet' to girls. Can't earn enough to get 'feet' enlargement surgery. No personality either. Pity. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.211|172.70.85.211]] 02:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

== F0N3Z!!! ==

WH3R3 C4N 1 G37 7H15 M4NY F0N3Z? (jk, 1 41r34dy h4v3 4b0u7 31gh7 0f 7h3m) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.115|172.70.178.115]] 02:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

== The crap is spreading... ==

[https://esolangs.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges The Esolang wiki is being crapped.] We aren't the only ones... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.105|172.70.130.105]] 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
:I imagine there'll be a esolong ''called'' "crap" becore too long (if there isn't already) with which a decrappifier can be written. Knowing the people who used to be in that field, anyway. Sort of whitespace/brainf*ck-inspired thing, probably.
:(Too late now, but I hope it's not because we kept archive copies of our scripts around for others to pick up, independently of the original idiot.)
:But this goes both ways. If they come up with a better answer to the problem, maybe we can get it working here too. I leave it to those in the know to perhaps keep half an eye on that, though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.207|162.158.34.207]] 10:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

== Arab Soyjak and other site vandalism ==

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.124|162.158.107.124]] is repeatedly changing the comic title to "Arab Soyjak" and the image to a picture of Osama bin Laden, and being awfully rude in the edit summaries; also has a history of vandalism along with various associated IP addresses - however also having made actual contributions to the wiki, etc etc, I haven't checked other IP addresses that are associated; [[416: Zealous Autoconfig]] is one of the pages that are currently vandalised </ramble> [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 02:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2566: Decorative Constants

2022-01-11T03:38:42Z

SteveBaker: /* Count down clock */

I don't have any idea what to put in the actual description, but whoever does should probably note that r(in) - r(out) equals zero, not one. And multiplying by a constant 0 absolutely changes the value! [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 21:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
: rout and rin are different values. The subscripts represent different instances of the same variable at different point. In the same way, you might calculate something happening over a time interval tend - tstart . [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.77|172.69.71.77]] 23:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
::Yes for sure they are two different values. On the other hand if μ is not 1 then the it is not just decorative! D on the other hand is just a proportionality constant, which may have a value other than 1. I have tried to put something in the explanation here. Quite a bit. Do not really now anything about Drag, so just took it from the wiki page. Also I hope someone can explain the formula in the image, as I'm sure it is just something about the flow, that would relate it to a drag equation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that the title text is pretty much word-for-word a repeat from Randall's book *How To*. In Chapter 11: *How to Play Football*, he misuses the drag equation, and mentions this fact in more depth, in a footnote. Bit of trivia! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.79|162.158.134.79]] 23:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:Nice, I will have to check up on that. Thanks. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:Can confirm this, the book mentions that the "traditional tribute to Euler and Bernoulli" comes from Frank White's ''Fluid Mechanics'' textbook. [[User:Clam|Clam]] ([[User talk:Clam|talk]]) 01:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:: There it is, page 266 in the 1986 2nd edition: "They both have a factor ½ as a traditional tribute to Bernoulli and Euler, and both are based on the projected area..." https://books.google.com/books?id=wGweAQAAIAAJ&q=traditional -- [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 02:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

of course, the c^2 im e=mc^2 is just as decorative, when using natural units where c=1.... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.171|172.68.50.171]] 00:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

: And the resulting equation is then just e=m - or m=e which is beautiful and profound. "Mass is Energy". Without the complications, you stop thinking of it as a PROCESS for converting one into the other and get the more profound point that Mass and Energy are the exact same thing. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
==Count down clock==
;Keep discussion of comic above this, and further discussion of countdown here below!!!
Any idea what's going on with the clock that's counting downwards in the banner? Currently counting down from 20 days 16 hours? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.95|172.70.214.95]] 22:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:(Simultaneous edit) What is the days-hours-minutes in the box above the comic referring to? The image itself is dated yesterday, as you can see by saving it. Worst-case-scenario, is this a countdown to the end of XKCD? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.223|108.162.245.223]] 22:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:: It's going to hit zero at around midnight on Jan 31st 2022 CST? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 22:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:::'''Posted [[Talk:2565:_Latency#Countdown|this]] on the previous comics discussion. But lets take it here where there will be more traffic:''' --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC) -- Copy paste from previous comics discussion:
::::Damn you beat me to it ;-). But I have made a [[2565:_Latency#Trivia|Trivia]] here on this comics page and links to more detail on the [[xkcd Header text]] page. I believe you are a day of, but someone will likely correct me if I'm wrong. As I can see it will be January 31st, 9:59 in Randall's home town Boston.--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::But damned if I can wait. Sure millions will watch the page when it goes to zero! At least it is no April 1st. :-D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
::::Yeah - you're right - I messed up. So as I type this, it's Jan 10th 2022 at 4pm - 1600 hrs Mountain time - which is 1800 hours EST. At this moment, the countdown reads 20d 16h 0m - so Jan 30th + (18+16) hours = which is Jan 30th + 34 hours - which is Jan 31st + 10am in Boston (EST). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 23:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::Hey great, can see they agree in the link to reddit below. So happy I got it right both in UTC and Boston. It will be 15:59 here in DK. Not 16:00. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Counting down to Backwards Day? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.88|162.158.91.88]] 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
:There's a reddit thread discussing it: https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/s0oynl/xkcd_countdown_timer_20d_21h_49m_remaining_until/ I think the most likely guess is that Randall has a new book coming out, although the time of day is weird for a book release. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
::Would still seem strange if it came out that day with only promotion before being a count down. But then again, he will have the xkcd communities boiling if he gives no other hint. So every one will see if he promotes a book. Also as they wrote at the time I looked at reddit I do not think it is the end of xkcd, or Webb related. Although Webb was the first I thought about. But I mean even if it came to L2 at that day, it is not going to any specific point but just in orbit. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

::The date fits the idea of it being Backwards Day (https://nationaldaycalendar.com/backward-day-january-31) but what about the choice of time? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 03:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2566: Decorative Constants

2022-01-11T03:33:34Z

SteveBaker: Moved to correct section and added a comment.

Talk:2566: Decorative Constants

2022-01-10T23:05:09Z

SteveBaker: Correction...

Talk:2566: Decorative Constants

2022-01-10T22:19:28Z

SteveBaker: Zero time is Jan 31st 2022.

Talk:2566: Decorative Constants

2022-01-10T22:16:39Z

SteveBaker: Midnight Jan 31st?

Talk:2478: Alien Visitors 2

2021-06-21T16:19:15Z

SteveBaker: Hindenburg - and airships in general.

Sorry for intruding, I am just delighted that I am early [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.161|162.158.166.161]] 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe we shouldn't stand right under it." This line might (inadvertently?) reference the common alien-movie fail in which massive spacecraft hover at low altitude over human populations without obliterating them and their infrastructure. It might also be bathroom humor. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.134|172.68.129.134]] 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'm with the original explanation. The aliens just don't seem very advanced, so they're worried that the spaceships are poorly constructed and pieces might fall off, or the entire ship might just drop. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:You are probably correct with respect to Randall's intentions. The situation, though, brings to my mind Turtledove's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series Worldwar series], in which "The Race" had very advanced technology (hence little risk of spaceships crashing on their own) but had, at least initially, a poor opinion about human technologies and their advancement. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.132|172.68.129.132]] 18:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reference, 172.68.129.132! I’m enjoying listening to the series for free through my public library account using Hoopla. Apparently the original e-books had atrocious copy editing so I get to miss out on that visual horror. :-). [[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 18:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Also reminds me of that StarTrek (NextGen) episode where a very low intelligence species has advanced space travel that it obtains by stealing it from other species. (Sorry - I forget the episode title). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

To the individual who made a callback to Capri Sun--bless you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.83|172.70.130.83]] 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

:Need a category for this recurring comic: [[:Category:Alien Visitors]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 00:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t the United States still add lead to gasoline used for piston airplane engines, and also high octane race car fuel?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 03:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Very limited niche use remains, phased out of major applications. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::Does 167,000 aircraft in the USA (plus more around the world) count as “limited niche use”? Assuming a super conservative estimate of an average of only 100 hours/year/airframe and an equally conservative burn rate of 10 gal/hr, that’s 167 million gallons of leaded gasoline burned per year. See https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754 for more info on the FAA’s continuing refusal to remove lead from avgas.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.44|172.70.110.44]] 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Considering the 276 million cars in the USA and their yearly consumption of 123.5 billion gallons of fuel, that is pretty much limited niche use, yes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.232|162.158.94.232]] 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

::Although lead was originally added to gas in order to improve efficiency, it was retained in order to reduce refining expense. After refining crude oil, you get gasoline at a variety of octanes. The different octanes are blended to produce what you pay for (e.g. 87 for regular, 93 for premium). Lead is an octane-boosting additive, allowing manufacturers to ship sub-standard gas (that is a little below the rated octane), adding lead to bring it up to standard. Without lead, you need to blend in a higher proportion of higher-octane gas in order to get the required octane rating. Which is why, back when lead was being phased out, unleaded gas cost more than leaded. The effect of lead reducing engine knock is simply a result of the gas having a higher octane rating. High octane gas without lead (e.g. premium) has the same effect.

::Another interesting side point is that computer-controlled refineries have effectively reduced the quality of gas you get at the pump. There are serious legal penalties for selling gas with an octane rating below what is labeled, but no penalties for being higher. Back when refineries were not computer controlled, they were not precise enough to produce the exact blend required, so they would always err a little higher (e.g. selling 88 octane labeled as 87). But with modern systems, they can sell exactly what's labeled, so consumers don't get any free bonus octane anymore. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Leaded gasoline doesn't just provide anti-knock capability, in older cars, the lead gradually accumulates around the valve seats and serves to soften the impact of the valve as it snaps shut. Modern cars have both anti-knock sensors and hardened valve seats - so you don't need it anymore. My 1960 Mini needs leaded gas because of the valve-seat issue - and as a result I have to use a lead additive for about one in five tankfuls of gas. Fortunately, that car is mostly a "garage queen" and is only driven to local car shows and such. I atone for this by driving a Tesla as my main vehicle! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

An honorary mention might be made to {{w|Thomas Midgley Jr.}}, who helped to make both TEL and CFCs widely used. (Though didn't get the chance to widely promote his bed-lift before it also proved unsafe.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Hindenburg exploded. It just burned.

One would question how benevolent these aliens are. They only offer inferior technology (pyramids, biplanes) which they could have ''trivially'' seen not to be useful, or they offer harmful technology like lead-based gasoline and inefficient fruit-presses. On the other hand they do not offer the one tech we don't have, e.g. still-standing flying saucers. Thus one may question their real motives... <Insert reference to V>. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
: Or maybe they're trying to ensure we have a well rounded tech growth rather than beelining to spaceflight. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.134|162.158.126.134]] 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

: For sure the Hindenburg didn't explode - and there is evidence that much of the problem wasn't the loss of the hydrogen anyway since hydrogen flames ascend UPWARDS away from the passenger gondola - and hydrogen burns at a relatively low temperature. A bigger problem was that the skin of the airship was sprayed with iron oxide on the inside and aluminium on the outside - which, when burned together, was essentially "thermite". That stuff is hard to set on fire, but once it gets started it's horrifically energetic - it's what the Germans were using as incendiary bombs...so they REALLY should have known better! Given the rapidly increasing cost (and scarcity) of helium - airships may soon have to go back to using hydrogen. But it could easily be made safe with modern technology to monitor (and purge) oxygen from inside the hydrogen cells, adequate lightning protection...and an "anything-except-freaking-thermite!!" skin. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul *does* have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2478: Alien Visitors 2

2021-06-21T16:06:13Z

SteveBaker:

Sorry for intruding, I am just delighted that I am early [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.161|162.158.166.161]] 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe we shouldn't stand right under it." This line might (inadvertently?) reference the common alien-movie fail in which massive spacecraft hover at low altitude over human populations without obliterating them and their infrastructure. It might also be bathroom humor. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.134|172.68.129.134]] 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'm with the original explanation. The aliens just don't seem very advanced, so they're worried that the spaceships are poorly constructed and pieces might fall off, or the entire ship might just drop. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:You are probably correct with respect to Randall's intentions. The situation, though, brings to my mind Turtledove's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series Worldwar series], in which "The Race" had very advanced technology (hence little risk of spaceships crashing on their own) but had, at least initially, a poor opinion about human technologies and their advancement. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.132|172.68.129.132]] 18:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reference, 172.68.129.132! I’m enjoying listening to the series for free through my public library account using Hoopla. Apparently the original e-books had atrocious copy editing so I get to miss out on that visual horror. :-). [[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 18:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Also reminds me of that StarTrek (NextGen) episode where a very low intelligence species has advanced space travel that it obtains by stealing it from other species. (Sorry - I forget the episode title). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

To the individual who made a callback to Capri Sun--bless you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.83|172.70.130.83]] 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

:Need a category for this recurring comic: [[:Category:Alien Visitors]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 00:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t the United States still add lead to gasoline used for piston airplane engines, and also high octane race car fuel?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 03:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Very limited niche use remains, phased out of major applications. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::Does 167,000 aircraft in the USA (plus more around the world) count as “limited niche use”? Assuming a super conservative estimate of an average of only 100 hours/year/airframe and an equally conservative burn rate of 10 gal/hr, that’s 167 million gallons of leaded gasoline burned per year. See https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754 for more info on the FAA’s continuing refusal to remove lead from avgas.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.44|172.70.110.44]] 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Considering the 276 million cars in the USA and their yearly consumption of 123.5 billion gallons of fuel, that is pretty much limited niche use, yes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.232|162.158.94.232]] 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

::Although lead was originally added to gas in order to improve efficiency, it was retained in order to reduce refining expense. After refining crude oil, you get gasoline at a variety of octanes. The different octanes are blended to produce what you pay for (e.g. 87 for regular, 93 for premium). Lead is an octane-boosting additive, allowing manufacturers to ship sub-standard gas (that is a little below the rated octane), adding lead to bring it up to standard. Without lead, you need to blend in a higher proportion of higher-octane gas in order to get the required octane rating. Which is why, back when lead was being phased out, unleaded gas cost more than leaded. The effect of lead reducing engine knock is simply a result of the gas having a higher octane rating. High octane gas without lead (e.g. premium) has the same effect.

::Another interesting side point is that computer-controlled refineries have effectively reduced the quality of gas you get at the pump. There are serious legal penalties for selling gas with an octane rating below what is labeled, but no penalties for being higher. Back when refineries were not computer controlled, they were not precise enough to produce the exact blend required, so they would always err a little higher (e.g. selling 88 octane labeled as 87). But with modern systems, they can sell exactly what's labeled, so consumers don't get any free bonus octane anymore. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Leaded gasoline doesn't just provide anti-knock capability, in older cars, the lead gradually accumulates around the valve seats and serves to soften the impact of the valve as it snaps shut. Modern cars have both anti-knock sensors and hardened valve seats - so you don't need it anymore. My 1960 Mini needs leaded gas because of the valve-seat issue - and as a result I have to use a lead additive for about one in five tankfuls of gas. Fortunately, that car is mostly a "garage queen" and is only driven to local car shows and such. I atone for this by driving a Tesla as my main vehicle! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

An honorary mention might be made to {{w|Thomas Midgley Jr.}}, who helped to make both TEL and CFCs widely used. (Though didn't get the chance to widely promote his bed-lift before it also proved unsafe.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Hindenburg exploded. It just burned.

One would question how benevolent these aliens are. They only offer inferior technology (pyramids, biplanes) which they could have ''trivially'' seen not to be useful, or they offer harmful technology like lead-based gasoline and inefficient fruit-presses. On the other hand they do not offer the one tech we don't have, e.g. still-standing flying saucers. Thus one may question their real motives... <Insert reference to V>. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
: Or maybe they're trying to ensure we have a well rounded tech growth rather than beelining to spaceflight. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.134|162.158.126.134]] 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul *does* have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2465: Dimensional Chess

2021-05-20T13:14:22Z

SteveBaker:

How best to describe the addition of dimensions? The admirable first author goes as far as the second row, but there appear to be more... ahem... 'depths'. The first is 'sideways', though from this non-playing angle it's depthways; the second adds verticality; the third initially looks to be '4d represented in 3d' perspective (now further represented in 2d, by perspective method), but the sole cube atop confuses me; the fourth is... busy... and seems to go with a hyper(hyper)cubic continuation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.161|141.101.99.161]] 18:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

not quite what is demonstrated in the comic but there is a game called 5 dimensional chess with multiverse time travel --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.57.189|172.68.57.189]] 19:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this would require 5 dimensions rather than 4 as the middle rows are 4d slices of a 5d space just as the second row is a 2d slice of a 3d space
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.193|172.69.35.193]] 20:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
:I see it as there being a basic 1D between the opponents. On the Nth row away from you (on your half of the board) there's an additional N lateral dimensions. Row 1, sideways (8 columns). Row 2, sideways and up/down (7 levels). Row 3, those plus some form of superimposition indicated by scale/perhaps a sub-gridlevel elevation (6 of these?). Row 4, all those plus ??? (gonna assume 5). (...Row 5=Profit?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.131|162.158.158.131]] 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there an error on the top board of this image? If I look at the sequence of squares on the vertical, they alternate black/white except for the top board. Even if I were missing some aspect of the logic, I feel like there should be some symmetry between top and bottom. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.70|108.162.221.70]] 20:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that white made a horse move on the left side of the board, forward one and up two [[Special:Contributions/172.68.57.189|172.68.57.189]] 21:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
:There's at least one black piece on (its) row 3, possibly a knight, and both players have at least one of their pieces on (their) row 4. There are four obvious white pieces forward of the two starting ranks (with no obvious sign that these are established starting positions in this esoteric board*) so there may be a third black piece out there, obscured from clear view. Or more likely that black Knight's movement (two squares forward, three up, one sideways and 0+ squares in the fourth-way direction) is multiple moves (2f1u then 2u1s would be the most simple projected moves).
:(* - The starting ranks appear to be as per 2D chess, with white's far bishop no longer in starting position, but if that's the one now in the nearest start-level 4th rank then it must not have made just one single 2D-like bishop's move to get there, nor is it obviously a pawn brought forward (2f starter then 1f second move, with or without an en-passant), so it may not be quite so simple, or else we've seen more than 4 white moves (and 3/4 black ones). Or both plus some possible exchange of pieces already.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.131|162.158.158.131]] 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I interpreted the comic as the first row is normal chess- 2 dimensional. The second row starts the boards above and below- 3d. The third row would be 4d, and the 4th row would be 5d. ----

Pretty sure this is just funny commentary on people making more and more complex variations of chess, Quantum Chess, 4D Chess, 5D chess with time travel etc... but part of me looks at this and goes "that could be a real game... that could actually be a good game." just me? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.20|108.162.221.20]] 21:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Sam

Looking at this, I note that there seems to be an assumption in the explanation that n-dimensional chess means chess with an unlimited number of dimensions. I believe that what Randall was actually saying with the "N" was "any number N", not "all numbers N together", i.e. "The problem with 3, 4, 5, 6, ... , N dimensional chess is", and that his objection is that you always only get one number for N. His board, of course, is designed to give you as few as two dimensions up to five dimensions available for any particular piece depending upon the row.

True n-dimensional chess, where there are an unlimited number of dimensions, would probably be unplayable by any Turing machine, including, of course, humans. [[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]] ([[User talk:Geek Prophet|talk]]) 23:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
:If you have an infinite number of dimensions to work with, there is a straightforward means for a king to escape forever - just alternate linear moves with diagonal moves, always away from the opposing pieces, and always along a dimension not previously traversed (there are an infinite number of these, so always one more). Any opposing piece will be one dimension behind, at the very least. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.4|108.162.237.4]] 01:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::That surely only works if you don't end up stuck in an infinitely-dimensioned corner (infinite dimensions but still finite+nonwrapping extent in each dimension).
::I'm not sure if there's a foolproof way not to find yourself in that corner, by evading through heretofor unused dimensions strictly around the centre of the board (where a finite number of pieces may not be able to coordinate an all-sides trap) but once there a single infinitely-dimensional queen moved one square away from all the relevent edges, protected by some handy rearward piece, could force the endgame.
::If the king itself is in that one-space-out position (not yet immediately restricted by the edge, ''any'' edge) I ''think'' it can still be considered corralled by a suitably-placed finite smattering of sufficiently-positioned (for their respective powers of projection) pieces, so even if the centre squares are freely dodgable round (which they might not be, if the opposing king is already safely stationed there, denying 3x3x3x...3 spots to the victimised king) there's a potential to be tactically/psychologically forced towards a definitely entrapping position the moment you stray towards any edge.
::(If the queen/etc is '≤2D in movement, like a 2D queen except throughout the ∞D of choice' (i.e. confined to a planar diagonal), then it may be less potent for a given distance and not be able to project a no-king-may-pass barrier even without confounding pieces, so might not be the key to the corner-shoving tactic. But then the king would surely be 'choose your single plane' too, in the moves available in its attempt to escape.)
::Boundaryless arenas (including wrap-around finite boards, or at least 'only' 8∞ in their infiniteness) might well be trivially always in an escapable position. But I have my doubts even about the fully-wrapping version, as the attacker's 'left behind' pieces may be considered significant danger again as they are then actually ''ahead'' of any king's fleeing move, and the question now is whether the king can still dodge ever-'sideways' against a concerted and sufficiently analytic opponent still with enough (2? 16? However-many-you-can-initially-start-with-on-such-a-board?) pieces of the right kinds.
::That said, whatever my proficiency with dimensional projections, I'm definitelt rubbish at chess in its standard form. So ICBW. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.60|141.101.98.60]] 09:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the 3rd row adds a cube on a stack of alternating colored squares, and then the 4th row does something similar with a tesseract. It gets a little crowded, so hard to be sure. [[User:Orion205|Orion205]] ([[User talk:Orion205|talk]]) 01:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It might make sense to just add a link to chessvariants.com, since there are a surprising number of multidimensional chess variants in existence besides the aforementioned 5D chess with time travel. [[User:JakobWulfkind|JakobWulfkind]] ([[User talk:JakobWulfkind|talk]]) 02:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Ra̷s̵̡̡̛͍̖̗͖̟̞͊̀̓̉͂̈́̇̉p̵̛̤̔̂͐͗̄̿̋͛̿͗͒͒̚͘̚̚͝u̵̞̿̒̃̾̑͒̎ṱ̶̨̧̡͍̜̙͖̣̗͙̥͈̳̱̼̫͗͊̌͑̇̆͝i̵n opening. A good choice!
Also, when is someone going to make a playable version of this??? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.74|108.162.249.74]] 04:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the explanation really needs anything to do with intelligence. "Fourth-dimensional chess" is lingo for complexity or cunning, so I think the comic is a joke based on that phrase. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.142.50|172.69.142.50]] 05:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I was disappointed that Randall did not include two odd squares - one on either side of the board - for the one-dimensional chess starting point. Of course since he does things by rows, this would necessarily limit the number of 1D starting points to one per player - and it would break the symmetry of an 8x8x? board and make it tough to pick which piece starts on the 1D row. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2457: After the Pandemic

2021-05-01T02:16:19Z

SteveBaker: /* Enough with the COVID comics */ Not-a-comic

Other benefits of normalizing wearing masks: keeping warmer in the winter; protecting face from sun; reducing breathing of smoke and fine particulates; potentially reduce value of facial matching in face of ubiquitous surveillance. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.124|141.101.105.124]] 18:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
:Between our rapidly deteriorating air quality (check out how much of the dust we breathe is from plastic clothing fibers); ubiquitous tracking by an increasing number of increasingly untrusted groups (not that we can evade that with masks, only make it more error prone); & just the fact that we still interact with thousands who then interact with ''other'' thousands on a scale impossible only two centuries ago, making transmissible disease spread almost a certainty; ... I'd strongly prefer that ''everyone'' who can, wear a mask in any shared public space.
:Awkward, uncomfortable, & socially inconvenient? Yes. ''Better than an endless procession of mid-level epidemics, & a population with initially minor but alarmingly widespread respiratory & cardiac issues which progressively worsen?'' (again, look at air quality since 1999) ''Also yes.''
:If we're entering a crowded space, please just ''wear the masks, people.'' Now & always.
:Might as well get used to it, because within this generation, we're all going to need masks to breathe normally, anyway; & I'm not exaggerating even a little.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
:Mask wearing was already super common in Asia before the pandemic because of this. I'm hoping it gets more common here in the US too [[User:Opalmagpie|Opalmagpie]] ([[User talk:Opalmagpie|talk]]) 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Randall, we get it, you worry about COVID. Really, we get it.
:Right? It's like the comedians who all went 99% political during the last few years: Even if I agree completely, it isn't as funny after the 24th time you make a joke about it.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
::Good luck telling Randall what to do. I doubt he reads this website anyways. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.56|172.69.34.56]] 01:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe another thing that will become common is self-quarantining when you're sick. You don't need to wear a mask if you don't go out. And now that we've learned that it's possible to work from home in many professions, you don't need to go into the office when you're contagious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"[...] wear a mask when they are sick, as is common in many East Asian countries" - This true? Prior to the pandemic, E.Asian students (my most frequent contact with this ethnic group, who are not actual nth-generation habituated/assimilated and so never had the then vestigial mask-wearing tendency) could be observed wearing masks around the nearby University city mostly in September, dropping off in frequency once they seemed to realise that the air was not anything as ''polluted'' as back home, not for fear of disease. Or so I gathered from what conversations I heard about it. (The most egregious example of this was witnessing an individual leaning against an alley-wall, mask shifted away from his mouth so he could 'safely' ''smoke''... Avoiding the barely notable car-fumes in order to directly inhale death-stick fumes.) Now, I've not had enough post-outbreak experience of such imported attitudes to masks, but I still feel that those who are not openly sick ''of'' masks, in the open air, are probably wearing them regardless of personal illness. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.78|141.101.107.78]] 02:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

== Enough with the COVID comics ==

I mean, seriously, if this is all XKCD has become, then it's time to move on. To help emphasize that point, I feel a new topic is in order.

Please post all your COVID-comic-hating comments here.

: I agree, this is getting tedious and predictable - all of the things that XKCD never was. Randall is in danger of destroying his audience. A "cartoon" that's just a bunch of words saying something pretty obvious, and devoid of any hidden message, devoid of any humor - isn't a cartoon anymore. It's a crappified version of twitter with an upper-case only comic sans font. It's not a matter of "COVID-comic hating" - it's "''Not-a-comic'' comic hating" [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 02:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2444: Ingenuity

2021-04-01T20:51:51Z

SteveBaker:

Wow! I clicked open xkcd at 3:50 or so, I can't believe I was one of the first on the team![[User:Hiihaveanaccount|Hiihaveanaccount]] ([[User talk:Hiihaveanaccount|talk]]) 20:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
: Speaking as an Australian, I usually don't bother to check XKCD until well after the day after the post. It's 9am Thursday, and I'm surprised it's posted this early. [[User:Thisfox|Thisfox]] ([[User talk:Thisfox|talk]]) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Perseverance's maximum driving speed is only about 8 feet/minute (comparable to a baby's crawling speed). So Ingenuity wouldn't have to fly very fast to get it to say "Whee!". [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we work in somehow that on the date of the comic, Ingenuity was in the middle of the multi-day deployment process? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.162|162.158.62.162]] 23:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
:I was thinking along those lines. I've made some edits that I think cover your suggestions, but obviously they're open to further refinement/expansion as anyone might desire to make. (The ''exact'' status of deployment, as of comic-posting, might be nice to know, but I don't currently believe it was so precisely timed to "the point they detached" or anything like that.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.80|141.101.107.80]] 01:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the mumble mumble thing is a reference to the four fundamental forces comic
04:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the title Text is a reference to the trope that nobody can really explain satisfactorily explain how flight works... On Mars or on earth. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.25|162.158.203.25]] 06:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Im probably wrong but the title text might be referencing the technobabble in various science fiction but i'm probably wrong --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.224|162.158.212.224]] 20:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, even if Ingenuity can't lift the rover, that setup would make a great Martian lawnmower...although...yeah...I know. :-( [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2381: The True Name of the Bear

2020-11-05T17:48:23Z

SteveBaker: Not my real name.

This one is ridiculously early. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.120|172.69.22.120]] 05:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Let’s try this again, hopefully won’t get stepped on this time... I know I’ve seen Gretchen on various YouTube channels but is she really “the world's foremost internet linguist” as Randal claims?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.87|162.158.79.87]] 05:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:Probably as a linguist studying internet culture, which she is indeed one of the most famous in that area. Most popular linguist on the internet? It's everyone's guess.
:From Randall Munroe to Tom Scott... how much more proof do you need? Or is it a conspiracy theory waiting to happen? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.143|162.158.74.143]] 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, after being mentioned by Randall she totally might become the most known one.

"Arth" is Welsh for bear.

Hmm... I find Ponytail's behaviour strange. At first she asks for explanation/verification of Megan's claim and when she recieves it she yells "NO!" as if she already knew it would be true... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:She gets confirmation that the name is lost in panel 3 (and assumes it also confirms the summoning part). So she indeed knew by panel 4.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.66|141.101.68.66]] 10:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Why isn't the bear's name summoning it after its name being said out loud in panel 3, though? Or is the name only "true" in English (in which the name didn't exist until Gretchen reconstructed it)? Doesn't make sense. /edit: I know we are talking about myths and superstition here and thus it might be all somewhat hazy but this comic is imho not self-consistent. I'm not used to inconsistent comics on XKCD (unless it's done on purpose for humorous effect which in this case seems not to be true). Thus my irritation. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:::They are clearly in England (or the Anglosphere in general, though English isn't the official language in the US, merely customary) and by the Rules Of Summoning an English/etc 'bear' ''must'' only respond to the locality-sanctioned word (said with intent, not a coincidentally homophonic collection of syllables, not saying the exact same word but in the sense of being actually quoting a different language that uses the same word).
:::I theorise that the Welsh are saying ''their'' bear-name in slightly the wrong accent for being useful to summon a Welsh bear (maybe it should be more "Ardd"?) due to excessive Anglicisation. Or the Celtic way of not-saying-the-true-Celtic-word is to habitually say the Anglic one, which thus does not count. Or the Welsh bears are just confused by the current trend for dual-language signage and expect/require both. (Welsh then English in one half of the country, English followed by Welsh in the other part of the nation.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.208|141.101.98.208]] 12:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:::If we're worried about consistency here, how is it that all the Romance language speakers (e.g. Orso for Italians, Oso for Spaniards, etc) get away without being constantly mauled? Perhaps it's only the *true* name of the bear, -rkto, that summons the animal. I suppose that would give an explanation of why we don't see any Indo-European speakers around nowadays... [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 13:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:::*NOTE* I've added an explanation that attempts to summarize this consistency discussion. But somebody reverted it. Why? It doesn't seem out of line, compared to a lot of what I read on explainxkcd. [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 14:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

:: It need not be so complicated. Perhaps there is only 1 ur-bear (ha ha) that can teleport when it hears the magic word. If the magic word is said many times every day in Wales, that ur-bear would be exhausted by teleportation and only rarely does saying the name cause it to do so. Whereas in English, the first time in years it has been summoned is in this comic, so of course it comes. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 19:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating! In Russian, the word for bear is also euphemistic, pronounced as ''medved'', which roughly means "knowledgeable about honey". But until today, I thought that something like "ber" is in fact its true name. Turns out it's not even that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.236|162.158.238.236]] 14:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
: Actually, ''medved'' is 'honey-eater', see these two links (in Russian) https://pikabu.ru/story/kto_krayniy_za_medvedem_fenomen_tabu_v_lingvistike_5812897 and https://pikabu.ru/story/kak_rabotaet_istoricheskaya_lingvistika2_v_berloge_yetimologa_5817400 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.205|162.158.183.205]] 16:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:I've just been down a Wikipedia rabbit-hole, because of this information, to try to work out why I don't remember it being reported that Medvedev had resigned and replaced by Mishustin. (Or replaced ''with'' him, wherever he emerged from, ''by'' Putin, to be strictly accurate.). Probably we were more concerned about the Constitutional changes, then 'other things' hit the headlines. Not comic-related, but thank you for enlightening me on both linguistic and (as a side-effect) political subjects. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.26|162.158.158.26]] 16:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

: What were the linguistic speculations that the header mentioned? Even if there's no source, they shouldn't be removed.

I thought the reconstruction was *rtkos, not *rktos? Wikipedia agrees: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂ŕ̥tḱos [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.205|162.158.183.205]] 16:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I bet a dollar that the long-lost English word for "bear" was "Voldemort". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.242|108.162.215.242]] 01:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

: Oh-oh. You said it. This is why you need to create an account - you don't want people randomly summoning you by your true name "Mr/Ms 108.162.215.242" !! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC) (Not my real name which is...oh wait...nearly got me there!)

In Finnish bear is karhu, which is also an euphemistic word meaning "the rough one". There are many other words for bear as well, such as kontio (one that walks slowly), nalle ("bear" in Swedish), mesikämmen (the nectar palm), metsän kuningas (the king of the forest), kouko/kouvo (some kind of ghost?), otava (this one would take way too long to explain) and finally oksi/ohto/otso, which likely is the true name. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.239|162.158.238.239]] 11:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2374: 10,000 Hours

2020-10-21T15:20:10Z

SteveBaker: Forgot to log in!

Sorry for the kinda bad explanation, this is my first time editing on this wiki [[Special:Contributions/162.158.119.71|162.158.119.71]] 00:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:Its fine! [[User:Donthaveusername|Donthaveusername]] ([[User talk:Donthaveusername|talk]]) 00:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Usually when I wake up and open this site, I am greeted with atleast 5 paragraphs of writing, but this time I got to see only 2. So that gave me an idea. Let's make this the smallest explanation in the entire site! To make that record, let's condense the sentences to make it even shorter! — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 03:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:I'm all for short explanations to the point. Most of the most recent (ie the 1000 or so) are far too long. I even once saw some "incomplete" explanation where the reason for it being inclomplete was "it's too short". What gives... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
::That being said, I agree. The current explanation seems to be pretty much complete. Maybe some citation for the "2 hours eating" thing is missing but that's it. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:::Done. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
::::Kinda spoilt it. Wanted to change "several things" to "some task" (without haing read this Talk aim) but ended up going for "some possibly trivial task" which is longer yet again. With my edit-explanation of "No indication that this is for anything more than one thing (Candy Crush? Twitter? Reading election updates that won't affect your actions in any way..?) or the true importance of his mastery." which might not count but definitely aint laconic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.215|162.158.154.215]] 10:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
::::Good luck making this explanation the shortest. I assume you haven't seen, for example, [[3: Island (sketch)]]'s explanation? I'm all for short explanations too, but not at the expense of leaving the humor unanalysed. [[User:BlackHat|BlackHat]] ([[User talk:BlackHat|talk]]) 22:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

:I'm also all for short explanations that are concise and clear and agree some can get rather lengthy, but I don't agree with the goal to see how short we can make this explanation. I guess if it was somehow meta-related to the comic itself, it might be justifiable, but just making it really short solely for that purpose is going to jeopardize the "clear" part of the goal. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 16:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:: It seems to me that a bit more commentary is needed, because it seems like there are two aspects to the myth: (1) it takes 10,000 hours to become and expert; (2) anybody can become an expert by spending those 10,000 hours. The comic seems to be commenting more on the latter aspect. [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If Randall is 36 years old, he estimates he's averaged about 45 minutes/day chewing. This is significantly less than the 2 hours mentioned in the explanation, even if you account for the fact that you aren't chewing the entire time you're eating (it's probably still more than half the time). [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

At the age of 1 year and 51 2/3 days every human (who was not put on a ventilator) would be a world class expert in breathing! And at about somewhere between 7 and 8 months old, every human would be a world class expert in heart beating. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 20:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I know the incomplete tag was taken off, but the explanation still leaves a bit of the joke undiscussed. Feel free to delete any of my edits if you think it's fine as it is. [[User:BlackHat|BlackHat]] 17:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Barmar, the article says 1-2 hours. So it could be in the 75 minute area if he only spends about 60% of the eating time chewing.

: Is there a sense here that Cueball has spent 10,000 hours looking at the ScreenTime app itself? That's how I first read it. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 15:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2028: Complex Numbers

2020-07-06T16:00:04Z

SteveBaker: Floating point arrays.

I assume this is strictly a coincidence, but in reference to the title-text, I'll just mention that Caucher Birkar [the mathematician whose Fields Medal was stolen minutes after he received it in Rio de Janeiro on Weds (1Aug2018)] received the award for work in algebraic geometry. [[User:Arcanechili|Arcanechili]] ([[User talk:Arcanechili|talk]]) 16:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
* Perhaps it's causal not coincidental. Medal theives and perhaps Randall might read the news also. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8941732171299849045&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39&sciodt=0,39]] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.209|162.158.79.209]] 00:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added a basic description of Abelian groups in the title text, and that's about as much as I know about such topics. I'm not sure what a "meta-Abelian group" is, is that an Abelian group of other groups? Also, could someone add basic descriptions of algebreic geometry and geometrical algebra? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.94.40|172.68.94.40]] 18:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In the title text, since groups are a concept within mathematics, it seems odd to consider mathematics as a whole forming any sort of group within itself, which I suspect is the first part of the pun. Secondly, since groups involve the commutative property, I think the last part is a pun about the order of the words algebra and geometry, as if they're commutative themselves! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 19:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
: I meant to say 'abelian' groups involve the commutative property, and the meta prefix is referring to the fact that it's about the names rather than the mathematical details - i.e. commutative in metadata only. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 19:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

: I guess the joke is that informally mathematicians form a ''group'' (a number of people classed together), what would strictly be a ''set'' in mathematics. While in mathematics, a group is an algebraic structure consisting of a set of elements equipped with an operation that combines any two elements to form a third element and that satisfies specific conditions. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 21:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a false dilemma. Complex numbers ''are'' vectors (<math>\mathbb{C}</math> is a two-dimensional <math>\mathbb{R}</math>-vector space, and more generally every field is a vector space over any subfield), but that doesn't change anything about the fact that <math>i</math> is by definition a square root of -1. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 20:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Important concepts in math usually show up naturally in many apparently unrelated areas. Each area will name and define a concept that makes sense for the problems being considered. One of the joys of math is proving that multiple, apparently unrelated, definitions are equivalent. When definitions are equivalent you cannot pick "the one true definition" -- any of them will do. However the principle of maximum laziness leads to the one with the easiest notion being used as a canonical definition.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.130|162.158.75.130]] 18:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Fun factoid: not only is <math>\mathbb{C}</math> the unique proper field extension of finite degree over <math>\mathbb{R}</math> (since <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is algebraically closed), but the converse is true as well: <math>\mathbb{R}</math> is the only proper subfield of finite index in <math>\mathbb{C}</math>. They're like a weird married couple. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 20:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Altho there are no "meta-abelian" groups there are metabelian groups. If xy=yx then the commutator [x,y]=xyx^{-1}y^{-1}=1. The group generated by the commutators -- the commutator subgroup -- is thus a measure of how far a group is from being abelian. A metabelian group is a nonabelian group whose commutator subgroup is abelian. Thus a metabelian group is one made of a stack of two abelian groups. It is "meta-abelian" in that sense. A standard example is the group of invertible upper-trianglular matrices. The commutators all have 1s on the diagonals.

:One should note that the concept of complex numbers actually is older than vector spaces. So while it is true that complex numbers are a cool variant of vectors, historically that's not true, because vectors were more or less unknown when complex numbers were used for the first time. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.6|162.158.90.6]] 09:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the description of a group involve ''two'' operations? There is a binary operation that gloms two things together to make a new thing, but there's also a unary operation that takes only one thing and makes a new thing -- the inverse. Without the unary operation, you only have a {{w|semigroup}}.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.160|108.162.215.160]] 09:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
: No. The inverse operation arises as a consequence of the fact that it's a group. A group satisfies four conditions: 1. it is closed under the operation, 2. the operation is associative 3. there is an identity e such that a op e = e op a = a. 4. For every element a, there is a unique element b such that a op b = b op a = e. The inverse function falls out as a result of conditions 3 and 4 [[User:Jeremyp|Jeremyp]] ([[User talk:Jeremyp|talk]]) 10:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Real numbers with regular multiplication is not a group, as zero does not have an inverse element. The example would work with addition --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.112|162.158.134.112]] 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Random guy who read the article

"Does any of this really have to do with vectors? Or do mathematicians just think they're too cool for regular floating point arrays? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:313: Insomnia

2020-05-22T16:04:49Z

SteveBaker:

We know it must not be a 24-hour clock. On that setting, 4:31 would be in the afternoon, not at night.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 15:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

:I cannot tell if you are misguided, trolling or just hallucinating in the style of this comic. So - well done! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. 13:00 is 1 in the afternoon, and 4:31 would be 4:31 at night. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.144|199.27.128.144]] 04:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I know it's quite a long shot, but polish writer Bruno Shulz wrote a novel "Cinamon Shops", which surprisingly have a style of insomnia-crazy visions. More : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Street_of_Crocodiles
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.117|108.162.249.117]] 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A typical situation with insomnia is when you blink your eyes for just a moment, then look at the clock and find that in reality a couple of hours have passed (with you asleep though all this time even though you didn't feel like it). Focusing the eyes on the clock afterwards is not an easy task either, so the creative readings are not unusual. Overall, the situation is much more realistic than it seems at first. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.5|108.162.246.5]] 22:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This happens to me all the time actually, I wake up in and check my watch, but since I'm not really fast at waking up I fall asleep for a few minutes before actually checking the watch, and I dream about it. So maybe I've dreamed that it was 6:30 when in fact it is still 4:30. But only real numbers so far (Miguelinileugim) {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.214}}

:Once it's not only [[wikipedia:real number|real number]]s, prepare for the most confusing 4.71 - 2.38''i'' hours of your life. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]])

There's a problem with part of the explanation. The clock doesn't say "SLEI" upside-down, it says "ZLEI." This is a common perceptual error, often seen with those inverted face illusions where the head is upside down and the mouth and/or eyes are right-side up. If you don't know to watch for it, the face looks normal until you turn it over. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.209|162.158.107.209]] 21:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Sammael
: Should have been a '5' not a '2'. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

...actually also a problem with the parenthetical "or perhaps a 2." That digit would then presumably be a full 7-segment LED array and could easily display the E. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.76|108.162.245.76]] 23:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Sammael

Talk:2259: Networking Problems

2020-01-24T20:48:17Z

SteveBaker: Pareidolia

I just had an issue the other day with copying disk images to a network drive using <code>smbclient</code> on Linux Mint. The transfer would only run at 1 to 2 MB/s. Then I discovered that if I opened the mounted drive in the GUI file explorer and refreshed the directory where I was copying the image to, it would consistently cause the copy operation to jump to 40 to 60 MB/s and stay there for the rest of the operation. I concluded that <code>smbclient</code> must run on actual sorcery. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, can confirm that even the high end of 'normal computer problems' can result in belief in the occult and/or paranormal operation of computers. I now attempt to moderate my brainwaves into positive only flow to make sure I do not negatively effect the computer through quantum effects on the bits and operation. If i get frustrated or confused by the computer for an extended time, i put it down and walk away until I have more of a 'can do' attitude. Then of coarse there was that time that.... it may be too late for me, but there are puzzling computer problems to explore so I... remember me as I was. ~Litppunk 18:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"Ghosts generally are not concerned with expressions of belief, but there are some religious traditions that include group clapping and chanting." - I don't think the hover text is related to the ghosts. They seem just like two separate unbelievable things. "Perhaps the ghost in question is the Holy Ghost." - I doubt that is what he is referring to, especially since it is plural 'ghosts' and the Holy Ghost is singular. [[User:Curtobi4|Curtobi4]] ([[User talk:Curtobi4|talk]]) 18:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Clearly seems related to 1457, albeit with much more advanced tech issues. --[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 19:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Clapping hands and saying you believe in fairys is how you prevent Tinkerbell from Dying when you watch Peter Pan.

: '''Pareidolia''' (one of my least favorite words because I can't spell it well enough to google for the correct spelling) is a definite problem for the human brain - we habitually spot patterns where they don't exist. But the problem for software engineers is that spotting patterns that '''DO''' exist is how you find bugs. So distinguishing between real patterns and pareidolia ('i' before 'e' except after 'c'...and 'r'...sometimes...) is a vital part of the job. Clearly Cueball has that problem here. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2253: Star Wars Voyager 1

2020-01-10T17:25:03Z

SteveBaker: You can work this out - but the diameter of the Earth's orbit is a critical factor.

;Rate of increase
Given that the first Star Wars movie and Voyager I were "released" around the same time, and that over the years Voyager has been getting further away while more Star Wars movies have been realeased, I wonder how often the time it takes for a message to reach Voyager I has been exactly the same as the total runtime of Star Wars movies at that date. Like, how far away was Voyager when Revenge of the Sith was released? This would make for an interesting graph.

RANDALL CAN YOU HEAR ME? MAKE A GRAPH PLS {{unsigned|Alcatraz ii}}
:Yes that could be interesting actually. Sadly I believe Randall keeps clear of such sites as this so he will not see you request. Remember to sign your comments, and try not to add new sections in the comments. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
::After I made the table... If someone find out how long Voyager was away on the release of episode number 2-8 then we can easily make the graph our selves to find out how many times it has happened. For sure it must have occurred between film 3 and 4. And probably again between 6 and 7? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

How accurately is the position of Voyager I known? I think this comic came out earlier in the day than usual, and I found myself wondering if there's public data precise enough to calculate this momentous occasion to within an hour, or even a minute. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 10:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
:I believe this is known extremely precise since we are still in radio contact with it. But for sure there should be a link. Given the title text I think it is not important when it was released. Just a few seconds extra will add long time to Voyagers travel. That time should also be part of the final explanation. As what the possible longest time all episodes could reach given the longest possible calculation of the total time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
::Link here: [https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status/ Mission status]. Although I'm not sure an historic view of this data exists anywhere... [[User:Jotomicron|Jotomicron]] ([[User talk:Jotomicron|talk]]) 10:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Thanks great. I have added a screen shot of the light distance today to the explanation along with the link. I have written most of the explanation by now, table and transcript also. But could probably need some cleanup. I really tried to find a way that Randall did not come up with this comic too late, but maybe the rounding down idea is too far fetched? But then I cannot see any other way to save the title text. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You know, Randall is the only person I know who regularly talks about themed parties. I've never actually known them to be a particularly common thing. Nonetheless, it seems to be a recurring theme on XKCD. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 12:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
:Maybe but this is not a themed party, just a party to celebrate an event. A theme party to me is when you dress like in the 20s... :p, either one. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
: Uh oh, now you've done it. The rules of the Meta-verse require that you host an "XKCD party themes" theme party. [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 14:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

According to wikipedia: the title of "Auld Lang Syne" that Beret Guy signs in the last picture <<may be translated into standard English as "old long since" or, more idiomatically, "long long ago">>, this could be a reference to SW's "Long long time ago..."
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.112|162.158.134.112]] 13:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

=== A few additional thoughts: ===

It shouldn't be too hard to figure the distance (and therefore radio travel time) to Voyager I back into the past because once it was beyond the last planet visited (Saturn, in 1980) - both Voyagers have mostly been in free-fall under (predominantly) the sun's gravity only - so the math isn't that hard unless you need really razor-sharp precision.

Voyager II would be a lot harder because it also did fly-by's of Uranus and Neptune in '86 and '89 - which each changed it's speed quite noticeably - and those encounters happened after the first three movies were released.

But for a reasonable approximation - Wikipedia already has that chart: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1#/media/File:Voyager_speed_and_distance_from_Sun.svg]. You can see that after about 1981 (ie roughly around episode V and certainly after VI), both distance and velocity graphs are almost a straight line. So even then, the effect of the sun's gravity was really tiny and could probably be neglected unless you need REALLY high precision.

A much bigger issue for party-planning is the diameter of the Earth's orbit around the sun. That's not a negligible factor here - because it adds a variance of about +/- 500 light-seconds to any calculation...and +/-8.3 minutes of seasonal adjustment is critical in figuring out when to hold the party.

[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 17:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2212: Cell Phone Functions

2019-10-07T13:17:30Z

SteveBaker: Watches.

I know of someone who DID build a taser into a phone... (but that's all it is now, was no space for the phone's electronics anymore) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.39|172.69.54.39]] 08:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: Well, there are actual commercial taser phone cases available for purchase today - [https://youtu.be/XaJSYxit1qI here's one example]. Not necessarily a good idea and not legal everywhere, but it exists. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 12:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit peculiar that one of the move "obvious" devices a cellphone can replace is missing: the watch. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 08:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: That's because no one sane would do that ;) Some may use a Smart Watch instead of a classic watch but except of the case when you were used to pocket watches anyways a replacement of a wacth by a phone would be a downgrade usability wise. /edit: That being said: My personal "Now" bar is at the first quarter (more or less at the web browser's bar end) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

:: I realize it's unlikely you're being entirely serious here, but the same argument applies to almost all of the devices listed in this comic. So…no, that's not the reason for its omission. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 08:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Actually I was dead serious. Well except of the "no one sane" part. I don't want to offend anyone :) In the time you take your phone out of the pocket to check the time I've looked thrice at my wrist watch [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: The time taken isn't awfully relevant, unless you're checking the time awfully frequently. For the number of times a day I need to check the time when I'm not at a computer or already looking at my phone, the convenience of a wristwatch could easily be outweighed by the inconvenience of taking it off and putting in on each day. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.69|162.158.178.69]] 09:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: Assuming you'd put it off. ;) (Despite the emoticon I'm serious again. I only put my watch off to change the battery) And even if I would put it off it would be more likely I forgot my phone on my desk than forgetting to put the watch on. I'm wearing a wrist watch since I was 8 or 9. But granted, the time is not as relevant as the fact that you have to put a device from out of somewhere and push a button to activate the screen just to check time. But in the end it's just a matter of personal taste and habit, I guess. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: there was a brief period between ubiquitous cell/mobile phone use and the advent of the smartwatch where experts predicted the demise of the watch other than as a piece of jewellery [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 08:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: I always hated wearing a watch - I do sometimes use my phone for finding the time - but "Hey Google - what time is it?" works without taking it out of my pocket. The thing is though - watches were obsolete before the smartphone existed. When just about 100% of electronic devices have clock display - my cooker, microwave, toaster, car, TV, computer, etc, etc ALL tell me the time. Why would I need a watch? SmartWatches seem like a retrograde step. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Try to translate "die eierlegende Wollmilchsau"
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.97|162.158.89.97]] 09:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a terrible movie - [[Wikipedia:Shorts: The Adventures of the Wishing Rock|Shorts: The Adventures of the Wishing Rock]] - where everyone has a device called The Black Box that can do all of that, as well as pretty much anything. Its function changes kind of like a Rubik's Cube. It's an obvious parody of smartphones, except that it came out right around the time they were getting popular so I'm not sure if smartphones are the true inspiration. I can't recommend that movie (really, it's awful) but this comic reminded me of it and I wanted to share. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 10:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: steering wheel, there was a James Bond movie (Pierce Brosnan era I think) where he could control a car from a phone (they were not yet called smartphones at the time). I wouldn't be surprised that the technology has already been implemented, even though I don't want to think of the legal consequences if this became mainstream: "Honestly officer, I wasn't LOOKING at my phone, I was DRIVING my car!"[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.110|162.158.155.110]] 11:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: sure it's *technically* possible: all you need is to pair the gyro/accelerometer of your phone with your car's servo steering. any vehicle with a parking assistant can be controlled that way (and security researchers have demonstrated that in impressive talks back in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OobLb1McxnI). [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 11:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I've written a first draft of the explanation and transcript, but I don't have time for anything else today. It turned out more high-flown than I intended, so feel free to reword as necessary. Also, because I'm sure it'll come up eventually, regarding the transcript: since Randall has not given any time scale, we should refrain from over-interpreting when something happened. For the joke to get through, knowing which elements happened in the past and which (might) happen in the future is enough. [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 11:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm - so let's fact check this:
* My phone is indeed being used as a car key (I own a Tesla and my phone unlocks the car and lets me drive it), phone, camera, newspaper, credit card and flashlight - so short bars for all of these is good.
* As a TV remote, that could be true - but we're actually edging into a "post-phone" era on that one. I can (and occasionally do) use my phone to control the Roku - but it's easier to use voice commands through Google Home for that...although I suppose I could use the phone to run Google Home instead of the Google Mini in my living room...so 50/50 on being "post-phone" on this one.
* As a Web Browser, I could use the phone - but only rarely actually do that. Mostly I use my ChromeBook for that, and also the screen on my Tesla - the piddly little cellphone screen guarantees it won't take over that role for more than 10% of the time.
* He missed out "Text messaging" - but I'm using the phone less and less for that because having a decent keyboard is good - so the ChromeBook is stealing that capability.
* Steering wheel...well, the Tesla already steers itself about 80% of the time that I drive. I predict that the steering wheel will cease to exist (at least for me) before I use my phone for that...although it certainly is capable of it in theory...and I'm pretty sure Tesla demonstrated the car being used as a radio controlled toy from a phone a few years ago...although it never made it into production (mercifully!).
* You probably could use a phone as a bird feeder (for smaller birds - draping a dead rabbit over it to attract vultures might be a bad idea).
* All of the others are well into the future...so I agree with him on those.
[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2212: Cell Phone Functions

2019-10-07T13:13:18Z

SteveBaker: Fact checking.

I know of someone who DID build a taser into a phone... (but that's all it is now, was no space for the phone's electronics anymore) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.39|172.69.54.39]] 08:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: Well, there are actual commercial taser phone cases available for purchase today - [https://youtu.be/XaJSYxit1qI here's one example]. Not necessarily a good idea and not legal everywhere, but it exists. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 12:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit peculiar that one of the move "obvious" devices a cellphone can replace is missing: the watch. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 08:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: That's because no one sane would do that ;) Some may use a Smart Watch instead of a classic watch but except of the case when you were used to pocket watches anyways a replacement of a wacth by a phone would be a downgrade usability wise. /edit: That being said: My personal "Now" bar is at the first quarter (more or less at the web browser's bar end) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

:: I realize it's unlikely you're being entirely serious here, but the same argument applies to almost all of the devices listed in this comic. So…no, that's not the reason for its omission. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 08:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Actually I was dead serious. Well except of the "no one sane" part. I don't want to offend anyone :) In the time you take your phone out of the pocket to check the time I've looked thrice at my wrist watch [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: The time taken isn't awfully relevant, unless you're checking the time awfully frequently. For the number of times a day I need to check the time when I'm not at a computer or already looking at my phone, the convenience of a wristwatch could easily be outweighed by the inconvenience of taking it off and putting in on each day. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.69|162.158.178.69]] 09:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::: Assuming you'd put it off. ;) (Despite the emoticon I'm serious again. I only put my watch off to change the battery) And even if I would put it off it would be more likely I forgot my phone on my desk than forgetting to put the watch on. I'm wearing a wrist watch since I was 8 or 9. But granted, the time is not as relevant as the fact that you have to put a device from out of somewhere and push a button to activate the screen just to check time. But in the end it's just a matter of personal taste and habit, I guess. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: there was a brief period between ubiquitous cell/mobile phone use and the advent of the smartwatch where experts predicted the demise of the watch other than as a piece of jewellery [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 08:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Try to translate "die eierlegende Wollmilchsau"
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.97|162.158.89.97]] 09:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a terrible movie - [[Wikipedia:Shorts: The Adventures of the Wishing Rock|Shorts: The Adventures of the Wishing Rock]] - where everyone has a device called The Black Box that can do all of that, as well as pretty much anything. Its function changes kind of like a Rubik's Cube. It's an obvious parody of smartphones, except that it came out right around the time they were getting popular so I'm not sure if smartphones are the true inspiration. I can't recommend that movie (really, it's awful) but this comic reminded me of it and I wanted to share. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 10:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: steering wheel, there was a James Bond movie (Pierce Brosnan era I think) where he could control a car from a phone (they were not yet called smartphones at the time). I wouldn't be surprised that the technology has already been implemented, even though I don't want to think of the legal consequences if this became mainstream: "Honestly officer, I wasn't LOOKING at my phone, I was DRIVING my car!"[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.110|162.158.155.110]] 11:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
: sure it's *technically* possible: all you need is to pair the gyro/accelerometer of your phone with your car's servo steering. any vehicle with a parking assistant can be controlled that way (and security researchers have demonstrated that in impressive talks back in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OobLb1McxnI). [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 11:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I've written a first draft of the explanation and transcript, but I don't have time for anything else today. It turned out more high-flown than I intended, so feel free to reword as necessary. Also, because I'm sure it'll come up eventually, regarding the transcript: since Randall has not given any time scale, we should refrain from over-interpreting when something happened. For the joke to get through, knowing which elements happened in the past and which (might) happen in the future is enough. [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 11:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm - so let's fact check this:
* My phone is indeed being used as a car key (I own a Tesla and my phone unlocks the car and lets me drive it), phone, camera, newspaper, credit card and flashlight - so short bars for all of these is good.
* As a TV remote, that could be true - but we're actually edging into a "post-phone" era on that one. I can (and occasionally do) use my phone to control the Roku - but it's easier to use voice commands through Google Home for that...although I suppose I could use the phone to run Google Home instead of the Google Mini in my living room...so 50/50 on being "post-phone" on this one.
* As a Web Browser, I could use the phone - but only rarely actually do that. Mostly I use my ChromeBook for that, and also the screen on my Tesla - the piddly little cellphone screen guarantees it won't take over that role for more than 10% of the time.
* He missed out "Text messaging" - but I'm using the phone less and less for that because having a decent keyboard is good - so the ChromeBook is stealing that capability.
* Steering wheel...well, the Tesla already steers itself about 80% of the time that I drive. I predict that the steering wheel will cease to exist (at least for me) before I use my phone for that...although it certainly is capable of it in theory...and I'm pretty sure Tesla demonstrated the car being used as a radio controlled toy from a phone a few years ago...although it never made it into production (mercifully!).
* You probably could use a phone as a bird feeder (for smaller birds - draping a dead rabbit over it to attract vultures might be a bad idea).
* All of the others are well into the future...so I agree with him on those.
[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1604: Snakes

2019-09-03T14:16:40Z

SteveBaker:

i don't know how to add the omega sign for the units of the resistor in the transcript. i'll leave that to someone more skilled than myself [[User:Beardmcbeardson|Beardmcbeardson]] ([[User talk:Beardmcbeardson|talk]]) 05:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just copy-and-paste! -N00b {{unsigned ip|108.162.214.77}}

Or find the 'omega' symbol in Windows Character Map. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 08:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To be exact, a 24Ω resistor would be red, yellow, black; 240Ω would be red, yellow, brown, and so on, along a well-defined sequence. Red, yellow on its own would be missing the final "scaling" colour. [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:We don't need the scaling colour here, the snake is scaly enough as is. [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_color_code， a "black red black red black" resistor shoud be 2kΩ, not 24Ω ... -- Oicebot [[Special:Contributions/162.158.252.119|162.158.252.119]] 09:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The fourth band on a resister is usually the multiplier (the value gets multiplied by 10 to a power according to the colour); it's the fifth that indicates tolerance [[User:sbutler87|sbutler87]]
:The resisteors that I have at hand are coloured the way I remember, Three bands of 'spectrum' colours (including black at zero, brown for 1, leading through the spectrum red to violet until grey at 8 and white at 9), the first two are literal, the third the power of magnitude to adjust up, and a fourth band (metalic silver/gold, to aid identification of the direction to read) as tolerance.
:I know there's variations, and zero ohm (or effectively so) links are a single black band, but that's all I've ever needed to know, in my time. (When I don't put something across mulimeter probes, just to make sure...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.221|162.158.152.221]] 11:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::The last band is tolerance, and there can be as many bands before that as the manufacturer needs. It's always the last band, no matter how many come before. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:There's two "standard" versions of colour banding that I know of, the 4-band and 5-band "precision" resistors. Some resistors may also have a red band after the tolerance band to indicate that it's "flame-proof" – or at least very high temperature resistant. The 4-band system indicates first digit, second digit, multiplier, tolerance like people have said so far. In the 5-band system the bands indicate first digit, second digit, third digit, multiplier, and tolerance. Bah, in verifying my facts I've found a 6 band system (really? Give it up already. :P) which is: first digit, second digit, third digit, multiplier, tolerance, temperature coefficient (in ppm/ºC or ppm/ºK relative change). Heck, why don't we code the power dissipation on to the resistors while we're at it? Instead of colours let's switch to a micro-bar code or QR code. (Sorry, slightly OT.) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 15:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
::Power dissipation is coded by ''size'' of the resistor. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.157|141.101.91.157]] 09:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: raw image: [[File:snake-pixelated.png]] and with added math: [[File:snake-interpolated.png]]. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 12:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean a 200ohm snake is safe? (Red black yellow) [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:That would be 20*10^4 ohm = 240.000 ohm if I get it right? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
::Red black yellow would be 200000 ohms, or 200kΩ (200 kilohms). Red-black is 20, and yellow is basically adding 4 zeroes to that. [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Ups, I put in the 4 from the comic, 20*10^4 ohm = 200.000 (not 240.000 as I wrote at first). Thanks for correcting ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:As far as I can see, it's <code>black yellow red yellow</code>, repeated, and red does not touch black... {{User:Grep/signature|20:57, 16 November 2015}}

Do they still use color bands? Do they still teach them to technicians? Should parts of this explanation be rewritten in the past tense mentioning that Randal is getting old? I though the bands were relegated to the dead languages section, right next to linear B, once surface mounted components came along. I certainly haven't used them since around 1990, and would not expect my younger technicians to understand them.
--[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.101|198.41.235.101]] 19:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:I garuntee that they still do.--[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.47|199.27.133.47]] 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:Being one who is actively learning electronics I can say firsthand that they still do teach color bands, and almost all the resistors we use in class are color banded. [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:That's just the thing, though; surface mount components aren't used everywhere. Hobbyists and classroom environments still use through-hole resistors and DIP TTL ICs and the like because they're easier to breadboard and reuse, and therefore cheaper. SMT, CMOS, and other things have advantages for most commercial applications but not for everything else.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.36|108.162.221.36]] 05:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
:In industrial applications, there's hardly use of through-hole resistor anymore. However with the resurgence of DIY electronics and arduino stuff I think it's safe to say people are now seeing breadboard electronics way way more than in the past and in this context color-coded resistor are relevant. Surface mount components are not very hobby-friendly so casual DIYers are actually not familiar with them. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
\o| _o_ \o o/ |o o o |o \o| _o_ \o/ _o \o| o/ |o o_ o/ \o| _o \o |o
# # /# |# #| /#| /#\ #| # # # #\ # |# #| /# |# # /# ¯# #|
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.161|141.101.106.161]] 10:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I fucking lost it when I read this. Easily one of the funniest xkcds in my opinion haha [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 12:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
:Edited the swearing. Won't somebody please think of the children! [[User:Hellen Lovejoy|Hellen Lovejoy]] ([[User talk:Hellen Lovejoy|talk]]) 15:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes? [[User:Indiana Jones|Indiana Jones]] ([[User talk:Indiana Jones|talk]]) 15:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have determined that some of my local wildlife is comprised of 103Ω snakes, with a 1% tolerance for holding. --[[User:SquaredRoot|SquaredRoot]] ([[User talk:SquaredRoot|talk]]) 13:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

But who says you have to start with the black stripe? It's a repeating pattern: Black/Yellow/Red/Yellow over and over - but if you start reading it on a yellow stripe - it's Yellow/Red/Yellow/Black or Yellow/Black/Yellow/Red - and if you start on a red stripe - you get Red/Yellow/Black/Yellow - so there are three other possible "resistor codes" you could deduce here. Yellow/Red/Yellow/Black isn't legal because you can't have a tolerance of 0% (well, not for a resistor - but coral snakes may well have a 0% tolerance for being handled!). Another problem is clearly illustrated on the headline photo of Wikipedia's "Coral Snake" article. That coral snake is missing some of the red stripes at both head and tail...fortunately (again) we can ignore them because black isn't a legal tolerance value. Thank god coral snakes are palindromic - so we don't have to worry about which end we start reading from (which is always my problem with resistors). [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2178: Expiration Date High Score

2019-07-19T14:10:09Z

SteveBaker: /* FOOD SCIENCE */ In all fairness.

If we assume this comic is contemporary, i.e. the year she found the beans is 2019, it makes Randall's girlfriend/wife 37 years old.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.84.64|141.101.84.64]] 05:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:Well... it makes Megan 37 years old. There is nothing here to strongly suggest that cueball and her are Randall and his gf/wife. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

When I was working at a gas station, someone brought in a propane tank which had expired in 1963 (or so). If 1963 and using this scheme, my score would be 96.6.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.251|172.69.33.251]] 06:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Propane tanks do not "expire", that is they do not go bad with time, and you do not need to throw them out after the date. The date on these tanks is when they need to be inspected for damage, as mandated by Federal and state laws. If the tank passes inspection a new date in put on and you can keep using the tank (propane suppliers can legally keep refilling it.) [[User:Godzilla|Godzilla]] ([[User talk:Godzilla|talk]]) 13:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

: Except that it <q>must be something ''you'' purchased</q> so you can't use that one in the contest. Unless you then purchased it from whoever brought it in… I don't see any rule requiring that the item be new (or otherwise not-yet-expired) when you purchase it, so can we buy old things from other people in order to inflate our score (potentially over 100)? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.76|172.69.42.76]] 06:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::That also circumvents the argument "we moved since 2010". If you buy the appartment with kitchen and all equipment, you also purchased the expired item... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::I think that part in the title text is referring to "how did we manage to not come across all of our expired items when we moved" rather than "this item was here before me moved in". Some very disorganised people might actually pack up and move all of the items (e.g. food) in their house without first checking or even noticing if it is expired. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.64|141.101.98.64]] 10:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::::That was my initial thought too, that she either did it without of noticing, or did not notice it on purpose, to at some point reach this score. But the loophole, good 'ol 42.76 brought up, put this idea up, as an alternative.--[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:The rules say that the item must be something you, personally '''''purchased'''''...so did they BUY the pickles from Megan's mom? I'd want to see a receipt or something! (And if the pickles were dated to 1978, Megan (whom we've established is 37 years old was not born when the pickles were dated...so for sure, this is cheating! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
::They clearly attribute the pickle score to Megan's mom, not to Megan.[[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 13:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Yeah - that makes more sense. I had initially read it as these were pickles MADE by her mom and given to Megan - not pickles that her mom purchased. Sadly, we can't work backwards from the 2030 date that Megan needs to wait until in order to beat that score to figure out her mom's age because we don't know on what year her mom discovered the ancient pickles. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

== FOOD SCIENCE ==

''"Since then many countries introduced laws and regulations requiring companies to put expiration dates on perishable goods. In some instances this can have the negative effect of people throwing out good food by blindly following the suggested expiration date. This behavior can incentivise companies to adjust the expiration date so that people will re-buy the products sooner."''

Since science and the truth are a big part of both xkcd.com and explainxkcd.com, I think it is important this explanation includes how/why food goes bad, and why expiration dates on jars/cans of food do not serve to protect people from eating bad food. If no one else gets to it first I'll try to type this explanation when I get a chance.

Until then I don't think the explanation should say "...many countries introduced laws and regulations requiring companies to put expiration dates on perishable goods." Although this is true, it is also true many companies put expiration on non-perishable products even through there is no law requiring them to do so. Like cosmetics and jars of pickles. [[User:Godzilla|Godzilla]] ([[User talk:Godzilla|talk]]) 13:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

:To be fair, many items are labelled "Best Before" or "Sell By" - implying that the food item will be edible for at least some time beyond that date. Actual expiration dates on preserved food items do seem to be rarer. There are cases of canned food items from the early 1900's still being in good shape after 100+ years - and those would not have had any expiration date. But one issue is that back then, cans were made by soldering sheets of tin together - and the lead in the solder slowly leaches into the food making it unsafe to eat even though the food itself seems well-preserved. So for potential high scores, we should look to: [http://mentalfloss.com/article/555075/11-oldest-foods-and-beverages-ever-discovered The 11 oldest foods and beverages ever discovered] - except that they'd not have any kind of formal expiration date. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2177: Gastroenterology

2019-07-19T13:58:46Z

SteveBaker:

I hope they are not eating italian, you never know what might happen if pasta and antipasta meet. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 16:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
: Yea I figure this is a matter / anti-matter joke. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 16:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

: This antimatter explanation lacks the usual "punch" that I would expect from XKCD on a science joke. It's unsatisfying because the comic lacks any (other) reference to physics or space. My best guess is that it's a pun based on an alternate interpretation of the word "gastroenterology." Could some part of the word be re-used (or commonly used) in another, more explosive context? Could the explosion refer to methane production by the body? Or is it somehow a joke about a movie, or the general movie trope of making scientists into action heros? [[User:Jpaugh|Jpaugh]] ([[User talk:Jpaugh|talk]]) 14:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

:: It's playing on the general idea that mixing opposites often results in a violent reaction. Acid/Alkali or Matter/Antimatter. In a sense, probiotics and antibiotics are opposites - and in the (evidently very boring) world of gastroenterology - this is about as exciting at it gets. Obviously, the actual reaction between such things would be very slow and exceedingly un-exciting. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Current transcript says "Cueball" is the second character in the first and fifth panels. I don't think that's usually how it's done for a character wearing a hat, so I was thinking he should instead be named something like "Beanie Guy" or similar. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
: I think the hat looks like a surgical scrub cap[https://www.allheart.com/men-scrub-caps-and-hats/c/597/]. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Saying the final panel is a lie is just one possibility. The 5th panel below can potentially mean the "reality", as opposed to the 4 panels above that's a fantasy/joke. Almost all jobs have this "what people think I do" and "what I really do" gap.
Another possibility: I thought I saw in old cop/secret agent movies a common joke is when a character gets into a lot of action - and thus cause a lot of trouble - that person will need to write a lot of paperwork for the damage caused. Then the character will say "this job is boring. Lots of paperwork." Sorry I can't find an example right now but I seemed to remember seeing the joke multiple times.

It's hard to appreciate gastroenterology jokes if you've ever had a colonoscopy.[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
:I disagree, & I'm holding back a bunch of bad puns about it. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I see a thematic connection with the comic about appendicitis treatment, although this could be about an unrelated ailment. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.100|162.158.78.100]] 18:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Current explanation says 'over-coughing'. What's that? a kid one table over, coughed.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.144.175|172.68.144.175]] 10:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
: Fixed! ([https://www.xkcd.com/699/| Did you know they just] ''hand out'' [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount&returnto=Main+Page| logins]?) [[User:Jpaugh|Jpaugh]] ([[User talk:Jpaugh|talk]]) 14:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Another possibility is that the sequence refers to a reaction between an acid and a base," WHAT? No. They're specifically labeled! Where did "acid and base" even come from? Why not "Yin and Yang" or "White meat and dark meat"?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.136|162.158.214.136]] 10:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:I think the editor meant that the sequence is comically pretending that the mixing of probiotics and antibiotics gives a similar explosive effect to an acid/base reaction (or a matter/antimatter reaction) - they're not saying that that's literally what's happening. They're explaining the possible inspiration behind the cartoon logic. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]])
:And now the explanation covers that nicely. Well done. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.136|162.158.214.136]] 09:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems possible that the fantasy as a whole is a reference to a scene in the series ''Breaking Bad'', in which Walter White substitutes fulminate of mercury for crystal meth, then uses it to cause a(n unrealistically large) explosion in the office of a rival. However, similar scenes can be found in earlier shows and films (e.g., the show ''MacGyver'' has several instance of such), so it may not be a reference to this specific one. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.44.152|172.69.44.152]] 17:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Any take on the meaning of the abundance of white space in the lower left part of the comic? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebob]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:My take is that it's a narrative device: the white space in which nothing is happening represents the two people just quietly eating, in stark contrast to the action-packed scene above. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 19:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::It's almost as if the first row of frames is in a "think balloon" within the last frame. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2178: Expiration Date High Score

2019-07-19T13:48:15Z

SteveBaker: Darn!

2178: Expiration Date High Score

2019-07-19T13:45:13Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ revert bad idea!

{{comic
| number = 2178
| date = July 19, 2019
| title = Expiration Date High Score
| image = expiration_date_high_score.png
| titletext = "Wait, we've MOVED since 2010. How on Earth did--" "Look, some of us were just born to be champions."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by someone, born champion. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. EXP 20190721}}
[[Randall]] is introducing the rules of a game. If you find an item which you purchased, but is now past its {{w|expiration date}}, you get a score which is what percent of your lifetime elapsed between when the item expired and when you found it. Many perishable items, such as food, cosmetics, medications, batteries, or condoms, have expiration dates, or sometimes best by dates. The only other rule is, that it has to be something you have purchased yourself, so that heritages or stuff that was left in the basement when one moved in, does not count.

The joke is, that owning expired items without of noticing for long here is getting you a high score, while in reality it is not considered favourable.{{Citation needed}}

Megan's mom does not have a jar of pickles with a 1978 expiration date because in 1978 jars and cans of food did not have expiration dates. Since then many countries introduced laws and regulations requiring companies to put expiration dates on perishable goods. In some instances this can have the negative effect of people throwing out good food by blindly following the suggested expiration date. This behavior can incentivise companies to adjust the expiration date so that people will re-buy the products sooner.

Megan's age is revealed to be 37, found by substituting 2019 and 2010 into the formula.

The title text continues the conversation from the comic. The beans were apparently bought while living in a different home, meaning they were moved along with Megan's and Cueball's other belongings. This is somewhat unusual as many people take moving as an opportunity to go through their old stuff and get rid of things they no longer need. Another interpretation would be that Megan Cueball didn't bring the beans but bought them along with the kitchen they were found in.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

2178: Expiration Date High Score

2019-07-19T13:43:55Z

SteveBaker: Who holds the high score.

{{comic
| number = 2178
| date = July 19, 2019
| title = Expiration Date High Score
| image = expiration_date_high_score.png
| titletext = "Wait, we've MOVED since 2010. How on Earth did--" "Look, some of us were just born to be champions."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by someone, born champion. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. EXP 20190721}}
[[Randall]] is introducing the rules of a game. If you find an item which you purchased, but is now past its {{w|expiration date}}, you get a score which is what percent of your lifetime elapsed between when the item expired and when you found it. Many perishable items, such as food, cosmetics, medications, batteries, or condoms, have expiration dates, or sometimes best by dates. The only other rule is, that it has to be something you have purchased yourself, so that heritages or stuff that was left in the basement when one moved in, does not count.

The joke is, that owning expired items without of noticing for long here is getting you a high score, while in reality it is not considered favourable.{{Citation needed}}

Megan's mom does not have a jar of pickles with a 1978 expiration date because in 1978 jars and cans of food did not have expiration dates. Since then many countries introduced laws and regulations requiring companies to put expiration dates on perishable goods. In some instances this can have the negative effect of people throwing out good food by blindly following the suggested expiration date. This behavior can incentivise companies to adjust the expiration date so that people will re-buy the products sooner.

Megan's age is revealed to be 37, found by substituting 2019 and 2010 into the formula.

The title text continues the conversation from the comic. The beans were apparently bought while living in a different home, meaning they were moved along with Megan's and Cueball's other belongings. This is somewhat unusual as many people take moving as an opportunity to go through their old stuff and get rid of things they no longer need. Another interpretation would be that Megan Cueball didn't bring the beans but bought them along with the kitchen they were found in.

The rules say that the item "must be something you purchased). So did either Megan or Cueball BUY the pickles from Megan's mom? Since the pickles were dated to 1978, Megan (whom we've established is 37 years old) was not born when the pickles were dated. So we must assume that her mother holds the current high score.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2178: Expiration Date High Score

2019-07-19T13:39:14Z

SteveBaker:

Talk:2178: Expiration Date High Score

2019-07-19T13:36:33Z

SteveBaker: Purchased!

2170: Coordinate Precision

2019-07-02T21:42:35Z

SteveBaker: Mention precision closer to the poles.

{{comic
| number = 2170
| date = July 1, 2019
| title = Coordinate Precision
| image = coordinate_precision.png
| titletext = 40 digits: You are optimistic about our understanding of the nature of distance itself.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CARTOGRAPHER. Each table entry needs to be individually explained. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Coordinates are data points used to identify a location on the planet Earth. However, a given coordinate covers a square region of land, and thus leaves some ambiguity; thus, greater precision requires an increasing count of decimal points in your coordinates. This comic uses this information to roughly identify how precise a given coordinate length might be.

The coordinates at [https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Cape_Canaveral&params=28.52345_N_80.68309_W_type:landmark_region:US-FL_scale:10000 28.52345°N, 80.68309°W] (in {{w|decimal degrees}} form; in {{w|geographic coordinate system}} form using degrees, minutes, and seconds, 28° 31′ 24.24.4″N, 80° 40′ 59.1″W) are pointing to the {{w|Rocket Garden}} at {{w|Kennedy Space Center}} in {{w|Merritt Island, Florida}} (usually referred to as '''{{w|Cape Canaveral}}''')—specifically, the tip of the [https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/-/media/DNC/KSCVC/Blog-Images/Rocket-Garden/rocket-garden-with-labels.ashx?h=860&w=1173&la=en&hash=7B9ADC7AFF5370E462AC98D9651945B806B77B2C Delta] rocket.

The sixth entry in the table, with seven digits of precision, includes the caveat that, while your coordinates map to areas small enough on the Earth's surface to indicate pointing to a specific person in a room, "since you didn't include datum information, we can't tell who". This is probably a reference to the fact that persons are animate, and different persons can occupy the same position at different times. It might also be a reference to the various ''{{w|geodetic datum}}'' or ''geodetic systems'' — different ways of dealing with the fact that the earth is neither perfectly spherical nor perfectly an oblong ellipsoid. The various data do not make much difference at six digits of precision, but at seven, there is enough skew depending on which system is in use that the person in a room you are referring to with the coordinates is ambiguous. It is unstated, but the remaining lines in the table with ever-greater precision suffer from this same issue and are equally ambiguous without datum information.

The final entry, with seventeen digits of precision, suggests that either the user is referring to individual atoms in the much-larger-scale whole-Earth coordinate system, or (perhaps more likely) has not bothered to format the values from the GPS module for viewing in the software UI in any way whatsoever, resulting in a value that is {{w|False precision|meaninglessly precise}} because the measurement wasn't that {{w|Accuracy and precision|accurate}} to begin with. Even if the value is accurate, locating individual atoms by coordinates is not actually useful in most cases, and the motions of multiple systems within our physical world (continental drift, subtle vibrations, etc.) would render the precise value obsolete rather quickly.

For the decimal places past the 5th on the latitude, the digits given are actually the decimal expansion of the constant ''e'' (2.7182818284), while for the decimal places past the 6th on the longitude, the digits given are the decimal expansion of the constant ''pi'' (3.14159265358).

The title text references how at sufficiently small distances, our understanding of reality itself begins to break down. Smaller than the {{w|Planck length}}, which is more than a quintillion times smaller than the diameter of a proton, the ideals of Euclidean geometry no longer apply and space itself may be composed of a {{w|quantum foam}} where the very geometry of spacetime itself fluctuates, meaning coordinate systems based on an assumption that space doesn't change would no longer work. String theory, on the other hand, assumes that at a short enough distance the world is composed of ten space dimensions, which precludes the use of a two-dimensional coordinate system.

The actual number of longitude digits needed to identify a point with particular precision depends on your latitude. Near the equator, you need more longitude digits than at the poles. The number of latitude digits for some particular accuracy stays essentially the same everywhere. Close to the poles, the chart is increasingly wrong for this reason.

==Chart==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Decimal places
! Resolution*
! In the comic
! Location
! Explanation/notes
|-
| 0
| 110 km (70 mi)<noinclude>
| Something space-related
| Somewhere near the east coast of Florida
| This resolution is enough to point out a large-scale feature like a country, a mountain range, a large lake, or a significant island on a map of the world. It can also be used to tell if certain celestial phenomena are visible from a given location.
|-
| 1
| 11 km (7 mi)
| A specific city
| Cape Canaveral<noinclude>
| Cities typically span a couple kilometers/miles in diameter and are far enough from each other to distinguish them at this resolution. There are exceptions though, and the veracity of this statement depends greatly on what constitutes a “city”, which varies greatly by location and history.
|-
| 2
| 1.1 km (¾ mi)
| A neighborhood<noinclude>
| Kennedy Space Center<noinclude> Visitor Complex
|
|-
| 3
| 110 m (360 ft)
| A suburban cul-de-sac<noinclude>
| The Rocket Garden at the Kennedy Space Center
|
|-
| 4
| 11 m (36 ft)
| A particular corner of a house
| Somewhere near the center of the Rocket Garden
|
|-
| 5
| 1.1 m (3½ ft)
| A specific person in a room (given geodetic datum information)
| The [https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/-/media/DNC/KSCVC/Blog-Images/Rocket-Garden/rocket-garden-with-labels.ashx?h=860&w=1173&la=en&hash=7B9ADC7AFF5370E462AC98D9651945B806B77B2C Thor-Delta] rocket in Rocket Garden
| As the comic notes, different persons can occupy the same position at different times. It might also point to the differences between {{w|geodetic datum}}s – different ways to map geodetic coordinates to specific points on the Earth's surface – become large enough that one needs to specify the one in use when supplying coordinates to this degree of precision (or greater, of course). Since the Earth is not a perfect ellipsoid, different parts of the planet conform best to ellipsoids of slightly different proportions, resulting in different coordinates for a specific location; not to mention that locally used datums have local reference points, which means that the local and global standards are slowly drifting away from each other with the tectonical plates.
Note that the comment in the comic concerns only the {{w|North American Datum|NAD 1983}} datum which is fairly close to the international, “one size fits all” standard {{w|WGS-84}}. Other datums may be shifted by tens or even hundreds of meters (yards), making geodetic datum specification necessary for less precise coordinates as well.
|-
| 7
| 1.1 cm (⁷⁄₁₆ in)
| Waldo on a page
| Presumably the very tip of the rocket.
| Precisely finding Waldo on a page was also referenced in [[1358:_NRO|#1358]].
|-
| 9
| 0.11 mm (4⅜ thou)
| A specific grain of sand
| rowspan=3 | N/A
|
|-
| 15
| 110 pm (1.1 Å)
| Raw floating point precision or an individual atom
| A double-precision (64-bit) floating point variable stores 52 significant bits (with an implicit 1 in front), so that 180.00000000000000 and 179.99999999999997 may be represented as distinct values. (This is only 14 decimals, however; the larger the integral part, the fewer bits remain to represent the fractional part.) This level of precision is useful for mitigating rounding errors in computations, but this advantage only shows if the last few digits are treated as non-significant and thus, ideally, hidden from view.
To actually track individual atoms (which may be as close to one another as 32 pm) or to represent continental drift up to the second, one would need to work with coordinates in ''quadruple'' precision. Tracking atoms, however, needs very sensitive (and expensive) equipment with a severely limited range (according to our current understanding of science and technology). Using a global-scale coordinate system when a micrometer-scale would fit much better is either an abuse of the system and a great waste of memory and computing power, or it means that a significant portion of the Earth's surface has been blanketed by quantum microscopes, which would be an abuse and a waste of many other things as well.
|-
| 40
| 1.1 × 10–11 ym (1.1 × 10–35 m)
| Near (or past) our current understanding of the nature of distance
| This is where the resolution reaches the Planck length. At this scale, the very structure of spacetime (and thus, the notion of distance) may be different than what we know; measuring anything to Planck length precision would necessitate such tremendous amounts of energy in one place. This would both create minuscule black holes and, more importantly, move whatever particle you were trying to pinpoint.
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Since the Earth is not exactly spherical, the actual length of one degree of latitude varies between 110.574 km (68.707 mi) at the equator and 111.694 km (69.403 mi) at the poles, while one degree of longitude is 111.320 km (69.171 mi) at the equator, 55.800 km (34.673 mi) at lat. 60°, and 0 km (0 mi) at the poles.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Single panel containing a table with two columns for "Lat/Lon Precision" and "Meaning" and a caption above the table.]
:Caption: What The Number of Digits in Your Coordinates Means

:[Row 1]
:Lat/Lon: 28°N, 80°W
:Meaning: You're probably doing something space-related

:[Row 2]
:Lat/Lon: 28.5°N, 80.6°W
:Meaning: You're pointing out a specific city

:[Row 3]
:Lat/Lon: 28.52°N, 80.68°W
:Meaning: You're pointing out a neighborhood

:[Row 4]
:Lat/Lon: 28.523°N, 80.683°W
:Meaning: You're pointing out a specific suburban cul-de-sac

:[Row 5]
:Lat/Lon: 28.5234°N, 80.6830°W
:Meaning: You're pointing to a particular corner of a house

:[Row 6]
:Lat/Lon: 28.52345°N, 80.68309°W
:Meaning: You're pointing to a specific person in a room, but since you didn't include datum information, we can't tell who

:[Row 7]
:Lat/Lon: 28.5234571°N, 80.6830941°W
:Meaning: You're pointing to Waldo on a page

:[Row 8]
:Lat/Lon: 28.523457182°N, 80.683094159°W
:Meaning: "Hey, check out this specific sand grain!"

:[Row 9]
:Lat/Lon: 28.523457182818284°N, 80.683094159265358°W
:Meaning: Either you're handing out raw floating point variables, or you've built a database to track individual atoms. In either case, please stop.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2137: Text Entry

2019-04-16T14:16:08Z

SteveBaker: Weird lines.

== Dvorak ==

''Title text: I like to think that somewhere out there, there's someone whose personal quest is lobbying TV providers to add an option to switch their on-screen keyboards to Dvorak.''

Using the Dvorak layout when you have to scroll through letters is particularly bad. Since Dvorak is optimized to alternate strokes between hands (by putting all vowels on one side), you would have to spend even more time navigating between letters. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.102|162.158.106.102]] 16:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

:I suspect that's at least part of the joke in the title text, as Randall is likely aware of that fact. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 16:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I of course had to wonder what TV show they were headed for so I started OUR_PL in Google and got "Our Planet Netflix" so now I know . . .I think. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 16:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
My Netflix interface takes entries from a keyboard. Found out about 2 weeks ago... It is a Samsung TV and I think the feature was not there from the beginning.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.52|172.68.50.52]] 16:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Should it be clarified that Ponytail and Cueball are sitting in one chair? The drawing seemed unclear to me at first. --[[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC) One chair? Or a sofa or a loveseat?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 11:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I use Dvorak on all my devices when possible and often find myself wishing for Dvorak on-screen keyboards. Sure, there's more absolute distance between consecutive characters on average, but that's offset by me not having to try to remember how QWERTY is laid out. I don't think that the joke here is "Dvorak on-screen keyboards are pointless", I think it's "Dvorak users are such a small percentage of the population that the odds of anyone bothering to cater to them is slim to none, and anyone lobbying for it is wasting their time". [[User:Undergroundmonorail|Undergroundmonorail]] ([[User talk:Undergroundmonorail|talk]]) 18:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

== Smart TV Keyboards ==
Randall probably doesn't know / have or use [https://tehnoblog.org/review-wireless-usb-mini-keyboard-for-pc-raspberry-pi-ubuntu-windows-android-xbox-playstation/ these little keyboards] that can literally save you from trouble and excruciating pain from one-by-one letter "typing": {{unsigned|172.68.154.88}}
:This has to be an ad, right? I'm pretty sure Randall "literally" knows about USB keyboards, regardless of form factor.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.172|108.162.216.172]] 22:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
::Not necessarily, and since the IP's not blatantly vandalizing pages or spamming links to external sites, and this is the talk page, there's no need to remove it for now. But I've collapsed the URL in case it's an attempt at advertising, as we've seen a lot of (fill in the blank)Review accounts created for that purpose, and some are vandalizing pages. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 07:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
:In my case, my smart TV has a remote control app that allows the phone's keyboard to be used. It also provides a trackpad for issuing a cursor more easily. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 11:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If just all on-screen keyboards were qwerty... Depending on the app some use qwerty and some use alphabetical grids. I'm always struggling to find the right letters in ther latter... It gets worse if alphabetical ordered letters are arranged in a standard keyboard pattern. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This got to be so annoying for me that I actually bought Roku streaming boxes for my TV's so that I can use their phone app to replace the remote and can now type on the phone's touch screen instead of going through the usual up-up-left-left-click nonsense. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

== Weird lines ==
What are those strange curved lines behind Cueball's head? There are also lines next to his legs that suggest that he's kicking them rapidly. It's unusual to see extraneous stuff like this in an XKCD comic. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2137: Text Entry

2019-04-16T14:14:20Z

SteveBaker: /* Smart TV Keyboards */ Roku phone app.

Talk:2131: Emojidome

2019-04-02T16:44:56Z

SteveBaker: /* Errors */

I've checked the network tab and console - nothing really seems to happen when you vote, which may be something we want to put on the explanation tomorrow - Myxoh

I suspect the real april fools joke is going to come on Wednesday when xkdc posts an app showing us our psychological profiles that they are now selling to marketing companies after data-mining our emotional preferences to marketing firms - Nosajimiki

@Nosajimiki: psychological profiles of xkcd fans. That might be some interesting marketing. - 5Cincinatus

@Myxoh: I came here to see if anyone else had noticed this! But, I do also see a websocket connection to emojidome.xkcd.com, I bet it's counting votes that way.

There is a websocket connection. A message is sent every time you vote. It looks like there are also status update messages every second (saying which emoji currently has exactly how many votes, i suspect this changes the amount of hearts that show up), and "bracket start" messages every so often. The bracket start message seems to contain hundreds of upcoming emoji pairs. Edit: a bracket start is sent at the start of every match (so every ~30 seconds). It also contains logs of which messages to show for previous matches, and which emoji are currently battling.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.138.10|172.69.138.10]] 16:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing stopping me from clicking multiple times. Do you think it actually counts it all those times? Can I click-spam to say "this is much better"? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:Randall just confirmed that you can vote multiple times, although if you click too fasr you get rate limited. (*warning: generic ip address assigned to phone data.*) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.47|172.69.70.47]] 22:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:Where did he confirm that? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.105|162.158.93.105]] 10:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well this is fun. Look like there are 512 symbols, meaning 256 first-round contests. The first round would take (at 38 seconds / round) ~2.7 hours. The remaining rounds, from an estimate of geometric progression, would just under double this, meaning this comic will run for ~ 5 hours until we have our winner... ~alexandicity [[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.177|172.69.226.177]] 16:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Did he just add a scroll bar to the previous matches? I didn't notice it earlier [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.148|162.158.255.148]] 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:Nope, you were able to scroll before, too. At least about 2 hours ago. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

While some of the recaps of past battles are generic (taco vs sandwich: "One for the history books"), many seem to be specifically written for the battle (light bulb vs candle: "Some would argue that this one was settled in the 1800s"). I wonder if/how much this will continue into round 2.

Round two has just begun, and the timeout has been bumped to 60 seconds. --[[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:If that trend continues, the full competition will take pretty close to 24 hours. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:It looks like it's 1:14/round, which is double what the time was in round one. Will round three be 2:28? 1:51?
::It's just over 1:15/round from the history JSON (plus some hundredths of a second, but it appears 1:15 is the intent)
:::Hadn't looked there. Round one concluded at 18:39:20-ish, 9560 seconds from 16:00:00. At 256 battles, that's 37.34 seconds/battle. However, it looks like the first battle ended at 15:59:57, which would add about 40 seconds, 9600 seconds/256=37.5 seconds exactly. Doubling for round 2 gives 75 seconds.
::2 minutes 30 seconds per battle now. Looks like each round will be 2 hours 40 minutes long.
:: Well it is after 5:00 PST and round 4 just started - and this thing is at exactly 5 minutes a round - which means another 160 minutes for the round. Will see in 2 hours and 40 minutes if the times go up to minutes. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.65|172.69.33.65]] 00:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And while the match-ups winners are typically colored, and underlined, the losers are endgame grey.

Has anyone determined if multiple-voting is actually counted? For me at least the vote button fades back to gray after I click it, which implies you can/should click it again, but that may not actually be processed. We might add a clarification about that to the explanation. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 19:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: A reddit user on the r/xkcd thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/b84at1/xkcd_2131_emojidome_script_src2131comicjs/) claims to have attempted "vote stuffing via the console" with no noticeable change in vote totals. So it looks like it may be sending it client-side, but only counting the vote once server-side --l

::Just few minutes ago there was message in "fun facts" that you can click multiple times, although it's not counted if you click too many times (or something like that). I guess that vote stuffing was too much. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It would appear that we are supposed to believe the commentary is live, and unscripted:
" {"This one is a true test of the audience today.",
"Just to stress this again. Live commentary, folks. Completely unscripted and coming in hot.} "--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.173|162.158.79.173]] 19:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:It's clearly live because the result of a previous round is affecting the next round's commentary - and the combinatorial explosion would prohibit that from being remotely plausible. We're watching live comedy here! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: On the dog vs. wolf, he said "Again, we are getting a lot of questions on this today. This is live commentary, folks." Proof I guess. HI RANDALL! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.241|172.68.189.241]] 19:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there really anything we can put for the transcript? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.241|172.68.189.241]] 19:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: We can go into the socket data and pull out the commentary for each matchup. -- [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas on how the commentary is done? It seems to sort of match the emojis.
[[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 19:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: It seems that Randall is commentating this live, as he periodically says it's live in the robot commentator text. See above. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.241|172.68.189.241]] 19:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
::Perhaps not "live" as each round 2 matchup was known 160 minutes before it was voted on. He could comment on the battle itself, and/or provide a comment if one or the other combatant won. I think he's a couple hours ahead of us.
::: I dunno. Whenever a new battle starts, there is a default message, that is soon replaced by a more pertinent message. That seems to suggest that he's doing it on the fly. [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
::::If that's live, Randall, and if you see this, give us a shout-out as proof. -Brent
::::: Just because it ''says'' it's live, doesn't mean that it really is. It's also possible that the actual clicks are being ignored and the reported numbers are all pre-generated. Much less likely than that it's actually counting and Randall is inserting commentary live (with default messages when he doesn't), but possible. -- [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 12:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a quick piece of python to see the json results (and commentary):
<nowiki>import json, urllib.request
d = json.loads(urllib.request.urlopen("https://emojidome.xkcd.com/2131/socket ").read().decode('utf-8'))
for g in d['bracket']['played'][0]:
c1, c2 = g['game']
print(f"{c1['score']} {c1['competitor']}-{c2['competitor']} {c2['score']}")</nowiki>
[[User:Tammo80|Tammo80]] ([[User talk:Tammo80|talk]]) 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: or if you want to see the vote count live in browser: https://emojidome.playcode.io/ -Andy 22:01, April 2019
:: Awesome, thank you [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There must be some kind of manipulation going on with the votes. There is NO WAY the poop emoji would lose to the skull emoji in round two. It was my guess for the winner >:( [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.138|162.158.106.138]] 20:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: And the 100 emoji just lost to the shiny heart. :(

Well, there's the comment "How do you know for sure that your votes are doing anything?". For my side because every single one I voted for lost so far. Well, I'm not a lucky charm, apparently... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.11|141.101.104.11]] 10:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The second round bracket was released, but is hidden behind the bottom nav buttons: https://xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_256.png --[[User:Thefallen138|Thefallen138]] ([[User talk:Thefallen138|talk]]) 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

And now the third round has begun. Strangely, the bracket is not visible yet: https://xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_128.png. The delay has been bump to something above two minutes as well. --[[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

: It's here https://xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_round_3.png [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.79|162.158.107.79]] 21:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

:: It seems to be he overwrote round_3.png with round_4.png (at least its the same picture)

Both the Emojidome and counter were brought together in iframes https://ducakedhare.co.uk/emojidome.html [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.17|141.101.99.17]] 23:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)taikedz

Anyone have an IRC room for Emojidome discussion? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.10|162.158.146.10]]

So disappointed he left out the egg plant... :D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite Spaaaaaaaaace winning the battle 🌌 (36285) vs 🚝 (17405), the current bracket chart https://xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_round_3.png shows 🚝 as having won. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.13|108.162.242.13]] 13:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What if the April Fools joke of the whole bracket is that the "Vote" buttons were actually switched and all the losers are actually the winners??? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.84|172.68.59.84]] 15:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== "Emoji" or "emojis" as the plural? ==

Due to the nature of the Japanese language, "emoji" is technically both the plural and the singular - however, the improper form "emojis" is used more as a plural frequently nowadays among English speakers. Which form should this explanation use? --[[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 22:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The "friends in Australia" comment was made during the last round's wink vs upside down smile battle. This is probably a pun on how Australia is on the other side of the world from America; I don't think Randall was seriously saying he witnessed an influx of Australians inbound. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.82|108.162.219.82]] 00:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Draws ==

What would happen if any of the fights resulted in a draw? (same number of votes for both)

Given the # of matchups, it's not actually that unlikely.

We should try to test this. Gotta keep Randall on his feet!

Pretty sure one early on resulted in a tie.

: The very first round was 0-0. I guess no one refreshed at exactly the right minute to see it. --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

: Actually, Birthday Cake vs Cupcake was a tie at 3658:3658. Birthday Cake advanced. I wonder why? (from the socket: [{"score":3658,"competitor":"ðŸŽ‚"},{"score":3658,"competitor":"ðŸ§"}]) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.138|162.158.106.138]] 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Emoji Fonts ==
Having an emoji font is required to see emoji displayed on sites such as http://srv-01.valo.media/ . If anybody else is looking for a way to display these, there's a good free emoji font available here:
https://github.com/eosrei/twemoji-color-font
It includes a script to replace the default Windows emoji fonts to get them to display properly on windows. Unfortunately it's only black-and-white in chrome. If anybody knows any better options, please let me know!

: For Ubuntu Linux users: sudo apt install fonts-noto-color-emoji -- then restart Chrome/Firefox.
: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 11:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Commentary Transcript ==

I've written a script that pulls the commentary history and transforms it into a wiki table. It's up to date as of right now, and I'll run it again in the morning and one last time after the final round. If you have formatting suggestions, just put them here and I'll incorporate it when I regenerate the table. -- [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 04:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

: Wonderful, thank you! Could you perhaps make the winner bold (or underlined like in the comic)? -Andy

== Successful Ballot-stuffing? ==

As I type this, I'm watching owl blast past 180000 votes in the owl-octopus bout. That means that in about 10 minutes, owl has earned more votes than all the votes earned in the entirety of any other individual bout. I could be totally off-base, but that seems vaguely suspicious to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 05:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur: that is highly suspicious. Fortunately, nothing of importance is at stake here, even if you were really pulling for the octopus. At this moment, we're ±10 minutes into bee vs pineapple and nothing comparable has happened. It may be an isolated incident. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.144|162.158.106.144]] 05:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen enough hentai to...what? The *owl* has won? O RLY? I demand a recount! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.6|141.101.105.6]] 08:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

YOLO. You Obviously Like Owls. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.11|141.101.104.11]] 10:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

For the violin vs the curling stone ('classical vs house'), the stone was ahead, but in the last four minutes I spammed my discord server to vote and we just got it over the line. - fudgeforlife
: Rrrr. :angry face: I love curling, and of course I wanted the stone to win. With curling no-one complains if I fall asleep watching. But with classical music everyone complains... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.89|141.101.104.89]] 12:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
: A similar thing happened for the "scared cat vs devil" bout - those two were consistently nearly tied until about T-10 minutes, whereupon the devil voting rate spiked and devil finished ~12000 votes ahead. The "cat vs hedgehog" bout was also similar - hedgehog had a consistent lead of ~1000 votes until about T-10 minutes, when the hedgehog voting rates spiked and hedgehog ended up finishing ~10000 votes ahead.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 14:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What? It's possible the owl cheated? IT'S POSSIBLE OCTOPUS TOTALLY SHOULD HAVE WON IF THE MATCH WAS LEGITIMATE? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.226|162.158.75.226]] 12:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Avocado quote citation ==

I'm not sure where to put this. The "I like avocados because they taste pretty good and also they come with a cool wood ball you get to keep" quote is from here: https://twitter.com/jitka/status/236240801926086656 . [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.41|172.69.33.41]] 07:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== How sure are we the voting is real ==
I'm no expert at all, but it there any way that the websites that shows the number of votes live etc. can test whether these votes are real, or something Randall has pre-programmed? Not that I would not believe he was willing to stay up for the duration of this day, but it is an April Fools' Day comic, so he is completely "allowed" to have decided him self who should win all matched and have made up the commentaries in advance. Yes it would take along time, but not longer than doing it on the fly. It could just be that joke on us, that our votes does nothing and we just see how Randall has decided the dome should end. Can anyone go in to this, and explain why it is as it is either way (for sure made up, for sure real or uncertain if real or fake)? (PS I dislike these sections in the commentaries, but there are already 6...) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that Milky Way won over Maglev by a long shot, but the bracket shows otherwise. - Brent [[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.58|172.69.50.58]] 13:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Which picture should we use for the comic ==
The current picture shown is not relevant. That is only shown to web crawlers that pick new images up. Does anyone have a picture of the very first match? Not sure that is relevant either. Anything in between could be used. like this:
[[File:2131_Emojidome_example.png]]
--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
:I’m assuming there’ll be a picture at the end. Show that when it finishes. [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
::I added the current picture originally as a temporary solution since the bot didn't upload one. No one commented on the image so I kept it though I considered using something like this: [[File:emojidome_blank.png]]
::[[User:Asdf|Asdf]] ([[User talk:Asdf|talk]]) 14:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== References and jokes in the commentary ==
Should we start explaining some of the robot announcer's commentary lines? Some of them are clear references to things. For example, the "Kickpuncher vs. Punchkicker" line is a reference to Community (Kickpuncher is a character in an in-universe film series, and Punchkicker is one of the characters' OC based on it.)
:Maybe make extra pages like has been done for several of the previous years huge comics, especially April Fools' comics. And yes it would be interesting to explain them... But that is a huge job. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Errors ==
There’s a mistake in the bracket, the genome won but is grayed out [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
:Same with stars vs flying saucer --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
::The genome has been corrected, but not the stars. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Yeah - stars is currently duelling volcano - but the bracket shows that stars was eliminated by monorail. This kinda suggests that the bracket is being manually generated! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of errors, hearts no longer show up on mobile. [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Disappointed no one thought to get the egg to at least the second round. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.142|162.158.255.142]] 15:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

: Many of the rounds were incredibly close - even the final was won by just a couple of percent. It was rare for there to be an overwhelming majority on either side. But it's incredible that 1,393,048 votes were cast in the final...given that all those people had to be there over just the 26 minute voting timeslot. I presume explainxkcd was taken down by overwhelming traffic? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2131: Emojidome

2019-04-02T13:59:10Z

SteveBaker:

I've checked the network tab and console - nothing really seems to happen when you vote, which may be something we want to put on the explanation tomorrow - Myxoh

I suspect the real april fools joke is going to come on Wednesday when xkdc posts an app showing us our psychological profiles that they are now selling to marketing companies after data-mining our emotional preferences to marketing firms - Nosajimiki

@Nosajimiki: psychological profiles of xkcd fans. That might be some interesting marketing. - 5Cincinatus

@Myxoh: I came here to see if anyone else had noticed this! But, I do also see a websocket connection to emojidome.xkcd.com, I bet it's counting votes that way.

There is a websocket connection. A message is sent every time you vote. It looks like there are also status update messages every second (saying which emoji currently has exactly how many votes, i suspect this changes the amount of hearts that show up), and "bracket start" messages every so often. The bracket start message seems to contain hundreds of upcoming emoji pairs. Edit: a bracket start is sent at the start of every match (so every ~30 seconds). It also contains logs of which messages to show for previous matches, and which emoji are currently battling.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.138.10|172.69.138.10]] 16:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing stopping me from clicking multiple times. Do you think it actually counts it all those times? Can I click-spam to say "this is much better"? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:Randall just confirmed that you can vote multiple times, although if you click too fasr you get rate limited. (*warning: generic ip address assigned to phone data.*) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.47|172.69.70.47]] 22:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:Where did he confirm that? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.105|162.158.93.105]] 10:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well this is fun. Look like there are 512 symbols, meaning 256 first-round contests. The first round would take (at 38 seconds / round) ~2.7 hours. The remaining rounds, from an estimate of geometric progression, would just under double this, meaning this comic will run for ~ 5 hours until we have our winner... ~alexandicity [[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.177|172.69.226.177]] 16:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Did he just add a scroll bar to the previous matches? I didn't notice it earlier [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.148|162.158.255.148]] 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:Nope, you were able to scroll before, too. At least about 2 hours ago. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

While some of the recaps of past battles are generic (taco vs sandwich: "One for the history books"), many seem to be specifically written for the battle (light bulb vs candle: "Some would argue that this one was settled in the 1800s"). I wonder if/how much this will continue into round 2.

Round two has just begun, and the timeout has been bumped to 60 seconds. --[[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:If that trend continues, the full competition will take pretty close to 24 hours. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:It looks like it's 1:14/round, which is double what the time was in round one. Will round three be 2:28? 1:51?
::It's just over 1:15/round from the history JSON (plus some hundredths of a second, but it appears 1:15 is the intent)
:::Hadn't looked there. Round one concluded at 18:39:20-ish, 9560 seconds from 16:00:00. At 256 battles, that's 37.34 seconds/battle. However, it looks like the first battle ended at 15:59:57, which would add about 40 seconds, 9600 seconds/256=37.5 seconds exactly. Doubling for round 2 gives 75 seconds.
::2 minutes 30 seconds per battle now. Looks like each round will be 2 hours 40 minutes long.
:: Well it is after 5:00 PST and round 4 just started - and this thing is at exactly 5 minutes a round - which means another 160 minutes for the round. Will see in 2 hours and 40 minutes if the times go up to minutes. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.65|172.69.33.65]] 00:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And while the match-ups winners are typically colored, and underlined, the losers are endgame grey.

Has anyone determined if multiple-voting is actually counted? For me at least the vote button fades back to gray after I click it, which implies you can/should click it again, but that may not actually be processed. We might add a clarification about that to the explanation. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 19:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: A reddit user on the r/xkcd thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/b84at1/xkcd_2131_emojidome_script_src2131comicjs/) claims to have attempted "vote stuffing via the console" with no noticeable change in vote totals. So it looks like it may be sending it client-side, but only counting the vote once server-side --l

::Just few minutes ago there was message in "fun facts" that you can click multiple times, although it's not counted if you click too many times (or something like that). I guess that vote stuffing was too much. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It would appear that we are supposed to believe the commentary is live, and unscripted:
" {"This one is a true test of the audience today.",
"Just to stress this again. Live commentary, folks. Completely unscripted and coming in hot.} "--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.173|162.158.79.173]] 19:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
:It's clearly live because the result of a previous round is affecting the next round's commentary - and the combinatorial explosion would prohibit that from being remotely plausible. We're watching live comedy here! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: On the dog vs. wolf, he said "Again, we are getting a lot of questions on this today. This is live commentary, folks." Proof I guess. HI RANDALL! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.241|172.68.189.241]] 19:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there really anything we can put for the transcript? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.241|172.68.189.241]] 19:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: We can go into the socket data and pull out the commentary for each matchup. -- [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas on how the commentary is done? It seems to sort of match the emojis.
[[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 19:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: It seems that Randall is commentating this live, as he periodically says it's live in the robot commentator text. See above. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.241|172.68.189.241]] 19:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
::Perhaps not "live" as each round 2 matchup was known 160 minutes before it was voted on. He could comment on the battle itself, and/or provide a comment if one or the other combatant won. I think he's a couple hours ahead of us.
::: I dunno. Whenever a new battle starts, there is a default message, that is soon replaced by a more pertinent message. That seems to suggest that he's doing it on the fly. [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
::::If that's live, Randall, and if you see this, give us a shout-out as proof. -Brent
::::: Just because it ''says'' it's live, doesn't mean that it really is. It's also possible that the actual clicks are being ignored and the reported numbers are all pre-generated. Much less likely than that it's actually counting and Randall is inserting commentary live (with default messages when he doesn't), but possible. -- [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 12:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a quick piece of python to see the json results (and commentary):
<nowiki>import json, urllib.request
d = json.loads(urllib.request.urlopen("https://emojidome.xkcd.com/2131/socket ").read().decode('utf-8'))
for g in d['bracket']['played'][0]:
c1, c2 = g['game']
print(f"{c1['score']} {c1['competitor']}-{c2['competitor']} {c2['score']}")</nowiki>
[[User:Tammo80|Tammo80]] ([[User talk:Tammo80|talk]]) 19:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: or if you want to see the vote count live in browser: https://emojidome.playcode.io/ -Andy 22:01, April 2019
:: Awesome, thank you [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There must be some kind of manipulation going on with the votes. There is NO WAY the poop emoji would lose to the skull emoji in round two. It was my guess for the winner >:( [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.138|162.158.106.138]] 20:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
: And the 100 emoji just lost to the shiny heart. :(

Well, there's the comment "How do you know for sure that your votes are doing anything?". For my side because every single one I voted for lost so far. Well, I'm not a lucky charm, apparently... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.11|141.101.104.11]] 10:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The second round bracket was released, but is hidden behind the bottom nav buttons: https://xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_256.png --[[User:Thefallen138|Thefallen138]] ([[User talk:Thefallen138|talk]]) 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

And now the third round has begun. Strangely, the bracket is not visible yet: https://xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_128.png. The delay has been bump to something above two minutes as well. --[[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

: It's here https://xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_round_3.png [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.79|162.158.107.79]] 21:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

:: It seems to be he overwrote round_3.png with round_4.png (at least its the same picture)

Both the Emojidome and counter were brought together in iframes https://ducakedhare.co.uk/emojidome.html [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.17|141.101.99.17]] 23:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)taikedz

Anyone have an IRC room for Emojidome discussion? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.10|162.158.146.10]]

So disappointed he left out the egg plant... :D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite Spaaaaaaaaace winning the battle 🌌 (36285) vs 🚝 (17405), the current bracket chart https://xkcd.com/2131/emojidome_bracket_round_3.png shows 🚝 as having won. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.13|108.162.242.13]] 13:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== "Emoji" or "emojis" as the plural? ==

Due to the nature of the Japanese language, "emoji" is technically both the plural and the singular - however, the improper form "emojis" is used more as a plural frequently nowadays among English speakers. Which form should this explanation use? --[[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 22:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The "friends in Australia" comment was made during the last round's wink vs upside down smile battle. This is probably a pun on how Australia is on the other side of the world from America; I don't think Randall was seriously saying he witnessed an influx of Australians inbound. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.82|108.162.219.82]] 00:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Draws ==

What would happen if any of the fights resulted in a draw? (same number of votes for both)

Given the # of matchups, it's not actually that unlikely.

We should try to test this. Gotta keep Randall on his feet!

Pretty sure one early on resulted in a tie.

: The very first round was 0-0. I guess no one refreshed at exactly the right minute to see it. --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

: Actually, Birthday Cake vs Cupcake was a tie at 3658:3658. Birthday Cake advanced. I wonder why? (from the socket: [{"score":3658,"competitor":"ðŸŽ‚"},{"score":3658,"competitor":"ðŸ§"}]) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.138|162.158.106.138]] 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Emoji Fonts ==
Having an emoji font is required to see emoji displayed on sites such as http://srv-01.valo.media/ . If anybody else is looking for a way to display these, there's a good free emoji font available here:
https://github.com/eosrei/twemoji-color-font
It includes a script to replace the default Windows emoji fonts to get them to display properly on windows. Unfortunately it's only black-and-white in chrome. If anybody knows any better options, please let me know!

: For Ubuntu Linux users: sudo apt install fonts-noto-color-emoji -- then restart Chrome/Firefox.
: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 11:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Commentary Transcript ==

I've written a script that pulls the commentary history and transforms it into a wiki table. It's up to date as of right now, and I'll run it again in the morning and one last time after the final round. If you have formatting suggestions, just put them here and I'll incorporate it when I regenerate the table. -- [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] ([[User talk:Bobson|talk]]) 04:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

: Wonderful, thank you! Could you perhaps make the winner bold (or underlined like in the comic)? -Andy

== Successful Ballot-stuffing? ==

As I type this, I'm watching owl blast past 180000 votes in the owl-octopus bout. That means that in about 10 minutes, owl has earned more votes than all the votes earned in the entirety of any other individual bout. I could be totally off-base, but that seems vaguely suspicious to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 05:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur: that is highly suspicious. Fortunately, nothing of importance is at stake here, even if you were really pulling for the octopus. At this moment, we're ±10 minutes into bee vs pineapple and nothing comparable has happened. It may be an isolated incident. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.144|162.158.106.144]] 05:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen enough hentai to...what? The *owl* has won? O RLY? I demand a recount! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.6|141.101.105.6]] 08:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

YOLO. You Obviously Like Owls. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.11|141.101.104.11]] 10:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

For the violin vs the curling stone ('classical vs house'), the stone was ahead, but in the last four minutes I spammed my discord server to vote and we just got it over the line. - fudgeforlife
: Rrrr. :angry face: I love curling, and of course I wanted the stone to win. With curling no-one complains if I fall asleep watching. But with classical music everyone complains... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.89|141.101.104.89]] 12:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What? It's possible the owl cheated? IT'S POSSIBLE OCTOPUS TOTALLY SHOULD HAVE WON IF THE MATCH WAS LEGITIMATE? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.226|162.158.75.226]] 12:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Avocado quote citation ==

I'm not sure where to put this. The "I like avocados because they taste pretty good and also they come with a cool wood ball you get to keep" quote is from here: https://twitter.com/jitka/status/236240801926086656 . [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.41|172.69.33.41]] 07:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== How sure are we the voting is real ==
I'm no expert at all, but it there any way that the websites that shows the number of votes live etc. can test whether these votes are real, or something Randall has pre-programmed? Not that I would not believe he was willing to stay up for the duration of this day, but it is an April Fools' Day comic, so he is completely "allowed" to have decided him self who should win all matched and have made up the commentaries in advance. Yes it would take along time, but not longer than doing it on the fly. It could just be that joke on us, that our votes does nothing and we just see how Randall has decided the dome should end. Can anyone go in to this, and explain why it is as it is either way (for sure made up, for sure real or uncertain if real or fake)? (PS I dislike these sections in the commentaries, but there are already 6...) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that Milky Way won over Maglev by a long shot, but the bracket shows otherwise. - Brent [[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.58|172.69.50.58]] 13:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Which picture should we use for the comic ==
The current picture shown is not relevant. That is only shown to web crawlers that pick new images up. Does anyone have a picture of the very first match? Not sure that is relevant either. Anything in between could be used. like this:
[[File:2131_Emojidome_example.png]]
--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
:I’m assuming there’ll be a picture at the end. Show that when it finishes. [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== References and jokes in the commentary ==
Should we start explaining some of the robot announcer's commentary lines? Some of them are clear references to things. For example, the "Kickpuncher vs. Punchkicker" line is a reference to Community (Kickpuncher is a character in an in-universe film series, and Punchkicker is one of the characters' OC based on it.)
:Maybe make extra pages like has been done for several of the previous years huge comics, especially April Fools' comics. And yes it would be interesting to explain them... But that is a huge job. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

== Errors ==
There’s a mistake in the bracket, the genome won but is grayed out [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
:Same with stars vs flying saucer --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
::The genome has been corrected, but not the stars. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Yeah - stars is currently duelling volcano - but the bracket shows that stars was eliminated by monorail. This kinda suggests that the bracket is being manually generated! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2131: Emojidome

2019-04-02T11:29:29Z

SteveBaker: /* Emoji Fonts */

Talk:2131: Emojidome

2019-04-01T19:30:25Z

SteveBaker:

Talk:2125: Luna 2

2019-03-20T20:37:57Z

SteveBaker: /* vaporized on impact? */ Maybe not.

Second comic in a row about space. The comic seems fairly self-explanatory to me, but the title text might need a bit more work to explain. I can't even figure out exactly what it means. Something about rushing to get the bare minimum done before the deadline? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.100|172.68.141.100]] 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

:I've added an explanation for the title text but am unsure of the "engineering standpoint". Maybe someone with knowledge in the area can elaborate on that. Is landing inherently more difficult than launching?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.128|162.158.88.128]] 08:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:: It makes sense from an engineering point-of-view because it tested if we can get things to the moon and that our math fits with something cheap and worthless. That cheap and worthless thing we threw at the moon? Nationalism [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 17:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably about how the engineers wanted to test what they could do before they could actually do it. (Oh,and Luna 2 impacted at 22 km/s) 20:10, 18 March 2019 (GMT)

OMG, the fake explanation is ROTFL funny! Hopefully whomever writes the correct explanation will keep this first bit of verbiage, just for the humor value, but in case that doesn’t happen, for those who don’t want to dig through the edit history, it currently says:
:: “This comic describes one of the first faked moon missions, Luna II. The Communist sham was designed to make it look like the Moon was reachable by humans, in order to protect the threatened Zionist conspiracy.

::By discussing this as if it was fact, (((Randall))) is subtly reinforcing Jewish neuroprogramming causing people to believe in ridiculous child's fantasies like space unquestioningly.”
(And to be crystal clear, I didn’t write it!) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.132|172.68.65.132]] 17:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, I fail so see how that explanation is in any way funny. It's just confusing and annoying. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.100|172.68.141.100]] 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:it’s not funny *now* because someone deleted it. Basically someone wrote an explanation as if the moon landings were faked, and extended the conspiracy theory to have USA and USSR cooperating on perpetuating the conspiracy because somehow it benefits Israel. It was clearly tongue-in-cheek, like when people claim that the Earth is flat. Given the recent anti-Semitic comments that have cropped up here I took it as an effort to make fun of those people (the ones posting bizarre stuff) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.132|172.68.65.132]] 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

::Alright, that's the part that wasn't clear to me. You can never really tell when someone online is being sarcastic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.100|172.68.141.100]] 17:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

:::Depressingly, I don't think they're joking. I think they truly believe that space exploration is "fake", & that reaching the moon with a rocket is impossible, & that somehow almost the entire industrialized world is participating in some nonsensical "Jewish" conspiracy to maintain an illusion of space exploration. Even assuming that so many people & industries ''could'' maintain such a complex & widespread facade for multiple generations without reasonably verifiable evidence of its falsehood coming to light, I struggle to think of a good reason ''why'' so many people would knowingly participate in it without ever acting as a whistleblower. As I think perhaps an old xkcd once observed: If NASA really faked the moon landing, shouldn't they have faked a similarly momentous achievement by now? Anyway, ''I'' find it far more believable that a few wealthy people find it profitable to maintain a cadre of deluded obstructionists, than that all trans-orbital space travel is being faked. And speaking only for myself personally, I think Israel has terrible governmental policies & NASA could be doing a lot ''more'' grandiose space exploration but doesn't because there's not enough money in it yet.
:::[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.82|108.162.216.82]] 20:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Apollo missions with astronauts were NOT profitable (everything actually gained could've been done by robots). The only reason they were done were that USA wanted to do them before SSSR: it was question of national pride. Next grandiose space exploration will came either when USA will need to feel the pride again, possibly after Chinese land somewhere, or ... when US president will want to show how big d*ck he has. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Hilarious how some people might actually believe this, but Explainxkcd isn't a place for people to shitpost. If you see things like this in an explanation just revert it immediately. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 22:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:The actual sad part is it probably isn’t a joke. At least it’s a long and drawn out poorly constructed one. People are idiots, and flat earthers can be real. This person isn’t making fun of them. Not in a helpful way at the very least. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
::What I don't get is what anyone who subscribes to flat earth, "9/11 was an inside job", anti-vax, chemtrails, etc. would get out of a webcomic that features math and science prominently.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.83|172.68.58.83]] 16:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:::A website full of people to troll and “debate”. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how to tan on mobile (feel free to do so and delete this tidbit if you want to) but: The throwing a frag filled with flags is symbolic of the standard human explorer tactic. Basically, we tend to shoot first whenever we go to a new place and then promptly place a claim, whether the preexisting landscape has been claimed or not. For instance, the Native Americans. Like, all of them. The tile text, on the other hand, represents attempts to find a solution to half a problem or maybe representing the aforementioned claims bit. But I could be reading into this too much [[Special:Contributions/172.69.46.58|172.69.46.58]] 17:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I am using this website to share information, but several IP editors are consistently reverting my edits, even when I leave in their unsubstantiated claims. Help. {{unsigned|162.158.106.144}}

:I'm sorry, "sharing information"? I think you misspelled "vandalizing explanations, blatantly lying and spreading misinformation." Do you have anything better to do than vandalize a wiki and complaining about your shitposts being removed? Also, if you're going to leave comments like this at least make sure you have the courage to sign your comments. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 22:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

:You should probably sign your posts to clarify who is having the problem. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.46.58|172.69.46.58]] 17:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

== vaporized on impact? ==

Does anyone here have links to evidence for or against Randall's claim in the title text? What was the impact speed? - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 19:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean if they weren't vaporized, how would we tell outside of flags randomly bumping into the ISS? All of the ones that go to Earth would burn up. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.28|172.68.78.28]] 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:If the impact was at 22 km/s, as stated above, that would be about 79,000 km/h, or about 49,000 mph. So... pretty fast? [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:That impact speed still sounds ridiculously high, Escape velocity to break free of earth orbit is, IIRC, 11.186 km/s (roughly 40K kmph or 25K mph), and it takes a massive rocket to achieve that. Most of a trans-lunar flight is unpowered using either momentum built up by the initial launch thrust or the gravitational pull of the moon itself. I find it hard to believe that impact speed, even allowing for gravitation influence of the moon itself, could result in an impact at almost 2X the speed needed to get away from Earth in the first place.[[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 07:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
::22 km/s seems to be wrong. Wikipedia along with a few quick google searches put the impact speed at around 3 - 3.3 km/s. To me (far from an expert) that appears more realistic but still fast enough to cause significant damage. Whether things are literally vaporized at those speeds I leave for others to determine.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 11:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:The whole point of the "bomb" was to avoid all of the little "flags" (they actually contained the coat of arms) from being vaporized. The idea was to take a sphere, hurtling towards the moon at speed X - then to explode with an explosive speed of Y. The flags at the 'front' of the bomb would then be propelled towards the moon at speed (X+Y) but the ones at the 'back' would be moving at (X-Y)...it was hoped that this slowing down from the explosion would result in at least some of the flags arriving intact onto the lunar surface.
:It's a very clever idea because it works even if the sphere is tumbling in some uncontrolled way...and it's VERY simple.
: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

== navigation buttons ==

Anyone know why you can't get to this explain page from 2124 by way of menu bar/whatever it's called? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.74|172.69.22.74]] 21:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
: Did you mean [[Talk:2124: Space Mission Hearing|the talk page of 2124]]? You can click on "Discussion" on top of page when you are at [[2124]]. I just checked and it worked fine. --[[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.210|103.22.200.210]] 01:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
: Or (as I suddenly realized) maybe you are asking to navigate from [[2124]] to [[2125]]. The "next>" button also worked fine as of this comment. --[[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.210|103.22.200.210]] 01:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:: The "NEXT>" button from [[2124]] was missing for most of the day, but looks like someone eventually fixed it. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 13:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

2125: Luna 2

2019-03-20T19:14:00Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2125
| date = March 18, 2019
| title = Luna 2
| image = luna_2.png
| titletext = The flags were probably vaporized on impact, because we launched it before we had finished figuring out how to land. That makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but also feels like a metaphor.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a FLAGMENTATION GRENADE. Title text needs to be explained. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is referring to {{w|Luna 2}}, the first man-made object to make contact with the surface of the moon, and consequently, as stated in the comic, the first man-made object to touch another world. On September 13, 1959, it hit the Moon's surface east of {{w|Mare Imbrium}} near the craters Aristides, {{w|Archimedes}}, and {{w|Autolycus}}.

[[Megan]] is sitting in front of a computer, and telling [[Cueball]] about the Luna 2. She explains that the probe was designed to explode on impact, thus scattering multiple metal Soviet flags and ribbons on the surface of the Moon. They compare it to throwing a shrapnel grenade with flags in it at the moon.

In truth, the idea behind the two explosive spheres was rather clever. The spacecraft arrived at the moon at about 12,000 mph - and with uncontrolled orientation. But no matter which orientation that these spheres were in as they arrived at the moon, the force of the explosion would cause the commemorative plaques nearest to the direction of motion to be thrown even faster at the moon (and, presumably, be vaporized) - while the ones from the opposite side of the sphere would be slowed down by the force of the explosion and might possibly arrive at the surface intact.

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kansas_Cosmosphere_Luna_2_Pennant_2013.JPG

Cueball's observation that it is "on-brand" for humans to litter another world with an explosion of nationalist iconography immediately upon reaching it, is a reference to the vastly numerous historical instances when, upon setting foot on territory for the first time, humans "conquer" it, by planting flags on the first thing they see. Alternately, it may be "on-brand" for humanity's first interaction with a new object to be striking it with a weapon.

The title text might refer to the fact that for the Luna 2 mission it was more important to just get to the moon at all rather than have a sophisticated landing mechanism. This was due to the fact that it happened during the space race between the USA and USSR and both countries tried to reach significant milestones in space exploration. The metaphorical interpretation could be that sometimes people get overly excited after an initial breakthrough and dive into projects without thinking them through or considering long term consequences. This often goes along with the confidence to be able to "wing it" making up a solution on the spot when a problem comes up.

Note that Randall makes a subtle yet strong declaration that he is an engineer, a human, and an Earthling first, and American second, by saying "we" in the title text, regarding this effort to reach the Moon. Is there an existing cross-reference to the various ways that he similarly identifies himself?

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing behind while Megan sits at a laptop.]
:Megan: Huh. ''Luna 2'', the first artificial object to touch another world, carried a sphere made of steel Soviet flag emblems.

:[A patterned sphere is shown blowing up to pieces.]
:It was designed to blow apart on impact, scattering tiny metal flags and ribbons across the surface of the moon.

:[Close-up of Cueball and Megan's faces.]
:Cueball: So the first physical contact humans had with a heavenly body...
:Megan: ...was throwing a shrapnel grenade full of flags at it.
:Cueball: Well, it's on-brand for us, at least.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Space probes]]

2125: Luna 2

2019-03-20T19:13:11Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ Explain the purpose of using an explosive device here.

{{comic
| number = 2125
| date = March 18, 2019
| title = Luna 2
| image = luna_2.png
| titletext = The flags were probably vaporized on impact, because we launched it before we had finished figuring out how to land. That makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but also feels like a metaphor.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a FLAGMENTATION GRENADE. Title text needs to be explained. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is referring to {{w|Luna 2}}, the first man-made object to make contact with the surface of the moon, and consequently, as stated in the comic, the first man-made object to touch another world. On September 13, 1959, it hit the Moon's surface east of {{w|Mare Imbrium}} near the craters Aristides, {{w|Archimedes}}, and {{w|Autolycus}}.

[[Megan]] is sitting in front of a computer, and telling [[Cueball]] about the Luna 2. She explains that the probe was designed to explode on impact, thus scattering multiple metal Soviet flags and ribbons on the surface of the Moon. They compare it to throwing a shrapnel grenade with flags in it at the moon.

In truth, the idea behind the two explosive spheres was rather clever. The spacecraft arrived at the moon at about 12,000 mph - and with uncontrolled orientation. But no matter which orientation that these spheres were in as they arrived at the moon, the force of the explosion would the commemorative plaques nearest to the direction of motion to be thrown even faster at the moon (and, presumably, be vaporized) - while the ones from the opposite side of the sphere would be slowed down by the force of the explosion and might possibly arrive at the surface intact.

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kansas_Cosmosphere_Luna_2_Pennant_2013.JPG

Cueball's observation that it is "on-brand" for humans to litter another world with an explosion of nationalist iconography immediately upon reaching it, is a reference to the vastly numerous historical instances when, upon setting foot on territory for the first time, humans "conquer" it, by planting flags on the first thing they see. Alternately, it may be "on-brand" for humanity's first interaction with a new object to be striking it with a weapon.

The title text might refer to the fact that for the Luna 2 mission it was more important to just get to the moon at all rather than have a sophisticated landing mechanism. This was due to the fact that it happened during the space race between the USA and USSR and both countries tried to reach significant milestones in space exploration. The metaphorical interpretation could be that sometimes people get overly excited after an initial breakthrough and dive into projects without thinking them through or considering long term consequences. This often goes along with the confidence to be able to "wing it" making up a solution on the spot when a problem comes up.

Note that Randall makes a subtle yet strong declaration that he is an engineer, a human, and an Earthling first, and American second, by saying "we" in the title text, regarding this effort to reach the Moon. Is there an existing cross-reference to the various ways that he similarly identifies himself?

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing behind while Megan sits at a laptop.]
:Megan: Huh. ''Luna 2'', the first artificial object to touch another world, carried a sphere made of steel Soviet flag emblems.

:[A patterned sphere is shown blowing up to pieces.]
:It was designed to blow apart on impact, scattering tiny metal flags and ribbons across the surface of the moon.

:[Close-up of Cueball and Megan's faces.]
:Cueball: So the first physical contact humans had with a heavenly body...
:Megan: ...was throwing a shrapnel grenade full of flags at it.
:Cueball: Well, it's on-brand for us, at least.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Space probes]]

2125: Luna 2

2019-03-20T19:11:51Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ Explain the purpose of using an explosive device here.

{{comic
| number = 2125
| date = March 18, 2019
| title = Luna 2
| image = luna_2.png
| titletext = The flags were probably vaporized on impact, because we launched it before we had finished figuring out how to land. That makes sense from an engineering standpoint, but also feels like a metaphor.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a FLAGMENTATION GRENADE. Title text needs to be explained. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is referring to {{w|Luna 2}}, the first man-made object to make contact with the surface of the moon, and consequently, as stated in the comic, the first man-made object to touch another world. On September 13, 1959, it hit the Moon's surface east of {{w|Mare Imbrium}} near the craters Aristides, {{w|Archimedes}}, and {{w|Autolycus}}.

[[Megan]] is sitting in front of a computer, and telling [[Cueball]] about the Luna 2. She explains that the probe was designed to explode on impact, thus scattering multiple metal Soviet flags and ribbons on the surface of the Moon. They compare it to throwing a shrapnel grenade with flags in it at the moon.

In truth, the idea behind the two explosive spheres was rather clever. The spacecraft arrived at the moon at about 12,000 mph - and with uncontrolled orientation. But no matter which orientation that these spheres were in as they arrived at the moon, the commemorative plaques nearest to the direction of motion would be thrown even faster at the moon (and, presumably, be vaporized) - while the ones from the opposite side of the sphere would be slowed down by the force of the explosion and might possibly arrive at the surface intact.

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kansas_Cosmosphere_Luna_2_Pennant_2013.JPG

Cueball's observation that it is "on-brand" for humans to litter another world with an explosion of nationalist iconography immediately upon reaching it, is a reference to the vastly numerous historical instances when, upon setting foot on territory for the first time, humans "conquer" it, by planting flags on the first thing they see. Alternately, it may be "on-brand" for humanity's first interaction with a new object to be striking it with a weapon.

The title text might refer to the fact that for the Luna 2 mission it was more important to just get to the moon at all rather than have a sophisticated landing mechanism. This was due to the fact that it happened during the space race between the USA and USSR and both countries tried to reach significant milestones in space exploration. The metaphorical interpretation could be that sometimes people get overly excited after an initial breakthrough and dive into projects without thinking them through or considering long term consequences. This often goes along with the confidence to be able to "wing it" making up a solution on the spot when a problem comes up.

Note that Randall makes a subtle yet strong declaration that he is an engineer, a human, and an Earthling first, and American second, by saying "we" in the title text, regarding this effort to reach the Moon. Is there an existing cross-reference to the various ways that he similarly identifies himself?

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing behind while Megan sits at a laptop.]
:Megan: Huh. ''Luna 2'', the first artificial object to touch another world, carried a sphere made of steel Soviet flag emblems.

:[A patterned sphere is shown blowing up to pieces.]
:It was designed to blow apart on impact, scattering tiny metal flags and ribbons across the surface of the moon.

:[Close-up of Cueball and Megan's faces.]
:Cueball: So the first physical contact humans had with a heavenly body...
:Megan: ...was throwing a shrapnel grenade full of flags at it.
:Cueball: Well, it's on-brand for us, at least.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Space probes]]

Talk:2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-02-28T20:46:04Z

SteveBaker: Numerical methods.

Darn, I have no idea what this comic is about. Randal has eluded my yet again. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Calculus. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.143|162.158.79.143]] 18:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Basically, integration is easy to do by hand, but integration, even of things that look simple on paper, can be very difficult, as well as easy to mess up or get lost in.
And Calc 2 is why I stopped being a Computer Science major and moved (eventually) to majoring in English. Consistent 4.0s in math through Trig and Calc I ... 1.6 in Calc II, retook and got a 1.8. Without the Calc, couldn't do the physics; without the physics, couldn't get my 2-yr degree and move on from community college to a full university. I don't know what all the integration stuff in the flowchart is (since I didn't do well in Calc and it was a long time ago), but there's so very many things that become [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonelementary_integral nonelementary integrals] that all sorts of special tricks have to be employed for things that look like they should be easy. It's like having a problem that's very easy to do division on, but requires special advanced mathematical tricks to use multiplication upon.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 19:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Basic ideas:
Integration by parts is the reverse of the Product Rule.
Substitution is the reverse of the Chain Rule.
Cauchy's Formula gives the result of a contour integration in the complex plane, using "singularities" of the integrand.
Partial fractions is just splitting up one complex fraction into a sum of simple fractions, which is relevant because they are easier to integrate.
Stokes theorem is the relationship between an integral over an area, and an integral over the boundary of said area.
Riemann integration was the first rigorous definition of integration. This has been superseded by Lesbesgue integration.
Bessel functions are like 2d versions of sin and cos, and turn up sometimes when doing integration.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61|162.158.89.61]] 20:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:"Lesbesgue integration." Best. Freudian. Slip. Ever. SCNR :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 08:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I know what you mean ;). After all, Gen 8 Pokemon was announced the other day, so you read it as "Pokemon League Integration". Completely understandable. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.28|172.68.78.28]] 14:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wolfram Alpha be somewhere in that flowchart? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.142|162.158.255.142]] 20:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who is too dumb to integrate [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Symbolic differentiation is just going through algorithm ; there are few functions which don't have it but they tend to be constructed in complicated way, and if function have differentiation it's usually easy to find it. Symbolic integration requires lot of thinking and trial and error ; even very easy function may lack primitive function and even if they don't, you may be unable to find it except randomly. If it's exercise in book, the ones for differentiation are done by thinking about some interesting function and putting it there. The ones for integration are done by thinking about some interesting function and putting it's differentiation there. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Oddly enough it mentions Riemann integration, but that is the integral most people know how to use. Turns out there are a lot more (e.g. lebesgue and generalized riemann integrals). I'm halfway through a second semester of real analysis and was floored by how involved integration can be. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.106|172.68.34.106]] 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One of my professors once said: "Never try to integrate a function. Almost all (in a strict mathematical sense) functions are impossible to integrate, so there is no reason why you should even try." --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.128|162.158.88.128]] 07:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How is there no "+ C" joke in there [[User:Blagae|Blagae]] ([[User talk:Blagae|talk]]) 13:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

== Risch algorithm ==

I thought I could contribute to the article with a better explanation of the Risch algorithm, since I have a bit of expertise here -- I've read all the original papers, plus the Cherry papers that add the extra features like Li and erf. I pulled out some of the old papers to review my knowledge of symbolic differential algebra (it's been a while!) then typed up a careful explanation which corrected some errors in the original description and fleshed out many more details... possibly excessively, but hey, that's kind of our calling here.

Then I saw that Glassvein completely removed my version for what appears to be the original without so much as a mention in the edit description. What gives? I

[[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
: Probably due to simultaneous editing. I've restored your definition. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.128|162.158.88.128]] 16:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

== Numerical Integration ==
Better still...plot the graph - cut along the line - weigh the part under the line. :-) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

2088: Schwarzschild's Cat

2018-12-21T16:31:07Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2088
| date = December 21, 2018
| title = Schwarzschild's Cat
| image = schwarzschilds_cat.png
| titletext = Cats can be smaller than the critical limit, but they're unobservable. If one shrinks enough that it crosses the limit, it just appears to get cuter and cuter as it slowly fades from view.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SMALL CAT WITH NO CONCEPT OF FIELD EQUATIONS. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a joke on the {{w|Schwarzschild radius}}, or the radius surrounding a black hole corresponding to the {{w|event horizon}}. The event horizon, in turn, is the limit from which nothing can leave a black hole. The joke is that, apparently, smaller cats are cuter, and therefore the limit is a point corresponding to this: the smallest possible cat with infinite cuteness.

The title text references micro black holes, which are decaying by Hawking radiation, which is why the cat slowly fades from view.

This also a reference to the "Schroedinger’s cat" thought-experiment. Since the name "Schroedinger" is easily confused with "Schwarzschild" and both men were interested in quantum physics.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A graph is shown. The x-axis is labeled "Cat size" and the y-axis, "Cat cuteness". Graphed is a function coming down from infinity then beginning to level off and not reaching zero on-screen. At the top end of the function is the text "Schwarzschild's Cat" and an arrow to indicate it. In line with the top end of the function is a vertical dashed line. Under the function is the text "Critical limit" and arrows indicating the space between the y-axis and dashed line.]
{{comic discussion}}

2088: Schwarzschild's Cat

2018-12-21T16:28:56Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ Amplify a bit

{{comic
| number = 2088
| date = December 21, 2018
| title = Schwarzschild's Cat
| image = schwarzschilds_cat.png
| titletext = Cats can be smaller than the critical limit, but they're unobservable. If one shrinks enough that it crosses the limit, it just appears to get cuter and cuter as it slowly fades from view.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SMALL CAT WITH NO CONCEPT OF FIELD EQUATIONS. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a joke on the {{w|Schwarzschild radius}}, or the radius surrounding a black hole corresponding to the {{w|event horizon}}. The event horizon, in turn, is the limit from which nothing can leave a black hole. The joke is that, apparently, smaller cats are cuter, and therefore the limit is a point corresponding to this: the smallest possible cat with infinite cuteness.

The title text references micro black holes, which are decaying by Hawking radiation, which is why the cat slowly fades from view.

This also a reference to Schroedinger’s cat since Schroedinger is easily confused with Schwarzschild. Their names sound similar and both men were interested in quantum physics. Schroedinger came up with a famous 'thought experiment' involving a cat.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A graph is shown. The x-axis is labeled "Cat size" and the y-axis, "Cat cuteness". Graphed is a function coming down from infinity then beginning to level off and not reaching zero on-screen. At the top end of the function is the text "Schwarzschild's Cat" and an arrow to indicate it. In line with the top end of the function is a vertical dashed line. Under the function is the text "Critical limit" and arrows indicating the space between the y-axis and dashed line.]
{{comic discussion}}

2088: Schwarzschild's Cat

2018-12-21T16:27:16Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ Amplify a bit

{{comic
| number = 2088
| date = December 21, 2018
| title = Schwarzschild's Cat
| image = schwarzschilds_cat.png
| titletext = Cats can be smaller than the critical limit, but they're unobservable. If one shrinks enough that it crosses the limit, it just appears to get cuter and cuter as it slowly fades from view.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SMALL CAT WITH NO CONCEPT OF FIELD EQUATIONS. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a joke on the {{w|Schwarzschild radius}}, or the radius surrounding a black hole corresponding to the {{w|event horizon}}. The event horizon, in turn, is the limit from which nothing can leave a black hole. The joke is that, apparently, smaller cats are cuter, and therefore the limit is a point corresponding to this: the smallest possible cat with infinite cuteness.

The title text references micro black holes, which are decaying by Hawking radiation, which is why the cat slowly fades from view.

This also a reference to Schroedinger’s cat since Schroedinger sounds like Schwarzschild - both men were interested in quantum physics and Schroedinger came up with a famous 'thought experiment' involving a cat.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A graph is shown. The x-axis is labeled "Cat size" and the y-axis, "Cat cuteness". Graphed is a function coming down from infinity then beginning to level off and not reaching zero on-screen. At the top end of the function is the text "Schwarzschild's Cat" and an arrow to indicate it. In line with the top end of the function is a vertical dashed line. Under the function is the text "Critical limit" and arrows indicating the space between the y-axis and dashed line.]
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2084: FDR

2018-12-12T20:48:02Z

SteveBaker: Solstice

I didn't know about the Guy Fawkes date. I thought the title text might have been referring to the song {{w|Try to Remember}}, but it refers to September and December, but not November.
[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:You clearly aren't from the UK, still a pretty big thing here. Known as Bonfire Night or Fireworks Night and is a part of everyone's primary (elementary?) education
:[[User:Zbrown|Zbrown]] ([[User talk:Zbrown|talk]]) 16:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
::I'm not from UK and I know about that from english lessons in primary school, but I didn't know about the Pearl Harbor date. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.220|188.114.102.220]] 16:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:::Then you're probably not from the US [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.174|172.68.143.174]] 17:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The Crete earthquake raise the island by 3 to 9 meters. You go out on a beach in Crete, it is obvious, especially if there are ruins of an ancient city nearby where the docks are well inland [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.174|172.68.143.174]] 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Incidental, this month I made the weird mistake of writing a date as "2016" ... I really have no idea why that happened, or that I didn't catch it to correct it in time. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.135|162.158.74.135]] 17:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Sam

FYI, the hovertext appears to be wrong. The Med quake was July 21, AD365 -- not June 21. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 20:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Andrew K[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 20:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
: I think he's deliberately mixing it up with June 21st which is the date of the Summer solstice. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

2084: FDR

2018-12-12T20:47:09Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ sp

{{comic
| number = 2084
| date = December 12, 2018
| title = FDR
| image = fdr.png
| titletext = June 21st, 365, the date of the big Mediterranean earthquake and tsunami, lived in infamy for a few centuries before fading. Maybe the trick is a catchy rhyme; the '5th of November' thing is still going strong over 400 years later.
}}

==Explanation==

The United States Naval base at Pearl Harbor was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor attacked in 1941], and is credited with starting the United States' involvement in World War II. The then US president, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt] (FDR), issued a speech to the American people which begins with the line "December 7th, 1941. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamy_Speech A date which will live in infamy...]". Whenever Randall writes "December" he feels compelled to complete the line, a mistake which is visible in this comic.

This may be a parody of a more common type of error in which people writing dates during January (particularly early in the month) accidentally write the previous year instead of the current one because the previous year number is an established pattern while the new one is a recent change.

The title text further confuses the date of the northern hemisphere summer solstice (June 21st) with the date of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/365_Crete_earthquake 365 Crete earthquake] that happened on July 21st 365AD. The earthquake had a magnitude of at least 8.0 which caused widespread destruction across the Eastern Mediterranean. Then it further confuses [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night Guy Fawkes Night], the anniversary of the famous failed attempt to bomb Parliament on the night of November 5th, 1605. The latter event is immortalized in the rhyme "remember remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder, treason, and plot", the former event less so.

==Transcript==
:[Close-up of a form]
:[Name:] Randall Munroe
:Date: Dec <s>7, 19–</s> 12, 2018
:Country: United States

:[Caption below the frame:]
:FDR was so good at speeches that I spend a whole month each year writing the date wrong.

{{comic discussion}}

2084: FDR

2018-12-12T20:46:24Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ Summer solstice

{{comic
| number = 2084
| date = December 12, 2018
| title = FDR
| image = fdr.png
| titletext = June 21st, 365, the date of the big Mediterranean earthquake and tsunami, lived in infamy for a few centuries before fading. Maybe the trick is a catchy rhyme; the '5th of November' thing is still going strong over 400 years later.
}}

==Explanation==

The United States Naval base at Pearl Harbor was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor attacked in 1941], and is credited with starting the United States' involvement in World War II. The then US president, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt] (FDR), issued a speech to the American people which begins with the line "December 7th, 1941. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamy_Speech A date which will live in infamy...]". Whenever Randall writes "December" he feels compelled to complete the line, a mistake which is visible in this comic.

This may be a parody of a more common type of error in which people writing dates during January (particularly early in the month) accidentally write the previous year instead of the current one because the previous year number is an established pattern while the new one is a recent change.

The title text further confuses the data of the northern hemisphere summer solstice (June 21st) with the date of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/365_Crete_earthquake 365 Crete earthquake] that happened on July 21st 365AD. The earthquake had a magnitude of at least 8.0 which caused widespread destruction across the Eastern Mediterranean. Then it further confuses [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night Guy Fawkes Night], the anniversary of the famous failed attempt to bomb Parliament on the night of November 5th, 1605. The latter event is immortalized in the rhyme "remember remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder, treason, and plot", the former event less so.

==Transcript==
:[Close-up of a form]
:[Name:] Randall Munroe
:Date: Dec <s>7, 19–</s> 12, 2018
:Country: United States

:[Caption below the frame:]
:FDR was so good at speeches that I spend a whole month each year writing the date wrong.

{{comic discussion}}

313: Insomnia

2018-12-10T22:15:07Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ SLEEP

{{comic
| number = 313
| date = September 7, 2007
| title = Insomnia
| image = insomnia.png
| titletext = Crap, I have levitation class at 25:131. Better set the alarm to 'cinnamon'.
}}

==Explanation==
Simply put, the narrator's insomnia, combined with small bright lights in an otherwise pitch-black room, is causing him to hallucinate. Furthermore, the narrator is well aware that he will be unable to distinguish the hallucinations from reality. This finally occurs when his clock reads 13:72, which would not be possible on any clock.

A clock can never read "72 minutes," as there are only 60 minutes in an hour. While a clock can read "13 hours" on a {{w|24-hour clock}} (which is common on most {{w|digital clock}}s in Europe, but not in the US), the thirteenth hour obviously does not occur immediately after the fourth hour.

If the clock was upside down - it would read SLE1...which could be the as much of the word "SLEEP" as would fit on a clock display given that the first digit on most digital clocks can only display a blank, a '1' or (possibly) a '2'.

The title text shows that the narrator has indeed "succumbed" to his visions, and is assigning gibberish values — an alarm clock with a "cinnamon" setting, the time of day "25 hours and 131 minutes," and "levitation class" — to an otherwise normal monologue.

==Transcript==
:[It is black, except a few blue and green lights, and red numbers from a clock.]
:[The clock shows 4:31]
:Lying awake at night I realize how many little lights there are in my room. The alarm clock is the brightest. Can't sleep I'm alone with those glowing red numbers
:[The clock now shows 4:32]
:Time slows
:Does time even exist here?
:Thoughts churning in on themselves
:[The clock now shows 4:33]
:The madness can't be far away
:Ah yes
:[The clock now shows 13:72]
:There it is.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]

1038: Fountain

2018-12-07T17:39:26Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ How bad is the landing?

{{comic
| number = 1038
| date = April 4, 2012
| title = Fountain
| image = fountain.png
| titletext = Implausible, did you say? Sorry, couldn't quite hear you from all the way up heeeeeeeeere!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is about how it's considered implausible to "fly" by positioning an umbrella over a water jet.

From the first panel (and assuming that [[Cueball]] is of average height) - it looks like the center fountain is about 10m high. By comparison with the size of his head in the second panel, the jet appears to be about 10cm in diameter. The velocity of the water exiting the nozzle has to be about 14 meters/second in order to reach 10m against gravity. If we approximate the nozzle as being a 10cm x 10cm square - that translates to 140 liters/second - or 140kg/s of water. That produces an upward force of almost 2,000 newtons! If we presume that [[Cueball]] weighs 100kg (~1,000N)- he should be experiencing a net upward force of about 1,000N. Which means that he'll accelerate at about 1g! Holding onto the umbrella against a force of 1g is no different than hanging by your hands from a horizontal bar - you'd need two hands - but any reasonably healthy person could manage it for a while at least.

Conclusion is that IF the umbrella is strong enough - this trick will actually work!

However, if you imagine a typical 6-spoke umbrella - then 1000N is 166N of upward force per spoke. It's hard to believe you could hang a 1.6kg weight off of each spoke of an umbrella without it bending.

The title text emphasizes that [[Cueball]] did indeed reach a high altitude - so we must conclude that his umbrella is some specially made high-strength device.

Since the fountain tops out at about 10m - and presumably it would be somewhat reduced with Cueball's weight on it - his feet might only be about 6 to 8 meters above the ground when he stops moving upwards. A fall from that height is survivable - especially if the drag of the umbrella slows him down somewhat.

==Transcript==
:[A full color image of a fountain with three massive water jets. A Cueball seen from afar walks up to these while holding an umbrella.]
:[Cueball splashes through the pond which makes sounds:]
:Splish
:Splash
:[Cueball gets to one of the jets.]
:[Cueball opens up the umbrella with a:]
:Click
:[Cueball opens the umbrella and swings it into water jet stream (which is outside the image). The umbrella makes a sound when opened:]
:Fwoop
:[Cueball is pulled up by the water jet stream (which is outside the image). Only his feet and the water dripping of them into the pond can be seen. The sound he makes follows him up with longer and longer distance between the letters (written in lower-case).]
:Cueball: Wheeeeeeee!

{{Comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1038: Fountain

2018-12-07T17:35:11Z

SteveBaker: /* Explanation */ Let's science the heck out of this one!

{{comic
| number = 1038
| date = April 4, 2012
| title = Fountain
| image = fountain.png
| titletext = Implausible, did you say? Sorry, couldn't quite hear you from all the way up heeeeeeeeere!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is about how it's considered implausible to "fly" by positioning an umbrella over a water jet.

From the first panel (and assuming that [[Cueball]] is of average height) - it looks like the center fountain is about 10m high. By comparison with the size of his head in the second panel, the jet appears to be about 10cm in diameter. The velocity of the water exiting the nozzle has to be about 14 meters/second in order to reach 10m against gravity. If we approximate the nozzle as being a 10cm x 10cm square - that translates to 140 liters/second - or 140kg/s of water. That produces an upward force of almost 2,000 newtons! If we presume that [[Cueball]] weighs 100kg (~1,000N)- he should be experiencing a net upward force of about 1,000N. Which means that he'll accelerate at about 1g! Holding onto the umbrella against a force of 1g is no different than hanging by your hands from a horizontal bar - you'd need two hands - but any reasonably healthy person could manage it for a while at least.

Conclusion is that IF the umbrella is strong enough - this trick will actually work!

However, if you imagine a typical 6-spoke umbrella - then 1000N is 166N of upward force per spoke. It's hard to believe you could hang a 1.6kg weight off of each spoke of an umbrella without it bending.

The title text emphasizes that [[Cueball]] did indeed reach a high altitude - so we must conclude that his umbrella is some specially made high-strength device.

The only mystery here is: A safe landing. On the other hand, if the umbrella is strong enough to haul him into the air, then maybe it can be used as a parachute as well...

==Transcript==
:[A full color image of a fountain with three massive water jets. A Cueball seen from afar walks up to these while holding an umbrella.]
:[Cueball splashes through the pond which makes sounds:]
:Splish
:Splash
:[Cueball gets to one of the jets.]
:[Cueball opens up the umbrella with a:]
:Click
:[Cueball opens the umbrella and swings it into water jet stream (which is outside the image). The umbrella makes a sound when opened:]
:Fwoop
:[Cueball is pulled up by the water jet stream (which is outside the image). Only his feet and the water dripping of them into the pond can be seen. The sound he makes follows him up with longer and longer distance between the letters (written in lower-case).]
:Cueball: Wheeeeeeee!

{{Comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]