explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2271: Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad

2020-02-22T16:49:23Z

108.162.210.222: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2271
| date = February 21, 2020
| title = Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad
| image = grandpa_jason_and_grandpa_chad.png
| titletext = The AARP puts the average age of a first-time grandparent close to 50, and the CDC has some data. But I don't have first-parent age distributions for specific names, or generational first-child age correlations, so the dotted line is just a guess. Still, let's be honest: No further research is really *needed.*
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GRANDPA NAMED CHAD. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic contains three separate curves, with the x-axis being the date and the y-axis being the frequency of three separate sets of data:
* The number of people in the US with the name "Jason", a {{w|Poisson curve}} that reaches its maximum in 1977, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution Jason became the second most common name] and reached the [https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/m/Jason maximum number of babies born with that name]
* The number of people in the US with the name "Chad," a similar curve that reaches its maximum in 1973, when [https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/m/Chad the number of babies named Chad reached ''its'' maximum]
* An estimate of the birth years of people that are becoming grandparents, with its maximum in 1968, 52 years ago. The title text explains this is the age at which, on average, most people become grandparents, citing an [https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/life-leisure/2019/aarp-grandparenting-study.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00289.001.pdf AARP study]
The comic exists to show the significant overlap between these names and being a grandparent.

Jason and {{w|Chad (slang)|Chad}} are names associated with stereotypical young, partying bros who couldn't care less about responsibility, so the idea that statistically some of them are now grandparents, who are stereotyped as being wise and responsible, is weird to say the least. [[2165: Millennials]] is similarly about how a label has outlived the demographic that it was used to describe, while the people described by the label have outgrown the traits that the label entails.

The title text adds a caveat to the assertion, mentioning the lack of any real evidence for the distribution of ages of Grandparents, but stands firm in the conclusion that this is the final word on the fact that there are many people who are grandparents named Jason and Chad.

Other possible caveats of the data:
* The Y-axis is in percent of the highest year, not absolute numbers. So while it jokingly implies that, in a few years, all grandparents will be named Jason and Chad, in actuality it will probably be in the order of the hundreds of thousands of people (less than 2% of [https://www.aarp.org/home-family/friends-family/info-2017/record-number-grandparents.html all grandparents]), but still common enough compared to other "ages" to be "the age of Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad"
* There are much less [https://www.mynamestats.com/First-Names/C/CH/CHAD/index.html people whose legal name is Chad] than [https://www.mynamestats.com/First-Names/J/JA/JASON/index.html people who's legal name is Jason], so "Grandpa Jason" will probably be much more common than "Grandpa Chad"
* Since Chad is more often {{w|Chad_(name)|used as a nickname}}, it's harder to quantify exactly how many people of that age go by "Chad", so there is no practical way to know just how much more common "Grandpa Jason" will be than "Grandpa Chad"

The title text ends with the text "No further research is really *needed,*" referencing [[2268: Further Research is Needed]]. This is also a joke in itself. The emphasis on *needed* is an admission that although more research is *possible*, it would be rather pointless.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A progression chart covering the period of years between 1950 to 1995. One line which is dotted begins low at the start, climbs, then steeply declines. Two solid lines begin in the early 1960s, rise almost concurrently, however one declines steadily while the other has a curve almost before the end of the chart. The lines show the following data:

Birth years of people becoming grandparents this year (United States, very rough estimate)
A dotted line which begins at 1950, rises to its peak at 1970, then steeply declines to zero by the late '70s.

Birth years of people named "Jason" and "Chad" (Social Security data)
Chad: A solid line beginning at 1962, rises to its peak by 1975, then drops through the '80s and '90s. Jason crosses underneath it in 1985, but then re-crosses it in 1993.
Jason: A solid line beginning at 1963, rises to its peak between 1977-80, then declines, dropping beneath Chad around 1985 but climbing above it again in 1993.

Fun fact: We have now entered the era of "Grandpa Jason" and "Grandpa Chad."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]

2271: Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad

2020-02-22T16:38:54Z

108.162.210.222: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2271
| date = February 21, 2020
| title = Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad
| image = grandpa_jason_and_grandpa_chad.png
| titletext = The AARP puts the average age of a first-time grandparent close to 50, and the CDC has some data. But I don't have first-parent age distributions for specific names, or generational first-child age correlations, so the dotted line is just a guess. Still, let's be honest: No further research is really *needed.*
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GRANDPA NAMED CHAD. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic contains three separate curves, with the x-axis being the date and the y-axis being the frequency of three separate sets of data:
* The number of people in the US with the name "Jason", a {{w|Poisson curve}} that reaches its maximum in 1977, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution Jason became the second most common name] and reached the [https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/m/Jason maximum number of babies born with that name]
* The number of people in the US with the name "Chad," a similar curve that reaches its maximum in 1973, when [https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/m/Chad the number of babies named Chad reached ''its'' maximum]
* An estimate of the birth years of people that are becoming grandparents, with its maximum in 1968, 52 years ago. The title text explains this is the age at which, on average, most people become grandparents, citing an [https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/life-leisure/2019/aarp-grandparenting-study.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00289.001.pdf AARP study]
The comic exists to show the significant overlap between these names and being a grandparent.

Jason and {{w|Chad (slang)|Chad}} are names associated with stereotypical young, partying bros who couldn't care less about responsibility, so the idea that statistically some of them are now grandparents, who are stereotyped as being wise and responsible, is weird to say the least. [[2165: Millennials]] is similarly about how a label has outlived the demographic that it was used to describe, while the people described by the label have outgrown the traits that the label entails.

The title text adds a caveat to the assertion, mentioning the lack of any real evidence for the distribution of ages of Grandparents, but stands firm in the conclusion that this is the final word on the fact that there are many people who are grandparents named Jason and Chad.

Other possible caveats of the data:
* The Y-axis is in percent of the highest year, not absolute numbers. So while it jokingly implies that, in a few years, all grandparents will be named Jason and Chad, in actuality it will probably be in the order of the hundred-thousand people (less than 0.2% of [https://www.aarp.org/home-family/friends-family/info-2017/record-number-grandparents.html all grandparents]), but still common enough to be "the age of Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad"
* There are much less [https://www.mynamestats.com/First-Names/C/CH/CHAD/index.html people whose legal name is Chad] than [https://www.mynamestats.com/First-Names/J/JA/JASON/index.html people who's legal name is Jason], so "Grandpa Jason" will probably be much more common than "Grandpa Chad"
* Since Chad is more often {{w|Chad_(name)|used as a nickname}}, it's harder to quantify exactly how many people of that age go by "Chad", so there is no practical way to know just how much more common "Grandpa Jason" will be than "Grandpa Chad"

The title text ends with the text "No further research is really *needed,*" referencing [[2268: Further Research is Needed]]. This is also a joke in itself. The emphasis on *needed* is an admission that although more research is *possible*, it would be rather pointless.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A progression chart covering the period of years between 1950 to 1995. One line which is dotted begins low at the start, climbs, then steeply declines. Two solid lines begin in the early 1960s, rise almost concurrently, however one declines steadily while the other has a curve almost before the end of the chart. The lines show the following data:

Birth years of people becoming grandparents this year (United States, very rough estimate)
A dotted line which begins at 1950, rises to its peak at 1970, then steeply declines to zero by the late '70s.

Birth years of people named "Jason" and "Chad" (Social Security data)
Chad: A solid line beginning at 1962, rises to its peak by 1975, then drops through the '80s and '90s. Jason crosses underneath it in 1985, but then re-crosses it in 1993.
Jason: A solid line beginning at 1963, rises to its peak between 1977-80, then declines, dropping beneath Chad around 1985 but climbing above it again in 1993.

Fun fact: We have now entered the era of "Grandpa Jason" and "Grandpa Chad."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]

2271: Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad

2020-02-22T16:26:12Z

108.162.210.222: typo

{{comic
| number = 2271
| date = February 21, 2020
| title = Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad
| image = grandpa_jason_and_grandpa_chad.png
| titletext = The AARP puts the average age of a first-time grandparent close to 50, and the CDC has some data. But I don't have first-parent age distributions for specific names, or generational first-child age correlations, so the dotted line is just a guess. Still, let's be honest: No further research is really *needed.*
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GRANDPA NAMED CHAD. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic contains three separate curves, with the x-axis being the date and the y-axis being the frequency of three separate sets of data:
* The number of people in the US with the name "Jason", a {{w|Poisson curve}} that reaches its maximum in 1977, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution Jason became the second most common name] and reached the [https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/m/Jason maximum number of babies born with that name]
* The number of people in the US with the name "Chad," a similar curve that reaches its maximum in 1973, when [https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/m/Chad the number of babies named Chad reached ''its'' maximum]
* An estimate of the birth years of people that are becoming grandparents, with its maximum in 1968, 52 years ago. The title text explains this is the age at which, on average, most people become grandparents, citing an [https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/life-leisure/2019/aarp-grandparenting-study.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00289.001.pdf AARP study]
The comic exists to show the significant overlap between these names and being a grandparent.

Jason and {{w|Chad (slang)|Chad}} are names associated with stereotypical young, partying bros who couldn't care less about responsibility, so the idea that statistically some of them are now grandparents, who are stereotyped as being wise and responsible, is weird to say the least. [[2165: Millennials]] is similarly about how a label has outlived the demographic that it was used to describe, while the people described by the label have outgrown the traits that the label entails.

The title text adds a caveat to the assertion, mentioning the lack of any real evidence for the distribution of ages of Grandparents, but stands firm in the conclusion that this is the final word on the fact that there are many people who are grandparents named Jason and Chad.

The title text ends with the text "No further research is really *needed,*" referencing [[2268: Further Research is Needed]]. This is also a joke in itself. The emphasis on *needed* is an admission that although more research is *possible*, it would be rather pointless.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A progression chart covering the period of years between 1950 to 1995. One line which is dotted begins low at the start, climbs, then steeply declines. Two solid lines begin in the early 1960s, rise almost concurrently, however one declines steadily while the other has a curve almost before the end of the chart. The lines show the following data:

Birth years of people becoming grandparents this year (United States, very rough estimate)
A dotted line which begins at 1950, rises to its peak at 1970, then steeply declines to zero by the late '70s.

Birth years of people named "Jason" and "Chad" (Social Security data)
Chad: A solid line beginning at 1962, rises to its peak by 1975, then drops through the '80s and '90s. Jason crosses underneath it in 1985, but then re-crosses it in 1993.
Jason: A solid line beginning at 1963, rises to its peak between 1977-80, then declines, dropping beneath Chad around 1985 but climbing above it again in 1993.

Fun fact: We have now entered the era of "Grandpa Jason" and "Grandpa Chad."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]

2271: Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad

2020-02-22T16:25:43Z

108.162.210.222: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2271
| date = February 21, 2020
| title = Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad
| image = grandpa_jason_and_grandpa_chad.png
| titletext = The AARP puts the average age of a first-time grandparent close to 50, and the CDC has some data. But I don't have first-parent age distributions for specific names, or generational first-child age correlations, so the dotted line is just a guess. Still, let's be honest: No further research is really *needed.*
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GRANDPA NAMED CHAD. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic contains three separate curves, with the x-axis being the date and the y-axis being the frequency of three separate sets of data:
* The number of people in the US with the name "Jason", a {{w|Poisson curve}} that reaches its maximum in 1977, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution Jason became the second most common name] and reached the [https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/m/Jason maximum number of babies worn with that name]
* The number of people in the US with the name "Chad," a similar curve that reaches its maximum in 1973, when [https://www.everything-birthday.com/name/m/Chad the number of babies named Chad reached ''its'' maximum]
* An estimate of the birth years of people that are becoming grandparents, with its maximum in 1968, 52 years ago. The title text explains this is the age at which, on average, most people become grandparents, citing an [https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/life-leisure/2019/aarp-grandparenting-study.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00289.001.pdf AARP study]
The comic exists to show the significant overlap between these names and being a grandparent.

Jason and {{w|Chad (slang)|Chad}} are names associated with stereotypical young, partying bros who couldn't care less about responsibility, so the idea that statistically some of them are now grandparents, who are stereotyped as being wise and responsible, is weird to say the least. [[2165: Millennials]] is similarly about how a label has outlived the demographic that it was used to describe, while the people described by the label have outgrown the traits that the label entails.

The title text adds a caveat to the assertion, mentioning the lack of any real evidence for the distribution of ages of Grandparents, but stands firm in the conclusion that this is the final word on the fact that there are many people who are grandparents named Jason and Chad.

The title text ends with the text "No further research is really *needed,*" referencing [[2268: Further Research is Needed]]. This is also a joke in itself. The emphasis on *needed* is an admission that although more research is *possible*, it would be rather pointless.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A progression chart covering the period of years between 1950 to 1995. One line which is dotted begins low at the start, climbs, then steeply declines. Two solid lines begin in the early 1960s, rise almost concurrently, however one declines steadily while the other has a curve almost before the end of the chart. The lines show the following data:

Birth years of people becoming grandparents this year (United States, very rough estimate)
A dotted line which begins at 1950, rises to its peak at 1970, then steeply declines to zero by the late '70s.

Birth years of people named "Jason" and "Chad" (Social Security data)
Chad: A solid line beginning at 1962, rises to its peak by 1975, then drops through the '80s and '90s. Jason crosses underneath it in 1985, but then re-crosses it in 1993.
Jason: A solid line beginning at 1963, rises to its peak between 1977-80, then declines, dropping beneath Chad around 1985 but climbing above it again in 1993.

Fun fact: We have now entered the era of "Grandpa Jason" and "Grandpa Chad."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:2256: Bad Map Projection: South America

2020-01-17T13:48:18Z

108.162.210.222:

I overlaid this map on all the projections in https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/977:_Map_Projections to show the difference. Is that something this wiki wants? [[User:EmuSam|EmuSam]] ([[User talk:EmuSam|talk]]) 05:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
:I don't know about the rest of the wiki, but I certainly do! --[[User:T0]] ([[User talk:T0|talk]]) 10:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
:Heck yeah that's awesome! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.222|108.162.210.222]] 13:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

How many different kinds of transformation have been applied to South America? I can see resize, rotation, and skew (shear). Can't see any reflections or anything that looks obviously non linear. Anyone care enough to check? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.119.83|162.158.119.83]] 08:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
:Not an expert on the terminologies used, especially in English. Does what has been done to the south America that is where Australia should be qualify as resize? It is not maintaining the aspect ratios, and is much "shorter" in the direction that used to be north-south (the way chile is "long") (and is now east west) and much wider in the other one. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: 358 is country code for finland, which is completely missing in the projection. {{unsigned ip|162.158.238.216| 08:11, 17 January 2020}}
:Finland is part of Europe and Asia continent, which is now South America. It is thus not more missing thatn any country not in South America. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Something something a Brazilian South Americas how many is that [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 12:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

2225: Voting Referendum

2019-11-07T21:19:30Z

108.162.210.222: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2225
| date = November 6, 2019
| title = Voting Referendum
| image = voting_referendum.png
| titletext = The weirdest quirk of the Borda count is that Jean-Charles de Borda automatically gets one point; luckily this has no consequences except in cases of extremely low turnout.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOARD OF BORDA-ELECTED CANDIDATES. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The day before this comic's publication was an election day throughout the USA, primarily for local and state issues (normal elections for federal offices of the President, Senate, and House of Representatives are always in even years). The topic of today's comic highlights many different methods for conducting elections and counting votes. In New York City, the ballot included a referendum ([https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/5/20948376/new-york-election-results-ranked-choice-voting which passed]) on whether to use a different method, ranked choice voting (another name for instant-runoff voting as described below). The comic depicts an election ballot referendum for voters to select the method to be used in future elections. While elections are primarily used to allow voters to select from candidates for public offices, election ballots also frequently present questions for voters to directly voice their support or opposition to some change in a process or law - commonly called a {{w|Referendum|referendum}}. A common issue with such referenda is what method to use to conduct the referendum itself. Here, the method of marking each choice on the ballot reflects the marking method which would be used if it were the winner. Moreover, each item is listed in a way which is suggestive of what it means (e.g., "First past the post" is the first one, "Top-two" is among the top two, and "Multiple non-transferable vote" is selected among numerous other ones). A few of the methods allow for multiple winners, which can often be good when electing councils and representatives, but it is unclear what it would mean to have several of these voting methods all win.

* '''First past the post'''
The aim of political elections is to determine which of the candidates standing for election is favoured by the majority of voters. In a simple two-person contest, this process is trivial, since whichever candidate receives the most votes will be the one that the majority of voters prefer. This {{w|First-past-the-post voting}} system works well for simple cases, but for elections with more than two candidates this system may result in a candidate being elected who less than 50% of the voters would prefer.

For example, in a contest with three candidates, A, B and C, in which candidate A receives 41% of the vote, candidate B 40%, and candidate C 19%, then candidate A will be elected, even though some of the voters who chose candidate C might have preferred candidate B as their second choice instead of candidate A, leading to a result which pleases less than half of the population.

Additionally, in election of multiple candidates across a country (or region etc.), first past the post does not lead to a distribution of elected representatives proportional to the total number of votes, only electing the lead candidate in each case. For example, imagine a country with 100 representatives to be elected, with each seat having the same distribution as described in the example above. Under first past the post, 100 representatives will be elected representing party A, and none for party B or C.

Despite these drawbacks, First Past the Post voting continues to be used for political elections in many countries including the US and UK, which historically have both had two main parties receiving the majority of votes. The First Past the Post system has received much criticism, particularly from smaller parties who may lose out; however, supporters promote the simplicity of the system compared to other methods.

This system is shown with a radio button, the classic computer metaphor for being allowed one choice out of a set.

* '''Top-two primary'''
This method is used in California and Washington to select candidates for the US House of Representatives. In most states' primary-election systems, each party votes separately to select one candidate to continue to a first-past-the-post general election ballot. In these two states, on the other hand, candidates from all parties, as well as “independent” candidates from no party, run in a single race, and the top two finishers then contest the general election, even if both are from the same party (a common occurrence in heavily-Democratic California), and even if one candidate has a clear majority of the vote. (In an older version, a majority winner in the primary was immediately declared elected. This was held to be in violation of federal law, by effectively setting an "election day" before the national Election Day in November.)

* '''Louisiana primary'''
This system is almost identical to the top-two primary, but with two differences. First, the open-to-all ballot is held on the national Election Day, instead of on the state's primary day. (This avoids the conflict with Federal law described above.) Also, the second round of the election is not held if one candidate has a clear majority (more than 50%) of the votes in the first round. Like the top-two primary and the first-past-the post system, the comic represents this system with a radio button, except this one has been marked, indicating the vote.

* '''Cumulative voting'''
In cumulative voting, each voter gets as many votes as there are seats to be filled, and may distribute them as he chooses. This system's most common use is in selecting corporate boards of directors. It is also used in some areas to allow a minority bloc within an electorate to elect some of its preferred candidates without imposing a system of separate districts.

The comic illustrates this with multiple radio buttons, each row representing an option/candidate and each (implied) column one vote. Uncharacteristically for radio buttons, two have been marked.

* '''Approval voting'''
In this system, each candidate is listed as a yes/no choice, where the voters can choose which candidates they approve of winning the election, and which ones they do not approve of. The winner of the election is the candidate with the highest approval rate.

This type of voting system can be used as a vetting process to filter out undesirable candidates before the final vote; for example, the United Nations uses a series of "straw polls" to filter out candidates for the Secretary General before the Security Council makes a final vote.[https://web.archive.org/web/20080227114317/http://www.unsgselection.org/files/WisnumurtiGuidelinesSelectingCandidateSecretary-General.pdf] In 2018, Fargo, North Dakota switched to using approval voting to elect local politicians, making it the only jurisdiction in the United States to use this system.[https://ballotpedia.org/Fargo,_North_Dakota,_Measure_1,_Approval_Voting_Initiative_(November_2018)]

In the XKCD ballot, the approval option is presented as a checkbox, where a check in the box is "approve" or an empty box is "disapprove". HTML Checkboxes are distinct from radio buttons in that several can be marked in the same field, and can also be unmarked without marking another.

* '''Multiple non-transferable vote'''
This system for electing multiple members to a ruling body is also known as {{w|plurality-at-large voting}} or block vote. It is commonly used in the US for city council elections, and simply limits the number of votes per voter to the number of winners. It allows a cohesive plurality of the electorate to claim all of the seats, denying other voters any representation whatsoever.

In 2019, the Justice Department required {{w|Eastpointe, MI}} to run at least the next two elections via {{w|Single Transferable Vote}} because their existing plurality-at-large system was disenfranchising black citizens.

This system is also shown as a checkbox, as each candidate gets either 0 or 1 votes from each voter.

* '''Instant runoff voting'''
In this system, people vote for all the candidates, or perhaps their favorite three, but assign different preferences to each candidate they vote for, as in 1 for their first choice, 2 for the second, 3 for their third, etc. If at least 50% of voters vote for a candidate as their first choice, that candidate wins. If not, the person with the least votes gets eliminated, and anyone who voted for that person has their next (slightly less favorable) choice automatically move up a rung. The 50% mark is again checked, and if there is no winner, another lowest-voted candidate is eliminated. Eventually one candidate will emerge victorious. The advantages of this system are that there is rarely a need to have another election if things are close (the information is already there to "instantly" recalculate the vote based on additional voter preferences), and "spoiler" candidates only cause problems when they become competitive. And as {{w|Arrow's impossibility theorem}} shows, as with all ranking methods, sometimes {{w|Monotonicity_criterion#Instant-runoff_voting_and_the_two-round_system_are_not_monotonic|voters can hurt a candidate by ranking them more favorably}}.

On this weird XKCD ballot, we see this type of ranking between this type of voting (''Instant runoff voting'') and the two that follow (''Single transferable vote'' and ''Borda count''), all of which allow multiple ranked votes. It appears that between these three, Randall has voted for ''Single transferable vote'' as his top choice, ''Borda count'' for his second choice, with ''Instant runoff voting'' as his third choice.

* '''Single transferable vote'''
This system extends the instant runoff to multiple-winner elections. Specifically, the election threshold is set not at 50%, but at 100%/(''k''+1) where ''k'' candidates will win (in other words, just high enough to prevent more candidates from reaching it than there are seats). The bottom candidates are eliminated as in instant-runoff and their votes redistributed. In addition, if a candidate wins with more than enough votes, the extra votes (either a fraction of each vote, or some subset of the ballots) are also redistributed. This procedure continues until the requisite number of winners is reached.

* '''Borda count'''
Each ballot is counted as 1 point for the last choice, 2 for next-to-last, and so on up to ''n'' for the first choice among ''n'' candidates. The highest point-earner(s) win. This system may also be calculated as 1 point for first choice, 2 for second, etc., with the lowest total winning; this variant, called the "cross-country vote" (due to its resemblance to the scoring system of the sport of cross-country running), is used by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s various selection committee as one step in choosing championship tournament fields.

The title text refers to the inventor of the Borda count (for whom it is named), implying that the use of the system implies the inclusion of a ballot in which he gets one vote. This vote would be quickly drowned out by any sensible quantity of actual votes. This also humorously suggests that if no one were to vote at all, Borda would win by default.

* '''Range voting'''
For each candidate, the voter selects a value within a fixed range (the XKCD voter sees this choice presented as a slider) for each candidate, independent of the values given to other candidates. The highest total wins. (If the range is restricted to two values, this becomes the approval system.)

The punchline is that the whole referendum is a chicken-and-egg problem: in order to accomplish the purpose of a referendum, one needs to know how the votes will be translated into a result, but in this case, determining that rule is the purpose of the referendum.

Regarding the title text, see under Borda count above.

==Transcript==
:[A voting ballot is shown with an underlined header and 10 different options below with different boxes/buttons next to each choice. Some are empty some a marked/checked or numbered.]
:Which voting system should we use?

:*[Empty radio button]: First past the post
:*[Empty radio button]: Top-two primary
:*[Filled radio button]: Louisiana primary
:*[Two filled, one empty radio button]: Cumulative voting
:*[Checked box]: Approval voting
:*[Checked box]: Multiple non-transferrable vote
:*[Box marked]: 3: Instant runoff voting
:*[box marked]: 1: Single transferrable vote
:*[box marked]: 2: Borda count
:*[Slider with value slightly below half]: Range voting

:[Caption below panel:]
:The referendum went well, but we can't figure out how to count the ballots.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

1621: Fixion

2015-12-30T22:59:47Z

108.162.210.222: /* Explanation */ this is quite obviously not the case

{{comic
| number = 1621
| date = December 25, 2015
| title = Fixion
| image = fixion.png
| titletext = My theory predicts that, at high enough energies, FRBs and perytons become indistinguishable because the detector burns out.
}}

==Explanation==
The second [[:Category:Christmas|Christmas comic]] in a row, the first being [[1620: Christmas Settings]].

This comic was released on {{w|Christmas}} day as a present from [[Randall]] to all {{w|physicists}}. It introduces a new particle, the ''Fixion'', which explains everything. The word "Fixion" can be read as a pun: Either it can mean something like "fix-i-on," with "[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-on#Suffix -on]" being a suffix for many particles, and this particle being able to "fix" things; or it means "fiction" (in English, the pronunciations of "-xion" and "-ction" are indistinguishable).

In physics, there are still many {{w|List of unsolved problems in physics|big questions and mysteries}}. There are many phenomena which don't seem to fit, and we don't know how to explain yet. The "Fixion" is satirically presented as a particle which acts as a {{w|Deus ex machina}}, (see also [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina tvtropes]), which solves all of these mysteries without any serious fundamental reasons.

The style of the chart suggests a {{w|Feynman diagram}} - an easy way of drawing particle interactions. Every time there is an interaction, the main central Fixion-line changes direction. Typically, {{w|fermions}} (the "solid" particles like {{w|electrons}} and {{w|quarks}}) are shown with solid lines, {{w|photons}} (and generally the weak-force-carrying {{w|bosons}}) are shown with wavy lines, {{w|gluons}} with spiraling lines and other mediating particles (such as {{w|pions}} in the {{w|nuclear force}}, or the {{w|Higgs boson}}) with a dotted line. Randall obeys these rules only very loosely, which makes sense - many of the things involved in this Feynman diagram are either so theoretical that they have no widely used standard representation, or would never appear in a sensible diagram (spacecrafts, for instance). All mentioned types of lines - and even more types - are presented in the diagram. All that the Fixion does is described in the [[#Table of Phenomena|table below]].

The title text is a continuation of one of the jokes already mentioned in the main comic (fourth phrase from the top to the left) about {{w|Fast radio burst}}s (FRBs) and {{w|Peryton (astronomy)|perytons}}. See explanation in the last entry in the [[#Table of Phenomena|table below]].

===Table of Phenomena===
{{Incomplete|Please remove personal views and parts where the fiction is assumed to be real}}
*Below, all the phenomena mentioned in the comic (and in the title text) have been listed and described.
*The order is the top left phenomenon first, and then alternating between right and left down to the bottom and then the title text at the end.
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
|'''Phenomenon''' || '''In the comic''' || '''Description''' || '''Solved?'''
|-
| Main component of dark matter
|| An arrow points to the very first part of the main line.
|| Our best measurements of the universe predict that visible matter is only about one-sixth of the matter in the universe; the remaining matter is "{{w|dark matter}}" that cannot be seen. The leading candidates for dark matter are {{w|weakly interacting massive particles}} (WIMPs). These would be new, undiscovered forms of matter which barely interact except through gravity and thus give off little or no light. Some of the dark matter is likely made up of {{w|Massive compact halo objects}} (MACHOs); effectively dead stars too dim to see. MACHOs are probably only a minority of the dark matter, however. Studies of two colliding galaxy clusters suggest that dark matter can pass through other matter without slowing down, unlike ordinary matter. Moreover, calculations of the elements produced during the {{w|big bang}} - which match the observed distribution of elements in the universe very precisely - don't leave room for enough additional {{w|protons}} and {{w|neutrons}} to form the dark matter.
|| No. Proving the nature of dark matter will most likely win someone a {{w|Nobel Prize}}.
|-
| Confines quarks and gluons
|| An arrow points to the very first part of the main line.
|| {{w|Quark confinement}} means that we never see particles with {{w|colour charge|color charge}} (i.e. {{w|quark}}s and {{w|gluon}}s) on their own. They only exist in groups that cancel out the color charge. Try to separate the groups, and the energy you add will instead cause new particles to pop into existence.
|| The basic facts of confinement are well understood, but some of the details are too complicated to tease out.
|-
| Neutralizes monopoles
|| An arrow points to the first solid line into the main line, from left and upwards. This is thus a solid particle merging with the Fixion.
|| {{w|Magnetic monopoles}} (e.g., a north charge without a south charge) should exist, according to many {{w|Grand Unified Theory|grand unified theories}} (GUTs) and {{w|String theory|string theories}}, but none have ever been seen.
|| No! Despite claims that pop up in the news every year, creating a monopole-like state in the magnetic spins of a crystal is not the same as creating a real monopole.
|-
| Suppresses antimatter in early universe
|| No arrow.
|| The universe today is made almost entirely of matter. {{w|Antimatter}} and matter are identical, except that the charges are opposite. Antimatter and matter "{{w|Annihilation|annihilate}}" when they come into contact. So why is the universe made of matter? Why didn't the universe have equal amounts of both, and if it did, why didn't it annihilate itself immediately? This is a big question in physics today. Of course, the Fixion explains this by its ability to suppress the formation of antimatter in the early universe.
|| Lots of theories, no conclusive evidence for any yet. The most notable theories revolve around the {{w|weak interaction}}, which has been shown to treat matter and antimatter asymmetrically. Now that the {{w|Higgs boson}} has been found, the biggest project for the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} experiments is to try to crack this.
|-
| Spontaneously emits dark energy
|| Two arrows points to two dotted lines going out left and downwards below the first solid line. It is thus two mediating particles that go out from the Fixon.
|| Prior to the 1990s, most {{w|cosmologists}} expected that the universe's expansion after the Big Bang would either slow down or stay constant. In 1998, cosmologists discovered that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. Under {{w|Einstein|Einstein's}} theory of {{w|general relativity}}, the observed acceleration predicts that ordinary matter and dark matter make up about 30% of the universe's total energy, with the rest coming in the form of "{{w|dark energy}}." The nature of dark energy is not certain. However, the leading candidate is that space itself has intrinsic energy (either constant or variable), and so as space expands, the energy of the universe increases.
|| Again, Nobel Prize territory.
|-
| Mediates proton decay, but then hides it.
|| An arrow points to three lines going to and from the main line. The outer line does not connect with the main line. The three lines probably represent the 3 quarks a proton is made of, and how a proton is usually drawn in Feynman diagrams (see for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay#/media/File:Beta_Negative_Decay.svg Beta Negative Decay]). The diagram represents a proton decaying, mediated by the fixion, however then recombining. Presumably the hypothetical fixion causes protons to decay all the time, however according to the diagram the quarks recombine again which makes the process impossible to detect.
|| Many GUTs predict that {{w|proton decay|protons will decay}}, but experiments have shown the proton to have a half-life of at least 1033 years very much longer than the {{w|age of the universe}} (1.38x1010 years).
|| It's not ''necessarily'' a problem. All theories predict that proton decay is a very slow process (1032+ seconds), which is consistent with the current data.
|-
| Introduces dispersion in perytons from kitchen microwaves, explaining fast radio bursts
|| Two arrows point to four wavy lines. The waves of the lines have different wave length. The one line coming out left is of the same at wavelength as the top of the three coming out right. The two below each decrease in wavelength compared to the one before them. Maybe this is not meant to represent photon-like particles, but are just different frequencies of microwaves from the microwave oven – thus relating to the subject.
|| {{w|Fast radio burst}}s (FRBs) are unexplained bursts of radio-frequency energy from space, they could even be extragalactic signals, with speculations that they might be signs of {{w|extraterrestrial intelligence}}. {{w|Peryton (astronomy)|Perytons}} are things that ''look like'' FRBs, but come from Earth (specifically, from the {{w|microwave oven}} at {{w|Parkes Observatory}}). Randall's Fixion makes some perytons change frequency distribution so they appear to come from space; thus in fact all FRBs come from microwave ovens.
|| No, but it's probably something very big - a star collapsing to a {{w|black hole}} or (as now looks likely) a {{w|magnetar}} (magnetic neutron star)
|-
| Broken symmetry causes ϴ=0, explaining unobserved neutron dipole moment
|| An arrow points to the part of the main line just before the first wavy line.
|| The {{w|neutron electric dipole moment}} is a measure of how balanced electric charge is inside the neutron. ϴ (theta) is a number in {{w|quantum chromodynamics}} (QCD) which quantifies the breaking of a type of symmetry called {{w|CP violation|CP symmetry}}. If ϴ is not 0, one result of this should be a neutron dipole moment. {{w|Symmetry breaking}} is a common explanation of effects in some areas of theoretical physics (for instance, it's an important part of {{w|Peter Higgs|Higgs'}} theory about why particles have mass), but normally it explains why a value is ''not'' zero. Presumably the Fixion breaks CP symmetry independently of QCD, which means that ϴ can be 0 while preserving observed CP-breaking effects.
|| Again, it's not (yet) a problem - the predicted dipole moment is tiny, and we're only just reaching the point when we can measure it that accurately.
|-
| Causes alpha effect
|| No arrow.
|| The {{w|alpha effect}} is a weird effect from chemistry, where putting an "alpha" atom with a {{w|lone pair}} of electrons close to a molecule makes the molecule more likely to give up its electrons. The Fixion is the reason for this effect.
|| Lots of competing explanations.
|-
| Covers naked singularities
|| No arrow – but the text is situated next to the middle of the three wavy lines going right.
|| A {{w|naked singularity}} is like a black hole without an {{w|event horizon}}. So far no naked singularity has been observed (except, arguably, the big bang) and the {{w|cosmic censorship hypothesis}} suggests they can't exist, although some people have suggested ways of making them. Of course if any did exist then the Fixion will cover it, so it won’t become embarrassed by its nudity. Randall has mentioned these in his latest [[what if?]]: [http://what-if.xkcd.com/140/ Proton Earth, Electron Moon].
|| Not necessarily something that needs explaining - none have been seen, and most theories say they don't exist. If support grows for {{w|loop quantum gravity}}, then we might have to start really searching.
|-
| Intercepts certain gravitational waves before they're observed.
|| An arrow points to a spiraling line going upwards to the left, so this is drawn like a gluon.
|| If {{w|gravity}} behaves like {{w|Fundamental interaction|the other forces}}, it must be conveyed by waves. Our best detector, {{w|LIGO}} has yet to detect any {{w|gravitational waves}}, though this is probably just due to the low probability of events that would be detectable. Only extreme events like {{w|binary black hole}} mergers are detectable with the current setup. The proposed {{w|LISA Pathfinder}} spacecraft will be able to see things like orbiting black holes and {{w|neutron stars}}. Since the Fixion intercepts gravity waves before they are observed we should not get our hopes up too high about observing any even with LISA.
|| Let's wait for the LISA data before jumping to conclusions.
|-
| Causes coronal heating
|| No arrow – but the text is situated next to the middle of the three wavy lines going right.
|| For some reason the outer layer of the {{w|sun}} (the {{w|corona}}) is hotter than most reasonable theories predict. This is for instance mentioned in Randall’s new book ''[[Thing Explainer]]'' in the entry about the sun. This can also be seen on the [[Thing_Explainer#Preview Pages |back cover of the book]]. The phenomenon is explained by the Fixion…
|| It's a mystery, but it possibly has something to do with waves in the corona (for example, the {{w|High Resolution Coronal Imager}} has seen "braids" in the corona that whip around and unravel themselves).
|-
| Higgs-ish
|| As this is just a property of the Fixion there is no arrow.
|| The {{w|Higgs boson}} is a manifestation of the Higgs field... but many supersymmetry and string theories predict multiple Higgs-like particles. It's almost a prerequisite of any new theory that it has a Higgs-ish element. So the Fixion blends in with this.
|| N/A
|-
| Superluminally smooths anisotropies in early universe (but adds faint polarization for BICEP3 to find)
|| An arrow points to the point of the main line just below the bottom space probe.
|| The {{w|Cosmic Microwave Background}} (CMB) is incredibly uniform. In fact it is so uniform that the conclusion is that these areas must have been in contact at some time in the early universe. But with the universe being infinite, and the speed of light being finite, most parts of the universe will never be able to interact (any more at least). The explanation usually given for the uniformity is that the universe expanded really fast in the beginning during what is called the {{w|Inflationary epoch}}. {{w|BICEP_and_Keck_Array#BICEP2|BICEP2}} is a {{w|radio telescope}} at the South Pole whose operators claim to have seen polarization in the CMB indicative of inflation. (See [[1365: Inflation]] that references BICEP2's results). The Fixion fixes the problem since it allowed {{w|Faster-than-light|superluminally}} smoothing of the early anisotropies to explain the smoothness observed today. The Fixion adds just enough signal that the new {{w|BICEP_and_Keck_Array#BICEP3|BICEP3}} telescope will be able to find it.
|| As stated, {{w|Inflation (cosmology)|inflation}} is the standard explanation and it holds up fairly well. Other studies haven't seen the polarization that BICEP2 has - the {{w|Planck (spacecraft)|Planck space telescope}} also suggests that the BICEP2 team were looking at an unusually dusty bit of space, which could cause polarization. Hopefully this will improve with the BICEP3 data that should be published in 2016.
|-
| Accelerates certain spacecraft during flybys
|| Two arrows point to two solid lines going away from the main line (left and right). At the end of each line there is a space craft with satellite dish and solar panels, representing the items that the Fixion interacts with.
|| This refers to the {{w|flyby anomaly}} which is sometimes (but not always) seen when spacecraft fly close to planets and pick up more speed than expected. It's not always seen – for instance the {{w|Rosetta (spacecraft)|Rosetta space probe}} had no flyby anomaly when it swooped extremely close to Mars. Another anomaly for spacecraft’s (a deceleration this time) has been mentioned in the title text of [[502: Dark Flow]].
|| It could be an unpredicted quirk of gravity and relativity... or it could be experimental error.
|-
| Triggers Siberian sinkholes
|| No arrow, but it is right next to the solid line with an arrow going into the main line just before the first hole where the main line disappears and becomes dotted. Thus it could be a reference also to these holes.
|| Recently, (2014), several {{w|sinkholes}} opened up in {{w|Yamal_Peninsula#Yamal_craters |remote parts}} of Siberia. The explanation is currently unknown, except of course we now know that it was the Fixion that caused it.
|| While there are lots of weird theories, there's a good chance they were caused by {{w|Arctic methane release}} due to melting {{w|permafrost}} which is probably caused by {{w|global warming}}. See ([http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mystery-of-the-siberian-holes-at-the-end-of-the-world-solved-scientists-offer-explanation-9642988.html Mystery of the Siberian holes… solved]).
|-
| Melts ice in "Snowball Earth" scenario
|| No arrow.
|| {{w|Snowball Earth}} is the theory that the whole planet was covered in ice at some point. To melt all that ice by the {{w|greenhouse effect}} would require far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than seems plausible. However, if volcanoes were to deposit black soot on the surface of the ice, it would start absorbing heat more efficiently (in scientific terms, the Earth's {{w|albedo}} would decrease) and that would also make the planet heat up. Of course it was the Fixion was the cause of the melting ice.
|| There are {{w|Snowball_Earth#Scientific_dispute|scientific dispute}} regarding the theory for a Snowball Earth. There is no conclusive evidence that it ever occurred, but those in favor have presented lots of {{w|Snowball_Earth#Evidence|evidence}}…
|-
| Transports neutrinos faster than light, but only on certain days through one area of France
|| An arrow points to the part of the main line that becomes dotted between the two “{{w|wormholes}}”. This is where the neutrinos move faster than light…
|| Refers to the {{w|faster-than-light neutrino anomaly}}, where it seemed that a neutrino beam from {{w|CERN}} on the France/Switzerland border to the {{w|OPERA experiment}} in Italy traveled faster than light. Scientists were not able to reproduce the result. Of course it was because of the Fixion. This Neutrino experiment was also mentioned in [[955: Neutrinos]], where there are more explanation on the subject.
|| In the end, there was no mystery, just a [http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112551696/cern-confirms-neutrinos-not-faster-than-light/ defective cable causing a measurement error].
|-
| Suppresses sigma in experiments
|| No arrow but the last solid line, with an arrow pointing left, that is going away from the main line, point almost directly at it.
|| Sigma (σ) refers to the {{w|standard deviation}} - a mathematical measure of how much an observed value differs from the expected value. For a formal scientific discovery in particle physics, the standard is 5 sigma which means that there is about a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the results were caused by random errors (of course, they could be caused by ''systematic'' errors, such as measurement problems). Some tantalizing experiments have found interesting results at 3 or 4 sigma but either can't reach 5 sigma or {{w|Oops-Leon|are subsequently dis-proven}}. The question is, if the way the Fixion works here in this comic pushes the sigma value one way or the other? Does it suppress the value so it goes below or above the level of significance? Is it artificially pushed in the direction so a result seems like it is significant when it is not (see for instance [[882: Significant]]), or if it is the other way so some experiments, which could have found what the experimenters wanted to find, did not because the sigma has been artificially lowered below the proof threshold. Either way it is a very annoying fact of the Fixion, but it would explain a lot, and probably also make it very hard to find the Fixion because of this intrinsic behavior.|| N/A
|-
| My theory predicts that, at high enough energies, FRBs and perytons become indistinguishable because the detector burns out.
|| From the title text.
|| This is a continuation of the joke already mentioned above regarding Fast radio bursts (FRBs) and perytons. GUTs normally predict that all the forces we see are the different low-energy versions of a single force which can only be seen at extremely high energies (much higher than any Earth-based collider could produce). A high-energy FRB would be a {{w|gamma ray burst}} and if it came from a close enough object, would obliterate all life on Earth. It would also wreck the sensitive electronics at Parkes Observatory. This "high energy unification" is stated in a way reminiscent of the unification of electromagnetic and weak forces at high energies; but unlike the latter, it involves two things only "appearing" (or, in this case, not appearing) to be the same, not actually becoming the same.
|| N/A
|}

==Transcript==
:[Caption above the panel:]
:A Christmas gift for physicists:
:The '''Fixion'''
:A new particle that explains everything

:[A chart resembling a Feynman diagram is shown. It begins with a solid line coming down at the top, going a little to the left. The line continues downwards all the time, but changes direction 16 times before exiting at the bottom almost straight under the starting point. At every point where it changes direction, there is some kind of “interaction” with something outside this line. There are 19 phrases, 10 on the left and 9 on the right. 11 of these are distinct labels for points on the line as 14 gray curved arrows points between these 11 phrases to specific points on the line. Three of the phrases on the left has two arrows pointing to two different, but close, parts of the line. The main central line is solid all the way, except at the very bottom, where it “disappears” inside a hole only to “reappear” later from a similar hole. Between these two holes the line is dotted. The lines going away (or to) the main line can be straight and solid, straight and dotted, wavy lines (with different waviness), even looking like a spiral. Two straight solid lines ends up at two space probes, and finally the last two straight solid lines coming in (and out) on either side of the “hole” in the line has arrow pointing in and out. Below the phrases will be listed in reading order, taking one on each side alternatingly. Above each is described if there are any arrow and, if there are, what they points at.]

:[Left: Arrow pointing to the very first part of the main line:]
::Main component of dark matter

:[Right: Arrow pointing to the very first part of the main line, but below the previous arrow:]
::Confines quarks and gluons

:[Left: Arrow points to the first solid line going left and upwards:]
::Neutralizes monopoles

:[Right: No arrow:]
::Suppresses antimatter in early universe

:[Left: Two arrows points to two dotted lines going out left and downwards below the first solid line:]
::Spontaneously emits dark energy

:[Right: Arrow pointing to several lines going almost parallel with the main line. The first line closest to the arrow is not connected with the main line. It bends closer to the other lines in the middle. The next line is connected to the main line, and is thus actually two lines going in to the main line. The same goes for the inner line, where there is some distance between the entry and exit, as the middle of these three lines connect to the main line in between. In principle there are four lines going in/out and one not connected, but it looks like three lines:]
::Mediates proton decay but then hides it

:[Left: One arrow points to the first wavy line (7 peaks) coming out and up towards the dotted lines above. A second arrow points further down the main line where there are three more wavy lines coming out, but to the right, they are all of the same length and go almost straight right, only a little down. The first has as short a wave length as the line above to the left, but as it is shorter it only has 6 peaks. Then the wavelength decreases to a very long one for the last, 5 peaks and then 3 peaks. The arrow points almost where the middle wavy line exits the main line:]
::Introduces dispersion in perytons from kitchen microwaves, explaining fast radio bursts

:[Right: An arrow point to the part of the main line between the three parallel lines and the first wavy line:]
::Broken symmetry causes ϴ=0, explaining unobserved neutron dipole moment

:[Left: No arrow:]
::Causes alpha effect

:[Right: No arrow, but right next to the middle of the three wavy line:]
::Covers naked singularities

:[Left: An arrow points to a spiraling line going upwards to the left:]
::Intercepts certain gravitational waves before they're observed.

:[Right: No arrow, but right next to the bottom of the three wavy line:]
::Causes coronal heating

:[Left: No arrow:]
::Higgs-ish

:[Right: A long arrow point to the point of the main line just below the line pointing to the bottom (and left) of the space probes:]
::Superluminally smooths anisotropies in early universe (but adds faint polarization for BICEP3 to find)

:[Left: One arrows point towards the point on the main lines where a solid line goes to the right and up and another arrow points on another solid line going away from the main line towards left and down. At the end of both lines are drawn spacecrafts with satellite dish and solar panels:]
::Accelerates certain spacecraft during flybys

:[Right: No arrow, but right next to the solid line with an arrow going into the main line just before the first hole where the main line disappears and becomes dotted:]
::Triggers Siberian sinkholes

:[Left: No arrow:]
::Melts ice in "Snowball Earth" scenario

:[Right: Arrow points to the dotted part of the main line between the two holes:]
::Transports neutrinos faster than light, but only on certain days through one area of France

:[Left: No arrow but the last solid line, with an arrow pointing left, that is going away from the main line, point almost directly at it:]
::Suppresses sigma in experiments

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Christmas]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Puns]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Portmanteau]]