Difference between revisions of "Talk:2504: Fissile Raspberry Isotopes"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(I hate on-screen keyboards. No innate haptic feedback to help indicate key-misses. Anyway, hopefully all corrected, or enough of them.)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
:::It's a reference to [https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/285:_Wikipedian_Protester 'xkcd 285'], a long running joke in the xkcd community, What If? and Randal's other books, and the xkcd merch shop {{unsigned ip|172.69.42.63}}
 
:::It's a reference to [https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/285:_Wikipedian_Protester 'xkcd 285'], a long running joke in the xkcd community, What If? and Randal's other books, and the xkcd merch shop {{unsigned ip|172.69.42.63}}
 
::::And severely overused. Imho it should only be used when we are actually looking for a citation for someting stated without proof in the explanation. So I generally feel free to remove them as I did here. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 
::::And severely overused. Imho it should only be used when we are actually looking for a citation for someting stated without proof in the explanation. So I generally feel free to remove them as I did here. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::I agree there ''can'' (and has been) overuse, but by your criteria there would be absolutely no 285-bwckrefetencing at all. In use on The Original Wiki and all the rest there other cite-markers requesting an edit to clarify, expand, use better units, add comic issue and page, etc, and th9se exist (or can be made to exist) here.
+
:::::I agree there ''can'' (and has been) overuse, but by your criteria there would be absolutely no 285-backrefetencing at all. In use on The Original Wiki and all the rest there other cite-markers requesting an edit to clarify, expand, use better units, add comic issue and page, etc, and th9se exist (or can be made to exist) here.
::::::I wouldn't suggest every clause of every sentence of every paragraph of every comic's explanation be in-joked, but (with exceptions on a very few rare occasions that will doubtlessly be edited down by a future editor like you, or me, anyway) I see no harm in so labell8ng up to ''one'' axiomatic statement this way per article (the absolutely most obvious and inarguable and, by editors' aggregate concensus without resorting to an edit-war, humorous-to-so-label statement).
+
::::::I wouldn't suggest every clause of every sentence of every paragraph of every comic's explanation be in-joked, but (with exceptions on a very few rare occasions that will doubtlessly be edited down by a future editor like you, or me, anyway) I see no harm in so labelling up to ''one'' axiomatic statement this way per article (the absolutely most obvious and inarguable and, by editors' aggregate concensus without resorting to an edit-war, humorous-to-so-label statement).
::::::By dint of the humour-decay so described, results in one permanent example fit 5o tickle the funnybone of all but the most curmudgeonly every 2, 3 or 4 comics, on a rolling average. In every case being absolutely obvious to pretty much everyone 5hat it is there for amusement valu (especially amidst dry, technical detail) even to those only jus5 wrrived upon these particular digital shores...
+
::::::By dint of the humour-decay so described, results in one permanent example fit to tickle the funnybone of all but the most curmudgeonly every 2, 3 or 4 comics, on a rolling average. In every case being absolutely obvious to pretty much everyone that it is there for amusement value (especially amidst dry, technical detail) even to those only just arrived upon these particular digital shores...
 
::::::IMO, of course, having no authority or desire for authority here. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.69|141.101.77.69]] 17:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 
::::::IMO, of course, having no authority or desire for authority here. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.69|141.101.77.69]] 17:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:34, 20 August 2021

This joke is like a visual pun, a raspberry fruit looks sorta like a nuclear model, and so it behaves the same (ie can go supercritical). 172.69.35.72 20:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Along with an actual pun: pi in "pi meson" sounds like pie in "raspberry pie". Barmar (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
If it isn't also an intentional tertiary reference to the Raspberry Pi computer board, I'll eat my hat! 141.101.98.109 21:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd say you would have to eat it. Cannot see what this comic has to do with a computer board, just because it is named after a raspberry pie. This joke is obviously about the berries looking like nuclear cores, and pie mesons. Not about anything with a computer. So take some salt an eat (or swallow one the hats in your link, along with a camel :p ) --Kynde (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I interpreted 'tertiary' to mean that randall was 'primed' to talk about raspberry pies due to his exposure to the board, and similarly for readers finding it interesting and humorous. Baffo32 (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Though raspberries resemble the common depiction of nuclei, perhaps we need to explain that in reality, nuclei are rather different..? BunsenH (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think anyone reading xkcd and this page, will figure it out via the links ;-) --Kynde (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I tend to forget that nuclei aren't little raspberries made of nucleons, even though I used to be a fusion researcher. In fact I'm sure I was only ever half-aware they weren't (I didn't study the actual nuclear physics, ok!)... so +1 from me in favour of adding a bit about the 'real' nature of nuclei, that would be interesting. --192·168·0·1 (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest referring to the raspberry parts as 'drupelets' rather than 'ovaries'.172.70.114.173 12:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I love eating the juiciest and sweetest of fruit ovaries, raspberries and strawberries are my favorite but I also enjoy apples and grapes --Lackadaisical (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I looked this up briefly and I _think_ that the ovaries are what develop into the drupelets, here, not certain, judging by phrasing on wikipedia. So I changed it. Don't eat the ovaries, eat the part that's designed for eating. Baffo32 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Fine but you forgot the transcript. I have changed it there so drupelet is the word used. --Kynde (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The page says "Of course, in real life raspberries don't do that.[citation needed]" - where is one supposed to find a useful citation to state that fields of raspberries don't explode? 108.162.229.101 22:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s the point! 108.162.215.45 02:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a joke, and you are free to remove it if you so judge. Others may disagree. Sometimes raspberry farms have some pretty hard to describe explosive activity when their parts combine in rare chain reactions. Baffo32 (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a reference to 'xkcd 285', a long running joke in the xkcd community, What If? and Randal's other books, and the xkcd merch shop 172.69.42.63 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
And severely overused. Imho it should only be used when we are actually looking for a citation for someting stated without proof in the explanation. So I generally feel free to remove them as I did here. --Kynde (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree there can (and has been) overuse, but by your criteria there would be absolutely no 285-backrefetencing at all. In use on The Original Wiki and all the rest there other cite-markers requesting an edit to clarify, expand, use better units, add comic issue and page, etc, and th9se exist (or can be made to exist) here.
I wouldn't suggest every clause of every sentence of every paragraph of every comic's explanation be in-joked, but (with exceptions on a very few rare occasions that will doubtlessly be edited down by a future editor like you, or me, anyway) I see no harm in so labelling up to one axiomatic statement this way per article (the absolutely most obvious and inarguable and, by editors' aggregate concensus without resorting to an edit-war, humorous-to-so-label statement).
By dint of the humour-decay so described, results in one permanent example fit to tickle the funnybone of all but the most curmudgeonly every 2, 3 or 4 comics, on a rolling average. In every case being absolutely obvious to pretty much everyone that it is there for amusement value (especially amidst dry, technical detail) even to those only just arrived upon these particular digital shores...
IMO, of course, having no authority or desire for authority here. 141.101.77.69 17:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)