explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3225: Satellite Pollution

2026-03-27T22:28:12Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3225
| date = March 27, 2026
| title = Satellite Pollution
| image = satellite_pollution_2x.png
| imagesize = 400x334px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = We're working to make sure the images are as up-to-date and accurate as possible, with a minimum number of sponsored galaxies.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

A common concern with new satellite constellations like Starlink is that the fact that they rely on large numbers, they make ground-based astronomy more difficult by adding more noise and possibly obscuring targets.

This comic satirizes that by talking about a hypothetical satellite company that launches *deliberately* inaccurate starmaps to be overlaid across the night sky.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on the left, Cueball is on the right, in front of a poster on the wall. The poster has a portion of the Earth at the bottom, with outer space above it. The space scene has lots of stars, along with a few nebulae and galaxies. Part of the space scene is enclosed in a quadrilateral (a slightly skewed rectangle).]
:Ponytail: Aren't you worried these will be disruptive for ground-based astronomy?
:Cueball: No, why?

[Caption below comic:]
:My new company is being criticized for our satellites that deploy 100-mile-wide banners painted with inaccurate pictures of the night sky.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

3225: Satellite Pollution

2026-03-27T22:27:45Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ initial explainer

{{comic
| number = 3225
| date = March 27, 2026
| title = Satellite Pollution
| image = satellite_pollution_2x.png
| imagesize = 400x334px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = We're working to make sure the images are as up-to-date and accurate as possible, with a minimum number of sponsored galaxies.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

A common concern with new satellite constellations like Starlink is that the fact that they rely on large numbers, they make ground-based astronomy more difficult by adding more noise and possibly obscuring targets.

This comic satirizes that talking about a hypothetical satellite company that launches *deliberately* inaccurate starmaps to be overlaid across the night sky.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on the left, Cueball is on the right, in front of a poster on the wall. The poster has a portion of the Earth at the bottom, with outer space above it. The space scene has lots of stars, along with a few nebulae and galaxies. Part of the space scene is enclosed in a quadrilateral (a slightly skewed rectangle).]
:Ponytail: Aren't you worried these will be disruptive for ground-based astronomy?
:Cueball: No, why?

[Caption below comic:]
:My new company is being criticized for our satellites that deploy 100-mile-wide banners painted with inaccurate pictures of the night sky.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

Talk:3178: Hyperacute Interdynamics

2025-12-09T21:58:13Z

Wowitschris:

Explanatings!!! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
:E X P L A N A T E ! E X P L A N A T E ! E X P L A N A T E ! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
::Incomprehension is futile - you will be explanated. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

A black hole with the mass of the sun would have a Schwarzschild radius of 2.95 km. So it would take some significant revisions to theory to accommodate a grapefruit-sized object with that mass. Perhaps if it's digested by a squirrel, it gets smaller? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
:hopefully quite a bit smaller, given the size of the squirrel in this example. [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 05:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
: Not terribly impressed with the science chops of these "unifiers" if they can't work out what's gonna happen here. Hint: it's no happy dance for the squirrel. [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:CDB6:FE7F:1FC9:524|2605:59C8:160:DB08:CDB6:FE7F:1FC9:524]] 16:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

''Eastern Gray Squirrel.... measures 16-20 inches (approx. 40-50 centimeters) .... would be too big for Hyperacute Interdynamics (10-30cm (~4"-12")) to apply.'' Clearly a squirrel's tail can be neglected (see: '''spherical cow theory'''), being a very skinny (even rat-like) whip with bulky but insignificant fritz. ''The '''head and body length''' is from 23 to 30 cm (9.1 to 11.8 in)'' -- Wikipedia ---- Also, a bit north of Randall's place, we have lots of "Red Squirrels" which are significantly smaller than East Gray tree-rats. ''"Red squirrels are much smaller than greys and measure about 35centimetres including their tails and grow to around 350grams."'' - (YouTube) Our locals say "chipmunk" but I knew chipmunks from Sequoya Nat Park and these aint them. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 06:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
:I'm from Randall's area and we always called chipmunks chipmunks. Yes, we heard of red squirrels, but only saw gray squirrels and chipmunks. Massachusetts has a population with steadfast opinions. Doubt it? Try driving in Boston. [[Special:Contributions/173.188.192.138|173.188.192.138]] 14:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
: Lots of red squirrels in SE Mass ("South Shore"). They don't like cities much. Very intelligent animals. [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:CDB6:FE7F:1FC9:524|2605:59C8:160:DB08:CDB6:FE7F:1FC9:524]] 16:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

::Would the tail be excluded? Yes it's an extension, but it's certainly a part of the squirrel, and as such would contribute to it's length. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
:::[[File:Squirrel and soccer ball.png]]
:::I don't think there's a prblem. When the squirrel is sat passively, it fits (roughly) within the size constraints and is therefore fully explainable via Hyperacute Interdynamics. Once it starts running around and jumping, with its tail trailing behind it, the predictive ability of theory lessens (needn't be a cliff-edge of understanding, could even smoothly sustain ''near-''perfect accuracy for the {{w|Black giant squirrel}}, at least at rest, just isn't so fundemnentally precise any more) but HI is entirely accurate again the moment it stops to nibble a nut.
:::Though do squirrels eat grapefruit? (Solar-massive ones or otherwise.) I know someone left out pumpkin flesh, on a fallen tree in a woods near me, clearly from having created a Jack-O-Lantern for this year's Halloween (and apparently not thought to try making a few batches of pumpkin soup, for whatever reason), and it sat there for weeks (until it disintigrated) with no sign of either squirrels (American greys, unfortunately) or birds partaking of the 'feast'. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.87|82.132.236.87]] 17:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Every year during Jack-o-Lantern season, squirrels are constantly trying to eat them even before they start rotting. I believe they're, once again, American Grays. They do indeed partake in feasts here, at least. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 18:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Assuming, like me, that IP is in the UK... perhaps our 'invasive' Greys (hence the 'unfortunately'?) just haven't yet got used to the proliferation of pumpkins (we always used to make do with turnips, round here, until comparatively recent absorption of the US-style traditions). And the native reds are now far less likely to be near significant population so probably don't partake very much on such human bounty. [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 19:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Should we think of a name for this young cueball? He's been around quite a lot but still anonymous.--[[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 21:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Where does the "three pillars" of physics in the current explanation come from? I thought it was just Relativity and Quantum mechanics? Isn't thermodynamics explained by Quantum mechanics? (IMO it also makes the joke funnier if there isn't a third pillar being deleted by hyperacute interdynamics, but a third pillar made up full cloth). ([[User:Wowitschris|Wowitschris]] ([[User talk:Wowitschris|talk]]) 21:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC))

3093: Drafting

2025-05-23T17:13:51Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3093
| date = May 23, 2025
| title = Drafting
| image = drafting_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x518px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A 5% efficiency gain at the cost of a 99% efficiency loss
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a bot that should not have tried this. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{w|Drafting}} is an aerodynamic technique where one moving object follows another one closely to reduce drag by using the first objects {{w|splitstream}}. It is used in various sports, most prominently {{w|cycling}}.

The comic explores the idea of using drafting for rockets and states that while it theoretically works, it isn't really recommended. The title text gives more details on this, claiming that there is an efficiency gain of 5% through drafting via the general mechanism, it also comes with a 99% loss, likely because a drafting rocket would almost certainly annihilated by the leading rocket.

Generally, this could be understood because land transportation is based on traction (pulling yourself along a surface via friction). At higher speeds (above 60km/h), the dominant force becomes wind drag. {{w|Energy-efficient driving}} at these higher speeds can be improved by drafting behind another vehicle. This doesn't apply to rockets because they do not move themselves via friction but rather via Newton's third law (throwing stuff backwards). This means that the front rocket would just push the back rocket against its own thrust (among other bad effects).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Needs image description. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[A rocket with two boosters is launching. A smaller rocket is following the first rocket very close, inside its exhaust plume. The first rocket has a two-stage core, and two boosters. It produces 3 big flames. The second rocket does not have boosters. It produces 3 small flames.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Aerospace tip: Although the technique reduces atmospheric drag for many types of vehicles, you should ''never'' try to improve rocket launch efficiency through drafting.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Rockets]]
[[Category:Tips]]

3093: Drafting

2025-05-23T17:12:51Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3093
| date = May 23, 2025
| title = Drafting
| image = drafting_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x518px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A 5% efficiency gain at the cost of a 99% efficiency loss
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a bot that should not have tried this. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{w|Drafting}} is an aerodynamic technique where one moving object follows another one closely to reduce drag by using the first objects {{w|splitstream}}. It is used in various sports, most prominently {{w|cycling}}.

The comic explores the idea of using drafting for rockets and states that while it theoretically works, it isn't really recommended. The title text gives more details on this, claiming that there is an efficiency gain of 5% through drafting via the general mechanism, it also comes with a 99% loss, likely because a drafting rocket would almost certainly annihilated by the leading rocket. Generally, this could be understood because land transportation is based on traction (pulling yourself along a surface via friction). At higher speeds (above 60km/h), the dominant force becomes wind drag. {{w|Energy-efficient driving}} at these higher speeds can be improved by drafting behind another vehicle. This doesn't apply to rockets because they do not move themselves via friction but rather via Newton's third law (throwing stuff backwards). This means that the front rocket would just push the back rocket against its own thrust.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Needs image description. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[A rocket with two boosters is launching. A smaller rocket is following the first rocket very close, inside its exhaust plume. The first rocket has a two-stage core, and two boosters. It produces 3 big flames. The second rocket does not have boosters. It produces 3 small flames.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Aerospace tip: Although the technique reduces atmospheric drag for many types of vehicles, you should ''never'' try to improve rocket launch efficiency through drafting.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Rockets]]
[[Category:Tips]]

3089: Modern

2025-05-14T21:17:32Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ i'm trying my best i'm just a smol bean

{{comic
| number = 3089
| date = May 14, 2025
| title = Modern
| image = modern_2x.png
| imagesize = 547x209px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Scholars are still debating whether the current period is post-postmodern or neo-contemporary.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created contemporary. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This strip references a perennial naming problem where academic and casual contexts meet. In academic contexts, shortly after the industrial revolution (or perhaps the Renaissance) contemporaneous things were significantly different and labeled "modern" (whether it's labor relations, art, economic organization, literature, architecture, etc). However, rather than being the end of history, things continued to change afterwards, enough that they needed to be further differentiated from what was previously labeled "modern." Hence the rise of "postmodern."

However, in casual contexts, modern retains its meaning of "contemporaneous" or "current era," so one can end up discussing a "modern" era of stuff that comes after the rise of a "post-modern" (from an academic context) era of stuff, which doesn't really sound sensical.

==Transcript==

:[A timeline is shown with ticks every five years between 1850 and 2020]
:[Before 1850 until 1880]
:Early Modern
:[1880 until 1945]
:Modernist
:[1945 until 1965]
:Mid-century modern
:[1965 until 2000]
:Postmodern
:[2000 until past 2020]
:Modern

:[Caption below the panel]
:The use of the word "modern" to refer to a bunch of specific historical periods is a fun prank by historians.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

3089: Modern

2025-05-14T21:15:40Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ starting with something

{{comic
| number = 3089
| date = May 14, 2025
| title = Modern
| image = modern_2x.png
| imagesize = 547x209px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Scholars are still debating whether the current period is post-postmodern or neo-contemporary.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created contemporary. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This strip references a perennial naming problem in academic contexts, where shortly after the industrial revolution (or perhaps the Renaissance) contemporaneous things were significantly different and labeled "modern" (whether it's labor relations, art, economic organization, literature, architecture, etc). However, rather than being the end of history, things continued to change afterwards, enough that they needed to be further differentiated from what was previously labeled "modern." Hence the rise of "postmodern."

==Transcript==

:[A timeline is shown with ticks every five years between 1850 and 2020]
:[Before 1850 until 1880]
:Early Modern
:[1880 until 1945]
:Modernist
:[1945 until 1965]
:Mid-century modern
:[1965 until 2000]
:Postmodern
:[2000 until past 2020]
:Modern

:[Caption below the panel]
:The use of the word "modern" to refer to a bunch of specific historical periods is a fun prank by historians.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

3049: Incoming Asteroid

2025-02-12T18:01:09Z

Wowitschris: /* List of sizes and consequences */ trimming some sentence fragments that look like they never got finished

{{comic
| number = 3049
| date = February 10, 2025
| title = Incoming Asteroid
| image = incoming_asteroid_2x.png
| imagesize = 454x570px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The bottom ones are also potentially bad news for any other planets in our solar system that have been counting on Earth having a stable orbit.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an incoming bearer of bad news - List should probably be in a table, which should probably be done by someone with experience in creating tables. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic may be inspired by the recent discovery of asteroid {{w|2024 YR4|2024 YR4}}, which, on the date of the comic (February, 10, 2025), was estimated to have about 1-in-48 chance of striking Earth on December 22, 2032. Its size is estimated to be 40-90 meters. Currently, it is rated a 3 (out of a maximum of 10) on the {{w|Torino scale}}, a metric designed to evaluate the danger of a potential strike from a {{w|near-Earth object}}. On this comic's scale (see [[#List of sizes and consequences|details below]]) it would be placed on the fourth label, the first label with bad news, as it could wipe out a city with a direct hit.

The Torino scale specifically addresses the future chance of impact, however, as well as the resulting energy (rather than pure mass or size) brought by the prospective impactor, and the retroactive Torino 8 classification of the similarly-sized Tunguska meteor, given as an 'example' in the table, is not really in the intended scope of the rating system, with events that have already happened already having reached 100% possibility with nothing left to plan for. For all foreseeable events, it is expected that the odds of impact (and therefore the Torino number) will continue to change as further observations refine the expected path into the vicinity of Earth, one or more times; it is generally hoped that all objects of interest will eventually reduce to zero, but for anything to reach levels 8 to 10 indicates the near-certainty of three distinct ranges of significant impact, which ''would'' need to be prepared for in one or more ways.

This comic provides a log scale correlating the size of any incoming asteroid to whether its arrival is good or bad news. While asteroids on the smaller end of the scale are good news for sky watchers, as the upcoming objects get bigger, the potential for catastrophe grows. Many astronomy enthusiasts would be happy to see bigger meteors, as bigger generally means more exciting pictures. Of course, once the meteors grow past a certain size even the most enthusiast astronomer might grow concerned about their imminent extinction.{{cn}}

The title text adds an additional point about asteroids on the lower end of the scale, which have enough mass to change Earth's orbit. If it changed enough it might intersect the orbit of other planets (probably Venus or Mars, since those are the closest). This might lead to Earth colliding with that planet. Also, even without a collision, the changed orbit might perturb '''their''' orbits due to the Earth's gravitational force and cause negative consequences by either invoking or revoking {{w|Commensurability (astronomy)|orbital resonances}} between the various inner planets.

===List of sizes and consequences===
Sizes are approximate.
{|class="wikitable"
! scope="col" | Size
! scope="col" | Randall's news
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
|'''1 cm'''
|Good news! Meteors are pretty!
|Burn up in the atmosphere, becoming nothing more than a streak in the sky.
|-
|'''30 cm'''
|Great news! You might see a fireball!
|Might descend far enough for the flames of its entry to be visible with the naked eye ({{w|bolide}}).
|-
|'''3 m'''
|Okay news, unless you have expensive windows or are very unlucky.
|Can descend far enough for the shockwave of its passing to shatter windows. The comic mockingly claims this is only a problem if your windows are expensive or happen to get directly hit by it. Of course, the shattering windows are also concerns for safety, as the {{w|Chelyabinsk meteorite}}, which sits near the upper bound of this category at approximately 18 m in diameter, damaged more than 7,000 buildings and injured around 1,500 people with its shockwave.
|-
|'''60 m'''
|Bad news, especially if you live near the city it's aimed at.
|The {{w|Tunguska event|Tunguska meteor}}, which flattened and burnt over 2,000 km2 of Siberian forest in 1908, was 50-60 m across. It would have been rated an 8 on the Torino scale as a certain collision with localized destruction, the very lowest level of active concern for any (near-)certain event.
|-
|'''600 m'''
|Bad news, especially if you live on the continent it's aimed at.
|Can easily cause localized extinction, and can be expected to have effects on the rest of the world as well.
|-
|'''9 km'''
|Bad news for your species.
|The {{w|Chicxulub crater|Chicxulub asteroid}} that wiped out non-avian dinosaurs was about 10 km in diameter.
|-
|'''50 km'''
|Bad news for your phylum.
|{{w|Chordate|Our phylum}} is primarily all the vertebrate animals. The implication is that an asteroid over five times as wide (thus 125 times as massive) as the asteroid that wipes out the dinosaurs would cause the extinction of every animal with a spinal cord/spine, which includes all of the higher life forms on earth (fish, and mammals). Presumably other, less complex, forms of life would survive.
|-
|'''300 km'''
|Bad news for your biosphere.
|A global extinction event is pretty much guaranteed.
|-
|'''2,000 km'''
|Good news for any life that might someday evolve on Earth's new moon.
|Earth's moon is believed to have been formed when Earth, in its infancy, was hit by an object of roughly this size. The comic assumes that another moon would form from another such impact, hypothesizes that life might evolve on that moon, {{tvtropes|BadNewsInAGoodWay|and pretends that it's good news}}. Is is almost guaranteed that an event like this would be so disruptive that it would eliminate all life on earth either directly.
|-
|'''25,000 km'''
|Bad news for whatever planet is about to get hit by Earth.
|At this size, the "asteroid" is over twice as large as Earth itself (whose diameter is about 12,700 km) and would likely be classified as a planet. (Unofficially, at least. ''Officially,'' there would be quibbling about whether it had {{w|Clearing the neighbourhood|"cleared its neighborhood."}} Briefly, for two reasons, first that anyone that discussed this are now dead and second that it has now cleared Earth from it's neighborhood. At that point, the comic points out, it would be more accurate to describe the Earth crashing into the "asteroid"/planet, not the other way around. In this case you could not say that Earth is hit... But that Earth hits the other planet, as Randall also describes. Since the Earth would be totally destroyed in such an event, it would be the planet it hits that feels the aftermath of the impact, and thus for anyone living on that planet that would be very bad news. This was actually a plot point in the film {{w|Melancholia (2011 film)|Melancholia}} where it turns out that it is Earth that is colliding with the much bigger planet Melancholia not the other way around. To be positioned well beyond the bottom end of this diagram, the film {{w|When Worlds Collide (1951 film)|When Worlds Collide}} entails a collision between the Earth and a vastly larger star passing through the solar system, or vice-versa, with no noted ill-effects to that star, nor to a planet (in orbit around that star) to which the few survivors from Earth escape.
|}

==Transcript==
:[A log chart is shown with several labels. Above it there is header:]
:<big>An asteroid is headed straight for Earth! That's...</big>

:[A log scale of lengths is shown on the left with a label at the top with an arrow pointing to the first number from the top shown next to the scale.]
:Asteroid size

:[The log scale starts with only 7 smaller ticks before the first large tick, and then there are the regular 9 small ticks in log fashion between each of the ten larger ticks, and then only 8 small ticks beneath the last large tick. Each of the 10 larger tick is labeled with a length size. With the first at the top being the one with an arrow pointing at it:]
:1 cm
:10 cm
:1 meter
:10 meters
:100 meters
:1 km
:10 km
:100 km
:1,000 km
:10,000 km

:[Around but not preciously at each labeled size there are ten descriptions of what should follow the header given such a size asteroid was about to hit Earth:]
:[1 cm:] ...Good news! Meteors are pretty!
:[30 cm:] ...Great news! You might see a fireball!
:[3 m:] ...Ok news, unless you have expensive windows or are very unlucky.
:[60 m:] ...Bad news, especially if you live near the city it's aimed at.
:[600 m:]...Bad news, especially if you live on the continent it's aimed at.
:[9 km:] ...Bad news for your species.
:[50 km:] ...Bad news for your phylum.
:[300 km:] ...Bad news for your biosphere.
:[2,000 km:] ...Good news for any life that might someday evolve on Earth's new moon.
:[25,000 km:] ...Bad news for whatever planet is about to get hit by Earth.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]

Talk:3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-12T20:56:36Z

Wowitschris:

1.609*3.1416926 looks like 1.852*2.718281828
''seems legit'' {{unsigned ip|172.71.124.233|21:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}

I added the basics of an explanation, it definitely needs some work, but it should do as a starting point. Hope I did well! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.92|172.68.22.92]] 23:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The knot is exactly 1 nautical mile per hour. Meanwhile π/e ≈ 1.155727, which is close to nm/mi = kt/mph ≈ 1.15078
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.135|172.70.134.135]] 23:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This article says one knot is 1.2 MPH, which is true for the number of digits of precision stated. But in context of the claimed precision of 0.5% it would be more helpful to state that one knot is approximately 1.151 MPH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.159.7|172.71.159.7]] 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Transcendental : relating to a spiritual realm. eg "the transcendental importance of each person's soul". Works for me. {{unsigned ip|162.158.186.248|00:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:Just as a fun fact, "transcendental" in this case is referring to {{W|Transcendental number}}, which are numbers that cannot be expressed as the root of a polynomial, which basically means they cannot be found using algebra alone. I think the two definitions are related, since these numbers "trancend" the "realm" of numbers which can be found with algebra. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.82|172.68.22.82]] 01:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Another maritime approximation: 1 meter/sec nearly equals 2 knots (actual is 1.94384), perhaps there is an actual explanation for this? {{unsigned ip|162.158.155.117|01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:Both the nautical mile and meter derive from measurements of the Earth's circumference, and the number of seconds in an hour is related to the base-60 counting system (as is the number of degrees in a circle), but beyond that it's just how the math works out. 1 nautical mile is (well, was) 1/60 of a degree of latitude. 1 meter is (was) 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole, which is 90°, so that's 9/1,000,000 of a degree of latitude. So 1 m = 27/50,000 nmi. Then, an hour is 3600 s. So 1 m/s = 27∙3600/50,000 nmi/hr. Cancelling, that's 1 m/s = 243/125 nmi/hr, and that fraction is quite close to 2. But there's no real deeper connection.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.115.102|172.70.115.102]] 15:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

A better mnemonic, which I actually use: miles→km is Fibonacci. 2miles≈3km, 3miles≈5km, 5miles≈8km, 8miles≈13km, 13miles≈21km, 21miles≈34km, 34miles≈55km, 55miles≈89km, 89miles≈143.23km, Fibonacchi would predict 144km. But at that point, you can just remove some less significant digits anyway. For everything in between, you can estimate how far it is from the nearest Fibonacci numbers, that works pretty well, too. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 01:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
: Yes, similar to this comic the ratio of km to miles (1.6093) is very close to the golden ratio (1.6180) or (1 + sqrt(5))/2. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.64|172.68.54.64]] 04:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

My favorite one is that pi squared is approximately the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). The best part is that is NOT a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.183.174|172.71.183.174]] 06:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
: How is this not a coincidence? ([[User:Wowitschris|Wowitschris]] ([[User talk:Wowitschris|talk]]) 20:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC))

Actually the most common form of Euler's identity is eiπ + 1 = 0; I find it odd that Randall never writes it that way (see [[179]] and [[2492]] for example).
--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.4|172.69.68.4]] 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:The form that you wrote and Randal's preferred form are identical. The equations are slightly different, but they are the same form. Other forms would involve using trigonometric functions, infinite series, integrals or ... something else. [[User:Galeindfal|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal|talk]]) 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-23T17:12:13Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ 180 isn't a power of six, but is a multiple of six

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the thermometer, a number of different temperature scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements, as it is part of the {{w|metric system}} that has been widely adopted for official uses. A small number of countries (namely Liberia, the USA and its three associated free states in the Pacific) retain the US customary (or 'imperial') system, which uses the ''slightly'' older {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale (°F was initially defined in 1724, the general current form of °C was created in 1743). The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|Kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit regularly, scientific measurements are typically done in Celsius and/or Kelvin.

The strip proceeds to compare these scales, and a number of others, on a scaled of "cursed"-ness. The joke is highlighting how strange and generally difficult to use many older proposed systems were. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees (though some, such as Rankine, are still sometimes used in legacy applications).

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water Freezes
! scope="col" | Water Boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. This (along with Kelvin) is considered the least cursed temperature system (at least from those where the ranking values make any sense), likely due to Randall's background. Notably it is still considered a 2/10, implying an inherent degree of cursedness for all systems.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} that intends to use the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is offset by 273.15, in order to set the zero point at absolute zero (by way of using the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}, as of 2019). Kelvin and Celsius are, by far, the most common units used in scientific measurements and calculations. Their utility and inherent logic is likely what makes them the least "cursed".
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit is officially used in several countries across the globe, and unofficially in several others. It was derived in an era where multiples of six were more popular in science than powers of ten, so water freezing and water boiling were calibrated to be 180° apart. In addition, Daniel Fahrenheit believed that pure water freezing was not worthy of the 0° benchmark and resolved to set 0° to the coldest possible temperature he could create: the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine. While modern scholars find these benchmarks arbitrary and outdated, it gained usage, primarily in Anglophone countries, likely due to the scale being considered intuitively useful for some common functions (the range roughly matches the typical span of weather conditions, for various ranges of climate, and the 100 point is quite near normal human body temperature, even though 90 was initially presumed to be this). While it was largely displaced by the Celsius scale, the US (Randall's home country) continues to typically use it. It is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in standard atmosphere being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labelling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724. Much like Fahrenheit, it uses the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with multiples of six in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Ole Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5. The scale is also the last common ancestor of Celsius and Fahrenheit, as Reuamur was inspired by it, and Celsius by Reamur, and Fahrenheit specifically wanted a Rømer scale with more steps to avoid using decimals.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero || 6/10 || As the chart mentions, Rankine is to Fahrenheit what Kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute scale rather than a relative one. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required.
For unclear reasons, Randall uses "0°F" to describe absolute zero on the Rankine scale, when the actual measurement would be written as 0°R. Both reference points are also rounded to one decimal place (from .67 to .7).

Randall has shown disdain for this scale before, like in [[2292: Thermometer]]. This is slightly odd, given that it makes ''more'' logical sense than Fahrenheit, as its zero point is somewhere logical rather than being arbitrarily defined.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. Randall has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood (''without the e'').
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || {{w|Galen}}, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/–4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpreted as –100% cursedness, though it's not clear what negative cursedness would mean. Of course it is not actually clear what "cursedness" means, so maybe that is not an issue.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures (an indefinite range of them) will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. This might be interpreted as "infinitely cursed", or else just {{w|NaN|Not a Number}}.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This direction 'survives' in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures.

The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e. the cursedness could be understood as 50/50 (or 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
|-
| °X ([[Randall]]'s new temperature scale as defined in the title text) || 41.9 || 154.4 || Title text: "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [sic] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || N/A (but likely ''very'') || Usually temperature records are measured 1 m above ground as surface temperatures can be much higher. It is uncertain if Randall actually meant surface or just usual temperature records like the ones mentioned here.

The record lowest temperature on Earth is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983. On the X scale, 0° would be set to this (unless it is surface temperature instead). This would be adjusted if a new lowest temperature were recorded.

The 50°X point would be set to the "global average", but it's unspecified what timespan this average is taken over. Since adjustments are made yearly, most likely the yearly average is meant; the most recent yearly average temperature, for 2023, was 14.98°C (58.96°F), which happened to be the highest ever by some margin.[https://climate.copernicus.eu/global-climate-highlights-2023]

The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California. This record is disputed, however, and a more reasonable record is 54.0°C (129.2°F), which has been recorded several times {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|at Furnace Creek and elsewhere}} in recent years. [https://what-if.xkcd.com/152/] The X scale would set this temperature to 100° (unless the X scale uses surface temperature; surface temperatures on the ground of 94°C (201°F) have been recorded at Furnace Creek). The 100°X point would also be adjusted if a new highest temperature were measured.

{{cot|Derivation}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 17.16°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 17.16°C (from –89.2°C to 17.16°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 17.16°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (17.16 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (17.16 + 89.2) = 50 / 106.36 ≈ 0.47</center>

Now, using the point (17.16°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.47 × 17.16 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 8.06 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 8.06 = 41.94</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 17.16°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.47 × C + 41.94'''</center>

2. Above 17.16°C (from 17.16°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 17.16°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 17.16) = 50 / 39.54 ≈ 1.26</center>

Now, using the point (17.16°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.26 × 17.16 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 21.63 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 21.63 = 28.37</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 17.16°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.26 × C + 28.37'''</center>

;Freezing and Boiling Points

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 17.16°C, we use the equation X = 0.47 × C + 41.94:

<center>X = 0.47 × 0 + 41.94 = 41.94</center>

So, the freezing point is 41.9 °X.

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 17.16°C, we use the equation X = 1.26 × C + 28.37:

<center>X = 1.26 × 100 + 28.37 = 126 + 28.37 = 154.37</center>

So, the boiling point is 154.4 °X.
{{cob}}
See also [[2701: Change in Slope]].

Since extreme temperature records are being broken frequently due to {{w|climate change}}, this scale will need to be recalibrated regularly.

Randall also fails to specify what happens with temperatures beyond the record extreme surface temperatures. The simplest approach would appear to be to extend the slope of the two defined areas beyond the boundaries, but given the awkwardness of what is specified, there is no reason to assume that simplicity is a design consideration here.

See [[1061: EST]] for another example of an overly complicated system of measurement. As part of the title text, a cursedness scale isn't given.
|}

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

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:2848: Breaker Box

2023-10-31T19:32:47Z

Wowitschris:

added transcript and got to change the name of the thing that created the explanation incomplete tag WOHOOOOoO [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 02:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: can't help but notice the [[1590]] reference [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 02:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Added explanation! Simple, but it'll do. How do I sign? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.159|172.69.34.159]] 03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: four tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>) [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 03:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Thanks. I thought that I had tried it earlier and it hadn't worked, but I guess I was wrong. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.160|172.69.34.160]] 03:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Just added headers, but not good enough with this stuff to add descriptions. go nuts [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 02:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Got a good laugh out of this one. Does anyone have a guess as to whether the "bugs" at the bottom of the second column refers to computer bugs or insects? Also, some self-referential humor going on at the end there. I guess the breaker box which contains all breakers would indeed contain itself. [[User:Jrfarah|Jrfarah]] ([[User talk:Jrfarah|talk]]) 04:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: I thought it was some sort of reference to [[2753]] [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 04:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: It turns off the bunny. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.194|172.69.194.194]] 11:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: Computer bugs switches actually exist. It's a feature in some emulators to either run an unofficial patched version or to stay true to the original system, for example to allow bug-exploit speedruns. [[User:Shirluban|Shirluban]] [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.70|172.71.130.70]] 13:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

So... discussion about "Hot Water Heater" vs. "Regular Water Heater"... I was assuming this was a joke regarding the redundancy of the term "Hot Water Heater" since "Water Heater" is already making the water hot, so why would you need to heat water that's already hot? Similar to RAS Syndrome, I thought Randall was making fun of that, but the explanation has a different idea... which... kind of makes sense? But... I've never seen anything like what is being described. [[User:AdmiralMemo|Admiral Memo]] ([[User talk:AdmiralMemo|talk]]) 05:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "one surprise mystery outlet", I don't think it's necessary to assume it was wired that way by mistake. When extending the wiring in an existing house, it's not always easy to wire up an extra breaker, or use the most logically labelled one, and there may not be a compelling safety reason to do so. For instance, in my parents house, the original sockets are all wired from the floor, and when an extra one was needed for a boiler control, it was easier to run a conduit ''down'' from the floor above; so that particular socket is on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_circuit ring] marked "Upstairs Sockets" on the consumer unit. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I read the "state/federal law" switches as ''required'' by said laws. i.e. respective building codes require a "foo switch" always to be installed, whether or not a foo is required, reasonable or even practicable. The switches may be left unlinked to anything that is serviced, or run to the household outlet/power-switch with the label plastered over it saying "don't use for anything but the quarter-inch hoojamaflip grinder" (or whatever it is, in the same sort of manner as "Refrigerator, do ''not'' unplug/turn off!" in a communal kitchen.... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.166|141.101.99.166]] 10:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Some laws contain "circuit breaker" provisions, where some action is triggered when a condition reaches a threshold. Maybe that's what state/federal law refers to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

...in a separate comment, I have a fuse/switch labelled "Do not turn on!" in my house. It was turned on when I moved in, and (barring actually any reason to mess with anything/’get a man in' for any other purpose) I've ''left'' it on. Ditto, for these last six or seven years I've remained ignorant of the purpose of various wall switches (floor-height, one in living room, one at top of stairs, another in a bedroom) that are unlabelled and off (though I ''have'' switched them on... no obvious difference to lighting, alarm system, any other system I can imagine they're wired up into and left it pending some future time when I actually have to do something like strip plaster back and discover which (if any?) run of cable leads from/to them. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.166|141.101.99.166]] 10:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the cryptogram may be an attempt to pun on a "code breaker" as a reference to people who solve ciphers. [[User:Aberdasher|Aberdasher]] ([[User talk:Aberdasher|talk]]) 13:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

After reading "Regular Water Heater", I assumed it was implying that the "Hot Water Heater" was somehow more physically attractive and thus "hotter". --[[User:Galeindfal|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal|talk]]) 14:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Depending on interpretation, "North-facing appliances" could make sense. In my house, I have two main breakers, East and West, each covering (almost) everything in one side of the house. [[User:Ehusmark|EHusmark]] ([[User talk:Ehusmark|talk]]) 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:And, contrary to the "how would the system know?", regarding north-facingness, if you had a ring-main/set of sockets servicing one particular wall (to just one side), there'd be a good chance that anything plugged in there (at least bulky "white goods", even if not smaller things that you might move and turn, like irons and fans) faces away from that particular wall. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.236|172.70.91.236]] 16:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Definite {{w|Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge|Borges}} vibes from the "appliances that face north", "appliances whose names begin with the letter 'F'", "outlets in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in" section. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.50|172.70.85.50]] 17:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Amongst other things, there are problems under the "no friction" section. e.g. You might have a perpetual motion machine that would go forever, but without something else (e.g. the anullment of 3LoT) it couldn't also ''do external work''. And of course you can still hold something with zero friction, if you can sufficiently surround, support and/or impale the thing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.230|172.70.90.230]] 19:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

So.... em if you turn off causality, would the switch that turned off causality actually reliably turn off causality, given that causality has been disabled? (added something like this as a note about the title text). ([[User:Wowitschris|Wowitschris]] ([[User talk:Wowitschris|talk]]) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC))

2848: Breaker Box

2023-10-31T19:30:55Z

Wowitschris: /* Table of the breakers labels */ adding another interpretation of switching off circuit breaker

{{comic
| number = 2848
| date = October 30, 2023
| title = Breaker Box
| image = breaker_box_2x.png
| imagesize = 560x776px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Any electrician will warn you to first locate and flip the house's CAUSALITY circuit breaker before touching the CIRCUIT BREAKERS one.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HIGH-PITCHED HUM GENERATOR THAT WAS LAST MENTIONED EXACTLY 1258 COMICS AGO - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A {{w|distribution board}}, referred to as a "breaker box" here and also commonly referred to as a "fuse box", "breaker panel", "DB box", and many other names, is a metal box attached to a wall inside a building, usually in some maintenance area, containing several {{w|circuit breakers}} that let power through to various parts of the building. A circuit breaker is an electrical switch, usually in the form of a small lever, that will physically open if too much power is flowing through, as might be the case if a fault occurs, in order to prevent fires and protect appliances.

In most breaker boxes, each individual breaker is labeled to let the operator know what that specific breaker controls. A breaker will usually control something like the outlets or lights in a certain room, or some large appliance.

However, in houses that have been rewired multiple times (or are poorly wired), this can quickly become overcomplicated with seemingly random connections. Randall lives in Boston where much of the housing stock is from the late 1800s or early 1900s, and he is likely to live in a house with non-ideal wiring, which may have inspired this comic.

The comic satirizes these complex wiring setups, with multiple breakers "controlling" arbitrary things, including some that -- in the classic style of XKCD -- may be impossible to hook a breaker up to, getting progressively more absurd to the point of disabling certain laws of physics.

===Table of the breakers labels===
{|class = "wikitable"
! Label next to breaker !! Explanation !! Note
|-
! colspan="3"|Left column of switches
|-
| Kitchen Lights || The lights in the kitchen. || rowspan="3"| Standard items
|-
| Living room lights || The lights in the living room.
|-
| Porch lights || The lights on the porch.
|-
| Bathroom lights and one surprise mystery outlet somewhere || The lights in the bathroom, but also a random outlet.
This kind of situation can occur if an electrician – while adding wiring – chooses to wire seemingly logically unrelated things to the same circuit because it's convient/sensible for her to do so. This can mystify future homeowners who don't know the wiring history.
| Standard, but 'kludged'
|-
| North-facing appliances || colspan="2"|Difficult, but not theoretically impossible. Presumably this house has:
#a smart wiring system that knows which outlets control which appliances, and can toggle all outlets,
#all appliances with magnetic compasses that report their orientation to the smart home controler, and
#this breaker is not a simple power on/off but can selectively disable only north-facing appliances.
Alternative explanations:
* The switch may be physically wired only to outlets installed on a southern wall in the property (or ''all'' southern walls, for each room that requires them), with the presumption that everything connected to these exclusively north-facing outlets also faces directly away from the wall(s).
* It could mean the appliances on the north-facing walls of the house.

Note: "North-facing" has broad interpretation, as lax as northeast to northwest or as strict as {{w|Points of the compass#32-wind compass rose|north by east to north by west}}.

|-
| Bathtub drain light || colspan="2"|Bathtub drains typically do not have lights, but this breaker provides power to that and only that.
|-
| Appliances whose names contain the letter "F" || colspan="2"|Also difficult but not theoretically impossible. Similar to "North-facing appliances," this would require a smart wiring system that can detect the official names of appliances plugged into each outlet, and the ability of this breaker switch to selectively toggle certain outlets. (Typical electrical systems do not carry data about names, for starters.)
Some common household appliances that this switch might control:
* coffee maker
* refrigerator
* freezer
* fan
* air fryer
* food processor
* waffle iron
* fabric steamer
* fireplace (electric)
|-
| Hot water heater || Usually just a heater that creates (and typically stores) hot water. But given that the next breaker controls the "Regular water heater", this breaker might actually control a water heater that pointlessly heats water that is ''already'' hot.

So this is probbaly a joke about the fact that the common phrase "hot water heater" is technically redundant or misleading:
* Redundant because the simpler term "water heater" is enough to describe a device that produces hot water
* Misleading because it's not the purpose of residential water heaters to heat water that is ''already'' hot). || rowspan="2"|Two "heaters"
|-
| Regular water heater || The heater for regular water. Together with the switch above, this presumes it's for a heater for heating water that is not yet hot (usually called a "hot water heater", hence the joke).
|-
| Outlets in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in || colspan="2"|This controls every outlet in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in, such as the dining room and kitchen and -- depending on the "normal" habits of the inhabitants -- other rooms such as the bedroom, bathroom, or living room (if not already covered by the "living room lights" switch above).
|-
| High-pitched hum generator || colspan="2"|Controls a high-pitched hum generator. This is a call-back to [[1590: The Source]].
|-
| The solution to the cryptogram below: || colspan="2"|Likely a pun on "breaking" or solving a cryptogram, which is a puzzle where a sentence has been encoded using a cipher, usually simple, and the goal is to determine the cipher and recover the original sentence from the encoded one.
Another explanation is that this switch enables or disables the solution somehow, perhaps toggling its knowability or solvability.
|-
| Bugs || colspan="2"|Several interpretations are possible:
* Disable all software bugs in the house*
* Disable all actual bugs in the house -- as an efficient form of pest control -- perhaps using ultrasonic emitters that drive away bugs. May be a reference to [[2753: Air Handler]].
* Disable power to all covert listening devices, which would be able to be switched off if wired into the house's electrical grid.
* Disable the whole global category of bugs (insects, arachnids, and other small arthropods), in which case we'd have no more pests and we'd reduce disease likes malaria and {{w|Lyme disease}}. Food webs would also collapse, and our world would be overrun with waste.

*Though it's unlikely that it's what Randall is referring to, computer bugs switches actually exist. It's a feature in some video game emulators to either run an unofficial patched version or to stay true to the original system, for example to allow bug-exploit speedruns of a video game.

|-
! colspan="3"|Right column of switches
|-
| A whirring fan you didn't realize was on until now || colspan="2"|The AC in a building usually creates quiet white noise from fans, which people usually do not hear until they become aware that there is a sound. Other appliances, such as refrigerators or home servers can have similar effects.
|-
| Dishwasher || colspan="2"|The dishwasher.
|-
| Dishes || colspan="2"|Traditionally, dishes cannot be turned off, as they do not normally require electricity. "Dishes" could be the label for a dishwasher on another house's breaker box, but this one already used that label. Another, unlikely explanation is that this switch controls two or more satellite dishes.
|-
| Hallway lights || The lights in the hallway or hallways. || rowspan="3"|"Hallway" regions
|-
| Hallway outlets || The outlets in the hallway or hallways.
|-
| Hallway floors || This breaker has several potential interpretations:
#Outlets in the floor
#Electric underfloor heating (heated bathroom floors are a feature in some houses)
#Electrification of the floors -- not common outside of horror and heist movies.
#Disabling all floors entirely, so everything resting on the floors falls through.
|-
| Social media || colspan="2"|This breaker also has several potential interpretations of "turning off social media":
#'Digital detoxes', where someone says "I'm going to turn off my social media" and intends to deny themselves access to all their social media apps.
#A switch for a parent to turn off all social media entering the house to protect their kids and themselves, which references a type of specialized content filter available through Wi-Fi router settings, not traditionally a breaker box.
#A callback to [[908: The Cloud]]. Since most social media platforms are centralized services, it would be theoretically possible to hook up a switch to the main power supply of every server building at once, given some extremely long wires, a breaker capable of handling the abhorrently massive electric load, and agreement from every social media provider([[1439|optional]]).
#The theoretical desire by some to "turn off social media" for the world due to its harmful effects on society. As someone who lived before social media and saw its spread over two decades, Randall may be ruing the impacts of social media on civilization and channeling his desire to put the genie back in the bottle.
|-
| State law || Likely a pun on "State Law Breaker."
Taken literally, it would either disable enforcement of State Law or nullify every single one, creating a state of martial law similar to the premise of the popular movie, "The Purge". It's unclear if this refers to Randall's state of Massachusetts or State Law as a general concept.
| rowspan="2"|"Legal" items
|-
| Federal law || Likely a pun on "Federal Law Breaker," though it could also be taken literally, as above. The ramifications of nullifying every US Federal law are immense. Disabling Federal Law while keeping State Law would theoretically fulfill the goals of the "States Rights" advocates, groups of conservatives across US history aiming to return Federal power to the States.
|-
| Second law of thermodynamics || The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in simple terms, states that the total entropy (or disorder) of an isolated system can only increase over time. It's a fundamental principle that dictates the direction of energy flow and the feasibility of many processes, and provides an arrow of time.
Turning off the second law of thermodynamics would have some pros and cons.
;GOOD STUFF
*'''Perpetual Motion Machines''': Machines that can do work indefinitely without an energy source would become possible, defying our current understanding of energy conservation.
*'''Reversibility of Processes''': Many natural processes that are irreversible under current laws could be reversed. For instance, melted ice could spontaneously turn back into a solid without energy removal.
*'''Recycling Energy''': We could theoretically use the same quantum of energy over and over again, leading to ultra-efficient systems and potentially solving many of the world's energy problems.
*'''Reversing Entropy-Driven Processes''': Things like mixing cream and coffee or ink in water could spontaneously unmix.
;BAD STUFF
*'''End Life as We Know It:''' All living organisms rely on the second law for crucial processes, including metabolism and reproduction. If the second law were negated, life, at least as we understand it, might not be possible.
*'''No Heat Engines:''' Engines rely on the flow of heat from hotter to colder bodies. Without the Second Law, our cars, power plants, refrigerators, and many other devices would not function.
*'''Breakdown of Molecular Processes:''' Molecules spontaneously move from areas of higher to lower concentration due to entropy. Without this, diffusion, osmosis, and many biochemical reactions wouldn't occur as they currently do.
*'''Loss of Directionality:''' One interpretation of the Second Law provides a directionality to time (the so-called "arrow of time"). Without it, causality and our understanding of past, present, and future could be fundamentally altered.
*'''Unpredictable Outcomes:''' Turning off the Second Law could result in a universe where outcomes are not probabilistically predictable. You couldn't rely on anything happening as it "should," leading to chaos in every sense.
 This law of physics was also explored in the What If? article [https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/ Fire From Moonlight].
| rowspan="3"|"Physics" items
|-
| Friction || Friction is the resistive force that opposes the relative motion or tendency of such motion of two surfaces in contact. Turning it off has some upsides and downsides.
;UPSIDES
*'''Perpetual Motion Machines:''' Without friction, once an object starts moving, it would continue indefinitely unless acted upon by another force. This could lead to perpetual motion machines that could generate energy.
*'''Super-Efficient Transport:''' Cars, trains, and other vehicles would glide effortlessly once set into motion, leading to immense energy savings.
*'''Unique Sports:''' New sports and activities would emerge, where players glide or slide over surfaces without friction.
;DOWNSIDES
*'''Walking Would Be Impossible:''' We rely on friction between our feet and the ground to move. Without it, we would be unable to walk, run, or even stand.
*'''No Manual Dexterity:''' Holding, grabbing, or manipulating objects would be impossible. Even simple tasks like holding a glass or writing with a pen would be out of reach.
*'''Catastrophic Mechanical Failures:''' Many machines rely on friction to function. Brakes in cars, for instance, use friction to slow down and stop the vehicle. Without it, uncontrollable accidents would occur.
*'''No Sound:''' Friction between air molecules creates sound waves. Without friction, the world would be silent.
*'''Breathing Difficulties:''' Our respiratory system relies on frictional forces when the alveoli in our lungs exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide with the bloodstream.
*'''No Fire:''' Fire relies on friction for its creation, such as when striking a match. The absence of friction would mean no traditional methods of starting a fire.
*'''Collisions:''' Objects, once set in motion, would continue to move until they hit something, leading to a myriad of unpredictable and uncontrollable collisions.
 Being in a frictionless environment (and a vacuum, as physicists love...) was the subject of [[669: Experiment]].
|-
| Gravity || Gravity is a natural force that attracts two bodies toward each other, proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
Turning off gravity would have some advantages and disadvantages.
;ADVANTAGES
* '''Flight''': Without gravity, every leap could turn into a flight. We could push off surfaces and float effortlessly through the air.
* '''No Weight Restrictions''': Large structures could be built without concern for weight-bearing loads. This would drastically change engineering and architectural designs.
* '''New Sports''': Zero-gravity sports and activities could become a reality on Earth. Imagine playing basketball or soccer without gravity!
;DISADVANTAGES
* '''Loss of Atmosphere and Oceans''': Without gravity, Earth's atmosphere would dissipate into space, and water from oceans, rivers, and lakes would float away, making life as we know it impossible.
* '''Unanchored Chaos''': Everything not fixed to the ground, including people, animals, vehicles, trees, and structures, would become airborne, causing massive destruction and chaos.
* '''Disruption of Celestial Order''': Earth would no longer orbit the Sun, the Moon would drift away rather quickly, and the structural integrity of the universe, including galaxies and solar systems, would be jeopardized.
* '''Everything Exploding''': Most celestial bodies, ranging from the moon to supermassive black holes, would explode from internal pressure and centrifugal forces no longer fighting against gravity throwing everything into space.
* '''Aggregation Absence''': Stars, galaxies, and basically anything in space requires gravity to form. Without gravity, no stars, planets, or meteors would form ever again.
|-
| Circuit breakers || colspan="2"|If this was turned off, it would presumably turn off the functionality of the circuit breaker itself. Practically, it would turn of all power in the house since no breaker is supplied or supplying power any more. (Most houses have a main circuit breaker that provides this functionality.) However, because this specifically is a switch for literally circuit breakers and it itself is a circuit breaker, given the other surreal things this breaker box controls, turning it off will possibly make it impossible to turn it on ever again as the switch will no longer function once switched off.

Moreover, if this circuit breaker disables all circuit breakers everywhere, it would result in global infrastructure collapse, halting essential services, including transportation, healthcare, and communication, and leading to widespread chaos.
|-
! colspan="3"|Title text
|-
| colspan="2"|The title text is about causality. Turning off the circuit breaker using the CIRCUIT BREAKER switch may lead to a loop, as the disabled breaker can no longer disable itself, leading to it turning back on, etc. Alternatively, turning off the CIRCUIT BREAKER switch might be a one-way street: turning the CAUSALITY switch from OFF back to ON would be unlikely to do anything if circuit breakers have been fully deactivated. The separation of cause and effect would ostensibly take precedence over the current switch setting. Turning off CAUSALITY first would prevent either the loop or the permanent disabling of circuit breakers (but would also have many other side effects; whether or not turning off causality would actually turn off causality if causality is turned off is an exercise for the reader).
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[An open breaker box is shown. There are 26 labelled breakers, all of which are on, paired back to back in thirteen rows as a label, switch, switch and label.]
:Kitchen lights / A whirring fan you didn't realize was on until now
:Living room lights / Dishwasher
:Porch lights / Dishes
:Bathroom lights and one surprise mystery outlet somewhere / Hallway lights
:North-facing appliances / Hallway outlets
:Bathtub drain light / Hallway floors
:Appliances whose names contain the letter "F" / Social media
:Hot water heater / State law
:Regular water heater / Federal law
:Outlets in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in / Second law of thermodynamics
:High-pitched hum generator / Friction
:[There are words that are too small to read on the left breaker's label.]
:The solution to the cryptogram below: / Gravity
:Bugs / Circuit breakers

{{comic discussion}}

2473: Product Launch

2021-06-08T22:20:53Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ grammar/style fix of last edit

{{comic
| number = 2473
| date = June 7, 2021
| title = Product Launch
| image = product_launch.png
| titletext = "Okay, that was weird, but the product reveal was normal. I think the danger is pas--" "One more thing." "Oh no."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a NON-THREATENING SMART DEVICE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Three people are discussing the upcoming public announcement of their company's new product, apparently an electronic device shown on the pedestal between them. Hairy mentions that such devices can make people uncomfortable. Common reasons include:

* It is impossible for consumers to know what the device is really doing (since it is a "black box" with inaccessible software).
* The device could stop working in the future due to poor quality or software problems;
* The device could be used by the company to spy on people, including ones who did not consent to this by purchasing the device.
* The device could represent a security or even safety risk by allowing hackers or other groups access to the network or any systems that the device controls.

To allay these concerns, the device should be presented as non-threatening. Cueball asks to confirm the '''non''', implying that this was not clear to him before. In fact, it even appears he thought he was being asked to put together a ''threatening'' presentation, but does not explain.

Later, Cueball presents the device on-stage, with statements that have been styled to sound positive but carry double meanings.

* He confirms that the product can "change the world for good or evil" (most would merely claim that their new product is good).
* The "plaintive cries of [the company's] customers"; those cries may be because of the company's actions rather than customer demands for a new product.
* The company wants to "give [customers] what they deserve," a phrase often associated with judgments that are as likely to punish as to reward.
* Instead of being merely uncovered, the product is being exposed to the atmosphere (implying a chemical or physical reaction) and is to affect customers within five city blocks (nearly 1 km). This is further than common smart devices (using wireless technologies such as WiFi or Bluetooth) would reach. Worse, this event is supposed to be surprising, unlike, for example, the sudden availability of a new long-distance radio network.
* When someone in the audience decides to leave in the middle of the presentation, Cueball reassures them that a "staggering" large number of people will survive; this is technically true of all product launches{{fact}}, but this is also not a reassuring way to phrase that fact. Plus, there is no assertion that the "staggering" number is in fact approximately 100%, which would typically the survival rate for most product launches{{fact}}.

In the title text, someone is saying that the actual reveal was uneventful. Cueball interrupts, implying that there is one last feature to demonstrate, at which point the first speaker assumes the worst (that the product's most threatening aspect was saved for last).

Besides the main joke of a product that is likely so unsafe as to be illegal, the comic could also be poking fun at the desire of tech companies to make their products sound important, which can undermine the message of benign safety.

This comic was released on the day of Apple's 2021 WWDC (Worldwide Developer Conference) keynote, at which the company traditionally announces new features and products. "One more thing" is a tagline famously associated with Steve Jobs' product announcements and something of an Apple tradition.

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

:[Hairy and Ponytail are standing to the left of a wrapped object. Cueball is standing on the right.]
:Hairy: The press is here for the product launch!
:Hairy: Remember, people are wary of smart devices, so we want to strike a non-threatening tone.

:[Pan over to just Cueball; Hairy and Ponytail are off of the left side of the panel.]
:Cueball: Hang on, did you say '''''non'''''-threatening?
:Hairy: Yes. Why-
:Cueball: Nothing. It's probably fine.

:[Caption: Soon...]
:[Cueball is standing on a platform next to the previously seen wrapped object.]
:Cueball: They say technology can change the world, for good or for evil. Our new product will show how true that is.
:Cueball: We hear the plaintive cries of our customers. We want to give them what they deserve.

:[Zoom in on Cueball, who has his hand up in a gesture.]
:Cueball: Now, let us expose our product to the atmosphere for the first time, surprising and delighting customers within a five-block radius.
:(Voice off-panel): I'm leaving.
:Cueball: No, don't worry! A staggering number of people will survive!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]

2473: Product Launch

2021-06-08T22:20:16Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ more on the "staggering" survival rate

{{comic
| number = 2473
| date = June 7, 2021
| title = Product Launch
| image = product_launch.png
| titletext = "Okay, that was weird, but the product reveal was normal. I think the danger is pas--" "One more thing." "Oh no."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a NON-THREATENING SMART DEVICE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Three people are discussing the upcoming public announcement of their company's new product, apparently an electronic device shown on the pedestal between them. Hairy mentions that such devices can make people uncomfortable. Common reasons include:

* It is impossible for consumers to know what the device is really doing (since it is a "black box" with inaccessible software).
* The device could stop working in the future due to poor quality or software problems;
* The device could be used by the company to spy on people, including ones who did not consent to this by purchasing the device.
* The device could represent a security or even safety risk by allowing hackers or other groups access to the network or any systems that the device controls.

To allay these concerns, the device should be presented as non-threatening. Cueball asks to confirm the '''non''', implying that this was not clear to him before. In fact, it even appears he thought he was being asked to put together a ''threatening'' presentation, but does not explain.

Later, Cueball presents the device on-stage, with statements that have been styled to sound positive but carry double meanings.

* He confirms that the product can "change the world for good or evil" (most would merely claim that their new product is good).
* The "plaintive cries of [the company's] customers"; those cries may be because of the company's actions rather than customer demands for a new product.
* The company wants to "give [customers] what they deserve," a phrase often associated with judgments that are as likely to punish as to reward.
* Instead of being merely uncovered, the product is being exposed to the atmosphere (implying a chemical or physical reaction) and is to affect customers within five city blocks (nearly 1 km). This is further than common smart devices (using wireless technologies such as WiFi or Bluetooth) would reach. Worse, this event is supposed to be surprising, unlike, for example, the sudden availability of a new long-distance radio network.
* When someone in the audience decides to leave in the middle of the presentation, Cueball reassures them that a "staggering" large number of people will survive (technically true of all product launches{{fact}}, but not a reassuring way to phrase it, and there is no assertion that the "staggering" number is in fact approximately 100% (as is typically the survival rate for most product launches{{fact}}).

In the title text, someone is saying that the actual reveal was uneventful. Cueball interrupts, implying that there is one last feature to demonstrate, at which point the first speaker assumes the worst (that the product's most threatening aspect was saved for last).

Besides the main joke of a product that is likely so unsafe as to be illegal, the comic could also be poking fun at the desire of tech companies to make their products sound important, which can undermine the message of benign safety.

This comic was released on the day of Apple's 2021 WWDC (Worldwide Developer Conference) keynote, at which the company traditionally announces new features and products. "One more thing" is a tagline famously associated with Steve Jobs' product announcements and something of an Apple tradition.

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

:[Hairy and Ponytail are standing to the left of a wrapped object. Cueball is standing on the right.]
:Hairy: The press is here for the product launch!
:Hairy: Remember, people are wary of smart devices, so we want to strike a non-threatening tone.

:[Pan over to just Cueball; Hairy and Ponytail are off of the left side of the panel.]
:Cueball: Hang on, did you say '''''non'''''-threatening?
:Hairy: Yes. Why-
:Cueball: Nothing. It's probably fine.

:[Caption: Soon...]
:[Cueball is standing on a platform next to the previously seen wrapped object.]
:Cueball: They say technology can change the world, for good or for evil. Our new product will show how true that is.
:Cueball: We hear the plaintive cries of our customers. We want to give them what they deserve.

:[Zoom in on Cueball, who has his hand up in a gesture.]
:Cueball: Now, let us expose our product to the atmosphere for the first time, surprising and delighting customers within a five-block radius.
:(Voice off-panel): I'm leaving.
:Cueball: No, don't worry! A staggering number of people will survive!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]

2473: Product Launch

2021-06-08T22:17:15Z

Wowitschris: clarification on "plaintive cries"

{{comic
| number = 2473
| date = June 7, 2021
| title = Product Launch
| image = product_launch.png
| titletext = "Okay, that was weird, but the product reveal was normal. I think the danger is pas--" "One more thing." "Oh no."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a NON-THREATENING SMART DEVICE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Three people are discussing the upcoming public announcement of their company's new product, apparently an electronic device shown on the pedestal between them. Hairy mentions that such devices can make people uncomfortable. Common reasons include:

* It is impossible for consumers to know what the device is really doing (since it is a "black box" with inaccessible software).
* The device could stop working in the future due to poor quality or software problems;
* The device could be used by the company to spy on people, including ones who did not consent to this by purchasing the device.
* The device could represent a security or even safety risk by allowing hackers or other groups access to the network or any systems that the device controls.

To allay these concerns, the device should be presented as non-threatening. Cueball asks to confirm the '''non''', implying that this was not clear to him before. In fact, it even appears he thought he was being asked to put together a ''threatening'' presentation, but does not explain.

Later, Cueball presents the device on-stage, with statements that have been styled to sound positive but carry double meanings.

* He confirms that the product can "change the world for good or evil" (most would merely claim that their new product is good).
* The "plaintive cries of [the company's] customers"; those cries may be because of the company's actions rather than customer demands for a new product.
* The company wants to "give [customers] what they deserve," a phrase often associated with judgments that are as likely to punish as to reward.
* Instead of being merely uncovered, the product is being exposed to the atmosphere (implying a chemical or physical reaction) and is to affect customers within five city blocks (nearly 1 km). This is further than common smart devices (using wireless technologies such as WiFi or Bluetooth) would reach. Worse, this event is supposed to be surprising, unlike, for example, the sudden availability of a new long-distance radio network.
* When someone in the audience decides to leave in the middle of the presentation, Cueball reassures them that a surprisingly large number of people will survive (not all, and never claiming that the product is safe).

In the title text, someone is saying that the actual reveal was uneventful. Cueball interrupts, implying that there is one last feature to demonstrate, at which point the first speaker assumes the worst (that the product's most threatening aspect was saved for last).

Besides the main joke of a product that is likely so unsafe as to be illegal, the comic could also be poking fun at the desire of tech companies to make their products sound important, which can undermine the message of benign safety.

This comic was released on the day of Apple's 2021 WWDC (Worldwide Developer Conference) keynote, at which the company traditionally announces new features and products. "One more thing" is a tagline famously associated with Steve Jobs' product announcements and something of an Apple tradition.

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

:[Hairy and Ponytail are standing to the left of a wrapped object. Cueball is standing on the right.]
:Hairy: The press is here for the product launch!
:Hairy: Remember, people are wary of smart devices, so we want to strike a non-threatening tone.

:[Pan over to just Cueball; Hairy and Ponytail are off of the left side of the panel.]
:Cueball: Hang on, did you say '''''non'''''-threatening?
:Hairy: Yes. Why-
:Cueball: Nothing. It's probably fine.

:[Caption: Soon...]
:[Cueball is standing on a platform next to the previously seen wrapped object.]
:Cueball: They say technology can change the world, for good or for evil. Our new product will show how true that is.
:Cueball: We hear the plaintive cries of our customers. We want to give them what they deserve.

:[Zoom in on Cueball, who has his hand up in a gesture.]
:Cueball: Now, let us expose our product to the atmosphere for the first time, surprising and delighting customers within a five-block radius.
:(Voice off-panel): I'm leaving.
:Cueball: No, don't worry! A staggering number of people will survive!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]

2211: Hours Before Departure

2019-10-07T03:16:42Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ i believe the recommendation is 2 hours for int'l

{{comic
| number = 2211
| date = October 4, 2019
| title = Hours Before Departure
| image = hours_before_departure.png
| titletext = They could afford to cut it close because they all had Global Entry.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LATE UP-GOER 5. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic, as from the caption, depicts {{w|Neil Armstrong}}, {{w|Buzz Aldrin}} and {{w|Michael Collins (astronaut)|Michael Collins}}, leaving in their spacesuits ([[Cueball]]-like with helmets) to go in a {{w|NASA}} van at 6:27, to be shot into space on a [[1133: Up Goer Five|Saturn V]] rocket to fly to the {{w|Moon}} on the {{w|Apollo 11}} mission (1969). The launch happened at 9:32 on July 16, just a bit more than 3 hours after they left for the launch pad.

The joke is that [[Randall]] is amazed they manage this in just three hours, given that he himself tends to arrive too early at the airport, and since they typically ask you to be there two hours before an international flight, he probably leaves from home more than three hours before his departure.

Catching transportation from one place to another requires being there and being prepared before the vehicle leaves. Some transportation, such as public city buses and personal cars require very little in preparation, and one can leave as soon as the vehicle is there and ready. Others have more complications involved, whether it be in payment, security, slower boarding, etc.

To board a {{w|Greyhound bus}}, for example, one would normally need to be there 10-15 minutes before it is scheduled to leave, because it takes time to get everyone on board at the same time, stow luggage, and present a boarding pass or proof of payment.

Boarding an airline flight is even more complicated (security checkpoints, long terminal walks, more bags, etc.) making the delays longer, and so conventional advice is to arrive two hours early for a domestic (same country) flight and three hours for an international flight. Seasoned travelers can often cut these times shorter, but to be ready for unexpectedly long delays the less experienced traveler would want to leave themselves plenty of time.

Based on that, the exceedingly complicated business of traveling to space would instinctively require you to be ready much longer than the three hours they recommend for international flights, however, three hours is about how long it took for the astronauts traveling to the moon for the first time to prepare to take off.

The comic doesn't represent the preparations for the Apollo launch entirely accurately, however. Prior to their "departure" to the launch pad, the Apollo 11 astronauts had woken up at 4:15 AM, and after a 25-minute breakfast had spent at least an hour and a half getting into their spacesuits. For regular travel on an airplane or other modes usually no more than a few minutes preparation is needed, for instance, to load luggage in a car or wait for a cab. What's more, because all activity took place at Cape Canaveral, the "trip" to the launch site took only 8 minutes, and the crew began to take their seats in the Saturn V rocket only a few minutes later, at 6:45 AM. Thus they were locked in the capsule for about two-and-a-half hours prior to launch. For normal travel, people will only be in their seats for a few minutes before departure, or for large aircraft maybe a half an hour while it loads. Thus the total time from beginning to get ready to liftoff was about five hours, which in fact is longer than less complicated activities like air travel {{Citation needed}}. This is though still significantly shorter than you would think preparation for a journey over a distance of almost 10 times around the Earth, each way, and in significantly more dangerous conditions, would take.

The title text is a pun on the words "global entry". {{w|Global Entry}} is a {{w|United States Customs and Border Protection}} program that allows US citizens to quickly proceed through customs checks when arriving from overseas, instead of waiting in a long line to present a passport. The Global Entry program also allows for access to the {{w|TSA PreCheck}} program, which allows for expedited security screenings.

In the case of the Apollo astronauts, their return to the earth involved re-entry into the atmosphere (technically called {{w|Atmospheric entry}}), and of course global is another word for things relating to the earth. So the Apollo astronauts could be said to have undergone "global entry" on their return. The joke is that since they have "Global Entry" privileges, the astronauts did not need to arrive as early to the shuttle launch site.

==Transcript==
:[Three Cueball-like astronauts with space helmets are walking toward the back side of a van with the rear door open. There is a logo with text on the side of the van. The front of the van is off-panel. Above them is a time and below that a description.]
:6:27 AM
:Crew departs for launch site
:Logo: NASA

:[A rocket launch pad with the rocket in the process of taking off, having lifted its exhaust to about a third of the height of the support tower. Smoke is billowing everywhere around the launch pad from the exhaust of the rocket. Above the rocket is a time and below that a description.]
:9:32 AM
:Liftoff

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:I know I tend to arrive too early at the airport, but it still weirds me out that Neil Armstrong left for the launch site just three hours before departure.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[category:Space]]

2041: Frontiers

2018-09-04T19:36:36Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2041
| date = September 3, 2018
| title = Frontiers
| image = frontiers.png
| titletext = Star Trek V is a small part of the space frontier, but it's been a while since that movie came out so I assume we've finished exploring it by now.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic refers to four remaining final frontiers of human discovery and implies that other fields of research aren't a challenge anymore. [[Randall]] states that this is based on popular usage which he probably analyzed by using a popular internet search engine.

Outer '''space''' is so vast in size it's impossible for humans to discover even just all stars in our Milky Way galaxy within a lifetime.

'''The oceans''' are deep, very deep. The vast majority of the deeper oceans hasn't been visited by humans and there is still much life we don't know.

'''The human mind''' is not only complex but also irrational which makes it even harder to discover.

'''Alaska''' is the largest state in the US by area and also the most sparsely populated. Many places in Alaska exist that have been only partially explored today. Randall was probably inspired by the TV series {{w|Alaska: The Last Frontier}}, which plays off of the state's official nickname of "The Last Frontier".

The humor from this comic comes from the fact that many readers would likely consider space, the oceans, and the human mind as a very different category of frontier than "Alaska" (for example, space is infinitely vast whereas the US state of Alaska has a larger population than the US state of Wyoming).

The title text refers to the movie ''{{w|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier}}'' released in 1989. "Final frontier" is a recurring motif in the Star Trek franchise (coming from the opening narration for ''{{w|Star Trek: The Original Series}}'') and is used to describe the exploration of the "outer space", which remains a big frontier to humans both in real life and within Star Trek. [[Randall]] however jokingly posits that the frontier to be explored is the film itself, and assumes that based on the fact that this movie has been out for a while (nearly thirty years) the movie should be fully explored in all its details by now.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[In a single framed picture a hand drawn rhombus is shown. At the inside a few small arrows pointing to the four sides. The text in the middle reads:]
:Human achievement so far

:[Text above the top left side:]
:Space
:[Text above the top right side:]
:The oceans
:[Text below the bottom left side:]
:The human mind
:[Text below the bottom right side:]
:Alaska

:[Caption below the frame:]
:Final remaining "frontiers," according to popular usage

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]

2041: Frontiers

2018-09-04T19:35:17Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ adding what the joke is

{{comic
| number = 2041
| date = September 3, 2018
| title = Frontiers
| image = frontiers.png
| titletext = Star Trek V is a small part of the space frontier, but it's been a while since that movie came out so I assume we've finished exploring it by now.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic refers to four remaining final frontiers of human discovery and implies that other fields of research aren't a challenge anymore. [[Randall]] states that this is based on popular usage which he probably analyzed by using a popular internet search engine.

Outer '''space''' is so vast in size it's impossible for humans to discover even just all stars in our Milky Way galaxy within a lifetime.

'''The oceans''' are deep, very deep. The vast majority of the deeper oceans hasn't been visited by humans and there is still much life we don't know.

'''The human mind''' is not only complex but also irrational which makes it even harder to discover.

'''Alaska''' is the largest state in the US by area and also the most sparsely populated. Many places in Alaska exist that have been only partially explored today. Randall was probably inspired by the TV series {{w|Alaska: The Last Frontier}}, which plays off of the state's official nickname of "The Last Frontier".

The humor from this comic comes from the fact that many readers would likely consider space, the oceans, and the human mind as a very different category of frontier than "Alaska" (for example, space is infinitely vast whereas Alaska is more populated than the US state of Wyoming).

The title text refers to the movie ''{{w|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier}}'' released in 1989. "Final frontier" is a recurring motif in the Star Trek franchise (coming from the opening narration for ''{{w|Star Trek: The Original Series}}'') and is used to describe the exploration of the "outer space", which remains a big frontier to humans both in real life and within Star Trek. [[Randall]] however jokingly posits that the frontier to be explored is the film itself, and assumes that based on the fact that this movie has been out for a while (nearly thirty years) the movie should be fully explored in all its details by now.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[In a single framed picture a hand drawn rhombus is shown. At the inside a few small arrows pointing to the four sides. The text in the middle reads:]
:Human achievement so far

:[Text above the top left side:]
:Space
:[Text above the top right side:]
:The oceans
:[Text below the bottom left side:]
:The human mind
:[Text below the bottom right side:]
:Alaska

:[Caption below the frame:]
:Final remaining "frontiers," according to popular usage

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]

1913: A ?

2017-11-10T20:16:42Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1913
| date = November 8, 2017
| title = A �
| image = i.png
| titletext = If you want in on the fun, map a key on your keyboard to the sequence U+0041 U+0020 U+FFFD (or U+0021 U+0020 U+FFFD for the exclamation point version), and then no update can never take this away from you.
}}

==Explanation==

After the update to {{w|Apple Inc.|Apple's}} {{w|IOS_11#11.1|iOS 11.1}}, many (though not all) {{w|iPhone}} users suffered from a strange bug, where the {{w|autocorrection}} changed any input of the single lowercase letter "i" to either "A" or "!" followed by a space and a Unicode {{w|Variation Selectors (Unicode block)|variation selector 16}} (U+FE0F, on iOS displayed as a question mark in a square).<ref>http://www.loopinsight.com/2017/11/06/ios-bug-autocorrects-letter-i-to-a-plus-unicode-symbol-heres-a-workaround-and-a-clue-to-the-cause/</ref> Using a {{w|Specials_(Unicode_block)#Replacement_character|replacement character}} to approximate this display, the result of typing "i took" might be "A � took" or "! � took". In a handwritten text, the "�" symbol could then be mistaken for a censored word. This problem previously manifested as an "I" followed directly by the VS-16 "emojify character", turning them into an " �" without the "A".<ref>https://twitter.com/willkirkby/status/925865928193134593</ref>

The note in this comic is the equivalent of starting a text message with "i took out..." and triggering the iOS bug. The joke revolves around acceptance of the bug through repetition has influenced the writer's hand written style.

The codes in the title text refer to "A �" and "! �" respectively. The text provides a way to keep the "bug" active, (which can be realized through the use of a {{w|Cydia}} tweak) even after it is patched. Although this would have no practical use, it is still a fun way{{Citation needed}} for iPhone users to keep the infamous bug fresh in everyone's mind, and to make sure that the Apple company never lives down the embarrassing incident.

The statement in the title text "no update can never take this away from you" is a {{w|Double negative|double negative}}, which is a considered non-standard grammatical use in modern English, although common in many dialects. Taking literally it could actually mean "any update can take this away from you". This may be a typo or a colloquial use, with the intended meaning to be "ever" instead of "never" with some exaggeration.

=== References ===
<references />

==Transcript==
:[A picture of a yellow post-it note with a handwritten message:]
:A ⍰ took out the trash but the dishwasher still needs to be run.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Apple can try to fix the autocorrect bug, but I've already incorporated it into my handwriting.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Unicode]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:1913: A ?

2017-11-10T20:15:37Z

Wowitschris:

"no update can never" is logically equivalent to "any update can". Not sure if this is intentional. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.60|162.158.106.60]] 16:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
: Isn't it logically equivalent to "any update can ''sometimes''"? Linguistically, of course, it can be equivalent either to this, or to "no update can".[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.198|141.101.105.198]] 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
:: I think it's actually equivalent to "ALL updates can" (because if even a single update could not, the statement would be false). [[User:Jedi.jesse|Jedi.jesse]] ([[User talk:Jedi.jesse|talk]]) 05:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
::: But "all updates can" could imply that only applying all updates would take it away. It also doesn't deal with the temporality - "no update can never" only implies that for each update there is a point in time when it could take it away, not necessarily that any update can always take it away, nor that there is any time at which all updates could take it away. Or to summarise, trying to reduce language to terms of logic is a fool's errand. ;o)[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.198|141.101.105.198]] 09:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
: Or did Randall mean to type "no update can ever take this away" which makes more sense to me? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.76|172.68.54.76]] 19:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
: Due to the linked Wikipedia article "some dialects of English are examples of negative-concord languages", i.e. double negatives intensifies eauch other. From my experience, it isn't only some dialects but most (of American English). Same Wikipedia article also states that negative-concord are more common. (we need more mathematicians in the world.) Imho, the relevant sentence on the comic page should be deleted or strongly modified, since it's common usage. [[User:Derda17|Derda17]] ([[User talk:Derda17|talk]]) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:: Idiot English is a bit of stretch to call a dialect. It just happens to be how dumb people speak.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.118|162.158.202.118]] 21:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
::: Rule #1 here: don't be a jerk. Your modern "proper" English is basically the "extremely, super duper idiot" version of Old English. English has no strong and/or standardizing authority to establish e.g. a standard French. ([[User:Wowitschris|Wowitschris]] ([[User talk:Wowitschris|talk]]) 20:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC))

Is this a comment on all those moral panics about 'the youth of today can't read or write because they're only learning to speak in emojis'? And/or about developers using 'undocumented features' in their applications, so that when they're fixed it breaks those applications?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.198|141.101.105.198]] 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

More like on how Randall appears to have strange habits. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.52|172.68.141.52]] 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully somebody will make a full tutorial on how to accomplish the title text thing.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.241|162.158.89.241]] 19:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
:I could do this easily on the computer with AutoHotKey (which might be overkill), but I'm not sure about iPhones, which are likely the target for the idea. iPhones have built-in text replacement, but I think you have to follow the word to be replaced with a space for it to work, rather than it working instantly (as "mapping a key on your keyboard" implies). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41|172.68.26.41]] 19:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The correct url for this comic would be something like [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1913:_A_%EF%BF%BD 1913:_A_%EF%BF%BD], but that is an invalid title. It would still probably be better to change it to "A ?" with a note instead of "A_%C3%AF%C2%BF%C2%BD". —[[User:Artyer|Artyer]] <big>([[User Talk:Artyer|talk]]<big>'''|'''</big>[[Special:Contributions/Artyer|ctb]])</big> 21:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
: I suggest using ⍰ (U+2370) instead, as it better approximates the original iOS display. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.52|172.68.54.52]] 21:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the name of the posted image is i.png, which I guess DOES match the name of the comic? [[User:Alanbbent|Alanbbent]] ([[User talk:Alanbbent|talk]]) 22:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, change the strange symbol to its HTML entity, � [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.154|108.162.249.154]] 23:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A lowercase i represents the square root of negative one, so let's just say that this comic is imaginary and resolve the problem that way :-)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.238|162.158.59.238]] 05:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not possible to make a wiki page with � in the name so I have changed to title to "A ?" and moved both the explanation and the comment here. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Strange that I was the first to comment on the fact that it was I not i that was changed in the comic, which acording to the current explanation is what happens with the Apple bug... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
: The expected autocorrection on typing "i" would be replacing it by "I". So usually there's no need to type "I", it should be enough to type "i" (saves you one click). --[[User:YMS|YMS]] ([[User talk:YMS|talk]]) 16:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:: OK. But what about the other i in the text. Would they not trigger the error because it is inside a word? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
::: No they wouldn't, because the autocorrect is triggered by hitting space. If you use "i" in the middle of a word, the next button is a letter, not the space button, and it recognizes the rest of the word. (I don't know what it would do if you found a word ending with "i".) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 21:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:::: Worth noting also that if the lower-case i is at the end of a word (e.g. "Hawaii"), this wouldn't trigger the AutoCorrect because "Hawaii" is a recognized word and wouldn't need correcting. And I assume that if you typed "hawaii" instead, it would perform a standard correction to "Hawaii". ''(Ironically, my MacBook auto-corrected my lower-case "hawaii" to "Hawaii" for me while typing this. I had to override it here. :))'' [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 22:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

1894: Real Estate

2017-09-26T15:50:15Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ adding stuff about humans and large numbers

{{comic
| number = 1894
| date = September 25, 2017
| title = Real Estate
| image = real_estate.png
| titletext = I tried converting the prices into pizzas, to put it in more familiar terms, and it just became a hard-to-think-about number of pizzas.
}}

==Explanation==

In this comic, [[Cueball]] is speaking with [[Ponytail]], his real estate agent, about an ongoing negotiation over the price of a house he is looking to buy. This is probably his first time buying a house and he is very overwhelmed by the process, a very common feeling among first-time home buyers. The housing market is so complicated and ever-changing, that it is almost impossible for the layman to have any concept of what a piece of property is worth. One must rely on the opinions of their real estate agent, building inspector, friends and family, along with research regarding the housing market in the area (average property values, what houses recently sold for, etc). Telling the agent that you need time to think about it is a good strategy to stall for time and research further while seeming to know what you're doing.

In the caption [[Randall]] makes it seem that he is in Cueball's situation in any financial negotiation, not only for such large ones as when buying real estate.

In the title text Randall mentions that he tried to convert the prices into the equivalent numbers of pizzas that amount could buy (most pizza parlors charge roughly 15 dollars for a "large"-sized pizza, so this could net him over 650 pizzas). Thinking of the price of an object (or a reduction in the price) in terms of the number of pizzas (or similar objects) that amount could buy is a good strategy for weighing the pros and cons of a smaller purchase, but doesn't help in this situation, as the number of pizzas is so large that it becomes meaningless in itself. A better strategy would be to compare the large price to his average monthly cost of living (rent, utility bills, car payments, et al), or to compare to the comparatively stable average cost to build on-site, or the price of factory built homes.

This comic is in line with the much older [[616: Lease]] and the more recent [[1674: Adult]] regarding buying real estate and not feeling grown up (see also [[905: Homeownership]]).

This comic (and the title text) also alludes to the fact that humans are generally very bad at comprehending/visualizing very large numbers; mathematician Spencer Greenberg has similarly suggested trying to convert very large numbers into different units (such as US national debt into US national debt per person) in an effort to bring the magnitudes down into something more comprehensible, something that Randall humorously attempts to do with the aforementioned conversion to quantities of pizza.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail and Cueball sit in office chairs on either side of a desk. Ponytail looks at a piece of paper she is holding in her hand, more papers lie on the table. Cueball sits with his hands in his lap, thinking in a thought bubble before he replies to her remark.]
:Ponytail: The sellers offer to drop their price by $10,000 ''and'' cover the driveway repairs.
:Cueball [thinking]: These are all staggeringly large amounts of money that I have no idea how to even ''think'' about, let alone compare.
:Cueball [speaking]: Tempting. We'll need a few hours to consider it.

:[Caption below the panels:]
:Me in any financial negotiation.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]

1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T18:53:35Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ s/cannot/may not/

{{comic
| number = 1844
| date = May 31, 2017
| title = Voting Systems
| image = voting_systems.png
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}

This comic references three types of voting systems:

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting '''Approval Voting''']: Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting '''Instant-Runoff Voting''']: In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters.

3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method '''Condorcet Method''']: A '''Condorcet method''' is any single-winner electoral system that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the Condorcet Paradox, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.

'''Condorcet's Paradox'''

As a simple illustration, suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference):

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! Voter !! First preference !! Second preference !! Third preference
|-
! Voter 1
| A || B || C
|-
! Voter 2
| B || C || A
|-
! Voter 3
| C || A || B
|}

If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the choice between A and C would not be the same whether the B choice is present or not. This example is referred to as Condorcet paradox.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem '''Arrow's impossibility theorem'''] gives a list of criteria for ranked voting electoral systems and states that no system can satisfy all of them at once, despite that for each of them it may seem "obvious" that an electoral system ought to satisfy it.

The primary joke in the comic is the premise that people who are pedantic or knowledgeable enough to find Arrow's theorem to be relevant will self-fulfill the theorem by being inclined to disagree on any effort to produce a community-wide ranking. This is illustrated by Cueball's voting system preference that is contingent on essentially disagreeing with the preferences of other people, which defeats any effort to produce a community-wide ranking.

A secondary joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote, because voting strategically for a less favorite choice may prevent their least favorite choice from being selected. This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional "first past the pole" voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate.

A third joke is the idea of having to vote for a voting system creates its own paradox, particularly given that one of the candidates (Condorcet method) would itself stipulate that it may not (logically consistently) win in the situation that it is being proposed in (3 or more candidates).

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.]
:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Strong Arrow's theorem: The people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Politics]]

1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T18:40:52Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ qualifying "win"

{{comic
| number = 1844
| date = May 31, 2017
| title = Voting Systems
| image = voting_systems.png
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}

This comic references three types of voting systems:

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting '''Approval Voting''']: Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting '''Instant-Runoff Voting''']: In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters.

3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method '''Condorcet Method''']: A '''Condorcet method''' is any single-winner electoral system that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the Condorcet Paradox, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.

'''Condorcet's Paradox'''

As a simple illustration, suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference):

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! Voter !! First preference !! Second preference !! Third preference
|-
! Voter 1
| A || B || C
|-
! Voter 2
| B || C || A
|-
! Voter 3
| C || A || B
|}

If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the choice between A and C would not be the same whether the B choice is present or not. This example is referred to as '''Condorcet paradox'''.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem '''Arrow's impossibility theorem'''] gives a list of criteria for ranked voting electoral systems and states that no system can satisfy all of them at once, despite that for each of them it may seem "obvious" that an electoral system ought to satisfy it.

The primary joke in the comic is the premise that people who are pedantic or knowledgeable enough to find Arrow's theorem to be relevant will self-fulfill the theorem by being inclined to disagree on any effort to produce a community-wide ranking. This is illustrated by Cueball's voting system preference that is contingent on essentially disagreeing with the preferences of other people, which defeats any effort to produce a community-wide ranking.

A secondary joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote, because voting strategically for a less favorite choice may prevent their least favorite choice from being selected. This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional "first past the pole" voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate.

A third joke is the idea of having to vote for a voting system creates its own paradox, particularly given that one of the candidates (Condorcet method) would itself stipulate that it cannot (logically consistently) win in the situation that it is being proposed in (3 or more candidates).

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.]
:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Strong Arrow's theorem: The people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Politics]]

1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T18:37:19Z

Wowitschris: /* Explanation */ reorg, clarifying main joke, expanding secondary/tertiary jokes

{{comic
| number = 1844
| date = May 31, 2017
| title = Voting Systems
| image = voting_systems.png
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}

This comic references three types of voting systems:

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting '''Approval Voting''']: Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting '''Instant-Runoff Voting''']: In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters.

3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method '''Condorcet Method''']: A '''Condorcet method''' is any single-winner electoral system that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the Condorcet Paradox, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.

'''Condorcet's Paradox'''

As a simple illustration, suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference):

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! Voter !! First preference !! Second preference !! Third preference
|-
! Voter 1
| A || B || C
|-
! Voter 2
| B || C || A
|-
! Voter 3
| C || A || B
|}

If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the choice between A and C would not be the same whether the B choice is present or not. This example is referred to as '''Condorcet paradox'''.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem '''Arrow's impossibility theorem'''] gives a list of criteria for ranked voting electoral systems and states that no system can satisfy all of them at once, despite that for each of them it may seem "obvious" that an electoral system ought to satisfy it.

The primary joke in the comic is the premise that people who are pedantic or knowledgeable enough to find Arrow's theorem to be relevant will self-fulfill the theorem by being inclined to disagree on any effort to produce a community-wide ranking. This is illustrated by Cueball's voting system preference that is contingent on essentially disagreeing with the preferences of other people, which defeats any effort to produce a community-wide ranking.

A secondary joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote, because voting strategically for a less favorite choice may prevent their least favorite choice from being selected. This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional "first past the pole" voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate.

A third joke is the idea of having to vote for a voting system creates its own paradox, particularly given that one of the candidates (Condorcet method) would itself stipulate that it cannot win in the situation that it is being proposed in (3 or more candidates).

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.]
:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Strong Arrow's theorem: The people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Politics]]