https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Tardyon&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T01:50:10ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1322:_Winter&diff=59525Talk:1322: Winter2014-02-06T15:34:18Z<p>Tardyon: </p>
<hr />
<div>There is a reason we have correct and precise words for just about every item. "Flappy planes" could refer to birds, or it could refer to the impractical early attempt at a flying machine known as an ornithopter; and in the same manner "stick towers" could also refer to telephone poles or the piers from an old-time wooden railroad trestle.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.30|173.245.54.30]] 17:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I think the main reason we like to have so many words is so we can belittle people that don't know as many as we do. The German way is more sensible, if less poetic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I feel like he's referencing a song but I can't make the things fit anything. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.53|108.162.219.53]] 06:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I thought this may be a shot at media's coverage of the "polar vortex"[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.31|108.162.219.31]] 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Amusingly, I feel, the German for gloves is "Handschuh" (plural "Handschuhe)" as in<br />
hand shoe(s). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.72|173.245.49.72]] 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I still think that's whitehat, he is again making an argument that is getting beaten [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How does the title text build up on the romeo&juliet's rose idea? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.74|108.162.229.74]] 12:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maybe "build up" is the wrong phrase. It certainly continues on the same train of thought. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Monosyllabic" doesn't quite seem like a fitting description of "water", "flappy", or "towers", especially in contrast to "pond", "birds", and "trees". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.207|108.162.238.207]] 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've added [Birds chirping] to the transcript, but I can't really see what else is missing. I'm open to suggestions. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:This was something I was trying to grasp when I added the "Birds Chirping" - to what detail do we describe the events going on in any given panel? A transcript is supposed to be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcript_(law) written record of the spoken word] and while some actions do bear significant meaning to the "record" of the strip as a whole, the question remains - to what detail? [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 20:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
::To the musical notes that appear in the upper right corner of the relevant panels. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Yes, I agree - the musical notes should be transcribed (or notated, lol). But should we be transcribing physical acts, such as characters walking on/off panel, setting up the scene, etc. It would seem that we're moving from Transcript to Script. In any case, I'm going to move this discussion to the [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination|Coordination]] page as I can't seem to find any real guideline on this.[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It almost scans right for "These Are a Few of My Favorite Things" and a lot of the lines could be taken as references to that song. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:If you say so. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The stickman with the antennated headwool is right. [[User:Sten|'''S<small>TEN</small>''']] <small>([[User talk:Sten|talk]])</small> 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Might "little flappers" refer to fruit bats, instead of birds, since flappy planes is already used for birds? Most of the replacements so far were logical, and since birds mainly generate lift using Bernoulli's Principle (like planes), wouldn't bats more more accurate when only refering to "flappers"? [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, I think "little flappers" is definately birds - specifically wrens, sparrows, warblers, etc - all of which are both small and commonly called "songbirds", hence the indication of musical birdsong. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.46}}<br />
<br />
It feels like there is some special significance to the last panel. Either the birds' chirping indicates offense at being called flappy planes, indicating that somebody does in fact care, or they are continuing to chirp happilly because they don't care. Or it could just be that Cueball/White Hat sees Beret Guy's point, as seems to be the consensus. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm pretty sure this isn't a comic about sentient birds. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is "spacelight" meant to be "the illumination from space" i.e. "sunlight", or "the lamp in space" i.e. "sun"? I thought the latter. {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.67}}<br />
::I don't think it matters that much, as long as white hat is warm enough. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.86|108.162.229.86]] 19:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Do you get confused when people say "The sun is warm today" ? This is the same thing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]]<br />
<br />
I have referenced Feynman's "Difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something" to the explanation as the reference would be obvious to someone like Munroe. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 22:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Floor water" was referenced in the latest What-If. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 05:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No baby birds in winter? Could they be crossbill's? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.84|108.162.254.84]] 15:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:He is only saying "little flappers" to create a certain tone in his statement. He simply means the songbirds. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have always liked Feynman's parable about knowing something vs knowing the name of something. I especially like it in context of those students and intellectual wannabes that spew out names and jargon without actually knowing, understanding or appreciating the how (and perhaps why) behind what they are spouting off.<br />
On the other hand, a shared nomenclature is absolutely essential to communication, especially effective and unambiguous communication, as the discussions herein (above) make clear.<br />
For instance, although "beret guy" may have a deep understanding and appreciation of what he observes, he is failing to communicate this (if that indeed was his intention) to "cueball", and indeed it could be said to the readers. For instance the "little flappers" are birds to some, bats to others. "Lamp in space" is not very unambiguous as well.<br />
People create names and words with specific meaning in order to shorten communication time, and to create a shared mental picture that helps further understanding. An argument could be made that "cueball" has a point about "wrong words for those things" in that if one really wants to communicate ones understanding or appreciation for something, one had better learn the nomenclature. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 15:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)</div>Tardyonhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:687:_Dimensional_Analysis&diff=59258Talk:687: Dimensional Analysis2014-02-03T15:05:49Z<p>Tardyon: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{cot}}<br />
Is it customary to just slap a new contributor after 5 minutes because the page was not done perfectly on the first editing? Now I will NOT research and add the actual numbers you would have to plug into the equation and I will leave this to Dave22. Genius. [[User:Stamfest|Stamfest]] ([[User talk:Stamfest|talk]]) 09:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:We do put those fields there for a reason. Most editors just make a page and leave them incomplete with fields deleted or blank, oftentimes leaving admins with heaps of maintenance work to deal with. I probably *should* have waited for you to finish, but prior experience and me being busy with two simultaneous continuously updating comics led me to treat it like most other incomplete pages. Will wait in the future though, since I know how you edit now. Discussion hidden, as it covers matters outside of the comic. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::And I added the comment of a (very) initial explanation to the initial version. If you only want immediately perfect content, then just say so at page creation-time. This is totally against all wiki rules I have ever experienced. It is also against basic netiquette to call new contributors names upon their first submission. You might consider to change your attitude if you run or are involved with such a project. OTOH, if this is YOUR project, you are free to treat contributors all the way you want, but do not expect them to add more content if you behave like that. But the good thing is: your reaction shifted my attention back to work. Thanks for that. This won't help the page, though. Bad luck, I guess. Also, I only found out now that it is not possible to delete accounts on a wikimedia wiki... [[User:Stamfest|Stamfest]] ([[User talk:Stamfest|talk]]) 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
This comments should be removed from this topic. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
{{cob}}<br />
Made a minor addition to the explanation as it relates to the "Buckingham Pi" formalization. This may be a 2nd order pun in the comic.[[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 15:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)</div>Tardyonhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=687:_Dimensional_Analysis&diff=59257687: Dimensional Analysis2014-02-03T15:04:35Z<p>Tardyon: /* Some numbers for this calculation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 687<br />
| date = January 11, 2010<br />
| title = Dimensional Analysis<br />
| image = dimensional_analysis.png<br />
| titletext = Or the pressure at the Earth's core will rise slightly.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic makes fun of how scientists (often physicists) use dimensional analysis to quickly check if a given formula can possibly relate to a physical system or if there were some (obvious) mathematical errors in its derivation. Dimensional analysis here refers to the check if both sides of the equation arrive at the same physical unit if the units of all variables get plugged into the equation. This usually requires knowledge of the system of units and the relation between different physical units.<br />
<br />
The comic uses the following equation to make fun of it:<br />
<br />
(Planck energy) / (Pressure at the core of the earth) * (Prius combined EPA gas mileage) / (minimum width of the English Channel) = pi<br />
<br />
===Dimensional analysis===<br />
The right hand side is dimensionless (The constant pi = 3.14... by definition is the relation of two lengths, the circumference and the diameter of a circle). The left hand side requires to plug in the dimensions of the named physical quantities:<br />
<br />
*Planck energy: given in Joules [J]<br />
*Pressure at the core of the earth: Given in Pascals [Pa]<br />
*Prius combined EPA gas mileage: miles/gallon, SI units: meters/litres [m/l]<br />
*minimum width of the English channel: meters [m]<br />
<br />
When plugged into the left hand side this amounts to:<br />
<br />
[J / Pa * (m/l) / m] = [Nm / (N/m²) * (m/m³) / m] = 1<br />
<br />
Using the following unit relations (this does not reduce units to the seven SI units, but does use some derived units):<br />
<br />
*1 Joule = 1 Newton-meter [J] = [Nm]<br />
*1 Pascal = 1 Newton per square-meter [Pa] = [N/m²]<br />
*1 cubic-metre = 1000 litres [m³] = 1000 [l]<br />
<br />
Note that for dimensional analysis constant factors are not taken into account. Here square brackets are used to denote dimensional analysis. In the above equation the unit of force (newton) as well as all the units of length (meter) cancel out each other.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the comic is, that sometimes dimension analysis of equations that were not derived but rather "made up" can provide insight. However, in reality such an equations would have to be somehow "motivated", which is more of an art than science and requires great experience in the field the equation should relate to. The presented equation combines values that have no immediate causal relation with each other, so it does not make sense.<br />
<br />
For such relations it is also true that many of them can be made up by searching for matching values for variables to derive at the wanted number finally. E.g. if it is desired to arrive at e instead of pi on the comic-equation, this could be done by using a different car model and/or a different length measurement and/or a different pressure (e.g. by choosing a different planet) and/or some other arbitrary energy.<br />
<br />
===Some numbers for this calculation===<br />
The {{w|Planck energy}} is the only nearly exact value we do have. And according to other Planck values it is small.<br />
E_planck = 1.956 x 10<sup>9</sup> J = 1.956 x 10<sup>9</sup> Nm<br />
<br />
Pressure at the {{w|Inner core|core}} of the earth.<br />
Using a simple value like this:<br />
P_core = 350 GPa = 3.5 x 10<sup>11</sup> N/m²<br />
<br />
Prius combined {{w|Toyota Prius|EPA gas mileage}}:<br />
Highway<br />
US units 50 mpg<br />
50 mpg => 13.2 miles per litre => 21,000,000 meter per m³<br />
<br />
Minimum width of the English Channel is about<br />
34km or 34,000 meters.<br />
<br />
Calculating this values you will get pi=3.45 what is pretty close to pi=3.14 while using a Planck value. Just try the ePrius and you will come closer to that target.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, this sort of dimensional analysis is formalized by the so called "Buckingham Pi" method, where each dimensionless grouping is called a "Pi". Thus formally each grouping can be denoted as equal to "Pi", although this is a rather obscure pun in the context of the comic.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[On a blackboard.]<br />
:(Planck energy/Pressure at the Earth's core) x (Prius combined EPA gas mileage/Minimum width of the English Channel) = pi<br />
<br />
:[A teacher indicates this equation with a pointer in front of a class.]<br />
:Teacher: It's correct to within experimental error, and the units check out. It must be a fundamental law.<br />
:Student: But what if they build a better Prius?<br />
:Teacher: ''Then England will drift out to sea.''<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*This is another comic in the infrequent [[My Hobby]] series.<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:My Hobby]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]</div>Tardyonhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1325:_Rejection&diff=59256Talk:1325: Rejection2014-02-03T14:44:34Z<p>Tardyon: </p>
<hr />
<div>How do we know which one is Cueball and which one is “guy”?<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.119|108.162.254.119]] 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all we dont know that the first guy has been recently rejected, that is actually an assumption made by the second guy. Also, the "they choose jerks over nice guys" argument is wrong not because it lacks judgement and self awareness, it is wrong because it belittles the woman's judgement and self-awareness. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.105|108.162.254.105]] 08:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the first guy is a jerk and the girl rejected him because he's a jerk. The second guy is quite blatantly pointing out that the first guy's a jerk, but the first guy is so self-absorbed that he just doesn't get it - and probably never will. This is indicates a personality disorder/character flaw. The first guy is incapable of accepting that he is a jerk and therefore has to blame the girl by falling back on a cliche about girls only wanting nice guys. This is OK for the first guy because he thinks nice guys are losers.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.9|108.162.229.9]] 09:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Uhm... Some of the above may be correct - but not the last sentences. The first guy thinks he is a nice guy, and he is about to use this to explain why he has been rejected since girls only say they want nice guys but really want something else. She probably doesn't want a jerk! But may rather go for a sporty/strong/hansom type without considering how nice he is. So the guy she chooses may or may not be nice to her (and may even be a real jerk). All this is of course just part of the stereotyping of women. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm having trouble editing the article. I am trying to change the explanation to:<br />
<br />
In popular culture women supposedly go for jerks instead of "nice guys". The guy on the left in this picture is frustrated and complaining as he has just been (presumably) rejected by a girl, and thinks it's because he's the "nice guy" type. However, there are many other reasons why a woman might reject a guy who isn't a jerk. (Though this guy just might be a jerk.) Cueball is trying to tell this guy that there are many, more complicated, reasons, and that saying "women don't like nice guys" and presuming to know what women "really want" is showing a rejection of that woman's agency, which might be the real that reason she rejected him.<br />
<br />
The Alt Text continues the "conversation", with Cueball implying that he believes that the first guy is bad at taking hints, offering a sarcastic "crash course" in hint taking, with Cueball outright saying that he is trying to end the conversation while the first guys continues to follow him.<br />
<br />
but it won't save. Can someone help me or copy/paste my changes themselves? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Nevermind. Found the captcha check while posting the above. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Dear 173.245.50.77, You could create a userid and login -- that way your explanation would also appear in the history nicely with your name against it [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 14:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's about "negging" by pick-up-artists. See http://xkcd.com/1027 The theory is that putting a woman down somehow makes her more attracted to you. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.216|108.162.222.216]] 11:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)DivePeak<br />
<br />
What is particularly interesting is the assumption by Randall that ALL woman are self aware enough to know what they really want in a man. The cartoon generalizes that self proclaimed "nice guys" are in error and whining needlessly and cluelessly about their situation. But it is this exact sort of generalization that has lead to the popular cultural conception of woman going for "jerks" over "nice guys."<br />
In reality, there are men who are rejected by woman who have poor judgement in men, as well as men who perceive themselves to be "nice guys" but do not have the introspection and awareness to respect a woman's judgement, even if it could be poor. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)</div>Tardyonhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1322:_Winter&diff=58841Talk:1322: Winter2014-01-28T22:25:25Z<p>Tardyon: </p>
<hr />
<div>There is a reason we have correct and precise words for just about every item. "Flappy planes" could refer to birds, or it could refer to the impractical early attempt at a flying machine known as an ornithopter; and in the same manner "stick towers" could also refer to telephone poles or the piers from an old-time wooden railroad trestle.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.30|173.245.54.30]] 17:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
I feel like he's referencing a song but I can't make the things fit anything. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.53|108.162.219.53]] 06:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I thought this may be a shot at media's coverage of the "polar vortex"[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.31|108.162.219.31]] 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Amusingly, I feel, the German for gloves is "Handschuh" (plural "Handschuhe)" as in<br />
hand shoe(s). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.72|173.245.49.72]] 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I still think that's whitehat, he is again making an argument that is getting beaten [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How does the title text build up on the romeo&juliet's rose idea? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.74|108.162.229.74]] 12:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maybe "build up" is the wrong phrase. It certainly continues on the same train of thought. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Monosyllabic" doesn't quite seem like a fitting description of "water", "flappy", or "towers", especially in contrast to "pond", "birds", and "trees". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.207|108.162.238.207]] 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've added [Birds chirping] to the transcript, but I can't really see what else is missing. I'm open to suggestions. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:This was something I was trying to grasp when I added the "Birds Chirping" - to what detail do we describe the events going on in any given panel? A transcript is supposed to be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcript_(law) written record of the spoken word] and while some actions do bear significant meaning to the "record" of the strip as a whole, the question remains - to what detail? [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 20:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
::To the musical notes that appear in the upper right corner of the relevant panels. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Yes, I agree - the musical notes should be transcribed (or notated, lol). But should we be transcribing physical acts, such as characters walking on/off panel, setting up the scene, etc. It would seem that we're moving from Transcript to Script. In any case, I'm going to move this discussion to the [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination|Coordination]] page as I can't seem to find any real guideline on this.[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It almost scans right for "These Are a Few of My Favorite Things" and a lot of the lines could be taken as references to that song. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The stickman with the antennated headwool is right. [[User:Sten|'''S<small>TEN</small>''']] <small>([[User talk:Sten|talk]])</small> 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Might "little flappers" refer to fruit bats, instead of birds, since flappy planes is already used for birds? Most of the replacements so far were logical, and since birds mainly generate lift using Bernoulli's Principle (like planes), wouldn't bats more more accurate when only refering to "flappers"? [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It feels like there is some special significance to the last panel. Either the birds' chirping indicates offense at being called flappy planes, indicating that somebody does in fact care, or they are continuing to chirp happilly because they don't care. Or it could just be that Cueball/White Hat sees Beret Guy's point, as seems to be the consensus. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is "spacelight" meant to be "the illumination from space" i.e. "sunlight", or "the lamp in space" i.e. "sun"? I thought the latter. {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.67}}<br />
::I don't think it matters that much, as long as white hat is warm enough. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.86|108.162.229.86]] 19:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have referenced Feynman's "Difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something" to the explanation as the reference would be obvious to someone like Munroe. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 22:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)</div>Tardyonhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1322:_Winter&diff=588401322: Winter2014-01-28T22:11:33Z<p>Tardyon: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1322<br />
| date = January 27, 2014<br />
| title = Winter<br />
| image = winter.png<br />
| titletext = Stay warm, little flappers, and find lots of plant eggs!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Beret Guy and Cueball (or White Hat?) are walking. Beret Guy is making several remarks about the situation. The sky is blue or the air is cold, there is ice to walk on, and the birds are chirping in the trees. When making these observations, however, he does not use the conventional terms. Instead he uses word compounds, similar to "[[1133: Up Goer Five|Up Goer Five]]". When Cueball brings up Beret Guy's choice of vocabulary, he retorts by declaring that the name does not matter, as long as the things themselves are what they should be. This is the same concept that is communicated in the line from the Shakespearean play, "Romeo and Juliet": "What's in a name? That which we call {{w|A rose by any other name would smell as sweet|a rose/by any other name would smell as sweet}}." The concept is similar to that discussed by Richard Feynman as the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ]<br />
<br />
The title text further builds upon this idea.<br />
<br />
;Dictionary<br />
<br />
*The sky is cold: The sky is blue (a cold hue) or the air is cold <br />
*floor water: puddle<br />
*too hard to drink: frozen<br />
*handcoats: mittens ''or'' gloves<br />
*spacelight: sunlight<br />
*flappy planes: birds<br />
*beeping: chirping<br />
*stick towers: trees<br />
*little flappers: baby birds ''or'' small birds (as there are no baby birds in mid winter)<br />
*plant eggs: seeds / berries<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Beret Guy talking with Cueball, walking through a cold forest with ice on the ground]<br />
:Beret Guy: The sky is cold and the floor water is too hard to drink.<br />
<br />
:Beret Guy: But I have my handcoats and the spacelight is warm.<br />
<br />
:[Birds chirp overhead.]<br />
:Beret Guy: Listen–the flappy planes are beeping in the stick towers.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball stops. Beret Guy walks off-panel]<br />
:Cueball: Those are all the wrong words for those things.<br />
:Beret Guy: Maybe.<br />
:Beret Guy: But the things themselves are all right. So who cares?<br />
<br />
:[Birds chirp overhead. Cueball resumes walking]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>Tardyon