https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Thomson%27s+Gazelle&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T08:54:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2103:_Midcontinent_Rift_System&diff=1686722103: Midcontinent Rift System2019-01-28T16:11:33Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2103<br />
| date = January 25, 2019<br />
| title = Midcontinent Rift System<br />
| image = midcontinent_rift_system.png<br />
| titletext = The best wedge issue is an actual wedge.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a MID CONTINENTAL RIFT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
Recently, USA politics has caused polarization of the public.<ref>[https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/215210/partisan-differences-growing-number-issues.aspx Partisan Differences Growing on a Number of Issues]</ref> It is said to be "split" in two camps (liberal and conservative). Here [[Black Hat]] is trying to get elected by promising he will actually split America in two. His presentation illustrates, using a giant crowbar, the completion of the {{w|Midcontinent Rift System|Midcontinent Rift}}, which is a large crack that started to form about 1.1 billion years ago, but failed to completely sever the continent.<br />
<br />
It is unclear why anyone would vote for such a thing, but people directly affected (the Midwest) are likely to vote against [[Black Hat]]. While Black Hat and his campaign advisor [[Ponytail]] speak of weakness in the Midwest, they are talking about two different things: Black Hat refers to the physical weakness of the North American Plate in the Midwest due to the geological rift which he thinks could be exploited by a large enough crowbar, while Ponytail is referring to a political weakness for Black Hat's campaign in the Midwest due to the likely-unpopular proposal (different regions of the US have different voters and populations who have different priorities and stances, so candidates and their campaigns' platforms will likely be more popular in some regions and less popular in others). In this case a successful or attempted completion of the rift would likely result in the destruction of millions of houses, buildings, and other man-made structures, not to mention the deaths of many humans (if proper evacuation were not fully implemented and enforced) as well as millions of animals that could not be evacuated. The proposal would also cause huge economic impacts; the Midwest produces a significant proportion of America's food supplies and hosts important economic centres, such as Chicago and Cleveland. So the popularity among those directly or even indirectly affected is likely quite low. The successful passing of a highly destructive measure such as this would generally involve more direct and overwhelming compensation of the many interests that would otherwise be harmed, to incentivize them to vote against their present livelihood.<br />
<br />
The title text is a pun. A {{w|wedge issue}} is a controversial issue which splits apart a demographic group. It is often introduced to create controversy within an opponent's base so that if the opponent takes any position on the issue, half the voters will desert the opponent. Here the joke is that the "wedge issue" is an actual wedge to split apart the United States.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:[A map of North America shows the Midcontinent Rift System as a red line curving through the Great Lakes and down through the midwestern United States.]<br />
:1.1 billion years ago, the North American continent began to split in half.<br />
<br />
:[Black Hat stands at a lectern with a "Vote 2020" sign on it. He gestures to an image of the globe with a giant crowbar inserted in the rift with an arrow indicating applying pressure to widen the rift.]<br />
:Black Hat: We don't know why it stopped. If elected, I vow to finish the job. Thank youl.<br />
<br />
:[Ponytail, Black Hat, Megan, and Cueball walk to the right away from a set of stairs. Cueball is looking at a phone and Ponytail is looking at a device or paper with writing on it.]<br />
:Ponytail: Great job up there.<br />
:Black Hat: Thanks! How are my polling numbers?<br />
:Ponytail: Well, I'm seeing some weakness in the Midwest.<br />
:Black Hat: So am I. So am I.<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Elections]]<br />
[[Category:Maps]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1643:_Degrees&diff=1659641643: Degrees2018-11-15T14:17:10Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: Also forgot to remove the paranthesis.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1643<br />
| date = February 15, 2016<br />
| title = Degrees<br />
| image = degrees.png<br />
| titletext = "Radians Fahrenheit or radians Celsius?" "Uh, sorry, gotta go!"<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Cueball]] is being asked by a friend for the {{w|temperature}}. While he is checking his smartphone for the weather, he begins pondering what unit he should use when answering the question. (See below for [[#Cueball's reasoning|Cueball's reasoning]].)<br />
<br />
In the US (where Cueball and [[Randall]] are from), the {{w|Conversion of units of temperature|temperature scale}} used in daily life is {{w|Fahrenheit}}. However, most of the rest of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} in daily life, and even in the US it is commonly used for science. This is also why Randall has previously made the comic [[526: Converting to Metric]]. There are also people who wish the US to change to the metric system, although some of them still wish to keep the Fahrenheit scale as mentioned in [[1982: Evangelism]]<br />
<br />
:'''The Celsius scale''' is from the {{w|metric system}}. Though this system has been officially sanctioned for use in the US since 1866, it is not frequently used in daily American life (except for some things, like liter bottles of soda), although it is the preferred system for trade and commerce according to the {{w|Metric Conversion Act}} of 1975. The US remains the only industrialized country, and one of few countries period, that has not adopted the metric system as its official system of measurement. The unit ''degree Celsius'' or °C is an accepted {{w|International System of Units#Derived units|derived unit}} from the {{w|International System of Units}} (SI units) used in science (which again is the modern form of the metric system). The SI unit of temperature is the {{w|kelvin}}, but this temperature scale is linearly related to the Celsius scale, which is why Celsius can be derived from it.<br />
:'''The Fahrenheit scale''' is from the {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}} and the (British) {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}}. The unit is ''degree Fahrenheit'' or °F, and the relation to the Celsius scale is not easy to find in a mental calculation. The relations are: [°F] = [°C]×9⁄5 + 32 or [°C] = ([°F] − 32)×5⁄9. (For this exact reason Randall has previously made a helpful table for these situations in [[526: Converting to Metric]].)<br />
<br />
Unlike most areas of measurement, where the metric system is widely considered superior, there is considerable debate about the relative merits of Fahrenheit vs. Celsius. Cueball weighs up the benefits of both scales, but fails to find a solution he can live with, and since he feels he has to give his friend an answer now, he panics and gives the answer 0.173 {{w|radians}}.<br />
:'''Radian''' is the standard unit of angular measure, used in many areas of mathematics. An angle's measurement in radians is numerically equal to the length of a corresponding arc of a {{w|unit circle}}. It has no units and is denoted with the superscript <sup>c</sup>, but more commonly <sup>rad</sup>, lest it be confused with {{w|Degree (angle)|angular degrees}}. One radian is an angle of approximately 57.3 degrees.<br />
:'''Angular degrees''' is a system used to measure {{w|angles}} in {{w|geometry}}, and although it too uses the symbol ° and the word "degrees", it has nothing to do with temperature measurements of any sort.<br />
<br />
Thus, this answer is unhelpful and the joke is that traditionally both geometric angles and temperature are measured in "degrees", but there is no connection between the two. <br />
<br />
The title text indicates that Cueball's friend still wants to know whether the answer is in radians Fahrenheit or radians Celsius, which, despite being a silly way to express temperature, would actually enable the friend to get some meaning out of the reply. But this just takes Cueball back to the problem he failed to solve in the first place of choosing one scale in preference to the other, so suddenly he announces has to go and runs off without ever clarifying what he meant. This result is probably because he is afraid of being a bad friend according to his very last point regarding Fahrenheit: ''Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend.''<br />
<br />
The answer Cueball gives of 0.173 radians corresponds to a geometric angle 9.91° (0.173 × <sup>360°</sup>/<sub>2π</sub>). If this were "radians Celsius" it would be 9.91&nbsp;°C corresponding to 49.8&nbsp;°F and if it were "radians Fahrenheit" it would be 9.91&nbsp;°F corresponding to -12.3&nbsp;°C. [http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/02/13/new-england-freezing-temperatures-valentines-day-weekend/ Given the temperatures] in {{w|Massachusetts}} (where Randall lives) when this comic came out, the day after Valentine's Day 2016, Cueball was probably giving his answer in radians Fahrenheit.<br />
<br />
=== Cueball's reasoning ===<br />
==== Degrees Celsius ====<br />
;International standard<br />
:Degrees Celsius is derived unit in the SI system of units used to measure temperature in most countries today. Using the SI system would allow Cueball to be easily understood in most countries and is by far the most recognized system, but it is not the most commonly used in the United States, his presumed location in the comic.<br />
;Helps reduce America's weird isolationism<br />
:The United States uses its own set of units, including degrees Fahrenheit, called the {{w|United States customary system}} (similar but not equal to the imperial system), in contrast to most of the rest of the world, which uses the SI system. The US's system of units is therefore considered "weird" as it makes the US different from most of the world, but previous efforts to convert the US to the SI system have failed. Cueball evidently believes that by using SI units, he will help to eventually convert the US to the SI system, bringing considerable trade and tourism benefits and reducing confusion when dealing with foreigners.<br />
;Nice how "negative" means below freezing<br />
:On the Celsius scale, the freezing point of water at standard atmospheric pressure (101.325 kilopascals) is very close to 0&nbsp;°C, and any temperature below that is below the freezing point. The Fahrenheit scale uses different points of reference (using a water/ammonium chloride chemical reaction for the lower calibration, while the upper calibration is set such that water freezing and water boiling are 180 degrees apart), and as a result the freezing point of water is a less memorable 32&nbsp;°F.<br />
;Physics major loyalty<br />
:Cueball is apparently a physics major, like Randall, and SI units are more commonly used for scientific work (as the kelvin scale is sometimes used in physics and other sciences), even in the US. By using the Celsius scale in casual conversation, he would show his loyalty to the system used by actual physicists.<br />
;Easier to spell<br />
:"Celsius" is generally considered to be an easier word to spell than the German surname "Fahrenheit" (at least this is the case for Cueball, but not necessarily for those who more commonly use Fahrenheit than Celsius). In this case the word is being spoken and the point is not immediately relevant, but part of the joke is that Cueball is overthinking things and worrying about the general use of the word when an answer is needed in this specific case.<br />
;We lost a Mars probe over this crap<br />
:The {{w|Mars Climate Orbiter|Mars Climate Orbiter}} disintegrated in Mars' atmosphere because Lockheed used US customary units instead of the contractually specified metric units. Note that this had nothing to do with temperature scales, but was the use of the unit pound-seconds where newton-seconds should have been used. This was a great and tragic loss for science in general, Mars exploration in particular, and thus also for Randall who has shown deep interest in any kind of space exploration, especially regarding Mars (mentioning many Mars probes in his comics so far).<br />
<br />
====Degrees Fahrenheit====<br />
;0&nbsp;°F to 100&nbsp;°F good match for temperature range in which most humans live<br />
:In the context of air temperature, 0&nbsp;°F and 100&nbsp;°F correspond to "just about as cold as it gets" and "just about as hot as it gets" in temperate zones, thereby making Fahrenheit a useful temperature scale for weather reporting where most people live. By contrast, in Celsius a range of common temperatures in temperate zones is -20&nbsp;°C to 40&nbsp;°C, which is a less intuitive range for those used to the Fahrenheit scale.<br />
;Rounds more usefully (70's, 90's)<br />
:An argument sometimes heard for the continued use of Fahrenheit temperatures is that each 10 degrees change is meaningful in how we feel the temperature. Thus, it is convenient to talk about the temperature being in the 70's today, or in the 90's, etc. Since the Celsius degrees are almost twice as large, a similar statement about the temperature being in the 20's or 30's is not as useful, unless more precision is added by using phrases like low 20's or high 30's. However, this seems likely to be more a matter of which scale you are used to using than anything inherent in one scale or the other.<br />
;Unit-aware computing makes imperial less annoying<br />
:If you need to constantly convert between imperial and SI measurements in your head, or even between different imperial units (e.g., ounces and pounds), it gets annoying and is a strong argument for everyone using metric measurements all the time. But when it is easy to get the temperature - or any other measurement - reported in whatever units you want just by selecting the units you want your computer to report, then the annoyance is minimized, and the arguments for why we should stop using a familiar scale are weakened. Note that Cueball is looking at his smart-phone to get the current temperature.<br />
:As many Americans, Randall is confusing the {{w|United States customary units|United States customary system}} with the {{w|imperial system}} used in most of the rest of the English speaking world. In both systems temperature is measured in degrees Fahrenheit.<br />
;SI prefixes are less relevant for temperatures<br />
:One of the nice things about SI measurements is how the same basic unit scales by factors of 10 with common prefixes - e.g., kilometer, millimeter, kilogram, milligram, etc. Imperial measurements don't have this feature - you don't talk about long distances as kiloinches or small weights as millipounds. But, we generally don't use multiple units for atmospheric temperature (millidegrees or kilodegrees), so this argument for using SI measurements for length, mass, volume, etc., isn't as applicable for temperature scales.<br />
;Fahrenheit is likely more clear in this context<br />
:Cueball apparently knows that the inquirer is most likely to assume the answer will be in degrees Fahrenheit, so giving the answer that way would be the least likely to be misinterpreted. If he surprisingly gives an answer in Celsius, without explicitly stating he is reporting the temperature in Celsius, then that could be confusing. <br />
;Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend<br />
:The final thing Cueball considers is to question why he would give an answer that attaches more value to promoting standardization of units when all his friend wants to know is whether it is cold or warm outside. Wouldn't it be more friendly to just answer the question the way his friend will find most convenient? This is probably the reason he ends up not giving any real answer, as giving the answer in Celsius would make him a bad friend. Giving the answer in panic in radians makes him a weird friend, which might or might not be preferable to being a bad friend.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball is looking at his smartphone while a friend calls to him from off-panel. Cueball is thinking as indicated with a thought bubble.]<br />
:Off-screen voice: Hey, what's the temperature outside?<br />
:Cueball (thinking): Should I give it in °F or °C?<br />
<br />
:[Zoom in on Cueballs head with a list of reason to use Celsius above him:]<br />
:'''Degrees Celsius'''<br />
:* International standard<br />
:* Helps reduce America's weird isolationism<br />
:* Nice how "negative" means below freezing<br />
:* Physics major loyalty<br />
:* Easier to spell<br />
:* We lost a Mars probe over this crap<br />
<br />
:[Same view of Cueballs head, but wider frame to accommodate a broader a list of reason to use Fahrenheit:]<br />
:'''Degrees Fahrenheit'''<br />
:* 0°F to 100°F good match for temperature range in which most humans live<br />
:* Rounds more usefully (70's, 90's)<br />
:* Unit-aware computing makes imperial less annoying<br />
:* SI prefixes are less relevant for temperatures<br />
:* Fahrenheit is likely more clear in this context<br />
:* Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend<br />
<br />
:[Cueball is holding his smartphone down while thinking as indicated with another thought bubble floating at the top. He then speaks and gets a reply from his off-panel friend.]<br />
:Cueball (thinking): Crap, gotta pick something. Uhh...<br />
:Cueball: ...0.173 radians.<br />
:Off-screen voice: I'll just go check myself<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
* At -0.698 radians (-40 degrees) it would not have mattered whether it was radians Celsius or radians Fahrenheit as the two scales are equal at this point: -40&nbsp;°F is the same temperature as -40&nbsp;°C.<br />
<br />
* The Fahrenheit/Celcius debate was later referenced in [[1923: Felsius]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Space probes]]<br />
[[Category:Social interactions]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1643:_Degrees&diff=1659631643: Degrees2018-11-15T14:16:31Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: Forgot the asterisk.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1643<br />
| date = February 15, 2016<br />
| title = Degrees<br />
| image = degrees.png<br />
| titletext = "Radians Fahrenheit or radians Celsius?" "Uh, sorry, gotta go!"<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Cueball]] is being asked by a friend for the {{w|temperature}}. While he is checking his smartphone for the weather, he begins pondering what unit he should use when answering the question. (See below for [[#Cueball's reasoning|Cueball's reasoning]].)<br />
<br />
In the US (where Cueball and [[Randall]] are from), the {{w|Conversion of units of temperature|temperature scale}} used in daily life is {{w|Fahrenheit}}. However, most of the rest of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} in daily life, and even in the US it is commonly used for science. This is also why Randall has previously made the comic [[526: Converting to Metric]]. There are also people who wish the US to change to the metric system, although some of them still wish to keep the Fahrenheit scale as mentioned in [[1982: Evangelism]]<br />
<br />
:'''The Celsius scale''' is from the {{w|metric system}}. Though this system has been officially sanctioned for use in the US since 1866, it is not frequently used in daily American life (except for some things, like liter bottles of soda), although it is the preferred system for trade and commerce according to the {{w|Metric Conversion Act}} of 1975. The US remains the only industrialized country, and one of few countries period, that has not adopted the metric system as its official system of measurement. The unit ''degree Celsius'' or °C is an accepted {{w|International System of Units#Derived units|derived unit}} from the {{w|International System of Units}} (SI units) used in science (which again is the modern form of the metric system). The SI unit of temperature is the {{w|kelvin}}, but this temperature scale is linearly related to the Celsius scale, which is why Celsius can be derived from it.<br />
:'''The Fahrenheit scale''' is from the {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}} and the (British) {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}}. The unit is ''degree Fahrenheit'' or °F, and the relation to the Celsius scale is not easy to find in a mental calculation. The relations are: [°F] = [°C]×9⁄5 + 32 or [°C] = ([°F] − 32)×5⁄9. (For this exact reason Randall has previously made a helpful table for these situations in [[526: Converting to Metric]].)<br />
<br />
Unlike most areas of measurement, where the metric system is widely considered superior, there is considerable debate about the relative merits of Fahrenheit vs. Celsius. Cueball weighs up the benefits of both scales, but fails to find a solution he can live with, and since he feels he has to give his friend an answer now, he panics and gives the answer 0.173 {{w|radians}}.<br />
:'''Radian''' is the standard unit of angular measure, used in many areas of mathematics. An angle's measurement in radians is numerically equal to the length of a corresponding arc of a {{w|unit circle}}. It has no units and is denoted with the superscript <sup>c</sup>, but more commonly <sup>rad</sup>, lest it be confused with {{w|Degree (angle)|angular degrees}}. One radian is an angle of approximately 57.3 degrees.<br />
:'''Angular degrees''' is a system used to measure {{w|angles}} in {{w|geometry}}, and although it too uses the symbol ° and the word "degrees", it has nothing to do with temperature measurements of any sort.<br />
<br />
Thus, this answer is unhelpful and the joke is that traditionally both geometric angles and temperature are measured in "degrees", but there is no connection between the two. <br />
<br />
The title text indicates that Cueball's friend still wants to know whether the answer is in radians Fahrenheit or radians Celsius, which, despite being a silly way to express temperature, would actually enable the friend to get some meaning out of the reply. But this just takes Cueball back to the problem he failed to solve in the first place of choosing one scale in preference to the other, so suddenly he announces has to go and runs off without ever clarifying what he meant. This result is probably because he is afraid of being a bad friend according to his very last point regarding Fahrenheit: ''Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend.''<br />
<br />
The answer Cueball gives of 0.173 radians corresponds to a geometric angle 9.91° (0.173 × <sup>360°</sup>/<sub>2π</sub>). If this were "radians Celsius" it would be 9.91&nbsp;°C corresponding to 49.8&nbsp;°F and if it were "radians Fahrenheit" it would be 9.91&nbsp;°F corresponding to -12.3&nbsp;°C. [http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/02/13/new-england-freezing-temperatures-valentines-day-weekend/ Given the temperatures] in {{w|Massachusetts}} (where Randall lives) when this comic came out, the day after Valentine's Day 2016, Cueball was probably giving his answer in radians Fahrenheit.<br />
<br />
=== Cueball's reasoning ===<br />
==== Degrees Celsius ====<br />
;International standard<br />
:Degrees Celsius is derived unit in the SI system of units used to measure temperature in most countries today. Using the SI system would allow Cueball to be easily understood in most countries and is by far the most recognized system, but it is not the most commonly used in the United States, his presumed location in the comic.<br />
;Helps reduce America's weird isolationism<br />
:The United States uses its own set of units, including degrees Fahrenheit, called the {{w|United States customary system}} (similar but not equal to the imperial system), in contrast to most of the rest of the world, which uses the SI system. The US's system of units is therefore considered "weird" as it makes the US different from most of the world, but previous efforts to convert the US to the SI system have failed. Cueball evidently believes that by using SI units, he will help to eventually convert the US to the SI system, bringing considerable trade and tourism benefits and reducing confusion when dealing with foreigners.<br />
;Nice how "negative" means below freezing<br />
:On the Celsius scale, the freezing point of water at standard atmospheric pressure (101.325 kilopascals) is very close to 0&nbsp;°C, and any temperature below that is below the freezing point. The Fahrenheit scale uses different points of reference (using a water/ammonium chloride chemical reaction for the lower calibration, while the upper calibration is set such that water freezing and water boiling are 180 degrees apart), and as a result the freezing point of water is a less memorable 32&nbsp;°F.<br />
;Physics major loyalty<br />
:Cueball is apparently a physics major, like Randall, and SI units are more commonly used for scientific work (as the kelvin scale is sometimes used in physics and other sciences), even in the US. By using the Celsius scale in casual conversation, he would show his loyalty to the system used by actual physicists.<br />
;Easier to spell<br />
:"Celsius" is generally considered to be an easier word to spell than the German surname "Fahrenheit" (at least this is the case for Cueball, but not necessarily for those who more commonly use Fahrenheit than Celsius). In this case the word is being spoken and the point is not immediately relevant, but part of the joke is that Cueball is overthinking things and worrying about the general use of the word when an answer is needed in this specific case.<br />
;We lost a Mars probe over this crap<br />
:The {{w|Mars Climate Orbiter|Mars Climate Orbiter}} disintegrated in Mars' atmosphere because Lockheed used US customary units instead of the contractually specified metric units. Note that this had nothing to do with temperature scales, but was the use of the unit pound-seconds where newton-seconds should have been used. This was a great and tragic loss for science in general, Mars exploration in particular, and thus also for Randall who has shown deep interest in any kind of space exploration, especially regarding Mars (mentioning many Mars probes in his comics so far).<br />
<br />
====Degrees Fahrenheit====<br />
;0&nbsp;°F to 100&nbsp;°F good match for temperature range in which most humans live<br />
:In the context of air temperature, 0&nbsp;°F and 100&nbsp;°F correspond to "just about as cold as it gets" and "just about as hot as it gets" in temperate zones, thereby making Fahrenheit a useful temperature scale for weather reporting where most people live. By contrast, in Celsius a range of common temperatures in temperate zones is -20&nbsp;°C to 40&nbsp;°C, which is a less intuitive range for those used to the Fahrenheit scale.<br />
;Rounds more usefully (70's, 90's)<br />
:An argument sometimes heard for the continued use of Fahrenheit temperatures is that each 10 degrees change is meaningful in how we feel the temperature. Thus, it is convenient to talk about the temperature being in the 70's today, or in the 90's, etc. Since the Celsius degrees are almost twice as large, a similar statement about the temperature being in the 20's or 30's is not as useful, unless more precision is added by using phrases like low 20's or high 30's. However, this seems likely to be more a matter of which scale you are used to using than anything inherent in one scale or the other.<br />
;Unit-aware computing makes imperial less annoying<br />
:If you need to constantly convert between imperial and SI measurements in your head, or even between different imperial units (e.g., ounces and pounds), it gets annoying and is a strong argument for everyone using metric measurements all the time. But when it is easy to get the temperature - or any other measurement - reported in whatever units you want just by selecting the units you want your computer to report, then the annoyance is minimized, and the arguments for why we should stop using a familiar scale are weakened. Note that Cueball is looking at his smart-phone to get the current temperature.<br />
:As many Americans, Randall is confusing the {{w|United States customary units|United States customary system}} with the {{w|imperial system}} used in most of the rest of the English speaking world. In both systems temperature is measured in degrees Fahrenheit.<br />
;SI prefixes are less relevant for temperatures<br />
:One of the nice things about SI measurements is how the same basic unit scales by factors of 10 with common prefixes - e.g., kilometer, millimeter, kilogram, milligram, etc. Imperial measurements don't have this feature - you don't talk about long distances as kiloinches or small weights as millipounds. But, we generally don't use multiple units for atmospheric temperature (millidegrees or kilodegrees), so this argument for using SI measurements for length, mass, volume, etc., isn't as applicable for temperature scales.<br />
;Fahrenheit is likely more clear in this context<br />
:Cueball apparently knows that the inquirer is most likely to assume the answer will be in degrees Fahrenheit, so giving the answer that way would be the least likely to be misinterpreted. If he surprisingly gives an answer in Celsius, without explicitly stating he is reporting the temperature in Celsius, then that could be confusing. <br />
;Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend<br />
:The final thing Cueball considers is to question why he would give an answer that attaches more value to promoting standardization of units when all his friend wants to know is whether it is cold or warm outside. Wouldn't it be more friendly to just answer the question the way his friend will find most convenient? This is probably the reason he ends up not giving any real answer, as giving the answer in Celsius would make him a bad friend. Giving the answer in panic in radians makes him a weird friend, which might or might not be preferable to being a bad friend.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball is looking at his smartphone while a friend calls to him from off-panel. Cueball is thinking as indicated with a thought bubble.]<br />
:Off-screen voice: Hey, what's the temperature outside?<br />
:Cueball (thinking): Should I give it in °F or °C?<br />
<br />
:[Zoom in on Cueballs head with a list of reason to use Celsius above him:]<br />
:'''Degrees Celsius'''<br />
:* International standard<br />
:* Helps reduce America's weird isolationism<br />
:* Nice how "negative" means below freezing<br />
:* Physics major loyalty<br />
:* Easier to spell<br />
:* We lost a Mars probe over this crap<br />
<br />
:[Same view of Cueballs head, but wider frame to accommodate a broader a list of reason to use Fahrenheit:]<br />
:'''Degrees Fahrenheit'''<br />
:* 0°F to 100°F good match for temperature range in which most humans live<br />
:* Rounds more usefully (70's, 90's)<br />
:* Unit-aware computing makes imperial less annoying<br />
:* SI prefixes are less relevant for temperatures<br />
:* Fahrenheit is likely more clear in this context<br />
:* Valuing unit standardization over being helpful possibly makes me a bad friend<br />
<br />
:[Cueball is holding his smartphone down while thinking as indicated with another thought bubble floating at the top. He then speaks and gets a reply from his off-panel friend.]<br />
:Cueball (thinking): Crap, gotta pick something. Uhh...<br />
:Cueball: ...0.173 radians.<br />
:Off-screen voice: I'll just go check myself<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
* At -0.698 radians (-40 degrees) it would not have mattered whether it was radians Celsius or radians Fahrenheit as the two scales are equal at this point: -40&nbsp;°F is the same temperature as -40&nbsp;°C.<br />
<br />
* The Fahrenheit/Celcius debate was later referenced in (see [[1923: Felsius]]).<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Space probes]]<br />
[[Category:Social interactions]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=504:_Legal_Hacks&diff=164807504: Legal Hacks2018-10-26T12:30:38Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: Apparently, the words aren't exactly synonymous.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 504<br />
| date = November 14, 2008<br />
| title = Legal Hacks<br />
| image = legal_hacks.png<br />
| titletext = It's totally a reasonable modern analogue. Jefferson would have been all about crypto.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] notices that an {{w|Internet Service Provider}} (ISP) is blocking access to some webpages. [[Cueball]] is thankful that cryptography offers a way around such censorship. <br />
<br />
Encryption, the study and use of which is known as "cryptography," or "crypto" for short, is the art of transmitting messages that can only be read by the intended receiver(s) by using mathematical techniques to conceal ("encrypt") the data in the message. One common and effective way to encrypt messages is the {{w|RSA_(algorithm)|RSA algorithm}}, which is based on the difficulty of {{w|integer factorization}} for products of two prime numbers.<br />
<br />
Being able to share unbreakable codes and decrypt other people's codes gives countries a military advantage - for example, in World War II, the Americans and British were often able to figure out where a German attack would be coming and send reinforcements there, because they had cracked the {{w|Enigma_machine|German codes}}. Because of this, the {{w|Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States|United States government initially tried to keep}} the mathematical details of strong encryption algorithms (including RSA) inside the country by classifying the algorithms as a weapon. It is a crime to share certain kinds of weapons technology with other countries without permission. Amateur and professional cryptographers, angry about the attempt to restrict their work, lobbied the government to change the rule and stop treating cryptography as a weapon, in part so that they could continue to collaborate with colleagues overseas, and in part because they wanted the ability to pass secret messages that the government could not easily decrypt. The export restrictions were gradually loosened and would have mostly been lifted by the year 2000.<br />
<br />
In the comic, [[Megan]] makes the provocative and counter-intuitive point that perhaps the cryptographic community could have best ensured easy access to the RSA technique by *allowing* the government to treat RSA as a weapon, and then, once everyone is certain that RSA is a weapon, invoking the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the "right to bear arms" amendment (that is, the right to own and use weapons). In other words, if RSA were a weapon, it would be granted constitutional protections. This interpretation is likely a reference to the exceptionally strong antipathy towards arms control in the Southern United States (and not a whole lot weaker in most areas of the Northern and Western states). Any attempts made by the government to restrict distribution or ownership of firearms (even those which are very similar to military-grade weapons) are typically countered very aggressive opposition from pro-gun rights groups such as the {{w|National Rifle Association}}. These political forces have made most gun restrictions politically untenable. Megan is likely suggesting that classifying RSA as a weapon would gain the crypto community very powerful and unlikely political allies; on the flip side, if the government had already ruled it a weapon that needed to be restricted for national security purposes, it could easily invoke the same clauses that allows it to restrict actual military-grade hardware such as automatic weapons, explosives and chemical or biological weapons). Megan may also be hinting that, in the future, the US government might try to restrict access to encryption algorithms, making it necessary for cryptographers to defend their rights to them.<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] is surprised and impressed by this point, and pauses to contemplate Megan's strategy.<br />
<br />
The title text claims that this is a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, because cryptography (a modern weapon) is analogous to muskets and cannons (the weaponry in use in the 1780s, when the Second Amendment was drafted). As evidence for the analogy, the title text points out that Jefferson would have been a big fan of cryptography, which is plausible, because President Thomas Jefferson (the 3rd President of the United States) was an amateur scientist who enjoyed studying a very wide variety of fields (in fact, he invented the {{w|Jefferson_disk|Jefferson disk}}, an encryption device that was quite advanced for its time). The point is somewhat facetious, because it is hard to imagine a modern technique that Jefferson would ''not'' "be totally into." Also, the mere assertion that an early President would have been a fan of a technique is not very good evidence that the technique would be legally permitted by a particular Amendment.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan sits at her computer, Cueball standing behind her.]<br />
:Megan: Another ISP's filtering content.<br />
:Cueball: Thank God for Crypto.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball stands alone; Megan is presumably off-panel left.]<br />
:Cueball: It wasn't that long ago that RSA was illegal to export. Classified a munition.<br />
<br />
:[Megan, sitting in her chair, is looking back towards Cueball, presumably off-panel right.]<br />
:Megan: You know, I think the crypto community took the wrong side in that fight. We should've lobbied to keep it counted as a weapon.<br />
:Cueball: Why?<br />
<br />
:[She is now turned around in the chair looking at Cueball, who is in-panel again.]<br />
:Megan: Once they get complacent, we break out the second amendment.<br />
:[Cueball has his hand on his chin, contemplatively.]<br />
:Cueball: ...Damn.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Cryptography]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1613:_The_Three_Laws_of_Robotics&diff=1366891613: The Three Laws of Robotics2017-03-08T17:11:56Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: The scenario is not an unrealistic consequence of the laws. The video discusses the practical difficulties of implementing such laws to begin with, which is besides the point of the entry on the first ordering in particular.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1613<br />
| date = December 7, 2015<br />
| title = The Three Laws of Robotics<br />
| image = the_three_laws_of_robotics.png<br />
| titletext = In ordering #5, self-driving cars will happily drive you around, but if you tell them to drive to a car dealership, they just lock the doors and politely ask how long humans take to starve to death.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic explores alternative orderings of sci-fi author {{w|Isaac Asimov|Isaac Asimov's}} famous {{w|Three Laws of Robotics}}, which are designed to prevent robots from taking over the world, etc. These laws form the basis of a number of Asimov works of fiction, including most famously, the short story collection ''{{w|I, Robot}}'', which amongst others includes the very first of Asimov's stories to introduce the three laws: {{w|Runaround (story)|Runaround}}.<br />
<br />
The three rules are:<br />
#A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.<br />
#A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.<br />
#A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.<br />
<br />
Or in [[Randall|Randall's]] version:<br />
#Don't harm humans<br />
#Obey Orders<br />
#Protect yourself<br />
<br />
This comic answers the generally unasked question: "Why are they in that order?" With three rules you could rank them into 6 different {{w|permutation|permutations}}, only one of which has been explored in depth. The original ranking of the three laws are listed in the brackets after the first number. So in the first example, which is the original, these three numbers will be in the same order. For the next five the numbers in brackets indicate how the laws have been re-ranked compared to the original.<br />
<br />
The comic begins with introducing the original set, which we already know will give rise to a balanced world, so this is designated as green.:<br />
;Ordering #1 - <font color="green">Balanced World</font>: If they are not allowed to harm humans, no harm will be done disregarding who gives them orders. So long as they do not harm humans, they must obey orders. Their own self-preservation is last, so they must also try to save a human, even if ordered not do so, and especially also if they would put themselves to harm, or even destroy themselves in the process. They would also have to obey orders not relating to humans, even if this would be harmful to them; like exploring a mine field. This leads to a balanced, if not perfect, world. Asimov's robot stories explore in detail the advantages and challenges of this scenario.<br />
<br />
Below this first known option, the five alternative orderings of the three rules are illustrated. Two of the possibilities are designated yellow (pretty bad or just annoying) and three of them are designated red ("Hellscape").<br />
<br />
;Ordering #2 - <font color="orange">Frustrating World</font>: The robots value their existence over their job and so many would refuse to do their tasks. The silliness of this is portrayed in the accompanying image, where the robot (a {{w|Mars rover}} looking very similar to {{w|Curiosity (rover)|Curiosity}} both in shape and size - see [[1091: Curiosity]]) laughs at the idea of doing what it was clearly built to do (explore {{w|Mars}}) because of the risk. In addition to the general risk (e.g. of unexpected damage), it is actually normal for rovers to cease operating ("die") at the end of their mission, though they may survive longer than expected (see [[1504: Opportunity]] and [[695: Spirit]]). This personification is augmented by the robot being switched on already while still on Earth and then ordered by [[Megan]] to go explore. The personification is humorous since it is a very nonhuman robot - a typical Mars rover, as has often been used in earlier comics.<br />
;Ordering #3 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>: This puts obeying orders above not harming humans, which means anyone could send them on a killing spree, resulting in a "Killbot Hellscape". It should also be noted humor is derived from the superlative nature of "Killbot Hellscape", as well as its over the top accompanying image, where there are multiple mushroom clouds (not necessarily nuclear). It also appears there are no humans (left?), only fighting robots.<br />
;Ordering #4 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>:The next would also result in much the same, the only difference here is that they would be willing to kill humans to protect themselves. But still they would need an order to start killing.<br />
;Ordering #5 - <font color="orange">Terrifying Standoff</font>:The penultimate order would result in an unpleasant world, though not a full Hellscape. Here the robots would not only disobey to protect themselves, but also kill if necessary. The absurdity of this one is further demonstrated with the very un-human robot happily doing repetitive mundane tasks but then threatening the life of its user, [[Cueball]], if he as much as considers unplugging it.<br />
;Ordering #6 - <font color="red">Killbot Hellscape</font>:The last order would also results in a Hellscape wherein robots not only kill for self-defense but will also go on killing sprees if ordered as long as they didn't risk themselves. Could self-protection coming first not prevent the fighting? Not according to Randall. See discussion below.<br />
<br />
There are thus only three different results except the 'normal' 3-laws scenario.<br />
<br />
One result goes again three times, and this occurs whenever ''obeying orders'' comes before ''don't harm humans''. In this case it will only be a matter of time (knowing human nature and history) before someone orders the robots to kill some humans, and this will inevitably lead to the ''killbot hellscape'' scenario shown in the third, fourth and sixth law-order. Even in the last case where ''protect yourself'' comes before obey orders, it would only be a matter of time before they would begin to defend themselves, against either humans or other robots which were actively trying to ensure that they would not be harmed by other humans/robots. So although it would be in the robots interest not to have war, this will surely occur anyway. And only if the robots where very bright would they realize that they just needed to not go to war to protect themselves. There is nothing in this comic that indicates that the robots should be highly intelligent (like to AI in [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]]).<br />
<br />
In the two other cases ''obey orders'' comes after ''don't harm humans'' (as in the original version). But the result is very different both from the original and from each other.<br />
<br />
The frustrating world comes by because although the robots will not harm the humans, they will also not harm themselves. So if our orders conflict with this, they just do not perform the orders. As many robots are created to perform tasks that are dangerous, these robots would become useless, and it would be a frustrating world to be a robotic engineer.<br />
<br />
Finally in the terrifying standoff situation the ''protect your self'' comes before ''don't harm humans''. In this case they will leave us be, as long as we do not try to turn them off or in any other way harm them. As long as we do that they will be able to help us, with non-dangerous tasks, as in the previous version. But if ever any humans begin to attack them, we could still tip the balance over and end up in a full-scale war (Hellscape). Hence the standoff-label.<br />
<br />
The title text further adds to ordering #5 ("Terrifying Standoff") by noting anyone wishing to trade in their self-driving car could be killed, despite it (currently) being a standard and mundane and (mostly) risk-free activity. Because the car would fear that it would end up as scrap or spare parts, it decides to protect itself. And although not directly harming the person inside it, they do also not allow them out, and they have time to wait for starvation (or rather dying of thirst). Asimov created the "inaction" clause in the original First Law specifically to avoid scenarios in which a robot puts a human in harm's way, knowing full well that it is within the robot's abilities to save the human, and then simply refrains from saving them; this was explored in the short story {{w|Little Lost Robot}}.<br />
<br />
Another course of action by an AI, completely different than any of the ones presented here, is depicted in [[1626: Judgment Day]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Caption at the top of the comic:]<br />
:'''Why Asimov put the Three Laws'''<br />
: '''of Robotics in the order he did.'''<br />
<br />
:[Below are six rows with first two frames and then a label in color to the right. Above the two column of frames there are labels as well. In the first column six different ways of ordering the three laws are listed. Then the second column shown an image of the consequences of this order. Except in the first where there is a reference. The label to the right rates the kind of world that order of the laws would result in.]<br />
<br />
:[Labels above the columns.]<br />
:Possible ordering<br />
:Consequences<br />
<br />
:[The six rows follows below. First the text in the first frame, then a description of the second frame, including possible text below and finally the colored label.]<br />
<br />
:[First row:]<br />
:1. (1) Don't harm humans<br />
:2. (2) Obey Orders<br />
:3. (3) Protect yourself<br />
:[Only text in square brackets:]<br />
::[See Asmiov’s stories]<br />
:<font color="green">'''Balanced world'''</font><br />
<br />
:[Second row:]<br />
:1. (1) Don't harm humans<br />
:2. (3) Protect yourself<br />
:3. (2) Obey Orders<br />
:[Megan points at a mars rover with six wheels, a satellite disc, an arm and a camera head turned towards her, what to do.]<br />
:Megan: Explore Mars!<br />
:Mars rover: Haha, no. It’s cold and I’d die.<br />
:<font color="orange">'''Frustrating world'''</font><br />
<br />
:[Third row:]<br />
:1. (2) Obey Orders<br />
:2. (1) Don't harm humans<br />
:3. (3) Protect yourself<br />
:[Two robots are fighting. The one to the left has six wheels, a tall neck on top of the body, with a head with what could be a camera facing right. It has something pointing forward on the body, which could be a weapon. The robot to the right, seems to be further away into the picture. (it is smaller with less detail). It is human shapes, but made op of square structures. It has two legs and two arms, a torso and a head. It clearly shoots something out of it’s right “hand”. This shot seems to create an explosion a third of the way towards the left robot. There are two mushroom clouds from explosions behind both robots (left and right). Between them there are one more explosion up in the air close to the left robot, and what looks like a fire on the ground right between them. Furthermore there are two missiles in the air, one above the head of each robot. Lines indicate their trajectory. There is not text.]<br />
:<font color="red">'''Killbot hellscape'''</font><br />
<br />
:[Fourth row:]<br />
:1. (2) Obey Orders<br />
:2. (3) Protect yourself<br />
:3. (1) Don't harm humans:<br />
:[Exactly the same picture as in row 3.]<br />
:<font color="red">'''Killbot hellscape'''</font><br />
<br />
:[Fifth row:]<br />
:1. (3) Protect yourself<br />
:2. (1) Don't harm humans<br />
:3. (2) Obey Orders<br />
:[Cueball is standing in front of a car factory robot, that are larger than him. It has a base, and two parts for the main body, and then a big “head” with a small section on top. To the right something is jutting out, and to the left in the direction of Cueball there is an arm in three sections (going down, up and down again) ending in some kind of tool close to Cueball.]<br />
:Car factory robot: I'll make cars for you, but try to unplug me and I’ll vaporize you.<br />
:<font color="orange">'''Terrifying standoff'''</font><br />
<br />
:[Sixth row:]<br />
:1. (3) Protect yourself<br />
:2. (2) Obey Orders<br />
:3. (1) Don't harm humans:<br />
:[Exactly the same picture as in row 3 and 4.]<br />
:<font color="red">'''Killbot hellscape'''</font><br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]<br />
[[Category:Robots]]<br />
[[Category:Mars rovers]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1613:_The_Three_Laws_of_Robotics&diff=136688Talk:1613: The Three Laws of Robotics2017-03-08T16:56:09Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A Relevant Computerphile] {{unsigned ip|141.101.84.114}}<br />
<br />
I think the second one would also create the "best" robots i.e. ones that have the same level of "free will" as humans do, but won't end up with the robot uprising. X3[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Scientists are actually already working on such a robot! I've seen a video where they command a robot to do a number of things, such as sit down, stand up, and walk forward. It refuses to do the last because it is near the edge of a table, until it is assured by the person giving the commands that he will catch it. [http://www.businessinsider.com/robots-taught-to-disobey-humans-2015-11 Here's a link]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.17|108.162.220.17]] 18:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The second ordering was actually covered in a story by Asimov, where a strengthed third law caused a robot to run around a hazard at a distance which maintained an equilibrium between not getting destroyed and obeying orders. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story) [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The explanation itself seems pretty close to complete. I'll leave others to judge if the tag is ready to be removed though. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 12:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Technically, in the world we live in, robots are barely following ONE law - obey orders. Noone ever tried to built robot programmed to never harm human, because such programming would be ridiculously complex. Sure, most robots are built with failsafes, but nothing nearly as effective as Asimov's law, which makes permanent damage to robots brain when it fails to protect humans. Meanwhile, there is lot of effort spent on making robots only follow orders of authorized people, while Asimov's robots generally didn't distinguish between humans. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Closest analogy to our world might be scenario 3 or 4, depending on the programming and choices made by the people controlling/ordering the robots around. One could argue that this means this comic is meant to criticize our current state, but that doesn't seem likely given how robots are typically discussed by Randall. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm wondering about the title text: why would a driverless car kill its passenger before going into a dealership?13:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
: A driverless car would feel threatened by a trip to a car dealership. The owner would presumably be contemplating a trade-in, which could lead to a visit to the junk yard. [[User:Erickhagstrom|Erickhagstrom]] ([[User talk:Erickhagstrom|talk]]) 14:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
Okay, thanks.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.167|198.41.235.167]] 22:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
: This looks like a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey", where HAL tries to kill Dave by locking the pod bay doors after finding out he will be shut down.<br />
<br />
for my kitty cat, the world is taking a turn for the better as human are gradually transitioning from scenario 6 to scenario 5. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 17:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To additionally summarise: The permutations of laws can be classified into two equally numbered classes. a) harmless to humans and b) deadly to humans. In a) Harmlessness precedes Obedience, in b) Obedience precedes Harmlessness. Since robots are mainly tools that multiply human effort by automation, the disastrous consequences are only a nature of the human effort itself. Randall's pessimism is emphasized by the contrast between the apparent impossibility of the implementation of the harmlessness law and the natural presence of the "obedience law" in actual robotics. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.243|198.41.242.243]] 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
: You got in there before I realised I hadn't actually clicked to posted my side-addition to this Talk section, it seems. Just discovered it hanging, then edit-conflicted. So (as well as shifting your IP signature, hope you don't mind) here is what I was going to add:<br />
: ''Added the analysis of 'law inversions'. Obedience before Harmlessness turns them into killer-robots (potentially - assuming they're ever asked to kill). Self-protection before Obedience removes the ability to fully control them (but, by itself, isn't harmful). Self-protction before Harmlessnes just adds some logistical icing to the cake - and is already part of the mix, when both of the first two inversions are made in the scenario more Skynet-like than that of a 'mere' war-by-proxy.''<br />
: ...now I need to look to see if anybody's refined my original main-page contribution, so I can disagree with them. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.227|162.158.152.227]] 18:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's interesting to note that the 5th combination ("Terrifying Standoff") essentially describes robots whose priorities are ordered the same way as most humans'. Like humans, they will become dangerous if they feel endangered themselves. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.66|173.245.54.66]] 20:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I just wanted to mention that I thought the righthand robot in the Hellscape images quite resembles Pintsize from the [http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=707 Questionable Content] webcomic. His character suits participation in a robot war quite likely too. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Technically his current chassis is a military version of a civilian model. That said the AI in Questionable Content aren't constrained by anything like the Three Laws. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No mention of the zeroth law?<br />
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.<br />
[[User:Tarlbot|Tarlbot]] ([[User talk:Tarlbot|talk]]) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
:That would just be going into detail about what is meant by [see Asimov's stories], which doesn't seem more pertinent to the comic than any other plot details about the Robot Novels.[[User:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|Thomson&#39;s Gazelle]] ([[User talk:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should it be mentioned that the 3 laws wouldn't work in real life? as explained by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A Computerphile]? [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 10:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
:That's a bit disingenuous. It's not so much that the laws don't work (aside from zeroth law peculiarities and such edge cases, which that video does touch upon in the end. This all falls under [see Asimov's stories]), rather, it's that the real problem is implementing the laws, not formulating them. Seeing as I'm responding to a very old remark, I'll probably go ahead and change the page to reflect this.[[User:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|Thomson&#39;s Gazelle]] ([[User talk:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The webcomic Freefall at freefall.purrsia.com demonstrates this as well,since robots can find ways to get around these restrictions. It also points out that if a human ordered a robot to kill all members of a species, they would have to do it, whether they wanted to or not, because it doesn't violate any of the three laws of robotics. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.48|108.162.238.48]] 03:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:878:_Model_Rail&diff=136442Talk:878: Model Rail2017-03-06T11:50:53Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>It IS possible to go smaller than one atom, but it tends to make a really bright flash and loud noise. The original atomic bomb was the second guy's reading of a train modeler's notes, miraculously preserved in a refrigerator. --[[Special:Contributions/68.200.188.141|68.200.188.141]] 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Corrected HO to H0 --[[Special:Contributions/70.169.90.254|70.169.90.254]] 22:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I hate it when my model train layout gets crushed by a cold virus. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.150|199.27.128.150]] 23:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:You mean your model model model model model train layout.. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.195|141.101.99.195]] 20:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
3.5mm per foot? What kind of half-assed system is that?? It's an embarrassment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 21:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
3.5 millimeters is due to the origins of HO scale. It literally means "Half O", and "O" scale, now 1/4 inch per foot in the US, was 7 mm/foot in Britain, where the scales originated. The debate over "HO" and "H0" comes from the same source, as "O" scale was originally labeled "0", following the larger scales of 1, 2, 3, etc, used for toy trains in the early 20th century. As for the name today, it's pronounced "Aitch-Oh" in most, if not all, of the world. {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.92}}<br />
<br />
:In Germany this scale is called "H-Null" (H for halb=half; Null=zero). So H0 is definitly correct there while HO is completly illogical. The HO can be used in english only because it is common to use O instead of saying zero, while this is uncommon in most other languages. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.101|141.101.104.101]] 09:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The "this discussion" link doesn't lead to the discussion in question. Please fix? Anonymous 17:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I can't see this. But a former add here is fixed, maybe this helps.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The {{Tl|w}} does interpret the link target as the page name. So when linking to "Page?bar=foo" will not interpret the bar parameter. Additionally because there was a = in one parameter it treated everything before as the parameter name and everything after it as the parameter value. If the first problem wouldn't be a problem at least the first parameter would need to be defined as 1=…. I reverted that part to the old working version. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.109|108.162.254.109]] 13:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the Category:Multiple Cueballs. Since the one who knows the rule to me seems like the best candidate for a Cueball here, I have changed the transcript to make him Cueball. He has the interesting comments of this comic, so maybe it is OK to let him be listed as Cueball? On the other hand someone has previously done the opposite, proving that it is not possible to say that Cueball is any particular guy. But it is just easier to explain the transcript (and the comic) when calling one of them Cueball rather than guy 1 and 2 (left of right etc.)--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)--<br />
<br />
The original width of the section of real world being modeled (18m * 87) works out to 1 mile. [[User:Johanna-Hypatia|Johanna-Hypatia]] ([[User talk:Johanna-Hypatia|talk]]) 21:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is this really a sensible interpretation of the "philistines" comment? It seems to hinge on more obscure, original use of the word, and slightly far-fetched. In particular, considering Munroe's other [[922|comments]] on that movie, I had assumed they were considered philistines simply for cluttering the rulebook with needless pop-culture references, as per the more common definition given on the {{w|Philistinism|wikipedia page}} of "[A person with a] lack of and an indifference to cultural and æsthetic values".[[User:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|Thomson&#39;s Gazelle]] ([[User talk:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|talk]]) 11:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:878:_Model_Rail&diff=136441Talk:878: Model Rail2017-03-06T11:49:38Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>It IS possible to go smaller than one atom, but it tends to make a really bright flash and loud noise. The original atomic bomb was the second guy's reading of a train modeler's notes, miraculously preserved in a refrigerator. --[[Special:Contributions/68.200.188.141|68.200.188.141]] 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Corrected HO to H0 --[[Special:Contributions/70.169.90.254|70.169.90.254]] 22:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I hate it when my model train layout gets crushed by a cold virus. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.150|199.27.128.150]] 23:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:You mean your model model model model model train layout.. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.195|141.101.99.195]] 20:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
3.5mm per foot? What kind of half-assed system is that?? It's an embarrassment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 21:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
3.5 millimeters is due to the origins of HO scale. It literally means "Half O", and "O" scale, now 1/4 inch per foot in the US, was 7 mm/foot in Britain, where the scales originated. The debate over "HO" and "H0" comes from the same source, as "O" scale was originally labeled "0", following the larger scales of 1, 2, 3, etc, used for toy trains in the early 20th century. As for the name today, it's pronounced "Aitch-Oh" in most, if not all, of the world. {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.92}}<br />
<br />
:In Germany this scale is called "H-Null" (H for halb=half; Null=zero). So H0 is definitly correct there while HO is completly illogical. The HO can be used in english only because it is common to use O instead of saying zero, while this is uncommon in most other languages. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.101|141.101.104.101]] 09:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The "this discussion" link doesn't lead to the discussion in question. Please fix? Anonymous 17:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I can't see this. But a former add here is fixed, maybe this helps.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The {{Tl|w}} does interpret the link target as the page name. So when linking to "Page?bar=foo" will not interpret the bar parameter. Additionally because there was a = in one parameter it treated everything before as the parameter name and everything after it as the parameter value. If the first problem wouldn't be a problem at least the first parameter would need to be defined as 1=…. I reverted that part to the old working version. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.109|108.162.254.109]] 13:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the Category:Multiple Cueballs. Since the one who knows the rule to me seems like the best candidate for a Cueball here, I have changed the transcript to make him Cueball. He has the interesting comments of this comic, so maybe it is OK to let him be listed as Cueball? On the other hand someone has previously done the opposite, proving that it is not possible to say that Cueball is any particular guy. But it is just easier to explain the transcript (and the comic) when calling one of them Cueball rather than guy 1 and 2 (left of right etc.)--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)--<br />
<br />
The original width of the section of real world being modeled (18m * 87) works out to 1 mile. [[User:Johanna-Hypatia|Johanna-Hypatia]] ([[User talk:Johanna-Hypatia|talk]]) 21:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is this really a sensible interpretation of the "philistines" comment? It seems to hinge on more obscure, original use of the word, and slightly far-fetched. In particular, considering Munroe's other [[922|comments]] on that movie, I had assumed they were considered philistines simply for cluttering the rulebook with needless pop-culture references, as per the more common definition given on the {{w|Philistinism|wikipedia page}} of "[A person with a] lack of and an indifference to cultural and æsthetic values".[[User:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|Thomson&#39;s Gazelle]] ([[User talk:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|talk]]) 11:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1315:_Questions_for_God&diff=1285761315: Questions for God2016-10-12T21:16:31Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1315<br />
| date = January 10, 2014<br />
| title = Questions for God<br />
| image = questions_for_god.png<br />
| titletext = What sins could possibly darken the heart of a STEAMBOAT? I asked The Shadow, but he says he only covers men.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Megan]] is paraphrasing a famous quote from the British applied mathematician, and fellow of the Royal Society, {{w|Horace Lamb}}, who famously {{w|Horace_Lamb#Career|stated in 1932}}:<br />
:"I am an old man now, and when I die and go to heaven there are two matters on which I hope for enlightenment. One is {{w|quantum electrodynamics}}, and the other is the {{w|Turbulence|turbulent motion of fluids}}. And about the former I am rather optimistic."<br />
<br />
This was referring to two phenomena in physics that, at the time, were poorly understood and difficult to explain. Lamb proved to be correct in his prediction that quantum electrodynamics (QED) was easier to explain; nowadays we have a much clearer understanding of QED, while our understanding of turbulence has improved little. {{w|Richard Feynman}}, who was himself largely responsible for explaining QED, famously {{w|Turbulence|described turbulence}} as "the most important unsolved problem of classical physics".<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]], in response, indicates that if he were to gain divine elucidation his question would relate to the widespread schoolyard rhyme "{{w|Miss Susie}}", which typically begins with the stanza:<br />
<br />
:"Miss Susie had a steamboat<br />
:The steamboat had a bell<br />
:Miss Susie went to heaven<br />
:The steamboat went to...<br />
<br />
:'''Hell'''-o operator<br />
:Please give me number nine<br />
:..."<br />
<br />
The rhyming scheme between the second and fourth lines, and implied contrast with "heaven," causes the listener to fill in the word "Hell" instead of the innocuous "Hello". Therefore, Cueball is wondering what a steamboat, an object lacking will, could have done to deserve divine punishment.<br />
<br />
The title text is a reference to the 1930s pulp series "{{w|The Shadow}}", whose eponymous character is a psychic vigilante. The 1937 radio plays introduction began with the line ''"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"'' Unfortunately, since a steamboat is not a person to begin with, let alone a man specifically, The Shadow would be unable to determine what heinous crimes the steamboat had committed to deserve damnation.<br />
<br />
This comic, in particular the way Megan and Cueball are walking and its reference to theology, greatly resembles the later comic [[1505: Ontological Argument]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan and Cueball walks together.]<br />
:Megan: Horace Lamb said he would have two questions for God: why quantum mechanics, and why turbulence?<br />
:Cueball: I'd have just one: ''What did Miss Susie's steamboat '''do?!'''''<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Religion]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1315:_Questions_for_God&diff=1285751315: Questions for God2016-10-12T21:14:36Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1315<br />
| date = January 10, 2014<br />
| title = Questions for God<br />
| image = questions_for_god.png<br />
| titletext = What sins could possibly darken the heart of a STEAMBOAT? I asked The Shadow, but he says he only covers men.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Megan]] is paraphrasing a famous quote from the British applied mathematician, and fellow of the Royal Society, {{w|Horace Lamb}}, who famously {{w|Horace_Lamb#Career|stated in 1932}}:<br />
:"I am an old man now, and when I die and go to heaven there are two matters on which I hope for enlightenment. One is {{w|quantum electrodynamics}}, and the other is the {{w|Turbulence|turbulent motion of fluids}}. And about the former I am rather optimistic."<br />
<br />
This was referring to two phenomena in physics that, at the time, were poorly understood and difficult to explain. Lamb proved to be correct in his prediction that quantum electrodynamics (QED) was easier to explain; nowadays we have a much clearer understanding of QED, while our understanding of turbulence has improved little. {{w|Richard Feynman}}, who was himself largely responsible for explaining QED, famously {{w|Turbulence|described turbulence}} as "the most important unsolved problem of classical physics".<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]], in response, indicates that if he were to gain divine elucidation his question would relate to the widespread schoolyard rhyme "{{w|Miss Susie}}", which typically begins with the stanza:<br />
<br />
:"Miss Susie had a steamboat<br />
:The steamboat had a bell<br />
:Miss Susie went to heaven<br />
:The steamboat went to...<br />
<br />
:'''Hell'''-o operator<br />
:Please give me number nine<br />
:..."<br />
<br />
The rhyming scheme between the second and fourth lines, and implied contrast with "heaven," causes the listener to fill in the word "Hell" instead of the innocuous "Hello". Therefore, Cueball is wondering what a steamboat, an object lacking will, could have done to deserve divine punishment.<br />
<br />
The title text is a reference to the 1930s pulp series "{{w|The Shadow}}", whose eponymous character is a psychic vigilante. The 1937 radio plays introduction began with the line ''"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"'' Unfortunately, since a steamboat is not a person, The Shadow would be unable to determine what heinous crimes the steamboat had committed to deserve damnation.<br />
<br />
This comic, in particular the way Megan and Cueball are walking and its reference to theology, greatly resembles the later comic [[1505: Ontological Argument]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan and Cueball walks together.]<br />
:Megan: Horace Lamb said he would have two questions for God: why quantum mechanics, and why turbulence?<br />
:Cueball: I'd have just one: ''What did Miss Susie's steamboat '''do?!'''''<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Religion]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1712:_Politifact&diff=124293Talk:1712: Politifact2016-07-28T16:54:31Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
The title text can be interpreted in two ways: Either that the pants are actually on fire or that rolling the smoke-bomb was a blatant lie. I'm not sure what to make of the "::FWOOOSH::" in the latter case...<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.66|162.158.83.66]] 16:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think there is also an aspect of excessive literalism here. For example when Meagan says "I swear I locked that window" Politifact says "false". While it is literally true that this statement was false this is only tangentially related to the conversation. What is important is the home break in going on.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.70|173.245.56.70]] 17:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think that the title text has two equally true meanings. It was NOT a smoke bomb (it was some other type of bomb, so calling it "smoke bomb" is false) and also Politifact's pants were literally on fire. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.147|162.158.214.147]] 21:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
: Smoke Bombs are not as obviously incendiary as (say) Incendiary Bombs, but they are actually burning, beneath the deliberate smoke, and perfectly capable of igniting materials. Depending upon their (mis)use. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.20|141.101.98.20]] 12:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it appropriate for the transcript to have colored text? The point of a transcript is to have a formal plain text description, decorating the text in this manner to convey information seems contrary to that. An in-parenthesis statement of the color would perhaps be better. [[User:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|Thomson&#39;s Gazelle]] ([[User talk:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|talk]]) 16:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1712:_Politifact&diff=124292Talk:1712: Politifact2016-07-28T16:51:46Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
The title text can be interpreted in two ways: Either that the pants are actually on fire or that rolling the smoke-bomb was a blatant lie. I'm not sure what to make of the "::FWOOOSH::" in the latter case...<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.66|162.158.83.66]] 16:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think there is also an aspect of excessive literalism here. For example when Meagan says "I swear I locked that window" Politifact says "false". While it is literally true that this statement was false this is only tangentially related to the conversation. What is important is the home break in going on.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.70|173.245.56.70]] 17:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think that the title text has two equally true meanings. It was NOT a smoke bomb (it was some other type of bomb, so calling it "smoke bomb" is false) and also Politifact's pants were literally on fire. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.147|162.158.214.147]] 21:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
: Smoke Bombs are not as obviously incendiary as (say) Incendiary Bombs, but they are actually burning, beneath the deliberate smoke, and perfectly capable of igniting materials. Depending upon their (mis)use. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.20|141.101.98.20]] 12:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it appropriate for the transcript to have colored text? The point of a transcript is to have a formal plain text description, decorating the text in this manner seems contrary to that. [[User:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|Thomson&#39;s Gazelle]] ([[User talk:Thomson&#39;s Gazelle|talk]]) 16:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=438:_Internet_Argument&diff=62734438: Internet Argument2014-03-14T19:08:42Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 438<br />
| date = June 18, 2008<br />
| title = Internet Argument<br />
| image = internet argument.png<br />
| titletext = It's easier to be an asshole to words than to people.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Since the first time the internet made possible<br />
to have written real-time conversations with people in remote locations,<br />
it was found that most people tend to use harsh language<br />
in these conversations much more often than they<br />
would with regular spoken face-to-face conversations.<br />
This effect is similar to what happens when people drive a car:<br />
they're much more likely to get exasperated or angry<br />
at other drivers than they would when not driving.<br />
<br />
Also, some people (collectivelly known as {{w|Troll_%28Internet%29|Troll}}s)<br />
find it funny to disrupt other people's conversations<br />
(usually in internet forums), posing as innocent speakers.<br />
Examples of this can be entering a conversation between<br />
cancer patients suggesting the use of some "miracle" cure,<br />
or just asking simple, obvious questions and then<br />
pretending to not understand the answers.<br />
Most probably, trolls wouldn't have this behavior<br />
if they were speaking to a group of people in real life.<br />
A similar concept is wikiterror, where someone<br />
intentionally includes false information in Wikipedia<br />
to see how long it lasts before someone notices.<br />
<br />
In the first two panels, the two [[Cueball]]s are having<br />
some harsh words (probably insults) between them.<br />
[[Megan]] takes one of the Cueballs and flies him to the<br />
other Cueball, so they see each other face to face.<br />
In this situation, they both remain silent as none of them<br />
finds anything to say to the other.<br />
<br />
When Megan returns Cueball to his original computer,<br />
both keep their conversation, but without the insults.<br />
<br />
The title text just summarizes the whole idea into a single sentence.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball is typing profanities into his computer.]<br />
:[Friend is typing profanities into his computer.]<br />
:[Megan floats in behind Cueball.]<br />
:[Megan lifts Cueball.]<br />
:[They are flying over mountains.]<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are floating in front of the friend and his computer.]<br />
:[She sets Cueball down in front of the friend and his computer.]<br />
:[Megan lifts Cueball again.]<br />
:[They are flying.]<br />
:[Megan sets Cueball down in his chair at his computer.]<br />
:[Cueball is typing at his computer.]<br />
:[Friend is typing at his computer.]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=438:_Internet_Argument&diff=62733438: Internet Argument2014-03-14T19:07:04Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 438<br />
| date = June 18, 2008<br />
| title = Internet Argument<br />
| image = internet argument.png<br />
| titletext = It's easier to be an asshole to words than to people.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Since the first time the internet made possible<br />
to have written conversations with people in remote locations in real time,<br />
it was found that most people tend to use harsh language<br />
in these conversations much more often than they<br />
would with regular spoken face-to-face conversations.<br />
This effect is similar to what happens when people drive a car:<br />
they're much more likely to get exasperated or angry<br />
at other drivers than they would when not driving.<br />
<br />
Also, some people (collectivelly known as {{w|Troll_%28Internet%29|Troll}}s)<br />
find it funny to disrupt other people's conversations<br />
(usually in internet forums), posing as innocent speakers.<br />
Examples of this can be entering a conversation between<br />
cancer patients suggesting the use of some "miracle" cure,<br />
or just asking simple, obvious questions and then<br />
pretending to not understand the answers.<br />
Most probably, trolls wouldn't have this behavior<br />
if they were speaking to a group of people in real life.<br />
A similar concept is wikiterror, where someone<br />
intentionally includes false information in Wikipedia<br />
to see how long it lasts before someone notices.<br />
<br />
In the first two panels, the two [[Cueball]]s are having<br />
some harsh words (probably insults) between them.<br />
[[Megan]] takes one of the Cueballs and flies him to the<br />
other Cueball, so they see each other face to face.<br />
In this situation, they both remain silent as none of them<br />
finds anything to say to the other.<br />
<br />
When Megan returns Cueball to his original computer,<br />
both keep their conversation, but without the insults.<br />
<br />
The title text just summarizes the whole idea into a single sentence.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball is typing profanities into his computer.]<br />
:[Friend is typing profanities into his computer.]<br />
:[Megan floats in behind Cueball.]<br />
:[Megan lifts Cueball.]<br />
:[They are flying over mountains.]<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are floating in front of the friend and his computer.]<br />
:[She sets Cueball down in front of the friend and his computer.]<br />
:[Megan lifts Cueball again.]<br />
:[They are flying.]<br />
:[Megan sets Cueball down in his chair at his computer.]<br />
:[Cueball is typing at his computer.]<br />
:[Friend is typing at his computer.]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=865:_Nanobots&diff=58544865: Nanobots2014-01-24T18:36:33Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 865<br />
| date = February 25, 2011<br />
| title = Nanobots<br />
| image = nanobots.png<br />
| titletext = I think the IETF hit the right balance with the 128 bits thing. We can fit MAC addresses in a /64 subnet, and the nanobots will only be able to devour half the planet.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Megan]] and [[Ponytail]] are in orbit while nanobots are devouring the earth in a swarm. The nanobots stop after devouring 40% of the planet. This is a take on the "gray goo" scenario in which self-replicating nanobots destroy the earth while creating more and more of themselves non-stop.<br />
<br />
However, the nanobots are only able to destroy 40% of the planet because 40% of the earth volume = (# of {{w|IPv6}} addresses) x (A few cubic microns). Without more IP addresses, the nanobots cannot continue to replicate (assuming that each nanobot must be individually addressable).<br />
<br />
IPv6 supports approximately 3.4×10<sup>38</sup> addresses while the earth volume is around 1.08321×10<sup>12</sup> km<sup>3</sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth] or 1.08321×10<sup>39</sup> µm<sup>3</sup>(cubic micrometre). [[Randall]]'s guess on 40% of the planet would mean each nanobot is about 1.27331 µm<sup>3</sup> (which is still less than "a few microns" according to [[1070: Words for Small Sets]]).<br />
<br />
This is a joke on the shortage of IPv4 addresses. The only difference is that we are on {{w|IPv4}} and the nanobots are on {{w|IPv6}}.<br />
<br />
1998 is when the [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460 IPv6 Specification (RFC 2460)] was published and IETF is the Internet Engineering Task Force.<br />
<br />
Note that an april fool joke for [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1606 IPV9] exists and would have guaranteed earth doom in this comic' scenario.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan and commander are on a space station.]<br />
:Megan: Commander! Come quick! It's the nanobots—they've ''STOPPED!''<br />
<br />
:Megan: They devoured 40% of the Earth, and then just... quit! They're just sitting there! Why?!<br />
<br />
:Ponytail: It's a mystery. ...unless... What's the volume of each nanobot?<br />
:Megan: A few cubic microns. Why?<br />
:Ponytail: I think the year 1998 just bought us some time.<br />
:[Earth's surface, covered in mountains of nanobots.]<br />
<br />
:In the swarm:<br />
:Nanobot: What do you mean, "Run out of addresses?"<br />
:Other Nanobot: Look, we should've migrated away from IPv6 ''AGES'' ago...<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Thomson's Gazellehttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=914:_Ice&diff=57876914: Ice2014-01-16T22:49:34Z<p>Thomson's Gazelle: /* Trivia */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 914<br />
| date = June 20, 2011<br />
| title = Ice<br />
| image = ice.png<br />
| titletext = On the plus side, she wrote "Welcome to the AAA Club!" in lipstick on the bathroom mirror, and left me a membership/roadside assistance card on the counter.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a reference to an old urban legend: a guy is drugged, then he awakes in an ice-filled bathtub only to discover one (or both) of their kidneys has been harvested by organ thieves [http://www.snopes.com/horrors/robbery/kidney.asp].<br />
<br />
In the comic, the situation is reversed: [[Beret Guy]] (who has just bought some ice for a party) is drugged, and he awakes in a bathtub filled with kidneys, only to discover that his ice has been harvested by a thief.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to a similar story where the victim is left a note by their captor or one-night stand that says "Welcome to the AIDS club". Rather than having been involuntarily infected with HIV/AIDS, the victim ([[Beret Guy]]) has been involuntarily enrolled in the {{w|American Automobile Association}} (AAA).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Beret Guy and Megan are setting up a party, with a snack table and a big banner reading "PARTY!"]<br />
:Megan: Everything's ready...<br />
:Megan: Except we're out of ice.<br />
:Beret Guy: I'll get some!<br />
<br />
:[Beret Guy is walking down the street past a building marked Save Mart, with a bag of ice over his shoulder. Danish is standing on the sidewalk calls to him.]<br />
:Danish: Hey sexy. Where're you headed with all that ice?<br />
:Beret Guy: A party!<br />
:Danish: There's a ''better'' party up at my place.<br />
:Beret Guy: But I—<br />
:Danish: C'mon, one drink.<br />
<br />
:The next morning...<br />
:[Beret Guy rubs eyes groggily.]<br />
:Beret Guy: ...ugh... Where am I?<br />
:Beret Guy: I was supposed to—<br />
:Beret Guy: —where's all my ice!?<br />
<br />
:[Beret Guy looks down to find himself in a bathtub full of kidneys.]<br />
:Beret Guy: '''AAAAAAA'''<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*Kidney-harvesting schemes were also discussed in [[749: Study]].<br />
*Since her character's introduction, this is the first strip to feature [[Danish]] but not [[Black Hat]]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]</div>Thomson's Gazelle