explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2630: Shuttle Skeleton

2022-06-10T03:50:31Z

Tanana:

Well, I know what "paint job" I'm putting on the pirate shuttle, in my next TTRPG session. <br/>
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

TaxOnomy.

The joke here is about a recent California court case (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/us/california-bees-fish-court-ruling-scn-trnd/index.html) which declared bumblebees to be considered fish under the California Endangered Species Act. The definition of "fish" listed in the act included invertebrates, which is why skeletons are relevant. [[User:Clam|Clam]] ([[User talk:Clam|talk]]) 14:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:I don't know if this comic is related to the bee/fish ruling or not. There have been many earlier works where the skeleton of a fictional person or creature has been shown (the Simpsons, Lego man, etc). [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this is a mammal skeleton and not say, something related to a crocodile or a bird? Currently there's only a hint what makes it look like one. Which doesn't say that much to someone who doesn't know mammal skeletons too well. TIA! [[User:Chichak|Chichak]] ([[User talk:Chichak|talk]]) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:That's a good question, since there are lots of skeletal analogues among all the vertebrates. Crocodiles and birds only have 4 toes on their rear legs, so that could be part of it. It may just be an overall resemblance to whales, which we already know are mammals. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
::Well it definitely wouldn't be fish. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
::I'm actually confused about this. Mammals do not have ribs going all the way to the hips. Those look more like reptile ribs. 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:::The head of this shuttle looks a lot more like a whale's head, specifically a toothed whale like a sperm whale. The arms are closer to the paddle-like structure of whale arms, but much longer, to be able to form the wings and control surfaces at the back. Having the ribs continue all the way to the pelvis, like a snake, would be an adaptation to give structure to the cargo doors, but that would likely impede their ability to open. Also, I do not know of any mammal that have ribs above the shoulder blades. The clavicles should be there [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::::Those are extended transverse processes of the cervical ribs, or at least that's how I interpreted them. Note that the transverse processes are evolutionary descendants of what were ribs in an ancestor. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
These "citation needed" tags are getting ridiculous, but I do wonder about whether any space craft had plastic parts. Metal, yes. Carbon fiber, yes. Plastic? I doubt it. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:They SHOULD be ridiculous, so good job. Regarding the question, I guess space craft may have plastic cup holder for example. The plastic parts are unlikely to be on outside, but inside, why not? In Apollo 13, they were using plastic bags for something at least. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:: I was just thinking about the skeleton, you're right. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 22:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This comic was unexpectedly terrifying. Not sure what I expected, but it wasn't this.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.62|108.162.246.62]] 20:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I was just reading D'Arcy Thompson's "On Growth and Form". (John Tyler Bonner's 1969 abridgement of the 1942 edition.) At the end of the book, Thompson draws skulls on a grid, such as an early ancestor of the horse, Hyracotherium, and then distorts the grid in a uniform way to produce a new sketch that resembles a related species. He then used the same technique to demonstrate that other species were not "missing links" between those two species, because he could not distort the grid to make them fit. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 02:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:I'd be very wary of someone using a form of personal incredulity to demonstrate something (c.f. the "junkyard+tornado->jumbo jet" 'counter-'argument). I'm not aware of the book, but it sounds like it's anti-evolution, by your telling of it, and picking a case where you can 'find' a simple distortion that works across two examples doesn't then invalidate the intermediate stages for which there's no reason to believe a consistent evolutionary pressure would create similarly smooth transitions at all stages you get to observe. It's observing the end-points of a random-walk and then being surprised at where the walker has managed to visit along the way. The term "missing link" is also outdated (those who use it these days tend to then require additional missing links be found betwixt any now-found 'links' and their neighbours, rather than ever be usefully satisfied) but I suppose might have still been a bit more mainstream back in 1942.
:So sounds like a fun book to read (I like a good cryptozoology/gods-were-aliens book, too!) but I'd be wary about it not having aged well (as I would with bits of the Origin Of Species, though it has held up surpisingly well), and I hope you're also reading it in a suitable frame of mind and not taking it (or passing it on) at face-value. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 09:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the book (On Growth and Form) is certainly dated in places (first edition was in 1917). But I wouldn't characterize his arguments as being completely anti-evolutionary. It's just that he notices many instances where the physical forces on organisms seem to be directing the form of the organisms. He doesn't explain the exact mechanism of change. (At least in the abridged edition.) He's pretty searchable with Google Images. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 20:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:Maybe search when I can spare time. Sounds a bit Lamarckian, too... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 23:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
By way of explanation, I think I thought of D'Arcy Thompson because of his strong emphasis on how physics and mechanics (could) contribute to biological forms. Mr. Munroe seems to be playing with some of the same ideas. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 03:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well that's horrifying. [[User:TheLonelySandPerson|TheLonelySandPerson]] ([[User talk:TheLonelySandPerson|talk]]) 01:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, the Apollo Lunar Module was a completely different design early on, but slowly evolved into its familiar crab-like shape through convergent evolution. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.59|172.71.26.59]] 03:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:Carcinization strikes again.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.73|172.71.94.73]] 07:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What’s up with the “type of fish or shark”? Sharks are a type of fish, the “or shark” doesn’t make sense?
:Presumably Randall was thinking "bony fish". Maybe that was too technical to be funny. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:((Edit conflict, and I'm really just expanding upon Nit's summary, but having written it now, here you are...)) It's messy, but often sharks are (paraphyletically) kept out of the "fish" category. Similarly to how mammals, amphibians, etc of the ''tetrapoda'' are actually descended from the "fish" superclass (under its classical branch name, of course). Thus to separate from the bony-fish (and possibly other subtrees, across which the common term "fish" might alply), sharks may be deemed not-fish for classification purposes and it is often good practice to do so.
:Common names confuse matters: a dogfish (shark) is very far related from a starfish, at least as much as a seahorse is more fish (very so, in fact!) than equine. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 12:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:: If bees can be classified as fish, then so can sharks! But wouldn't be easier to just expand the definition of endangered species to include invertebrates, rather than lumping things clearly where they do not belong? But, hey, what do I know? I am just a scientist, not a lawyer. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Just for clarification, a California court has not ruled that bees are a type of fish. They ruled that when a law specifically states "for the purposes of this law, X includes Y," it means that for the purposes of that law X includes Y. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.151|172.71.26.151]] 16:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:It's very like the old "Beavers are fish, for the purpose of eating at Lent/etc" from the Catholic church. Except that I presume they ''aren't'' effectively encouraging the eating of bees/fish, in lieu of anything else... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.43|162.158.159.43]] 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::Yep, Catholics can now eat beaver, capybara, or bees on Friday. But not Space Shuttles.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.21|172.71.22.21]] 20:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I've replaced the CNN video with an NBC archive video because the CNN video is georestricted to US only (You can check restrictions using https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi, checking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfnvFnzs91s returns a nearly-red map except for the US). - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.61|172.68.253.61]] 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2630: Shuttle Skeleton

2022-06-09T20:36:10Z

Tanana:

Well, I know what "paint job" I'm putting on the pirate shuttle, in my next TTRPG session. <br/>
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

TaxOnomy.

The joke here is about a recent California court case (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/us/california-bees-fish-court-ruling-scn-trnd/index.html) which declared bumblebees to be considered fish under the California Endangered Species Act. The definition of "fish" listed in the act included invertebrates, which is why skeletons are relevant. [[User:Clam|Clam]] ([[User talk:Clam|talk]]) 14:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:I don't know if this comic is related to the bee/fish ruling or not. There have been many earlier works where the skeleton of a fictional person or creature has been shown (the Simpsons, Lego man, etc). [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this is a mammal skeleton and not say, something related to a crocodile or a bird? Currently there's only a hint what makes it look like one. Which doesn't say that much to someone who doesn't know mammal skeletons too well. TIA! [[User:Chichak|Chichak]] ([[User talk:Chichak|talk]]) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:That's a good question, since there are lots of skeletal analogues among all the vertebrates. Crocodiles and birds only have 4 toes on their rear legs, so that could be part of it. It may just be an overall resemblance to whales, which we already know are mammals. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
::Well it definitely wouldn't be fish. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
::I'm actually confused about this. Mammals do not have ribs going all the way to the hips. Those look more like reptile ribs. 23:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:::The head of this shuttle looks a lot more like a whale's head, specifically a toothed whale like a sperm whale. The arms are closer to the paddle-like structure of whale arms, but much longer, to be able to form the wings and control surfaces at the back. Having the ribs continue all the way to the pelvis, like a snake, would be an adaptation to give structure to the cargo doors, but that would likely impede their ability to open. Also, I do not know of any mammal that have ribs above the shoulder blades. The clavicles should be there [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::::Those are extended transverse processes of the cervical ribs, or at least that's how I interpreted them. Note that the transverse processes are evolutionary descendants of what were ribs in an ancestor. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
These "citation needed" tags are getting ridiculous, but I do wonder about whether any space craft had plastic parts. Metal, yes. Carbon fiber, yes. Plastic? I doubt it. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:They SHOULD be ridiculous, so good job. Regarding the question, I guess space craft may have plastic cup holder for example. The plastic parts are unlikely to be on outside, but inside, why not? In Apollo 13, they were using plastic bags for something at least. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:: I was just thinking about the skeleton, you're right. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 22:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This comic was unexpectedly terrifying. Not sure what I expected, but it wasn't this.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.62|108.162.246.62]] 20:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I was just reading D'Arcy Thompson's "On Growth and Form". (John Tyler Bonner's 1969 abridgement of the 1942 edition.) At the end of the book, Thompson draws skulls on a grid, such as an early ancestor of the horse, Hyracotherium, and then distorts the grid in a uniform way to produce a new sketch that resembles a related species. He then used the same technique to demonstrate that other species were not "missing links" between those two species, because he could not distort the grid to make them fit. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 02:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:I'd be very wary of someone using a form of personal incredulity to demonstrate something (c.f. the "junkyard+tornado->jumbo jet" 'counter-'argument). I'm not aware of the book, but it sounds like it's anti-evolution, by your telling of it, and picking a case where you can 'find' a simple distortion that works across two examples doesn't then invalidate the intermediate stages for which there's no reason to believe a consistent evolutionary pressure would create similarly smooth transitions at all stages you get to observe. It's observing the end-points of a random-walk and then being surprised at where the walker has managed to visit along the way. The term "missing link" is also outdated (those who use it these days tend to then require additional missing links be found betwixt any now-found 'links' and their neighbours, rather than ever be usefully satisfied) but I suppose might have still been a bit more mainstream back in 1942.
:So sounds like a fun book to read (I like a good cryptozoology/gods-were-aliens book, too!) but I'd be wary about it not having aged well (as I would with bits of the Origin Of Species, though it has held up surpisingly well), and I hope you're also reading it in a suitable frame of mind and not taking it (or passing it on) at face-value. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 09:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the book (On Growth and Form) is certainly dated in places (first edition was in 1917). But I wouldn't characterize his arguments as being completely anti-evolutionary. It's just that he notices many instances where the physical forces on organisms seem to be directing the form of the organisms. He doesn't explain the exact mechanism of change. (At least in the abridged edition.) He's pretty searchable with Google Images. [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 20:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well that's horrifying. [[User:TheLonelySandPerson|TheLonelySandPerson]] ([[User talk:TheLonelySandPerson|talk]]) 01:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, the Apollo Lunar Module was a completely different design early on, but slowly evolved into its familiar crab-like shape through convergent evolution. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.59|172.71.26.59]] 03:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:Carcinization strikes again.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.73|172.71.94.73]] 07:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What’s up with the “type of fish or shark”? Sharks are a type of fish, the “or shark” doesn’t make sense?
:Presumably Randall was thinking "bony fish". Maybe that was too technical to be funny. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:((Edit conflict, and I'm really just expanding upon Nit's summary, but having written it now, here you are...)) It's messy, but often sharks are (paraphyletically) kept out of the "fish" category. Similarly to how mammals, amphibians, etc of the ''tetrapoda'' are actually descended from the "fish" superclass (under its classical branch name, of course). Thus to separate from the bony-fish (and possibly other subtrees, across which the common term "fish" might alply), sharks may be deemed not-fish for classification purposes and it is often good practice to do so.
:Common names confuse matters: a dogfish (shark) is very far related from a starfish, at least as much as a seahorse is more fish (very so, in fact!) than equine. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 12:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:: If bees can be classified as fish, then so can sharks! But wouldn't be easier to just expand the definition of endangered species to include invertebrates, rather than lumping things clearly where they do not belong? But, hey, what do I know? I am just a scientist, not a lawyer. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Just for clarification, a California court has not ruled that bees are a type of fish. They ruled that when a law specifically states "for the purposes of this law, X includes Y," it means that for the purposes of that law X includes Y. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.151|172.71.26.151]] 16:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:It's very like the old "Beavers are fish, for the purpose of eating at Lent/etc" from the Catholic church. Except that I presume they ''aren't'' effectively encouraging the eating of bees/fish, in lieu of anything else... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.43|162.158.159.43]] 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::Yep, Catholics can now eat beaver, capybara, or bees on Friday. But not Space Shuttles.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.21|172.71.22.21]] 20:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I've replaced the CNN video with an NBC archive video because the CNN video is georestricted to US only (You can check restrictions using https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi, checking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfnvFnzs91s returns a nearly-red map except for the US). - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.61|172.68.253.61]] 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2630: Shuttle Skeleton

2022-06-09T02:49:02Z

Tanana:

Talk:2630: Shuttle Skeleton

2022-06-09T02:41:30Z

Tanana:

Talk:2630: Shuttle Skeleton

2022-06-09T00:14:10Z

Tanana: Reminds me of D'Arcy Thompson's "On Growth and Form" -- tanana

Talk:2326: Five Word Jargon

2020-06-30T23:37:15Z

Tanana:

Approximate nonnegative matrix factorization algorithms

That's all. -[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.119|162.158.62.119]] 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

super cali fragilistic expiali docious
[[User:Bo Lindbergh|Bo Lindbergh]] ([[User talk:Bo Lindbergh|talk]]) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Over at [https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/ Language Log] they have fun documenting bewildering "noun piles". In the post '''[https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3341 noun pile blog post madness]''' for example
: '''data bound control table row action links'''
:: is a header in this page from Microsoft: '''[https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.web.dynamicdata.dynamichyperlink?view=netframework-4.8 DynamicHyperLink Class]'''
[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 23:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

All cyanobacteria are unicellular. That word is just an imposition. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 02:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
: Cyanobacteria come in various types, such as unicellular, filamentous or colonial. Or even part of a composite organism such as lichen. Plastids, which are intracellular endosymbiotic organelles are technically acellular cyanobacteria. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.8|162.158.165.8]] 04:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
::Plastids are still unicellular. Living as endosymbionts doesn't make them multicellular, it makes them endosymbionts. Colonial unicellular organisms are still unicellular. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.188|108.162.219.188]]

Cueball could be Randall copying down the phrase into his collection. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.131|173.245.54.131]] 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I was expecting these would in fact all mean something incredibly simple. I'm a little disappointed :( [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.108|198.41.238.108]] 04:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My undergraduate research was on fluxional behavior in zwitterionic isoindoline complexes, so this struck close to home.[[User:Eärendil|Eärendil]] ([[User talk:Eärendil|talk]]) 04:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The phrase from the caption '''really satisfying-sounding five-word technical phrases''' also meets (almost) every criteria it states (except maybe 'technical') - having read many of Randall's comics, I can't imagine this to be a coincidence... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.54|172.68.50.54]] 07:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Before reading this explanation, I was convinced these were nonsensical phrases that Randall had made up![[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.168|162.158.155.168]] 08:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

anomalous electroweak sphaleron transition baryogenesis - roughly translates out of Jargon as Weird Forces Slippery change creation [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.228|162.158.155.228]] 11:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I really want to dive into the word relationships within these 'semantically multityped divaricatedly polyconstructed descriptors' and see how much or little they obey the 'rules' for {{w|Branching_(linguistics)|word order}} of component {{w|Adjective#Order|adjectives}}, etc. Maybe when I get a piece of paper and pencil and a bit of time to tease them apart. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.240|162.158.155.240]] 13:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Horrifically enough, Pachelbel's Canon uses five chords: I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V . (It's deeply hated by us musicians who have to play it at weddings and whatnot). Beethoven's 6th: AllegroMaNonTroppo; AndanteMoltoMosso; Allegro; Allegro; Allegretto. Mahler's Fifth: in short terminology, Pan&Bacchus; Flowers; Animals;Man,Angels; Love . [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 13:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe Cueball is looking up the phrase when he types A-N-O-M... I think he's just typing the phrase into the file where he collects the 5-word phrases, as it's listed as the last of his favorites in the bottom section of the panel. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a foundling dog diagnosed with "Juvenile Canine Psychogenic Polydipsia - Polyurea. He also had five different kinds of parasites. [[User:Pwydde|Pwydde]] ([[User talk:Pwydde|talk]]) 21:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that Epson loves five word names for its inkjet papers, such as "Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte" [[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 23:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1561: Water Phase Diagram

2015-08-10T22:49:57Z

Tanana:

What's up with that square under "water vapor"? Is it just a glitch, or is it some hidden message like in https://xkcd.com/1005/? [[User:Nick818|Nick818]] ([[User talk:Nick818|talk]])

I think it is a hidden message, it almost looks like a tiny graph. {{unsigned ip|108.162.242.27}}

It looks like a tiny version of the same graph, but flipped upright so that pressure increases as you go up. (Doing this in the main strip would ruin the "Under Pressure" joke. --[[User:Druid816|Druid816]] ([[User talk:Druid816|talk]]) 05:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's the phase diagram Randall used as a template, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram#Crystal_phase_diagrams Wikipedia] --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.232|108.162.229.232]] 05:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is "water + vapor + paper" with the letters being {unique, identical, second, first, identical}. No idea if that means anything. It's probably just a pencil drawing that Randall forgot to remove before publishing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.70|108.162.216.70]] 06:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:Seems to be the phase diagram from wikipedia. I put a contrast enhanced zoom [http://i.imgur.com/wJGVriV.png here] and it corresponds extremely well with the wikipedia version (including darker pixels where the blue is). -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.234|141.101.105.234]] 13:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::I think it might be a reference to the "Full text of the Wikipedia article on pareidolia" of the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1551 Pluto comic]. --[[User:Lokar|Lokar]] ([[User talk:Lokar|talk]]) 15:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Why no mention of the relation to the current whatif? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.91|141.101.91.91]] 07:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that the title text is definitely in reference to any line in the song, just because it includes the word "collaborate[d]" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.17|108.162.228.17]] 07:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely this comic would have been a perfect opportunity to mention {{w|Kurt Vonnegut}}'s fictional {{w|Ice-nine}}? Disappointed in you Randall! [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:I agree that Vonnegut's ice-nine is a wonderful topic, but since it exists (fictionally) at room temperature and pressure, it complicates this piece. --[[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 22:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I’m not happy with the title-text-explanation. In my eyes the joke is that Randall try to make us believe that Vanilla-icecream is ice IV – and they somehow managed in the 90s to let it exists at high temperatures (for us: normal room temp). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
: I have to disagree for one important reason: (Vanilla) Icecream was produced in high quantities since approx. the 1950's (or even earlier) and not just since the 90's, which is common sense, I think. Imho "Vanilla Ice was produced in small quantities for years" refers more to the fact, that many of Vanilla Ice's tracks consist of different samples of earlier produced songs (such as Under Pressure) or even complete covers (i.e. Play that funky Music). However, Randall might have missed another perfect opportunity for a different joke: Since "Vanilla" is used as expression for "normal" or "trivial" he could have placed it for Ice (I), the "normal" solid water. In that case the Under Pressure reference would have been a bit less obvious, though. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Purely as a tangent, ice cream was commonly available in the U.S. in the 1700's, and by the 1800's large silver flatware sets often included (along with other odd specialty pieces like asparagus tongs) sets of ice cream forks. Yes, ice cream was originally "properly" eaten with a fork. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 20:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought for sure the intersection of the three was called "Ice-T" [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.184|173.245.48.184]] 13:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any square, faded or otherwise, by label "water vapor". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.231|108.162.219.231]] 13:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's gone now... __rvx [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.86|173.245.50.86]] 00:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to very strongly disagree with the opinion expressed by [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.173|108.162.216.173]] in [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1561:_Water_Phase_Diagram&diff=99284&oldid=99281 this edit], namely that 'pressure scale incresing down isn't so jokes are at bottom, it facilitates being "Under" Pressure - the joke doesn't work any other way.' Being at the bottom along the pressure axis doesn't mean that region is "under" pressure. It's "under" Vanilla Ice. The joke works because it is ''under pressure'', a very high amount of pressure, not because it is geometrically below pressure in any sense (it really isn't). My original text, that pressure increases downwards so the jokes are at the bottom, makes far more sense to me (well, naturally). It's the "reveal". If the jokes were at the top, they'd be read before the average reader had even grasped what the comic was about. But anyway, that's just my opinion; does anyone else have any thoughts? -- [[User:Peregrine|Peregrine]] ([[User talk:Peregrine|talk]]) 15:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:I totally agree with you and have reverted to something similar to the original version. Maybe it could be worded better, but at least that makes sense. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, got lost, but I wanted to suggest it's missing Miles Davis at the very bottom. "Birth of The Cool", ya know. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.27|108.162.242.27]] 21:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1561: Water Phase Diagram

2015-08-10T22:33:52Z

Tanana: about Vonnegut's ice-nine

What's up with that square under "water vapor"? Is it just a glitch, or is it some hidden message like in https://xkcd.com/1005/? [[User:Nick818|Nick818]] ([[User talk:Nick818|talk]])

I think it is a hidden message, it almost looks like a tiny graph. {{unsigned ip|108.162.242.27}}

It looks like a tiny version of the same graph, but flipped upright so that pressure increases as you go up. (Doing this in the main strip would ruin the "Under Pressure" joke. --[[User:Druid816|Druid816]] ([[User talk:Druid816|talk]]) 05:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's the phase diagram Randall used as a template, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram#Crystal_phase_diagrams Wikipedia] --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.232|108.162.229.232]] 05:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is "water + vapor + paper" with the letters being {unique, identical, second, first, identical}. No idea if that means anything. It's probably just a pencil drawing that Randall forgot to remove before publishing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.70|108.162.216.70]] 06:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:Seems to be the phase diagram from wikipedia. I put a contrast enhanced zoom [http://i.imgur.com/wJGVriV.png here] and it corresponds extremely well with the wikipedia version (including darker pixels where the blue is). -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.234|141.101.105.234]] 13:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::I think it might be a reference to the "Full text of the Wikipedia article on pareidolia" of the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1551 Pluto comic]. --[[User:Lokar|Lokar]] ([[User talk:Lokar|talk]]) 15:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Why no mention of the relation to the current whatif? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.91|141.101.91.91]] 07:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that the title text is definitely in reference to any line in the song, just because it includes the word "collaborate[d]" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.17|108.162.228.17]] 07:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely this comic would have been a perfect opportunity to mention {{w|Kurt Vonnegut}}'s fictional {{w|Ice-nine}}? Disappointed in you Randall! [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:I agree that Vonnegut's ice-nine is a wonderful topic, but since it exists (fictionally) at room temperature, it complicates this piece. --[[User:Tanana|Tanana]] ([[User talk:Tanana|talk]]) 22:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I’m not happy with the title-text-explanation. In my eyes the joke is that Randall try to make us believe that Vanilla-icecream is ice IV – and they somehow managed in the 90s to let it exists at high temperatures (for us: normal room temp). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
: I have to disagree for one important reason: (Vanilla) Icecream was produced in high quantities since approx. the 1950's (or even earlier) and not just since the 90's, which is common sense, I think. Imho "Vanilla Ice was produced in small quantities for years" refers more to the fact, that many of Vanilla Ice's tracks consist of different samples of earlier produced songs (such as Under Pressure) or even complete covers (i.e. Play that funky Music). However, Randall might have missed another perfect opportunity for a different joke: Since "Vanilla" is used as expression for "normal" or "trivial" he could have placed it for Ice (I), the "normal" solid water. In that case the Under Pressure reference would have been a bit less obvious, though. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Purely as a tangent, ice cream was commonly available in the U.S. in the 1700's, and by the 1800's large silver flatware sets often included (along with other odd specialty pieces like asparagus tongs) sets of ice cream forks. Yes, ice cream was originally "properly" eaten with a fork. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 20:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought for sure the intersection of the three was called "Ice-T" [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.184|173.245.48.184]] 13:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any square, faded or otherwise, by label "water vapor". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.231|108.162.219.231]] 13:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's gone now... __rvx [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.86|173.245.50.86]] 00:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to very strongly disagree with the opinion expressed by [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.173|108.162.216.173]] in [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1561:_Water_Phase_Diagram&diff=99284&oldid=99281 this edit], namely that 'pressure scale incresing down isn't so jokes are at bottom, it facilitates being "Under" Pressure - the joke doesn't work any other way.' Being at the bottom along the pressure axis doesn't mean that region is "under" pressure. It's "under" Vanilla Ice. The joke works because it is ''under pressure'', a very high amount of pressure, not because it is geometrically below pressure in any sense (it really isn't). My original text, that pressure increases downwards so the jokes are at the bottom, makes far more sense to me (well, naturally). It's the "reveal". If the jokes were at the top, they'd be read before the average reader had even grasped what the comic was about. But anyway, that's just my opinion; does anyone else have any thoughts? -- [[User:Peregrine|Peregrine]] ([[User talk:Peregrine|talk]]) 15:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:I totally agree with you and have reverted to something similar to the original version. Maybe it could be worded better, but at least that makes sense. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, got lost, but I wanted to suggest it's missing Miles Davis at the very bottom. "Birth of The Cool", ya know. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.27|108.162.242.27]] 21:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)