explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2425: mRNA Vaccine

2021-02-15T19:33:46Z

108.162.241.244: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2425
| date = February 15, 2021
| title = mRNA Vaccine
| image = mrna_vaccine.png
| titletext = To ensure lasting immunity, doctors recommend destroying a second Death Star some time after the first.
}}

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

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

{{comic discussion}}

2420: Appliances

2021-02-07T17:13:29Z

108.162.241.244: /* Table */

{{comic
| number = 2420
| date = February 3, 2021
| title = Appliances
| image = appliances.png
| titletext = If you had an oven bag and a dryer that runs unusually hot, I guess you could in theory make tumbled eggs.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an OVERCOOKED T-SHIRT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic shows a {{w|confusion matrix}} of the applicability of various household appliances to different tasks. Green indicates an excellent performance, yellow not ideal, but usable, and red dismal or destroyed. The diagonal is green as it shows the tasks done by the machines they are supposed to be performed by. See [[#Table|table]] below. The comic is similar to [[1890: What to Bring]], but that comic does not use yellow or another intermediate color.

Salmon can be easily {{w|Dishwasher salmon|cooked in a dishwasher}}, so it's marked "cooked", and thus "cook a frozen dinner" is only yellow on the dishwasher entry.

The stove/oven has three green as it can also cook a microwave frozen dinner, although slower, and can toast bread, again slower than the toaster. It is by far the machine that has fewest red entries, only one, as it cannot wash clothes. It can also not clean dishes, but it might sterilize them, thus that entry is yellow. It may actually dry the clothes, but is liable to burn them and is therefore yellow.

The microwave oven can also cook eggs, thus it has two green, the only other than the stove/oven with more than one green.

The toaster and the washing machines are the only ones without any yellow, and with only one green, for making toast/washing clothes - they are thus the appliances with least other potential uses (zero). The washing machine will at least not destroy the clothes if you try to dry it, but it has the opposite effect, thus still red. The toaster will not destroy the dishes, but will potentially just make the dirt burn harder to them.

The title text mentions that it would be theoretically possible to cook eggs in a dryer, but it is not a common use for a dryer. {{Citation needed}} The joke is that it is not called {{w|scrambled eggs}} but tumbled eggs. It also mentions that the dryer has to become hotter than usual for a dryer (maybe dangerously hot for the clothes for it to work). And then the eggs should be cracked and put in a oven bag, that really needs to be tight and well zipped.

==Table==
{| class="wikitable"
!
! scope="col"| {{w|Toaster}}
! scope="col"| {{w|Dishwasher}}
! scope="col"| {{w|Microwave oven|Microwave}}
! scope="col"| {{w|Washing machine}}
! scope="col"| {{w|Kitchen stove|Stove/oven}}
! scope="col"| {{w|Clothes dryer|Dryer}}
|-
! scope="row"| Make toast
| Yes, a toaster's function is to make toast from bread.
| No. A dishwasher would likely turn bread into mush, and is unlikely to be edible.
| No. A microwave could heat up bread, but would not brown the bread and make it crunchy. In this image, it appears that the bread is getting unevenly burnt.
| No. A washing machine would break the bread into several pieces, and is unlikely to be edible.
| Yes, toast can be made using a stove or an oven.
| No. A dryer would burn the bread due to its heat, and would break it up into crumbs due to its tumbling.
|-
! scope="row"| Wash dishes
| No. A toaster would not be able to wash dishes, and is likely to do nothing to make them clean.
| Yes, a dishwasher's function is to wash dishes.
| No. A microwave could heat up the dishes, but this would not serve any function in getting them clean, and could cause food to get even more stuck on the dishes.
| No. A washing machine would break the dishes. The pieces would be clean, but unusable as dishes.
| Maybe, a stove or an oven could theoretically sterilize dishes with high heat (but this would not clean off any stains or stuck food particles). Also, dishes and glasses would break due to the high heat.
| No. Worse than the washing machine, the tumbling of a dryer would thoroughly pulverize porcelain dishes and then possibly melt the grains together due to high heat.
|-
! scope="row"| Cook a {{w|TV dinner|frozen dinner}}
| No. A traditional toaster would not be able to cook a frozen dinner. A {{w|toaster oven}} combination would be able to do so (see stove/oven).
| Maybe. The fish could be cooked in a dishwasher, however the rest might not, but this is not a typical use of a dishwasher.
| Yes, a microwave is normally used to cook a frozen dinner.
| No. A washing machine would make the dinner soggy and inedible.
| Yes, a stove or an oven could also be used to cook a frozen dinner. The image shows the dinner being removed from its packaging and placed in a baking pan.
| No. A dryer would make the frozen dinner inedible due to its tumbling and heat.
|-
! scope="row"| Wash clothes
| No. A toaster would not be able to wash clothes and would instead leave burn marks.
| Maybe. A dishwasher would be able to get the clothes wet but the washing may be uneven.
| No. A microwave would just burn the clothes and not do any washing.
| Yes, a washing machine's function is to wash clothes.
| No, a stove or an oven would burn the clothes and not do any cleaning.
| Maybe. A dryer would heat the clothes and kill germs, but not get any stains out.
|-
! scope="row"| Cook eggs
| No. A toaster would not be able to cook eggs. This image seems to show that eggs were cracked directly into the toaster, which causes a large plume of smoke.
| No. A dishwasher generally cannot cook eggs. However, it does seem that [https://spoonuniversity.com/how-to/5-foods-cook-dishwasher this is plausible to do].
| Yes. A microwave could be used to cook eggs, {{w|poached egg|poached style}} as shown in the image.
| No, a washing machine would destroy the eggs.
| Yes, a stove or an oven is typically used to cook eggs (and other foods).
| No. A dryer would overheat the eggs and tumble them to shreds.
|-
! scope="row"| Dry clothes
| No. A toaster would not be able to dry clothes and would instead leave burn marks.
| No. A dishwasher would be able to get the clothes wet but would not do any drying.
| Maybe. A microwave could (unevenly) get clothes dry.
| No, a washing machine's function is to wash clothes and would just get the clothes wet. A washing machine's spin cycle could dry clothes to some extent, but is not intended to fully wring all the water out of clothes.
| Maybe, a stove or an oven could be used to get clothes dry but runs a high risk of burning them, especially on parts that are in contact with metal.
| Yes, a dryer's function is to dry clothes after they are washed.
|}

== See also ==
The German TV show {{w|Nicht nachmachen!}} demonstrated steaming vegetables in a {{w|moka pot}}. They also filled a {{w|storage water heater}} with instant coffee, turning every hot-water tap into a coffee tap.

==Transcript==

:[The comic is laid out like a grid, with usages for common household appliances the left-hand side (Make toast / Wash dishes / Cook a frozen dinner / Wash clothes / Cook eggs / Dry clothes) and appliances for these activities across the top (Toaster / Dishwasher / Microwave / Washing machine / Stove/oven / Dryer). The grid illustrates the "match-ups", with a green square denoting a "correct" match-up, a yellow square denoting something that may work somewhat, and a red square denoting something that most certainly won't work.]

:[From the top left corner, going from left to right, top to bottom, with each first item being on its own line in the grid, the squares are as follows:]

:[Green square, toasted toast with stripe pattern]

:*'''Make toast''' with a '''Toaster'''

:[Red square, slightly broken soggy toast in a puddle of water]

:*'''Make toast''' with a '''Dishwasher'''

:[Red square, non-toasted and unevenly burnt toast]
:*'''Make toast''' with a '''Microwave'''
*'''Make toast''' with a '''Washing machine''': Red square, a few small soggy pieces of toast in a puddle of water.
*'''Make toast''' with a '''Stove/oven''': Green square, toasted toast with somewhat irregular pattern.
*'''Make toast''' with a '''Dryer''': Red square, large pile of breadcrumbs.
*'''Wash dishes''' with a '''Toaster''': Red square, intact glass, somewhat bent fork and slightly cracked and sooty plate.
*'''Wash dishes''' with a '''Dishwasher''': Green square, clean glass, fork and plate.
*'''Wash dishes''' with a '''Microwave''': Red square, slightly broken glass, intact fork and sooty plate.
*'''Wash dishes''' with a '''Washing machine''': Red square, broken glass, intact fork, broken plate.
*'''Wash dishes''' with a '''Stove/oven''': Yellow square, Text reading "Sterilized, at least" with an arrow beneath it pointing at a slightly cracked glass, intact fork and sooty and cracked plate.
*'''Wash dishes''' with a '''Dryer''': Red square, large pile of broken porcelain and glass with part of fork sticking out of it.
*'''Cook a frozen dinner''' with a '''Toaster''': Red square, badly burnt food box emitting smoke.
*'''Cook a frozen dinner''' with a '''Dishwasher''': Yellow square, Text reading "Fish might be cooked" with an arrow beneath it pointing at a food box two thirds filled with water.
*'''Cook a frozen dinner''' with a '''Microwave''': Green square, cooked food box.
*'''Cook a frozen dinner''' with a '''Washing machine''': Red square, crumpled food box two thirds filled with water.
*'''Cook a frozen dinner''' with a '''Stove/oven''': Green square, sideways view of steaming cooked food box with lid removed.
*'''Cook a frozen dinner''' with a '''Dryer''': Red square, open crumpled food box with burnt edges. Burnt food stuck to the panels borders.
*'''Wash clothes''' with a '''Toaster''': Red square, smoking T-shirt with large stripe shaped burns.
*'''Wash clothes''' with a '''Dishwasher''': Yellow square, unevenly wet/washed shirt.
*'''Wash clothes''' with a '''Microwave''': Red square, slightly smoking shirt with spread out burns.
*'''Wash clothes''' with a '''Washing machine''': Green square, clean wet shirt.
*'''Wash clothes''' with a '''Stove/oven''': Red square, shirt with a large semi-burned area.
*'''Wash clothes''' with a '''Dryer''': Yellow square, slightly dirty-looking shirt.
*'''Cook eggs''' with a '''Toaster''': Red square, toaster emitting a huge cloud of dense smoke.
*'''Cook eggs''' with a '''Dishwasher''': Red square, slightly cracked eggs in a puddle of some kind.
*'''Cook eggs''' with a '''Microwave''': Green square, egg in egg cup with text "(Poached)" beneath.
*'''Cook eggs''' with a '''Washing machine''': Red square, egg shell fragments in a puddle, presumably the egg.
*'''Cook eggs''' with a '''Stove/oven''': Green square, fried egg with beans on a plate.
*'''Cook eggs''' with a '''Dryer''': Red square, pile of egg shell dust and possibly scrambled eggs.
*'''Dry clothes''' with a '''Toaster''': Red square, mostly wet shirt, with parts in the middle being somewhat dry. Smaller stripe shaped burns.
*'''Dry clothes''' with a '''Dishwasher''': Red square, entirely wet shirt.
*'''Dry clothes''' with a '''Microwave''': Yellow square, dry shirt with smaller burns.
*'''Dry clothes''' with a '''Washing machine''': Red square, wet shirt.
*'''Dry clothes''' with a '''Stove/oven''': Yellow square, dry shirt with small burn-like patches.
*'''Dry clothes''' with a '''Dryer''': Green square, dry shirt.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Food]]

674: Natural Parenting

2019-11-11T00:11:12Z

108.162.241.244:

{{comic
| number = 674
| date = December 11, 2009
| title = Natural Parenting
| image = natural_parenting.png
| titletext = On one hand, every single one of my ancestors going back billions of years has managed to figure it out. On the other hand, that's the mother of all sampling biases.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic relates to the anxiety of having a first child, particularly an unplanned child, and is a play on the double meaning of the expression "do what comes naturally".

Doing what comes naturally is a euphemism for couples pairing off and forming intimate relationships, including sex. It is also advice given to new parents, advising them not to second guess themselves so much, to alleviate the stress that comes with parenting.

The couple [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] find themselves as unexpected parents. Both parents experience anxiety over how to manage their life with the child. The new father defuses the situation and states that parenting can not be that hard and they should just do what comes naturally. Naturally the couple find themselves with a second child. This adds insult to injury as now they have two children and still no idea about how to parent. As the first child was an "accident" the birth of the child was because of instinctual urges. Therefore, assuming nothing has changed in their relationship it would be natural if they produced another child.

The title text claims that parenting can't be too hard because, up to the present, all of your ancestors have produced an unbroken line of children who figured out how to raise at least one child that is able to continue this unbroken chain. [[Randall]] jokes that this is the "mother" of all {{w|sampling bias}}es: Had anyone of one's ancestors completely failed at being parents, that person would never exist. Therefore, this sampling is heavily skewed by sampling only those that were all successful in at least one instance. It does not take into account the number of people in the past who do not have any lineage today to speak of, or the number times our ancestors failed at being parents to children we are not directly descended from.
The baby says, "Baby!", either copying Cueball, or saying its name, Pokémon-style. This is also the topic of [[441: Babies]] and [[1384: Krypton]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are standing with a baby in between them.]
:Cueball: Oh man, we made a baby.
:Megan: ''Don't panic. Don't panic.''
:Baby: Baby!

:Cueball: Parenting can't be that hard. Let's just do what comes naturally.

:[Beat frame.]

:Soon:
:[There are now two babies in between them.]
:Megan: Aw, crap.

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

Talk:473: Still Raw

2019-11-10T23:32:09Z

108.162.241.244: Fixing typos in the comments

The explanation says: "... Pluto has been the ninth planet in our solar system until 2006 ...".

It should say 'the tenth' shouldn't it?
[[User:SioD|SioD]] ([[User talk:SioD|talk]]) 14:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Pluto was discovered in 1930, and has since been the ninth body to be discovered and classified as a "planet". The sentence is a temporal rather than spatial reference, if that clears up any confusion. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

::Actually, no. Using the temporal definition, Pluto would be number 13. It was discovered after Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta, which were discovered, named and classified, but then quickly demoted, all about 120 years before Pluto. This was due to the fact that telescopes of the day were strong enough to see quite a bit of the asteroid belt in a relatively short time, unlike with the "previously mythical" Kuiper belt.
::Also, if any thing, the spatial discrepancy should be between eighth and ninth, as Pluto's orbit is squeezed enough to be inside that of Neptune, but long enough to extend outside it. Charon, Pluto's "moon" may cause additional worry, but is usually ignored.
::Anonymous 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I think this interpretation is a bit deliberately obtuse. Ceres wasn't considered a planet at the same time that Pluto was, so Pluto was indeed the ninth planet for a period of time. There is no confusion here.
:::On another note, the Dawn and New Horizons probes have now given us a large world covered in volatile weather, with internally driven geology, and a smaller, more obviously non-spherical cratered ball of rock. A common sense definition of a planet would probably leave Ceres out. As for Vesta, nobody has ever considered that a planet, not even the "Pluto should still be a planet" crowd. Again, being deliberately contrarian doesn't usually shed any light on scientific questions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 03:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

:I think we would all be happy if the astronomers would come up with a definition of a planet that reasonably included Pluto but reasonably excluded the other 'candidates' that have been found so far. You know, the ones without large moons. Or Pluto could just be grandfathered in. Exactly how would science be held back by this?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
:You don't think they tried to find a standard that included Pluto and excluded the others? Also grandfathering makes the idea of making a standard definition useless. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.162}}
:: For my part, I never understood why it was such an issue to not have the other things that are now dwarf planets classified as planets. More planets are cool, aren't they? They could have used whatever cut they made between dwarf planets and other stuff as a boundary definition for planets and promoted them instead of de-classifiying Pluto. You could then have split the category "planets" into "insert-cool-name-here"-planets and dwarf planets and voilà, more planets AND congruent definition. Also, less confusing nomenclature, as with the present definition dwarf planets aren't planets, even though the name makes it appear as if they are a subcategory of planets. I totally get why Pluto should be in a separate category from the other large planets. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.95|162.158.91.95]] 11:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
::I always assumed the decision was aesthetic. They were faced with a choice between eight well-known planets with familiar names and distinctive characteristics that fit neatly on a poster and dozens or hundreds of planets, mostly obscure lumps of rock or ice.

The airplane/treadmill question is actually hard to define properly. In real case scenario, the plane would of course take off, but you can keep it in place if you assume really fast treadmill (much faster that the plane), friction in airplane wheels and that those wheels won't break off, catch fire or otherwise get destroyed under the stress much higher they are developed for. Oh, wait, actually the airplane WONT take off if the wheels break. :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

:If you choose to model friction in the wheels, it would be simpler to model the airplane with NO wheels, and then ask whether it could take off. Well, 'Airplane!' notwithstanding, it couldn't. But that's not an interesting problem, right? And neither is the variation with friction in the wheels. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 23:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
::Odd that carrier decks still have to be so long. In fact launching them from podiums would allow the use of on-deck hangars.
::Anyone know if this applies to helicopters?

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 02:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:473: Still Raw

2019-11-10T23:31:09Z

108.162.241.244: Fixing typos in the comments

The explanation says: "... Pluto has been the ninth planet in our solar system until 2006 ...".

It should says 'the tenth' isn'it?
[[User:SioD|SioD]] ([[User talk:SioD|talk]]) 14:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Pluto was discovered in 1930, and has since been the ninth body to be discovered and classified as a "planet". The sentence is a temporal rather than spatial reference, if that clears up any confusion. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

::Actually, no. Using the temporal definition, Pluto would be number 13. It was discovered after Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta, which were discovered, named and classified, but then quickly demoted, all about 120 years before Pluto. This was due to the fact that telescopes of the day were strong enough to see quite a bit of the asteroid belt in a relatively short time, unlike with the "previously mythical" Kuiper belt.
::Also, if any thing, the spatial discrepancy should be between eighth and ninth, as Pluto's orbit is squeezed enough to be inside that of Neptune, but long enough to extend outside it. Charon, Pluto's "moon" may cause additional worry, but is usually ignored.
::Anonymous 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I think this interpretation is a bit deliberately obtuse. Ceres wasn't considered a planet at the same time that Pluto was, so Pluto was indeed the ninth planet for a period of time. There is no confusion here.
:::On another note, the Dawn and New Horizons probes have now given us a large world covered in volatile weather, with internally driven geology, and a smaller, more obviously non-spherical cratered ball of rock. A common sense definition of a planet would probably leave Ceres out. As for Vesta, nobody has ever considered that a planet, not even the "Pluto should still be a planet" crowd. Again, being deliberately contrarian doesn't usually shed any light on scientific questions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 03:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

:I think we would all be happy if the astronomers would come up with a definition of a planet that reasonably included Pluto but reasonably excluded the other 'candidates' that have been found so far. You know, the ones without large moons. Or Pluto could just be grandfathered in. Exactly how would science be held back by this?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
:You don't think they tried to find a standard that included Pluto and excluded the others? Also grandfathering makes the idea of making a standard definition useless. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.162}}
:: For my part, I never understood why it was such an issue to not have the other things that are now dwarf planets classified as planets. More planets are cool, aren't they? They could have used whatever cut they made between dwarf planets and other stuff as a boundary definition for planets and promoted them instead of de-classifiying Pluto. You could then have split the category "planets" into "insert-cool-name-here"-planets and dwarf planets and voilà, more planets AND congruent definition. Also, less confusing nomenclature, as with the present definition dwarf planets aren't planets, even though the name makes it appear as if they are a subcategory of planets. I totally get why Pluto should be in a separate category from the other large planets. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.95|162.158.91.95]] 11:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
::I always assumed the decision was aesthetic. They were faced with a choice between eight well-known planets with familiar names and distinctive characteristics that fit neatly on a poster and dozens or hundreds of planets, mostly obscure lumps of rock or ice.

The airplane/treadmill question is actually hard to define properly. In real case scenario, the plane would of course take off, but you can keep it in place if you assume really fast treadmill (much faster that the plane), friction in airplane wheels and that those wheels won't break off, catch fire or otherwise get destroyed under the stress much higher they are developed for. Oh, wait, actually the airplane WONT take off if the wheels break. :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

:If you choose to model friction in the wheels, it would be simpler to model the airplane with NO wheels, and then ask whether it could take off. Well, 'Airplane!' notwithstanding, it couldn't. But that's not an interesting problem, right? And neither is the variation with friction in the wheels. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 23:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
::Odd that carrier decks still have to be so long. In fact launching them from podiums would allow the use of on-deck hangars.
::Anyone know if this applies to helicopters?

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 02:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1765: Baby Post

2019-11-08T18:44:21Z

108.162.241.244:

Somebody doesn't know young children very well. Or the amount of time they spend watching old movies. I know a couple of four year olds who might just do this after catching a rerun of one of the Pink Panther movies. Get away with it, though, is something entirely different.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Check the header, new shirts! [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 15:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If the cell phone or tablet is set to remember passwords, it's not impossible to a children to buy a ticket to london or even call an uber. [[User:Wrojr|Wrojr]] ([[User talk:Wrojr|talk]]) 15:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This cartoon would be funnier if it didn't imply there were years (or decades) between the first and last frames. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.32|198.41.239.32]] 21:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
:It doesn't, what makes you say that? [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 21:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

;Wrong use of plurals?

Shouldn't this be Crown Jewels Rooms? Beside which, how can one jewel be in more than one room? [[User:Bitsofstring|Bitsofstring]] ([[User talk:Bitsofstring|talk]]) 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure that Ponytail just doesn't care about pluralizing in this informal context. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 16:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with saying "crown jewel rooms". As an analogy, if you had several rooms for your trophies, you'd say "these are my trophy rooms" (ie. my rooms for trophies) even though, presumably, you have more than one trophy. The only part that makes me a bit hesitant is that they are called the "crown jewels". But "crown jewels rooms" sounds really awkward to me. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.248}}

There is also the puzzle of using blueprints to describe a room's security plan. But it might just be simplified to put into a strip. 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Feels like the baby might be related to {{w|Stewie Griffin|Stewie}} from Family Guy... --[[User:IByte|IByte]] ([[User talk:IByte|talk]]) 10:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Fhfff''m supposed to be something? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.142|162.158.69.142]] 14:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody else think that "FHFF,,,M,,,," is supposed to be some sort of code? Like his daughter was sending a secret message as part of the heist or something? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.67|108.162.216.67]] 23:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"The Wheels on the Bus" song was also used as a plot line in the TV series Eureka in connection with nuclear escalation/mutually assured destruction. http://eureka.wikia.com/wiki/The_Wheels_on_the_Bus And don't evil geniuses usually have some earth-destroying plan in mind? cavac [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.15|162.158.92.15]] 12:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, Stewy is planning something, and only Brian knows the truth. [[User:Keybounce|Keybounce]] ([[User talk:Keybounce|talk]]) 00:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Am I the only person who believes that Cueball is behind this, and his daughter is accidentally (or purposefully) uncovering his plans, and Cueball is pretending not to know about it?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.244|108.162.241.244]] 18:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

1842: Anti-Drone Eagles

2019-11-08T14:51:09Z

108.162.241.244: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1842
| date = May 26, 2017
| title = Anti-Drone Eagles
| image = anti_drone_eagles.png
| titletext = It's cool, it's totally ethical--they're all programmed to hunt whichever bird of prey is most numerous at the moment, so they leave the endangered ones alone until near the end.
}}

==Explanation==
Law enforcement and security agencies often use [http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones birds of prey] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/terrorists-are-building-drones-france-is-destroying-them-with-eagles/ to combat drones] flying unlawfully over restricted sites. Probably not as cost effective as using eagles to transport golden rings or bearers thereof to volcanoes in foreign lands.<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[1608/956:-1088+s.png|Unrelated citation]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> This is often more cost effective than using technological means (such as scramblers and counter-drones) and safer for the public than using conventional weaponry (such as shotguns).

Eagles, being predators, have natural tendencies to attack the central components of drones while avoiding the sharp and spinny bits.

[[Cueball]] argues that this is unethical as it forces rare animals to put their lives at risk, and compares it to using police dogs for traffic control, which people would generally frown upon.

Effectiveness depends upon the conditions of use. Obviously eagles can't be used everywhere that drones are restricted, but they are often effectively used where ground security is also present to identify and arrest those that might be unlawfully flying the drones, so they can't indefinitely replenish their hardware. The first paragraph has links to real life examples. Not only would it be unethical, but also ineffective. The supply of Eagles is rather limited, and there are biological limits to how fast it can be replenished, whereas more drones can be created very quickly to replace those that are destroyed. Traffic control dogs would be similarly ineffective, as dogs would struggle to run as fast as a speeding motorcycle, and would be powerless to stop the motorcycle even if they could.

[[Megan]] thinks both ideas (eagles and dogs) sound cool, but she understands the ethical argument against using them for traffic control.

[[Black Hat]], on the other hand, goes a step further and says that he has created a drone that hunts the eagles, flipping the premise from “anti-drone eagles” to “anti-eagle drones”. In the title text, he continues that is ethical because they (only the title text mentions that there are several of such drones) only target the most populous species first, although they will eventually eradicate the endangered ones once they bring down the number of all birds of prey (note that this implies that he wants to make all birds of prey extinct or endangered). He seems to {{tvtropes|ComicallyMissingThePoint|miss the point}} that it is not merely the relative number of birds that creates the ethical problem, but the fact that animals' lives are being put at direct risk by humans. His construction of the anti-eagle drone may be simply for the point of making the eagles' goals not only dangerous, but also entirely ineffective. This is probably not an opposition to privacy but merely his trademark [[72: Classhole|classholery]] in action.

Nevertheless, Black Hat raises a crucial point in {{w|ecology}}: There are generalist and specialist predators (as well as herbivores). A specialist hunts or eats only one species (e.g. the {{w|koala}} eats only {{w|eucalyptus}}), while a generalist hunts or eats the most available food. Thus, a generalist often spares species that have become rare due to overhunting, disease or famine. A generalist predator (or herbivore) thus manages the wildlife, and a healthy population of generalists is almost always beneficial. Now, if Black Hat creates a drone that hunts the most available species, he gets the right idea (a food generalist manages wildlife), but gets the other one seriously wrong: Eagles are already doing their job as generalists, and as predatory birds are not so abundant, a generalist that feeds on predatory birds would need to have a very large territory. And as drones cannot reproduce yet and do not need to hunt as an energy source, releasing a drone to fulfil an ecological role would not make any sense. How does the drone know it has hunted enough eagles? Does the eagle-hunting drone feel hunger and decide to hunt elsewhere after reducing the number of local eagles, or does it just hibernate?

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat, Cueball and Megan are standing and talking.]
:Cueball: Everyone loves these eagles that take down drones, but ... I dunno.
:Megan: You gotta admit, it's pretty cool.

:[Close-up of Cueball.]
:Cueball: Yeah, but ... training rare animals to hurl themselves at whirling machinery can only get us so far, you know?

:[In a frame-less panel the setting is back to that of the first panel.]
:Cueball: At some point, it's like releasing police dogs onto freeways to attack speeding motorcycles.
:Megan: Also cool, but I see your point.

:[Black Hat lifts his hand and Cueball turns his face towards him.]
:Black Hat: Plus, I just finished my autonomous drone that hunts eagles.
:Cueball: Man, '''''you''''' are an entirely separate class of problem.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Drones]]

Talk:72: Classhole

2019-10-30T14:56:46Z

108.162.241.244:

I think this is a biblical reference. Matthew 7:9, "Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" Black Hat the "classhole", evidently will.{{unsigned ip|‎108.162.216.109}}
:50 points for that excellent reference! PS Hi from [[1408]]. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

----
Yes I have to put that seperating line. God, how do you do a line across text, dang I meant strikethrough. This is going nowhere. [[User:StillNotOriginal|StillNot]][[User talk:StillNotOriginal|Original]] 02:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the explanation ever going to explain the first panel? It's been over 13 years, and it STILL hasn't been explained.

292: goto

2019-08-29T13:14:41Z

108.162.241.244: Unnecessary citation for consequence of 'goto' statement

{{comic
| number = 292
| date = July 20, 2007
| title = goto
| image = goto.png
| titletext = Neal Stephenson thinks it's cute to name his labels 'dengo'
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|Goto}}'' is a construct found in many computer languages that causes control flow to go from one place in a program to another, without returning. Once common in computer programming, its popularity diminished in the 1960s and 1970s as focus on {{w|structured programming}} became the norm. {{w|Edsger W. Dijkstra}}'s article [http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_Harmful.html "Go To Statement Considered Harmful"] in particular contributed to the decline of ''goto.''

Often people learning programming are told ''goto'' is bad and should be avoided, but frequently are not given a good reason. [[Cueball]], as one of these people, sees no harm in using ''goto'' to avoid rewriting much of his program. As a result, he is attacked by a [[velociraptor]]. Velociraptor attacks are a running joke (and fear) often expressed in [[xkcd]]. The humor derives from the fact that a velociraptor attack is an [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong unexpected and severe consequence] of using a ''goto'' statement, let alone that velociraptors have been extinct since the Cretaceous Period.{{Citation needed}}

The title text refers to {{w|Neal Stephenson}}, an author of cyberpunk novels. A label is used in many programming languages to refer to a point in a program that a goto instruction can jump to. The joke is that one of Stephenson's characters in ''{{w|Cryptonomicon}}'' is named Goto Dengo. When said out loud, "Dengo" sounds like "Then go."

==Trivia==

* Like all velociraptors in xkcd, the velociraptor in this comic is specifically the man-sized movie monster from ''{{w|Jurassic Park (film)|Jurassic Park}}.'' Real velociraptors were more like [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vraptor-scale.png carnivorous turkeys.] The beast devouring Cueball might actually be ''[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dromie_scale.png Deinonychus antirrhopus.]''
* This comic heads the official [http://php.net/manual/en/control-structures.goto.php PHP manual page on goto].

==Transcript==
:[Sideways view of Cueball sits at computer, thinking.]
:Cueball: I could restructure the program's flow - or use one little 'GOTO' instead.
:Cueball: Eh, screw good practice. How bad can it be?
:Text on computer: <tt>goto main_sub3;</tt>
:<nowiki>*Compile*</nowiki>
:[We now have a view from behind Cueball. Cueball looks at the computer.]
:[A raptor jumps into the panel, pushing Cueball off his chair.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Velociraptors]]
[[Category:Programming]]

Talk:485: Depth

2019-08-22T23:35:34Z

108.162.241.244:

[[Special:Contributions/123.211.217.96|123.211.217.96]] 01:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Is the bed actually shaking or are the people/person under the sheet just moving on their own? The squiggle lines doesn't show. PS Oh, yeeeaaah! That's what being the first poster feels like, especially on an old comic that hasn't been touched for five years. Until now: at 4:38 am and 50 seconds, 2013/03/09. (GMT).

Three bugs:
:1. In the explanation, someone forgot to mention how many stories high the apartment building is. I'd say it's at least two stories tall; possibly more, but if so, the upper stories are all obscured by foreshortening.
:2. Still in the explanation, I disagree that the person at the computer on the second floor (between the Guitar Hero players & the bed) is our protagonist Cueball; he's on the first floor, under the Guitar Hero folks, sitting at his computer.
:3. In the transcript, that person at the computer on the second floor is omitted.
:[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.40|108.162.219.40]] 06:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the comment on Brian Greene may also refer to Noam Chomsky's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"] [[User:Adamaustin|-adamaustin]] ([[User talk:Adamaustin|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Does the last room on the right contain an ellptical reflector dish? I think I can barely make one out on the edge of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.244|108.162.241.244]] 23:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

2192: Review

2019-08-21T13:35:30Z

108.162.241.244: /* Transcript */ smaller stars

{{comic
| number = 2192
| date = August 21, 2019
| title = Review
| image = review.png
| titletext = Controls are a little hard to figure out.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a REVIEWER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a review of Earth, by Randall. It is written as a video game review, praising the size and realism of the world. The comic's humor draws from the fact that Earth is a completely real object and shouldn't be rated on the same lines as a video game, and the fact that there's no place that the Earth can be reviewed.

The title text states that the 'controls are hard to figure out', possible alluding to the fact that it takes a lot of time to learn how to walk and talk, a rather basic thing in most video games, and the fact that it is hard to navigate around in one's life.

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

:[Profile picture of Cueball] ★★★★★
:Great graphics, huge world
:[Caption below the comic:] My overall review of Earth

{{comic discussion}}

2192: Review

2019-08-21T13:34:14Z

108.162.241.244: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2192
| date = August 21, 2019
| title = Review
| image = review.png
| titletext = Controls are a little hard to figure out.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a REVIEWER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a review of Earth, by Randall. It is written as a video game review, praising the size and realism of the world. The comic's humor draws from the fact that Earth is a completely real object and shouldn't be rated on the same lines as a video game, and the fact that there's no place that the Earth can be reviewed.

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

:[Profile picture of Cueball] ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
:Great graphics, huge world
:[Caption below the comic:] My overall review of Earth

{{comic discussion}}

2192: Review

2019-08-21T13:33:33Z

108.162.241.244: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2192
| date = August 21, 2019
| title = Review
| image = review.png
| titletext = Controls are a little hard to figure out.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a REVIEWER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a review of Earth, by Randall. It is written as a video game review, praising the size and realism of the world. The comic's humor draws from the fact that Earth is a completely real object and shouldn't be rated on the same lines as a video game, and the fact that there's no place that the Earth can be reviewed.

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

:[Profile picture of cueball] ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
:Great graphics, huge world
:[Caption below the comic:] My overall review of Earth

{{comic discussion}}

2192: Review

2019-08-21T13:32:28Z

108.162.241.244: /* Transcript */

2192: Review

2019-08-21T13:31:38Z

108.162.241.244:

2186: Dark Matter

2019-08-07T14:52:17Z

108.162.241.244: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2186
| date = August 7, 2019
| title = Dark Matter
| image = dark_matter.png
| titletext = To detect dark matter, we just need to build a bird feeder that spins two squirrels around the rim in opposite directions at relativistic speeds and collides them together.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DARK MATTER SQUIRREL ON A SPINNING BIRD FEEDER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, [[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] are talking about {{w|Dark matter|dark matter}}. Megan states that dark matter's density is 0.3 GeV/cm3. Since Cueball likely does not have a science background, he does not understand what this means, so, to clarify, Megan explains that 0.3 GeV/cm3 equates to one squirrel's worth of dark matter on the Earth. For the last two panels, Cueball conflates this with dark matter actually ''being'' a squirrel for comedic effect, enraging Megan.

This implies a {{w|Squirrel|squirrel}} weighs 580 g [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(0.3+(GeV%2Fc%5E2)%2Fcm%5E3)+*+(volume+of+earth)+in+grams], which is a typical mass for individuals among several species of common squirrels.

Here is a reference to a paper that comes up with the dark-matter density of 0.3 GeV/cm3: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033 On the local dark matter density].

==Transcript==
:[Megan walks with Cueball. She is holding a hand out while telling Cueball something.]
:Megan: Dark matter density in the solar system is around 0.3 GeV/cm3
:Cueball: Is... that a lot?

:[As they continue to walk and talk she spreads her arms out.]
:Megan: In terms of mass, it means the Earth contains one squirrel worth of dark matter at any given time.
:Cueball: Wow.

:[In a frame-less panel Cueball stops while Megan walks past him. Megan is face-palming herself while looking down.]
:Cueball: Is there any way to find out which squirrel it is?
:Megan: No, it's not literally-

:[Cueball holds his hand with one finger up in front of Megan, while she has turned towards him and is holding both arms up, possible with balled fist, as she shouts back at him, shown both with large fat letters and with small lines emanating above her head.]
:Cueball: Oh, that explains why they weigh enough to set off those spinning bird feeders!
:Megan: <big>'''''Dark matter isn't squirrels!</big>

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Squirrels]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police

2019-08-01T19:50:23Z

108.162.241.244: Removed confusing commentary conflating "literally" and "practically"

{{comic
| number = 1735
| date = September 19, 2016
| title = Fashion Police and Grammar Police
| image = fashion_police_and_grammar_police.png
| titletext = * Mad about jorts
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, two groups of angry protesters are presented and labeled. They are likely not actually protesting side by side, but simply drawn side by side to compare their similarities.

The left group represents the '''Fashion Police''' with [[Cueball]] holding a sign saying {{w|Crocs}} not allowed (by showing a pair of Crocs shoes in a circle with a strike through it). Crocs are a type of {{w|Clog|clogs}} made of foam. There may be some ergonomic advantages to these special looking shoes, but they will {{w|Crocs#Fashion|never become fashionable}}. It is not the first time [[Randall]] mocks a special type of shoes (although here it may not so much be himself that are against Crocs, but rather he just chose something easy to recognize that the Fashion Police would hate). Previously in [[1065: Shoes]] Randall was after shoes that ''has those creepy individual toes'' like {{w|Vibram FiveFingers}}. They will also never be a hit with the Fashion Police.{{Citation needed}}

The right group represents the '''Grammar Police''' with another Cueball holding a sign with three commonly confused words beneath each other: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/their Their] (belongs to them), [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/they%27re They're] (contraction meaning "they are"), [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/there There] (a location). The words are written on the sign to explain that there is a difference between these three almost identically-sounding words as many people confuse them with each other, and then the Grammar Police ''have'' to correct them (see [[386: Duty Calls]]). See the [https://twitter.com/_grammar_ Grammar Police on Twitter] and also {{w|Grammar Police|Linguistic prescription}} which comes up on Wikipedia when searching for Grammar Police.

The two groups look similar, standing in similar poses and apart from one Cueball holding signs in each group, one [[Megan]] is also in the front line of both groups. [[Hairy]] is only shown with the fashion police, together with yet another [[:Category:Multiple Cueballs|Cueball-like guy]], while [[Ponytail]] is only shown with the grammar police together with a bald man with glasses.

Both types of police are groups of people who make fun of others who wear or say something that doesn't meet their criteria of "good". Fashion police are people who make fun of others who wear clothing that is mismatched, out of style/{{w|fashion}} or straight-up "ugly" to them. Grammar police are people who are "sticklers" to {{w|grammar}} rules and get mad or contradictory if someone uses non-standard grammar in a sentence. The comic explains how the two groups are similar to each other by listing eight points (plus a ninth in the title text) that can be used on both groups. See explanation in the [[#Table of individual items|table below]].

In the caption below the comic Randall notes that he just realized that these are literally the same people because they both exhibit the listed traits.

Since it seem like a safe assumption (see [[1339: When You Assume]]) that there are more grammar pedants (see title text of [[1652: Conditionals]]) than fashion police people who read xkcd, and it also would seem likely that many xkcd readers would dislike the Fashion Police (more), it seems likely that Randall is actually mainly targeting the Grammar Police people reading xkcd than the fashion people who do not. They will not like to be compared to the Fashion Police! Ponytail also represented the grammar police in [[1576: I Could Care Less]], where Megan puts her in place after she polices her sentence; this thus shows what Randall thinks about such police work and supports the above assumption. In 1576: I Could Care Less, "literally" was also used in the title text.

Randall is, with regards to language, definitely one of those that can belong in this group: ''To seem cool and casual, pretend to ignore them while understanding them very well.''

The title is a ninth point to add to the list, with the asterisk in front representing one more bullet. See the last entry in the [[#Table of individual items|table below]] for more:

==Table of individual items==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Explanation of individual items in the list
!list item
!Explanation
|-
|Judgemental and Smug || Both types of police will look down upon those who violate their 'laws'.
|-
|Angry about something deeply arbitrary || Both grammar and fashion are, essentially, made-up human constructs.
|-
| Strong opinions backed by style guides || Grammar has ''{{w|The Elements of Style}}'', fashion has fashion magazines.
|-
| Appreciate that the way that you are interpreted is your responsibility || Your choices in both grammar and fashion affect how people see you, and it would be silly to disclaim responsibility for what is essentially your own actions.
|-
| Understand that there's no way to "opt out" of sending messages by how you present yourself, and attempts to do so send strong messages of their own || This means that even if you deliberately choose to not listen to the fashion gurus, then you are actually making a fashion statement anyway, as opposed to those that just don't realize they have a horrible style (and are not dressing wrongly on purpose). Both types can thus be harassed by the Fashion Police. Same goes for those who deliberately do not try to follow the grammar rules. They have thus taken a stance anyway as opposed to those who just do not know how to use grammar correctly. And both types can be harassed for it by the Grammar Police.
|-
|To seem cool and casual, pretend to ignore them while understanding them very well || Deliberately violating fashion or grammar rules gives off a particular 'casual' vibe, distinct from those who violate the rules out of ignorance.
|-
|Vindictive about things that are often uncomfortably transparent proxies for race or social class || "Proper" dress and "proper" language are often defined in terms of how high class people dress and speak. But since "high class" in much of the Western world has generally meant white, alternative ways of dress (e.g. the Afro) or alternative ways of speaking (e.g. Ebonics or Pidgin English) are treated as somehow objectively "wrong", rather than simply as alternatives. Furthermore, dressing or speaking poorly are often marks of "lower class" people who for whatever reason cannot afford fashionable clothing, or don't have access to quality education, and dress codes for customers (no sneakers, hoodies, dew-rags, etc.) are often employed at businesses in place of (illegally) expicit racial discrimination. So when we judge people for their clothing or their speech, we are often indirectly judging them for their race and class. Randall identifies this fact as "uncomfortably transparent".
|-
| Fun to cheer on until one of them disagrees with you|| This may have to do with the human tendency to view the morality of an activity differently when applied to oneself compared to a stranger.
|-
| Mad about jorts (Title text) || "{{w|Shorts#Jorts|Jorts}}" is a {{w|portmanteau}} for a pair of jeans that are made into shorts.

The fashion police would be mad about jorts for being unfashionable.

The grammar police would be mad about the word 'jorts' being an inappropriate portmanteau of jeans and shorts, and also for the fact that the sentence could be misinterpreted as if someone like jorts, as in being mad about something in a positive way.

{{w|Sentence_clause_structure#Incomplete_sentence|Also a fragment}}, with no subject (properly it would be "I am mad about jorts"). Randall has [[:Category:Portmanteau|often used]] portmanteaus as part of his jokes.

It is also possible that the Grammar police are indeed "mad about Jorts" in the positive sense, i.e Grammar Police love Jorts.
|}

==Transcript==
:[Beneath two headings to the left and right are shown two aggressive-looking groups of people with only the four people in the front clearly shown for each group. Behind them five other people can be seen, but they are not drawn with the same solid line and are only partly shown behind the first four, but legs from all five in each group can be seen along with some heads (all Cueball like) and arms etc. The front of the left group consist of Hairy holding a fist up towards left, Megan with her arms crossed in front of her chest, Cueball holding a sign, using both hands, straight up above his head and another Cueball-like guy to the right is holding up a broken branch in one hand toward right. The person behind this last person is shown to hold up his fist towards right like Hairy does to the left. The sign shows a Crocs shoe in a circle with a strike through it going above the Crocs from top left to bottom right. The front of the right group consist of Megan holding both her arms over her head hands folded into fist while looking towards left, Cueball holding a sign, using both hands, towards the right and up above Ponytails head, she is raising one hand in a fist to the left and finally a bald guy with glasses is brandishing a short sword in one hand toward right while holding his other hand palm up. The sign has three similar words written beneath each other.]
:Left: Fashion Police
:Right: Grammar Police
:Sign:
::Their
::They're
::There

:[Below the two groups are eight points with bullets:]
:*Judgemental and smug
:*Angry about something deeply arbitrary
:*Strong opinions backed by style guides
:*Appreciate that the way that you are interpreted ''is'' your responsibility
:*Understand that there's no way to "opt out" of sending messages by how you present yourself, and attempts to do so send strong messages of their own
:*To seem cool and casual, pretend to ignore them while understanding them very well
:*Vindictive about things that are often uncomfortably transparent proxies for race or social class
:*Fun to cheer on until one of them disagrees with you

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I just realized these are literally the same people

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Portmanteau]]

1448: Question

2019-07-24T17:14:36Z

108.162.241.244: obvious spelling mistake is obvious

{{comic
| number = 1448
| date = November 17, 2014
| title = Question
| image = question.png
| titletext = The universe long dead, IsaAC surveyed the formless chaos. At last, he had arrived at an answer. 'I like you,' he declared to the void, 'but I don't LIKE like you.'
}}

==Explanation==
The comic is a reference to a short story by Isaac Asimov "{{w|The Last Question}}", where humans kept asking successively more complex computers whether {{w|entropy}} can be reversed, thereby preventing the {{w|heat death of the universe}}. The computers always answered "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER". In the end, the final computer figured out the answer, but there were no humans left to give the answer to.

The comic depicts a note to “Isaac” (Isaac Asimov). The note asks Isaac to identify whether he likes the note-writer by choosing either “yes” or “no”. Isaac is supposed to check an answer and hand the note back, but Isaac (whose pen is red) has written and selected a third answer, "there is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer", mirroring the way his computers in the short story responded. Notes of this form are stereotypically written by young schoolchildren to gauge or incite romantic interest. This allows impatient children to get an answer during a class, and timid children to get an answer without having to ask the person face to face.

Title text is a reference to the ending in “The Last Question”. The unique capitalization of "IsaAC" in this text implies that IsaAC is an acronym for a type of supercomputer named with a similar convention to the computers in "The Last Question". Instead of the computer climactically coming up with the solution on how to save the universe from entropy when all humanity is gone, like in the “The Last Question", IsaAC comes up with the anticlimactic excuse of an answer 'I like you, but I don't LIKE like you'. “LIKE like” is a childish euphemism for romantic interest. In "The Last Question", a character considers a thought that perhaps AC stands for "analog computer", but in reality this was never the case; for example, ENIAC stands for "Electronic Numerical Integrator ''And Computer''" and UNIVAC stands for "UNIVersal ''Automatic Computer''". This title text may also be meant to imply that Isaac Asimov was a supercomputer.

The original story can be read [http://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf here].

Comic [[1737: Datacenter Scale]] also references the short-story in the title text.

==Transcript==
:[A post-it note which reads:]
:Dear Isaac
:Do you like me?
:□ Yes
:□ No
:[Below handwritten in red ink with a checked box:]
:☒ there is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Romance]]