Talk:2163: Chernobyl

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 14:26, 20 June 2019 by 162.158.89.31 (talk) (Comment explanation of title text)
Jump to: navigation, search


Please note that the first panel is referring to an HBO mini-series about the Chernobyl disaster, not the disaster itself! White Hat is NOT expressing enjoyment of the disaster itself, which was my initial reaction! Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If I were Randall, I would have put "HBO's Chernobyl" to dispel that confusion. Also, I'd be much cooler. OhFFS (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
That’s why Randall put it in italics. 172.69.160.132 18:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually that's exactly what I thought until I came here, I've only been marginally aware such a show even existed, LOL! Actually, I took White Hat's enjoyment as "I find the subject interesting". In April & May I was coming to a bar for a Game Of Thrones viewing party (I only made it to three), and one either started or ended with Chernobyl, that was my only awareness of it. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In the transcript, there's two words that might be both italic and bold: First, when Ponytail says "30 years ago, we banged some rocks together too hard.", I think "too" is italic and bold, and when she says "Yeah, we messed up real bad.", I think the "real" is also italic and bold. If this is the case, I don't know how to apply both bold and italic to text in wiki markup! Can anyone help? Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Never mind - I figured it out via the Wikitext Cheatsheet! Putting 5 single quotes around the text did it! Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree those words are both, and I feel I can say so with utmost certainty. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you’re going to watch the series, be sure to read this so you’ll know which parts are total BS: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-hbos-chernobyl-got-right-and-what-it-got-terribly-wrong Tualha (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's a really short and simple explanation: "The reactor was a shit design." :P The exact circumstances aren't even that important, since it could just as easily have gone wrong in a variety of different ways. (To quote a 1993 report from a Soviet committee, translated by IAEA, "The Commission considers that the negative properties of this type of reactor are likely to predetermine the inevitability of emergency situations.") Zmatt (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought White Hat understood 'banging the rocks together to hard' to mean 'created to big a fire.' 172.68.59.90 19:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Added alternative explanation with this meaning -- Malgond (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What I like about this page is that it's an explanation of an explanation...John.Adriaan (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

An explanation for Beret might have to be a little more literary. "The Soviets told no tale; but even as uranium was the foundation of their might, so also was it their destruction: they banged too hard and too greedily, and disturbed that from which they fled, the Curie's Bane."

/Ponytails/Ponytail/162.158.214.34 10:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The explanation of the title text mentions unmuting a sound system, but initiating an emergency shutdown is more like muting a sound system. That would make the analogy more precise­—muting a sound system often causes a crack sound, proportional to the set volume, Turning up the volume causes offsets somewhere in the system. At switching off, these offsets rapidly go away, causing a sound. 162.158.89.31 14:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)