explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1853: Once Per Day

2017-06-22T08:14:18Z

WamSam: /* Explanation */ added links

{{comic
| number = 1853
| date = June 21, 2017
| title = Once Per Day
| image = once_per_day.png
| titletext = I'm not totally locked into my routine—twice a year, I take a break to change the batteries in my smoke detectors.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Links for cup of tea, exercise and sleep missing.}}

Many news reports on health recommend the "best" way to perform the processes, such as eating, drinking, exercising, and sleeping, that are required to live. These reports tend to give such factors as a type of food to consume regularly, the amount of a nutrient to consume, or how long to exercise, in terms of what or how much to do daily. A simple example of this is the proverb, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." Perhaps this kind of advice is [[1592|overthinking]] things, but [[Cueball]] decides to follow it strictly as explained in the caption.

So when [[Megan]] asks Cueball what his plans are, he just list his routine consisting only of things that the news has told him exactly how often to do.

His list includes the following, which he has to do once per day:
*Eat an [//www.care2.com/greenliving/10-reasons-to-eat-an-apple-a-day.html apple]
*Eat an [//www.nhs.uk/news/2016/11November/Pages/Eating-one-egg-a-day-may-lower-risk-of-stroke.aspx egg]
*Take one [//www.webmd.com/men/features/aspirin-day-not aspirin]
*Eat a piece of [//www.everydayhealth.com/diet-and-nutrition-pictures/delicious-reasons-to-eat-dark-chocolate.aspx dark chocolate]
*Drink [//www.lifescript.com/diet-fitness/tips/y/your_weight-loss_solution_drink_6_glasses_of_water_a_day.aspx six glasses of water]
*Drink [//www.health.com/health/article/0,,20410287,00.html one glass of red wine]
*Drink [//www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/coffee-health-benefits_n_4102133.html a cup of coffee]
*Drink a [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/reasons-to-drink-tea_n_6276862.html cup of tea]
*Get [http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20120824/30-minutes-daily-exercise-shed-pounds 30 minutes of exercise]
*Get [http://archive.jsonline.com/news/health/studies-say-7-8-hours-of-sleep-is-needed-for-best-health-b9936714z1-212691521.html/ 8 hours of sleep]

Of course, if Cueball ''only'' does these things, then he can't/doesn't attend to other important matters, such as going to work, which most likely allows him to buy the recommended materials in the first place. And the routine is subject to change as soon as he hears another such daily recommendation on the news.

In the title text Cueball explains that his daily routine is not completely fixed. It is broken twice a year, since he also follows public information campaigns suggesting the replacement {{w|Smoke_detector#Batteries|smoke detector batteries}} twice a year. While the US {{w|National Fire Protection Association}} recommends a replacement at least once per year others suggest every time when the clock changes according to {{w|daylight saving time}}, i.e. twice a year. (All such recommendations will likely become irrelevant as citizens of the United States, starting in California, are encouraged to replace their existing smoke detectors with new models containing irremovable ten-year batteries.) This is just another example for official overdone recommendations nobody follows, in this case since smoke detectors make annoying beeps when their batteries run low and thus rarely need routine replacements before then. Fire alarms was the subject of [[1794: Fire]] not so long before this comic.

Drinking six glasses of water per day has been the subject recently in [[1708: Dehydration]], and earlier it was more common to say eight glasses per day (which was also mentioned in Dehydration), and that was part of the searches in the much earlier [[715: Numbers]].

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball are standing facing each other talking.]
:Megan: Got any plans for the day?
:Cueball: I'm going to eat an apple, an egg, one baby aspirin, and a piece of dark chocolate, drink six glasses of water, one glass of red wine, a cup of coffee, and a cup of tea, then do 30 minutes of exercise.
:Cueball: Then back to sleep for another 8 hours!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I only do things that news stories have specifically told me to do once per day.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Food]]

1853: Once Per Day

2017-06-21T16:05:47Z

WamSam: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1853
| date = June 21, 2017
| title = Once Per Day
| image = once_per_day.png
| titletext = I'm not totally locked into my routineâtwice a year, I take a break to change the batteries in my smoke detectors.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Stub. Links? Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] has made the life choice that his routine consists of only things that the news has told him exactly how often to do. This includes, once per day:
*Eat an apple
*Eat an egg
*Take one aspirin
*Eat a piece of dark chocolate
*Drink six glasses of water
*Drink one glass of red wine
*Drink a cup of coffee
*Drink a cup of tea
*Get 30 minutes of exercise
*Get 8 hours of sleep
And, in the title text:
*Two times a year, change your smoke detector batteries.

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

[Megan speaking to Cueball]

Megan: Got any plans for the day?

Cueball: I'm going to eat an apple, an egg, one baby aspirin, and a piece of dark chocolate, drink six glasses of water, one glass of red wine, a cup of coffee, and a cup of tea, then do 30 minutes exercise. Then back to sleep for another 8 hours!

[Below panel]

I only do things that new stories have specifically told me to do once per day.

{{comic discussion}}

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

1853: Once Per Day

2017-06-21T16:05:28Z

WamSam: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1853
| date = June 21, 2017
| title = Once Per Day
| image = once_per_day.png
| titletext = I'm not totally locked into my routineâtwice a year, I take a break to change the batteries in my smoke detectors.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Stub. Links? Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] has made the life choice that his routine consists of only things that the news has told him exactly how often to do. This includes, once per day:
*Eat an apple
*Eat an egg
*Take one aspirin
*Eat a piece of dark chocolate
*Drink six glasses of water
*Drink one glass of red wine
*Drink a cup of coffee
*Drink a cup of tea
*Get 30 minutes of exercise
*Get 8 hours of sleep
And, in the title text:
*Two times a year, change your smoke detector batteries.

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

[Megan speaking to Cueball]

Megan: Got any plans for the day?

Cueball: I'm going to eat an apple, an egg, one baby aspirin, and a piece of dark chocolate, drink six glasses of water, one glass of red wine, a cup of coffee, and a cup of tea, then do 30 minutes exercise. Then back to sleep for another 8 hours!

[Below panel]
I only do things that new stories have specifically told me to do once per day.

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:1731: Wrong

2017-06-19T10:08:17Z

WamSam:

I wrote up a first explanation of the comic. Someone else also added in a sentence, which nicely merged in to the explanation. Still needs revision and links to articles, as well as an explanation of the title text [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.81|172.68.35.81]] 04:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh... what do you mean by "just a few sentences to kick this off"??? I don't know how to fix this because I don't understand what you mean. [[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 7:52, 9 September 2016 (EDT)
: Oh, sorry. While I was writing up an explanation, KangaroOS put in the sentence "Some people are just too prideful to admit that they are inherently fallible. White Hat is one of those people." and put in that tag. When I went to save it, it told me I had to merge our revisions, which worked fine, but I just forgot to merge the tags. [[User:Yosho27|Yosho27]] ([[User talk:Yosho27|talk]]) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
: Also, if anyone's looking at the article history "172.68.35.81" and "Yosho27" are both me (I signed in halfway through) [[User:Yosho27|Yosho27]] ([[User talk:Yosho27|talk]]) 13:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

mansplaining much? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]] 11:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
: I don't think so. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
: I would dispute that Megan isn't sure what she's talking about. It seems to me that she only sounds uncertain because she is trying to be polite; this is a common strategy for women in particular. (As evidence, note that I started the previous sentence with "it seems to me" instead of an assertion of fact, and the one before that is in the subjunctive mood.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.222|162.158.214.222]] 18:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
:Worth pointing out that other comics that could be interpreted as mansplaining have had this potential explanation purged. It is my understanding that alternative possible explanations/ of the jokes were encouraged, and many explanations include what seem to be relatively unlikely alternatives. Manplaining is apparently the only one that is verboten. I won't speculate as to why. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.39|162.158.75.39]] 22:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Any reference to "Somebody's WRONG on the Internet!"? [[386: Duty Calls]] [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 18:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
: Went ahead and added it. :) [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope someone can comment on the theory of the abstraction of particles White Hat gets into in the last panel. Seems like the only part missing so far. I like this comic! ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really a Quantum physicist, but I read that it's *theoretically* possible (and seen in some particle expierements at the LHC) for a very specific arrangement of quarks to make a (superheavy) "Proton" that contains Antimatter (Anti-quarks)... A Pentaquark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaquark [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.133|108.162.242.133]] 23:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

While not really part of objects, there are plenty of {{w|positron}}s (antielectrons) around: they are produced by radioactive decay, can appear in thunderstorms, are used in nuclear medicine. There is enough radioactive isotope of potassium in average human body to produce thousands of positrons per second. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a technical definition of "object" I am unaware of that excludes hypothetical and abstract objects? What is it that makes a flux capacitor not an object? Or public opinion? Or indeed a sphere made of antimatter? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 15:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)larK

It doesn't sound like the title text is literally what White Hat is saying, but rather someone else summarizing their statements in a mocking way. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92|108.162.212.92]] 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if his thought (I'm wrong) ended up annihilated as if matter came into contact with antimatter...a bit of irony considering he WAS wrong about the antimatter assertion. Add if you think it makes sense. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.124|172.68.34.124]]

I just wanted to comment on the nature of particles being abstractions from quantum field theory. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory in the section marked "Implications". It contains references to "particle-like" and "field-like" objects. The mathematics demonstrate artifacts that appear to correspond to the particles. However, does that mean that particle is a result of the mathematics or the mathematics represent the particle. If a particle is something that can be observed, how can it be an abstraction? The particle is a real object whose behavior can be described more or less accurately by the mathematics. Now, if you had a virtual world inside a computer where Quantum Field Theory is used to determine the location of particles, then particles would be abstract data arising from Quantum Field Theory. I realize that this sounds confusing, and I am trying to think of how to word this more clearly. [[User:BradleyRoss|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss|talk]]) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:I'm not a particle physicist, so my understanding is just that of a layman. I believe what this part of QFT tries to deal with is literally HOW the particle can exist (I don't think anyone is trying to say it doesn't exist). So QFT is a mathematical theory that attempts to describes a field (similar to electromagnetic field) that is underlying the particles, the excitations in this field are thought to give rise to the particle, I believe this is why the term 'abstraction' is used. [[User:WamSam|WamSam]] ([[User talk:WamSam|talk]]) 10:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What if his thoughts were erased retroactively after him "observing" he was wrong? A la the result of that double-field experiment where observing the electrons changes the result (can't remember the name as of now)? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

1731: Wrong

2017-06-13T09:10:12Z

WamSam: Attempted to briefly explain White Hat's "logic", added some wikilinks.

{{comic
| number = 1731
| date = September 9, 2016
| title = Wrong
| image = wrong.png
| titletext = Hang on, I just remembered another thing I'm right about. See...
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More on White Hat's new theory from the last panel. The abstraction of the particle idea not explained.}}

All objects on Earth are matter, meaning they are made of {{w|Atom|atoms}}, which are specifically '''not''' made up of {{w|antimatter}}. Atoms, while once (when they were named) believed to be the smallest unit of matter, are now known to be made up of {{w|Proton|protons}}, {{w|Neutron|neutrons}} and {{w|Electron|electrons}}. Protons and neutrons are in turn made up of {{w|Quark|quarks}}. Quarks come in six different "{{w|Flavour (particle physics)|flavors}}" (up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange), with protons and neutrons being made of the first two types. Each flavour also has a corresponding flavour of the quark's {{w|Antiparticle|antiparticle}}, an antiquark, which would make up antiprotons and antineutrons.

[[White Hat]] and [[Megan]] appear to be discussing the topics of {{w|Antimatter|antimatter}} and subatomic particles. White Hat makes the assertion that we (referring to people and objects) are made partially of antimatter, because, as he claims, a proton (one of the particles which makes up all matter) is made of two quarks and an antiquark. In fact, protons are made up of two up quarks and a down quark. He is making the simple mistake of mixing up the difference between "up" and "down" flavors of quarks (which in some ways are "opposite" flavours of quarks) with the difference between particles and antiparticles. He continues to elaborate on his idea by mentioning neutrons, which are made of two down quarks and an up quark (which he incorrectly reasons as two antiquarks and a quark).

(White Hat may have incorrectly remembered that, while the valence quarks in a proton are all matter, quantum field theory says that protons also contain an indefinite number of "virtual" anti-quarks, quarks, and gluons. See this video ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraNu_78sCwv What are Quarks?]'' about this. His final comment could be referring to the ontological debate over whether virtual particles are in some sense real or only an artifact of perturbation theory.)

When Megan (accurately) doubts his claim, White Hat takes out his smartphone to look it up, in order to show Megan that he is correct. However, upon researching online, he realizes that he was, in fact, '''wrong''' (hence the title of the comic). Not wanting to admit being incorrect or yield his position in the discussion, he convinces himself that he wasn't actually wrong, as depicted by his mentally erasing the realization that he was wrong. Instead, he completely changes the topic to try and re-frame it so that he is not wrong. In this case, he circles back and criticises the entire scientific concept of "particles". Presumably he will go on to explain how scientists are wrong and how he remains correct that humans are made up, in part, of anti-matter.

It is rather common to be unwilling to admit fault (the whole topic of this comic) and to instead try to maintain an air of infallibility and intelligence. Some people are just too prideful to admit that they are inherently fallible. White Hat is one of those people, as depicted in several of his earlier appearances (see [[#Trivia|trivia section]]). [[Randall]] uses this comic to criticize people who are unable to put aside their ego and re-assess what they know in the face of empirical data. Such thinking flies directly against scientific rigor (adding an extra layer of irony to the situation, since White Hat and Megan are discussing a ''scientific'' topic). This method had already been called ''wrong'' in [[803: Airfoil]].

White Hat's new topic, where he can be right, includes the {{w|Quantum field theory}}, a very complicated field, which it is likely Megan is not well versed in (inferred by the fact that she was not quite sure about the anti-quarks). So he may be raising the topic because he believes she will not understand it sufficiently to refute his correctness. Megan, however, recognizes exactly what he is trying to do, and can only sigh in response to his failed efforts. In {{w|Quantum field theory|QFT}} particles are often described as {{w|Resonance (particle physics)|resonances}} or {{w|excited state|excited states}} of the underlying physical field, in the same way as photons may be thought of as excitations in the electromagnetic field; in this way White Hat appears to be dismissing his earlier errors by implying that particles are merely an effect of something more complex, of which he can demonstrate his knowledge.

In the title text, White Hat just remembers another thing he's right about. This shows that he is not interested in a discussion on the merits of a topic, but instead is seeking only recognition and validation for being right. This bears some similarity to [[386: Duty Calls]], in which [[Cueball]] stays up late correcting someone on the Internet.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat is walking beside Megan, index finger extended]
:White Hat: Really, we're all made of antimatter. A proton consists of two quarks and an antiquark.
:Megan: ...I don't think that's right.

:[White Hat stops to take out his smartphone tapping on it. Megan stops and turns towards him.]
:White Hat: Sure it is. Neutrons are, too.
:Megan: Do you mean "up" and "down" quarks? I think antiquarks are a different thing.
:White Hat: No, let me show you...
:Tap
:Tap

:[Zooming in on White Hat's head, while he is holding his phone up looking at it. He is thinking as shown with a bubbly thought bubble.]
:White Hat (thinking): I'm...wrong?

:[White Hat has lowered the phone. He is still thinking the same but the text has been scribbled out.]
:White Hat (thinking): I'm...wrong?

:[White Hat purges the thought from his mind]
:White Hat (thinking): ...

:[Similar setting as in the first panel, but in a full row wide panel, and White Hat is still holding his smartphone]
:White Hat: Really, the whole idea of "particles" is inaccurate. These are abstractions arising from quantum field theory, but what most people don't realize is...
:Megan: *Sigh*

==Trivia==
*This comic could be seen as a follow up to [[1605: DNA]]. Going back through the last White Hat appearances it turns out that DNA, 13 White Hat comics back, is actually the last where White Hat has been the fall guy. For instance he has the opposite role in [[1640: Super Bowl Context]], and he is not "the stupid guy" in the comics between that and this one, but often just another guy than Cueball. Further back in [[1255: Columbus]] he was again the fall guy, and again it reminds a bit about this comic. Actually Megan even begins that comic with a *sigh* like she finished this one.
*Quarks are also referenced in [[1418: Horse]], [[1621: Fixion]] and the first time they were mentioned, in [[474: Turn-On]], all six flavors were also mentioned.
*Antimatter is also referenced in [[683: Science Montage]], [[826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)]] and [[1621: Fixion]] as well as being the subject of the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|114|Antimatter}}''. It was also mentioned in another ''what if?'': ''{{what if|79|Lake Tea}}''.
*A similar thought process where earlier thoughts are scribbled out was used by Cueball in [[1650: Baby]], but for different reasons.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]

1849: Decades

2017-06-13T08:36:17Z

WamSam: time-line > timeline, added categories

{{comic
| number = 1849
| date = June 12, 2017
| title = Decades
| image = decades.png
| titletext = In the 90s, our variety radio station used the tagline "the best music of the 70s, 80s, and 90s." After 2000, they switched to "the best music of the 80s, 90s, and today." I figured they'd change again in 2010, but it's 2017 and they're still saying "80s, 90s, and today." I hope radio survives long enough for us to find out how they deal with the 2020s.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic shows, by use of a timeline, an interesting phenomenon where music, fashion, movies and culture created between the years 2000 and 2020 are not commonly grouped into the decade in which they were produced like previous decades. The comic asserts the reason for this is the lack of a single clear term to describe these decades, stating that the term "{{w|2000s}}" is ambiguous (as it could refer to the decade, century or millennium as a whole) and the terms "Aughts" and "Teens" never became the widely accepted terms for these decades.

The time-line in the comic stretches into the future (as of the time of publication) and attempts to name the 2020-2029 decade as the 20s, but does so with an uncertain question mark, presumably because it's (presently) an open question whether this dating convention will be reinstated after a 20-year pause. As the comic points out, common vernacular has managed to operate without clear terms for that grouping for 17 years, and that may have left enough of a mark on our thinking that we'll simply continue to operate in that way. There's an argument to be made grouping culture by decades is fairly arbitrary and not essential in cultural discussions. It should also be considered that that "the twenties" is still occasionally used to refer to the 1920's, and so reusing it to refer to the 2020's could be a source of confusion. It's not impossible that decade-based grouping will fall out of favor all together in the 21st century.

It should perhaps also be noted that culture (particularly when associated with young people) in the 2000's and 2010's is often termed "{{w|Millennials#Cultural_identity|millennial culture}}", although {{tvtropes|TheGenerationGap|this term frequently comes with negative connotations.}}

The title text talks about Randall's local radio station. In the 90s, they were able to use clear decade groupings. Once the year 2000 hit, they began saying "today", avoiding aughts or 2000s, which, as Randall says, never gained popular support. When 2010 hit, Randall believed they would switch their format, having left the awkwardness of the 00s. However, they kept their format to this day, finishing using teens or 10s to be confusing as well. Randall expresses interest in what change they will include in the 2020s (changing to the 20s or continuing their format), should radio last that long.

==Error==

Randall writes, presumably by mistake, "and and aughts" in the caption for this comic, instead of "and aughts". This changes the caption from his presumptive goal of "It's weird how for 20 years we stopped grouping our cultural memories by decade because "2000s" is ambiguous and "Aughts" and "Teens" never really stuck." to "It's weird how for 20 years we stopped grouping our cultural memories by decade because "2000s" is ambiguous and and "Aughts" and "Teens" never really stuck."

==Transcript==
:[A timeline across the top of the box marks decades from 1960 to 2030, the labels are above the line and the ticks marking each decade are below.]

:[Label: 1960]
:60s Music; 60s Fashion; 60s Movies; 60s Culture

:[Label: 1970]
:70s Music; 70s Fashion; 70s Movies; 70s Culture

:[Label: 1980]
:80s Music; 80s Fashion; 80s Movies; 80s Culture

:[Label: 1990]
:90s Music; 90s Fashion; 90s Movies; 90s Culture

:[Label: 2000 and 2010]
:[Items grouped over two decades.]
:Fashion; Culture; Music; Movies

:[Label: 2020]
:[The text is in light grey font.]
:20s Music?; 20s Fashion?; 20s Movies?; 20s Culture?

:[Label: 2030]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:It's weird how for 20 years we stopped grouping our cultural memories by decade because "2000s" is ambiguous and and "Aughts" and "Teens" never really stuck.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Time]]
[[Category:Timelines]]

1849: Decades

2017-06-13T08:21:31Z

WamSam: "use on a time-line" to "use of a time-line"

{{comic
| number = 1849
| date = June 12, 2017
| title = Decades
| image = decades.png
| titletext = In the 90s, our variety radio station used the tagline "the best music of the 70s, 80s, and 90s." After 2000, they switched to "the best music of the 80s, 90s, and today." I figured they'd change again in 2010, but it's 2017 and they're still saying "80s, 90s, and today." I hope radio survives long enough for us to find out how they deal with the 2020s.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic shows, by use of a time-line, an interesting phenomenon where music, fashion, movies and culture created between the years 2000 and 2020 are not commonly grouped into the decade in which they were produced like previous decades. The comic asserts the reason for this is the lack of a single clear term to describe these decades, stating that the term "{{w|2000s}}" is ambiguous (as it could refer to the decade, century or millennium as a whole) and the terms "Aughts" and "Teens" never became the widely accepted terms for these decades.

The time-line in the comic stretches into the future (as of the time of publication) and attempts to name the 2020-2029 decade as the 20s, but does so with an uncertain question mark, presumably because it's (presently) an open question whether this dating convention will be reinstated after a 20-year pause. As the comic points out, common vernacular has managed to operate without clear terms for that grouping for 17 years, and that may have left enough of a mark on our thinking that we'll simply continue to operate in that way. There's an argument to be made grouping culture by decades is fairly arbitrary and not essential in cultural discussions. It should also be considered that that "the twenties" is still occasionally used to refer to the 1920's, and so reusing it to refer to the 2020's could be a source of confusion. It's not impossible that decade-based grouping will fall out of favor all together in the 21st century.

It should perhaps also be noted that culture (particularly when associated with young people) in the 2000's and 2010's is often termed "{{w|Millennials#Cultural_identity|millennial culture}}", although {{tvtropes|TheGenerationGap|this term frequently comes with negative connotations.}}

The title text talks about Randall's local radio station. In the 90s, they were able to use clear decade groupings. Once the year 2000 hit, they began saying "today", avoiding aughts or 2000s, which, as Randall says, never gained popular support. When 2010 hit, Randall believed they would switch their format, having left the awkwardness of the 00s. However, they kept their format to this day, finishing using teens or 10s to be confusing as well. Randall expresses interest in what change they will include in the 2020s (changing to the 20s or continuing their format), should radio last that long.

==Error==

Randall writes, presumably by mistake, "and and aughts" in the caption for this comic, instead of "and aughts". This changes the caption from his presumptive goal of "It's weird how for 20 years we stopped grouping our cultural memories by decade because "2000s" is ambiguous and "Aughts" and "Teens" never really stuck." to "It's weird how for 20 years we stopped grouping our cultural memories by decade because "2000s" is ambiguous and and "Aughts" and "Teens" never really stuck."

==Transcript==
:[A time line across the top of the box marks decades from 1960 to 2030, the labels are above the line and the ticks marking each decade are below.]

:[Label: 1960]
:60s Music; 60s Fashion; 60s Movies; 60s Culture

:[Label: 1970]
:70s Music; 70s Fashion; 70s Movies; 70s Culture

:[Label: 1980]
:80s Music; 80s Fashion; 80s Movies; 80s Culture

:[Label: 1990]
:90s Music; 90s Fashion; 90s Movies; 90s Culture

:[Label: 2000 and 2010]
:[Items grouped over two decades.]
:Fashion; Culture; Music; Movies

:[Label: 2020]
:[The text is in light grey font.]
:20s Music?; 20s Fashion?; 20s Movies?; 20s Culture?

:[Label: 2030]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:It's weird how for 20 years we stopped grouping our cultural memories by decade because "2000s" is ambiguous and and "Aughts" and "Teens" never really stuck.

{{comic discussion}}

1849: Decades

2017-06-12T16:03:30Z

WamSam: Undo revision 141218 by 162.158.202.112 (talk)

1835: Random Obsessions

2017-06-12T15:24:08Z

WamSam: Removed title text from transcript as this is not normally included in this section.

{{comic
| number = 1835
| date = May 10, 2017
| title = Random Obsessions
| image = random obsessions.png
| titletext = I take the view that "open-faced sandwiches" are not sandwiches, but all other physical objects are.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic is formatted as a graph showing various Internet trends over the years according to [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=robot%20monkeys,pirates%20vs%20ninjas,zombies,bacon,definition%20of%20sandwich Google Trends]. The caption states that these "random obsessions," as stated in the title, have 9-10 year cycles, and so predicts that the sandwich debate will be over by around 2024.

Discussions about the definition of "sandwich" are surprisingly common on the web, such as "Is hot dog a sandwich?" (See this [https://www.reddit.com/r/Sandwiches/comments/6587ub/what_is_a_sandwich_debate/ discussion] on Reddit)

The title text is a joke based on the debate over the definition of a sandwich. The speaker, presumably [[Randall]], starts out with the fairly reasonable stance that open-faced sandwiches are not true sandwiches, but then veers off into the absurd by claiming that literally every other physical object in the universe ''is'' a sandwich. We can only hope that Randall does not extend this view to {{w|Cannibalism|human beings}}. (On the other hand, Randall may simply be defining a sandwich in an unusual way without implying that all other items are edible. Such strange definitions have been seen before, in the title text of [[1405: Meteor]].)

The other obsessions mentioned are, in order: robot monkeys, pirates vs ninjas, zombies, and bacon.

"Robot Monkeys" likely refers to people being obsessed with a movie or robots of some kind. It may specifically refer to the American/Japanese animated TV series, {{w|Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!}}, which aired from September 18, 2004 to December 16, 2006. It is possible that, based on this, that the trend curve does not actually begin in 2001, but does actually begin in 2004 as shown.

"Pirates vs Ninjas" refers to a longstanding internet meme, popular in roughly the years shown on the chart, that held that ninjas and Caribbean pirates were arch-enemies.

"Zombies" refers to the recent occurrence of zombie themed television shows (The Walking Dead) and movies (World War Z etc).

Though the trend is dying out, as seen by the fact the graph is past the peak, there has been an explosion in bacon flavored/scented products as well as items of clothing and decor that look like bacon. The YouTube channel Epic Meal Time was also part of the bacon fad, as adding large quantities of bacon to the meal being prepared was one of the running gags of the channel.

==Transcript==
The comic shows curves plotted in an (x,y)-plane. The x-axis shows years from 2004 to 2017, with every even year labeled. The y-axis is labeled "popularity relative to peak (based on google trends)". There are five vaguely Bell-shaped curves, each stretching over 9-10 years. It is implied that they rise from a value close to zero, to which they also return.
* The curve labeled "robot monkeys" peaks in early 2005 and ends near the x-axis in late 2011. (Presumable the curve starts rising in 2001, but it is only shown from 2004 on.)
* The curve labeled "pirates vs ninjas" peaks in late 2008 and ends in late 2014.
The remaining 3 curves all end in mid 2017 (presumably on May 10, the comic's release date).
* The curve labeled "zombies" starts in late 2007 and peaks in early 2013. By 2017 it has fallen to about 1/3 of its peak value.
* The curve labeled "bacon" starts in late 2009 and peaks in mid-2015. By 2017 it shows a value of about 90% of its peak value.
* The curve labeled "definition of a sandwich" starts in late 2013; in 2017 it has reached approximately half its peak value; a peak in 2020 or 2021 is implied.
Text: Judging from Google Trends, these random semi-ironic obsessions seem to last about nine or ten years, so we should be done with the sandwich thing by 2024.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1849: Decades

2017-06-12T15:07:27Z

WamSam:

There seems to be a slightly tongue-in-cheek move to call the 2000's "the noughties" with the obvious implication of 'naughty'. Personally though I'm still waiting for everyone to stop saying "2000 and something, it very annoying! [[User:RoyT|RoyT]] ([[User talk:RoyT|talk]]) 14:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Where would the descriptor "millennial" (adj) fit on this? I suggest that 00's fads be designated "millennial" and 10's fads be... forgotten.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.171|173.245.48.171]] 14:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note to highlight the double "and" in the text: "(...) is ambiguous and and "aughts" (...)"
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.6.52|162.158.6.52]] 14:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Good eyes on the double 'and'. Perhaps the explanation needs a sections about other terms not mentioned here "teensies" "noughties" "tenies" etc. (and perhaps the Aughts aren't used due to cultural differences between Brits and Americans, the former more likely to call them the "Noughts"). Also I assume the title text refers to Randal's local variety radio. [[User:WamSam|WamSam]] ([[User talk:WamSam|talk]]) 15:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1849: Decades

2017-06-12T15:06:32Z

WamSam:

1849: Decades

2017-06-12T15:00:02Z

WamSam: /* Transcript */

1849: Decades

2017-06-12T14:58:32Z

WamSam: /* Explanation */

1849: Decades

2017-06-12T14:57:31Z

WamSam: /* Explanation */

1849: Decades

2017-06-12T14:42:59Z

WamSam: