explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:367: Fandom

2016-11-14T20:44:58Z

108.162.237.90:

"The text says that Ron Paul wants the New Republic to adopt the Corusca gem as standard currency." Not quite. This is a riff on the term {{w|Gold Standard}}, which is where the actual currency unit (whatever the local version is, e.g. various national versions of dollars, pounds, franc, mark, etc...) is directly linked to an actual physical bit of gold (or rather, ''en mass'', the total currency corresponds to the entire gold reserve). It's like the government saying "I'll pay you in gold, but we can keep it safer than you, so we'll keep hold of the gold and give you a note/token to say that you own a share of it". Tokens/notes get passed around as indirect ownership of the gold is transfered in exchange for goods and services. The total money in the economy is tied directly to the gold possessed. This rather has the effect of making gold worth "as much as gold is worth" (transaction fees excepted) if it's a fairly constant commodity. (Although you can still mine gold, and gold is also useful as a resource, e.g. in electrical and electronic connections. And creating works of art in gold create items that are worth more than just the material costs, while melting them down returns only the material costs and the added difference is lost once more.) In times of old this was reflected in gold coinage (and subserviant coinage), but we'd long since transitioned to the 'gold by proxy' situation.

Anyway, without unilaterally revaluing the proxy currency (giving them a different, usually lesser, share of the gold reserves) or significantly expanding the reserves this rather constrains the growth of the economy, for whatever reason that might be desired or required. This may limit international trade, as well as the ability to 'virtualise' money for non-physical transfers, government bonds, etc. For this reason every single (last I heard) currency in the world, that is not still made of gold itself (probably none of them, BICBW), is 'off the Gold Standard', and there's effectively as much money in a country as a government says there is, with the physical (and non-physical?) money being a Fiat Currency (Fiat=="Let it be.."). This can make everyone 'richer' (see also Quantative Easing), or at least have higher values, whether or not their actual purchasing power increases accordingly, and is very easy to integrate with the manipulation of 'virtual money'. But as seen over recent times there are problems.

Even before these problems, there have been some hard-nosed economists (or politicians, either with a considered point of view, or just looking for a distinct personal platform to impress various sectors of the electorate with) trying to get one or other national currency back to the Gold Standard. The arguments for and against such a reattachment (as with the arguments for and against the original disconnection) are many and varied, and I wouldn't personally care to suggest the best course of action. (Or whether a different limited resource, along the same lines, should be adopted as Gold Equivalent, where not already applicable.)

I'm not entirely sure if Ron Paul is calling for a return to the Gold Standard, IRL, although it's the kind of thing that politicians like him do like to say (whether or not they actually mean it). However, it seems as if the Extended Universe version of Ron Paul is calling for the Star Wars equivalent, tying the equivalent currency of the Republic (Galactic Standard Credit?) to reserves of an equivalent limited resource of value (the Corusca Gem). I have no idea if the gem can be used for anything practical, but sounds like it is probably mainly valuable for its appearance (and the fact that it is already used in trading), rather like Latinum in the Star Trek universe which apparently cannot be produced (or duplicated) by replicators. Unlike gold itself, which is relegated to a convenient substrate within which the naturally liquide latinum itself is more handily encased and handled.

...er, yes. Much too much information (and possible errors in explanation) there. But just saying. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning, that Ron Paul retired from Congress in January 2013, and the linked article about Corusca gems says that "The first canonical appearance of Corusca gems was in the 2014 mobile-game Star Wars: Galactic Defense, in which they are used as in-game currency", thus it seems that (probably just one imagined by Mr. Munroe, but nevertheless) Ron Paul has achieved his goal. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.58|141.101.104.58]] 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Expanded Universe is no longer canon after the release of The Force Awakens. Can this be updated?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.90|108.162.237.90]] 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

613: Threesome

2016-03-03T16:59:47Z

108.162.237.90: /* Explanation */ Grammar, interpretation, that sort of thing

{{comic
| number = 613
| date = July 22, 2009
| title = Threesome
| image = threesome.png
| titletext = I wanted us to try finding an approximate numeric solution, but noooo.
}}

==Explanation==
The {{w|N-Body Problem}} in physics refers to our inability to analytically solve sets of differential equations modelling gravitational attraction between more than two bodies. Simply put, there are [[wikipedia:Closed-form_expression|exact equations]] for describing the movement of two bodies reacting to each other's gravitational pull, but no such solutions exist for systems of three or more bodies. The punchline of the comic is a play on the word "bodies": a threesome involves three (human) bodies, and it is implied that the physicist's participation in the threesome was hindered due to their inability to solve for the movement of said bodies.

According to the title text, Megan proposed that they settle for a numerical solution since a closed-form solution is unavailable. A numerical solution to predict the motion of a system would be an "open" procedural solution or simulation. On the one hand, such a solution can be more practical and less time-consuming than a closed-form solution, especially in cases (such as the three-body problem) where the latter is suspected to be impossible. On the other hand, a numerical solution is only an approximation and will tend to deviate from the exact solution over time. In the context of the comic, Megan probably was suggesting that a numerical solution would be sufficiently accurate for the duration of the threesome, but it appears that the physicist insisted that they arrive at an exact solution.

A frequent observation in random n-body encounters is that one or more bodies are ejected from the system by achieving escape velocity (and loneliness), but stable solutions are possible. A closed-form solution would allow one to predict for how long such an arrangement would remain stable. Ironically, it could be that the physicist's insistence on finding an exact solution resulted in them being excluded/"ejected" from the threesome, which arguably would be very "awkward".

==Transcript==
:Megan: We had a threesome last night.
:Cueball: How was it?

:Megan: Awkward - it was with a physicist.
:Cueball: Why's that awkward?

:Megan: They can't solve the three-body problem.
:Cueball: Ah, yes.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:1644: Stargazing

2016-02-17T19:31:26Z

108.162.237.90:

?.. is this Brian Cox??? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.155|162.158.152.155]] 06:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My first thought was that it was a pisstake of Brian Cox, except I wasn't sure if they had Stargazing Live in America. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.143|162.158.152.143]] 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
: Brian Cox seems like a nice guy and I applaud his enthusiasm, but if you want to see a truly awesome science broadcaster look for a set of broadcasts from the 70s/80s by James Burke titled "The Day the Universe Changed", Mr. Cox's programmes seem to be as much about how many airmiles the production team can accumulate as they are about the science. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.147|162.158.34.147]] 09:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:: The airmiles comment above applies to Cox's "Wonders Of The Universe" series, certainly, but my first thought was either that Randall knew of the BBC's semi-regular programme-cluster "{{w|Stargazing Live}}", here in the UK, that Cox co-presents - perhaps via BBC America? - or else there's an equivalent US version (precursor or postcursor) of the same name that perhaps has a celebrity-based core team.
:: (Brian's primary co-host in the programme ''is'' an Irish comedian, but one with a accredited science background who knows what they're talking about. They also have 'guest celebrities' for internal and external segments (from just outside the studio, under the night sky, to a pieces filmed/livecast at some space-relevant location, usually featured across all episodes of that season as a theme so not so much 'gratuitous globe-trotting) but they are all ''interested'' in space-stuff, and many ''also'' have an actual background expertise in physics/astronomy even if that's not what they're publicly known for.)
:: Quickly looking around, I can't see any ''obvious'' astronomy programmes(/programs!) in the US that aren't similarly expert-led, but that's possibly because any that are don't feature as 'proper' programmes on any of the lists I've checked. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.89|162.158.152.89]] 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I also thought this might be poking fun at the "Celebrity" presenters of TV astronomy programs. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.173|141.101.106.173]] 13:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the title text may be referring to the fact that several people think that the sun is the brightest star simply because it's the closest to us, completely disregarding absolute magnitude? I'd change the explanation if I knew how. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.181|108.162.245.181]] 06:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The original statement in the comic is about which star is the brightest *in our sky*, i.e. most visible radiation per square meter hitting Earth, not the star with the most total radiation. You can change the explanation just by hitting the little edit button to the top right of the "Explanation" section.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.91|108.162.237.91]] 06:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I still don't get the main comic, unless its just situational comedy of someone acting like they know what they are talking about, when really they don't even know the meaning of the word "astronomer". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.91|108.162.237.91]] 07:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I put my best understanding of the comic in the explanation - I'm not sure I really get it, but I figured it was better than nothing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.91|108.162.237.91]] 07:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly how I feel about looking at stars and hard core astronomy. I look for the brightest stars, and would like to know something about them, but just the basic facts. I have had a course on astronomy and it was boring to do the math for star formation and cosmology. I learnt that way that I was only interested in the results and conclusions, not in trying to calculate it my self, or counting all the other smaller stars to gain the data needed. I really like Megan here ;-) Space is awesome, astronomy is boring :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the last line in the first panel used to read "I'm doctor '''of''' whatever", but now it's clearly "... doctor '''or''' whatever". Has Randall changed the comic? -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.11|141.101.106.11]] 13:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:I wrote the original transcript based on the comic on this site. This has since been corrected to or, which makes sense. But the image file for the comic has not been changed here on xkcd, so had it not been for your comment here, I would just have put it down to a typo on my behalf. I still think so, as I believed she said ''or whatever'' when I wrote about it in the explanation. But the "or" can look a little as "of". It is, however, not unheard of that Randall changes a comic if he spots a mistake after the first release. This has happened several times. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

From now on I plan to present Sirius as the brightest star that can be seen at night, just to take the wind out of the jokers sails... [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 14:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the style of speaking is a reference to Donald Trump.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.90|108.162.237.90]] 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)