Difference between revisions of "2502: Every Data Table"
(Undo revision 292569 by 162.158.62.19 (talk) It'd be a better joke if it weren't in a sentence with two "not"s that already makes the tone strange. Adding sarcasm on top makes it weirder.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{comic | {{comic | ||
| − | | number = | + | | number = 126 |
| − | | date = | + | | date = July 10, 2006 |
| − | | title = | + | | title = Red Spiders Cometh |
| − | | image = | + | | image = red_spiders_cometh.jpg |
| − | | titletext = | + | | titletext = Uh-oh. |
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
| − | + | The fourth in the series of sketches involving [[:Category:Red Spiders|red spiders]], the titular spiders are overlooking a small city. The title text implies that things won't end well, and possibly that the counter-offensive from [[47: Counter-Red Spiders|the previous comic in the series]] had failed. | |
| − | + | The full series of [[:Category:Red Spiders|Red Spiders]] comics: | |
| + | *[[8: Red Spiders]], the first one. | ||
| + | *[[43: Red Spiders 2]], in which the spiders begin building. | ||
| + | *[[47: Counter-Red Spiders]], in which the humans begin a counter-offensive. | ||
| + | *[[126: Red Spiders Cometh]], this one. | ||
| + | *[[427: Bad Timing]], in which, in a style more typical to xkcd, the spiders attack a couple in the middle of a serious relationship discussion in a hot-air balloon. | ||
| + | *[[442: xkcd Loves the Discovery Channel]], in which it appears briefly in the 14th panel crawling over a cube. | ||
| − | + | ==Transcript== | |
| + | :[Many red spiders, standing on and hanging from blocks, hover ominously over a small city, ready to attack.] | ||
| − | + | ==Trivia== | |
| + | This sort of drawing, with blocks converging on a horizon, is a common type of drawing practice to practice three-dimensional views. | ||
| − | + | {{Comic discussion}} | |
| − | + | [[Category:Red Spiders]] | |
| − | + | [[Category:Comics with color]] | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | {{ | ||
| − | |||
| − | [[Category: | ||
| − | [[Category: | ||
Revision as of 09:51, 24 February 2023
| Red Spiders Cometh |
 Title text: Uh-oh. |
Explanation
The fourth in the series of sketches involving red spiders, the titular spiders are overlooking a small city. The title text implies that things won't end well, and possibly that the counter-offensive from the previous comic in the series had failed.
The full series of Red Spiders comics:
- 8: Red Spiders, the first one.
- 43: Red Spiders 2, in which the spiders begin building.
- 47: Counter-Red Spiders, in which the humans begin a counter-offensive.
- 126: Red Spiders Cometh, this one.
- 427: Bad Timing, in which, in a style more typical to xkcd, the spiders attack a couple in the middle of a serious relationship discussion in a hot-air balloon.
- 442: xkcd Loves the Discovery Channel, in which it appears briefly in the 14th panel crawling over a cube.
Transcript
- [Many red spiders, standing on and hanging from blocks, hover ominously over a small city, ready to attack.]
Trivia
This sort of drawing, with blocks converging on a horizon, is a common type of drawing practice to practice three-dimensional views.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ 
refresh comments!Discussion
When we all rely on a BOT, we don't know how to do simple things like create new comic explanation pages manually anymore. 8-)
I really hope he's right about 2022... Orion205 (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The DgbrtBOT... Why's it broken?? --198.41.238.117 04:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Asterix and Obelix
Fun fact: comic strip characters Asterix and Obelix were named after these symbols [1]. Frank 162.158.88.121 10:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's interesting. I never knew that. Thanks, random stranger! theusaf (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- New Normal
I personally am getting very tired of anyone expecting CoViD '19 to be "over" or anxious to "get back to normal". With '19, Delta, Gamma, & Lambda, all making the rounds (& those are just the lineage names; each already has dozens of minor variants, as coronavirus carries over minor variations from each host), & dogs, cats, & deer all showing signs of community-wide infection as well, it seems pretty obvious even to a non epidemiologist, that we've long since reached a state of effectively ubiquitous exposure. Couple this with air quality in increasing decline across multiple factors (rapidly climbing CO2, increasing rates of emissions of microparticulate, the only-just-beginning-&-already-most-of-the-dust-we-breathe breakdown of plastic microfibers, rare volatiles, take your pick, levels of each are accelerating precipitously) & we should all just collectively expect everyone "at risk" of respiratory illness to be suffering or dying on increasingly regular basis, until we all collectively change our lifestyles considerably more than we have so far. Heck, if we continue trying to get "back to normal" we may all die off entirely much sooner than even most of our concerned "experts" seem to think, because of the sheer number of contributing factors compounding each other at unprecedented rates of increase. In my view (seemed obvious since last August) CoViD itself is clearly here to stay, & even with booster shots, we should expect dangerous new variants to crop up. We live in an increasingly dense society (& that isn't a euphemism referring to effects of CO2 buildup) & higher density means more disease exposure; so we will all need to take steps to minimize these exposure risks & keep that up forever (or at least until population density or travel wane dramatically). We might even have to stop living like the future is disposable. ProphetZarquon (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, my reaction to 2022 in this comic was, "I appreciate his optimism, but I don't think it's actually warranted, and I think it's the double dagger symbol that comes next." I do hope we'll ultimately ease into a bit of a smoother and somewhat less oppressive (new) 'normal' than 2020~21 represent, but even in that scenario 2021 definitely seems a bit too soon to expect the current aberrations to reach an end. Regarding lifestyle changes, more than that I think it's largely voting patterns that would need to change (in countries where that applies), since many of the changes needed require large-scale collective coordination (i.e. infrastructure, commercial/industrial regulation, etc. etc.), in other words government level action, rather than just lifestyle changes at the individual level, even if universally applied. But I agree, a willingness to change lifestyles may be required for those kinds of voting patterns to occur. Of course a large span of human history was permeated by a lot of suffering, conflict, and death that probably most of us can't relate to today. On the other hand though, nowadays there's 7B of us and counting to experience the full joys of everything you're describing =/. 108.162.246.50 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Did you seriously implied covid is made dangerous by global warming? Despite climbing CO2, the air quality - meaning, how good it is for people - is getting BETTER thanks to factory emissions being regulated compared to previous century. At least in Europe and US, it may still be bad in China, Beijing's smog is legendary. Of course, that's not related to Covid, which does seem to be here to stay and the best we can hope in is that thanks to combination of vaccine and mutations it gets closer to flu in dangerousness (which would still means tens of thousands of deaths every year, in EU or US). -- Hkmaly (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The observed raise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may cause various changes in climate dynamics, but has no direct effect on human respiration and health. Sitting in a poorly ventilated room causes much, much higher rise (just because you're exhaling CO2), even causing mild, but passing, somatic effects (headaches etc.) -- 141.101.96.29 08:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking the next best option after the asterisk and dagger would probably be the section sign (§) — RAGBRAIvet (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC) 22:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Is there a triangle symbol? That seems like it would be the best, if 2022 was mainly Delta
- It's likely Delta will be connected to THIS year (2021) and next year will have another variant as dominant. There might even be enough time left in this year to replace Lambda as well, or maybe Lambda will be connected with winter 2021/22 and we get another for summer 2022. -- Hkmaly (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I just want to say out loud (sic!) what I've been thinking for a while now... People will definitely be uncomfortable with the situation once they have to identify something as the Omega Strain... For a number of reasons. 141.101.98.213 11:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
2022 should have the ‡-symbol, double dagger - Checkmate!
The star and dagger could also be read as star and cross as seen on some tomb stones. They are used to denote birth and death. This could explain the comment about not being sure what the next symbol would be. See example here https://www.serafinum.de/media/image/product/8219/lg/zeitloser-granit-grabstein-in-schwarz-einzelgrab-philium~2.jpg Ray (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
In genealogical records, such as family trees, the dagger is used to indicate the death, or the unnatural death, of a person. Similarly, in biology, it is used to note the extinction of a species, genus, etc... Species that are possibly extinct are indicated with an asterisk and finally double asterisks indicate taxa believed to be extinct in the wild but known to be extant in cultivation.
The title text says "I'm hoping 2022 is relatively normal ..."
Soylent Green is set in 2022. The movie shows pollution, global warming, riots, a sharp divide between rich and poor, ... and a tasty new food product. Totally fictional, ummm, kind of, sort of. Oh never mind. How do I buy a ticket for a Mars rocket? 162.158.74.150 19:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
TeX footnote symbols
I think the picture is an excerpt of a scientific paper, so those symbols are the footnote symbols used to explain the anomalies. Here's the list:
1 asterisk *
2 dagger †
3 double dagger ‡
4 section symbol §
5 paragraph ¶
6 parallel lines ‖
7 two asterisks **
8 two daggers ††
9 two double daggers ‡‡
As a result, all Randall has to do is this:
\usepackage[symbol]{footmisc}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\footnote[num]{text}
where num=year-2019.
--I. (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I'm wondering what's after the double dagger? MyroDock (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- That question seems already to be covered..? PS. "New comments should be added at the bottom." was just above where you originally wrote the above. 172.70.90.252 19:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Given that he has used this system in What If? 2, I think Randall has figured this out. Trogdor147 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
