explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3016: Cold Air

2024-11-27T09:16:57Z

141.101.98.158: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3016
| date = November 25, 2024
| title = Cold Air
| image = cold_air_2x.png
| imagesize = 713x283px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = We also should really have checked that the old water tower was disconnected from the water system before we started filling it with compressed air.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a 204 atm COMPRESSED BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Tornadoes generally create winds of about 40-400 mph [https://www.weather.gov/ffc/fujita] (about 60-640 km/h) which causes damage to buildings. Cueball proposes a method to essentially blow tornadoes away from cities by keeping enough "tornado repelling" air in a tank. It is not clear if the compressed air will be used to "blow away" the whole tornado, to try to exactly counteract the tornado itself (through applied counter-rotation) or to remove the conditions that cause the development of the tornado's system. The last of these is heavily implied, as replacing any troublesome hot and humid air will remove the conditions required to invoke a nascent tornado. Whether this would work is questionable, since it's precisely the mixing of warm and cold air that produces the swirling motion that creates tornadoes. Rather than dissipating the threat, the very act of displacement could create atmospheric mixing and tornado-generating turbulence in its own right.

In a compressed air system, peak pressure is considered about 40 bar [https://www.directindustry.com/prod/kaeser-kompressoren/product-4742-24559.html] (about 500 psi). Cueball proposes keeping the tank at 6 times that pressure to properly counteract the tornado. The title text confirms that at least one tower is a repurposed water tower, which, if using 16 inch pipes as [https://www.waterworld.com/home/article/14071043/the-perfect-pipe is common], would produce much stronger winds than those of the tornado, because flow speed is inversely proportional to the diameter of the pipes and even a "wide" 16 inch pipe is very narrow for this purpose indeed.

The formula for the velocity of a fluid (air is considered a fluid in physics) is V=√(2*P/ρ) where V is the velocity, P is the pressure, and ρ is the density of the fluid. The density of the fluid is given by the formula ρ=P/(RT) for a given constant R and a Temperature T. In this case, ρ is [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=3000psi%2F%280.287kj%2F%28kg+Kelvin%29*21C%29 0.245 g/cm^3] assuming room temperature, meaning the V=√(2*3000psi/ 0.245 g/cm^3)[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=sqrt%282*%283000psi%29%2F%280.245+g%2Fcm%5E3%29%29 =410.9 m/s], which is just under 1500 km/h, almost three times faster than the max speeds of the tornados Cueball is trying to prevent.

In addition, the specification that the air is to be kept dry & cold will almost certainly require the installation of dehumidification & refrigeration systems on the tanks at great expense, since most major North American cities are located near large bodies of water and tornado season (spring) is usually warm and moist (especially for Southern cities such as Atlanta, Birmingham, Chattanooga, etc.). The resulting greenhouse-gas emissions from generating the extra electricity required to run these systems will almost certainly increase mean global temperatures, causing more water to evaporate into the atmosphere, making it even more humid, and therefore more likely that tornadoes will be formed.

Further, pressurised vessels are liable to bursting, an issue harder to mitigate the larger the internal volume. Cueball's proposal would put a particularly large one in the center of dense cities, creating the possibility for further damage. Especially, if the proposal diagram is to be believed, with the tank itself being twice the height of the tallest surrounding buildings (drawn to resemble skyscrapers, so probably tens of stories tall), being elevated high above them upon by base that also dwarfs them, and dominating the area and its skyline.

Finally, tornadoes tend to form in ''sparsely'' populated areas, where structures are few and wind can flow uninterrupted, making his invention's necessity questionable at best. Even if Cueball's air tanks produce winds no faster than a normal tornado, they are now being produced in the centers of heavily built-up areas, significantly increasing the potential for damage.

The result is a quadrupling in damage caused by wind, since now, not only are the tornadoes causing heavy winds, but the tanks — when functioning properly and when malfunctioning — are causing heavy winds too.

In the title text, it is revealed that the water tower they were using to store the compressed air was still plumbed in to the water mains. Given the pressure required for the tower to work properly against tornadoes and the fact that water is nearly incompressible, the pressure from the tower would have been nearly instantly transmitted into the water distribution system. The ''best'' case scenario would have been 'just' to have dangerously highly-pressurised water jetting into sinks, bathtubs and toilet cisterns whenever they were used; more severe consequences could be catastrophic failures of pipes and plumbing.

Using technology to disrupt tornadoes before they form was a plot element in Liu Cixin's novel ''{{w|Ball Lightning (novel)|Ball Lightning}}'', and [https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Weather_Modification_Net other works]. In reality, fringe scientist {{w|Prokop Diviš}} (1698-1765) proposed a weather-control machine to disrupt thunderstorms before they form.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball is in front of a diagram of a tornado with a pointer in his right hand. The diagram has arrows flowing from the bottom toward the tornado at the top, and from the tornado toward the rain below it.]
:Cueball: Tornado supercells are powered by the inflow of warm, moist surface air.

:[Cueball is now in front of a representation of his compressed air tank with a PSI of 3000 next to smaller buildings, appearing to be high-rise buildings or skyscrapers, on both sides of the tank.]
:Cueball: Compressed air tanks could produce artificial pools of cold, dry air on demand, disrupting tornado inflow to protect cities.

:[Cueball is in front of a line graph labeled "Wind Damage over Time". Wind damage has spiked constantly after a point on the graph labeled "Giant experimental compressed air tanks installed in the middle of every major city"). In a frame in the top left corner, there is a label:]
:Several years later:
:Cueball: In retrospect, I can see how my plan went wrong.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Tornadoes]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]

2405: Flash Gatsby

2020-12-31T15:21:52Z

141.101.98.158:

{{comic
| number = 2405
| date = December 31, 2020
| title = Flash Gatsby
| image = flash_gatsby.png
| titletext = Protip: At midnight your excuse for not having read The Great Gatsby can switch from "I'm worried about violating copyright" to "I think my copy requires Flash."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a green light. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. It's hard to enumerate why the moments that the copyright expires and flash is no longer officially supported, are not exactly the same, but randall seems to expect us to do this. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic unfolds over the last few seconds of 2020 and the first few seconds of 2021. [[Cueball]] is attempting to do something requiring the overlap of two eras that only abut: creating an "unauthorized" adaptation of The Great Gatsby, using the Adobe Flash plugin platform.

''{{w|The Great Gatsby}}'' is a classic novel written by {{w|F. Scott Fitzgerald}} in 1925. Copyright law in the United States of America, where ''The Great Gatsby'' was first published, was retroactively extended several times in the 1990s and early 2000s, causing the copyright on ''The Great Gatsby'' to extend [https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/595567/why-the-great-gatsby-isnt-public-domain until the end of 2020]. In 2021, it will finally enter the public domain so that it will become legal to make a copy without violating copyright law.

{{w|Adobe Flash}}, formerly known as Shockwave Flash, is a web plugin that was commonly used by many websites in the late 1990s and 2000s. It allowed website creators to add animations, sound and complex logic, to build games, videos and other interactive experiences. Presumably, the Flash version of the novel is some kind of animated cartoon, or perhaps even a game.

Over the years, Adobe Flash was repeatedly exploited by hackers, incurring heavy costs on {{w|Adobe Inc.|Adobe}} as they tried to update Flash against these attacks after rushing features out before stabilising them. Newer technologies are now able to provide comparable features with more compatibility, more community involvement, and less risk, so support for Flash is being phased out by most web browsers. Adobe is officially discontinuing Flash at the end of 2020.

Therefore, Cueball's Flash version of ''The Great Gatsby'' will become legal at the very moment that everyone should stop using it.

In line with Adobe's decision, [https://www.chromium.org/flash-roadmap#TOC-Upcoming-Changes Chrome is blocking Flash in January]. This will make [https://www.newgrounds.com/games entire internet culture histories spanning many years of making and engaging Flash experiences] unusable for most people.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] suggests that the withdrawal of Flash support occurs after the copyright expiration rather than simultaneously with it. This might be due to time zones, or some specific of when code and policy engages compared to when laws do.

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

:[Cueball is sitting and using his laptop.]
:Off panel voice: 3... 2... 1... ''Happy New Year!''
:Cueball: Ok, It’s up!
:Cueball: Annnnnd... support was pulled, it’s down again.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:There's only a very short window of time in which I can post my unauthorized Flash® adaptation of ''The Great Gatsby''.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:New Year]]
[[Category:Protip]] <!-- title text ->

Talk:2392: Cyber Cafe

2020-12-01T11:47:20Z

141.101.98.158:

Is it worth noting that this was posted on Cyber Monday? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.70|162.158.75.70]] 21:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
:Yes! That's almost certainly relevant. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]])

Unrelated to cybercafés, but why is the edit link the viewed-outside mauve instead of the viewed-wiki violet? [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 04:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
:Which edit link(s)? The 'faux tab' ("Read | Edit | View History", etc) the "*TITLE HEADER* (Edit)" or A.N.Other? Is it something specific to your own browser stylesheet? Or set by your Wikilogin? For me (simple IP as I am) the only links of different colours (passing over your own .sig, Bubblegum) are the Main page/Latest comic/Community portal/xkcd.com links in the sidebar((*)), and those are in the universal "visited page" hue (because I have visited these) and all other non-image link text are in the colour of universally standard yet-to-visit link colour that is probably the same as NCSA Mosaic originally established/adopted (though I don't know if that's because it's set by the wikicode/styles or fallen back to default). ((* - plus, now, the "add a comment!" link and also the cybersex one, as a random in-explanation link I tested going to while writing this reply.)) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.43|162.158.158.43]] 05:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
"Cyber" is 'dated'? Well, I suppose it has been around as a popular term for a while, probably even before Gibson (and long-standing Internet Cafes 'round here now seem more to be rebranded as eSports hosts, because ''almost'' everyone who cares for one has an Internetted-device on their desk, kitchen table, maybe in their pocket, but a good well-maintained machine for the latest faddy FPSing or any satisfyingly tactile wheel/pedal controller seems to be what they can still offer up, almost arcadian...) but I don't think in the last thirty years I ever said "I'm in Cyber", even though I probably am by today's lingo (old fuddy-duddy as I am, I just say I work "in computing", if anybody has had to feign social interest in me to ask - and then reel off some of my actual sub-specialities if they foolishly indicate a desire to know more). Nor have I ever used such a café, in any capacity, but probably more from a "safe hex" standpoint (malware remediation and cracker-thwarting having been a big part of my career, for several years either side of the Millenium) than this year's issue with a certain non-software virus... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.43|162.158.158.43]] 05:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"this comic suggests that [cyber] sounds dated" Maybe that was so long ago that some people don't remember it. In the 90s, everything was cyber. The internet was "cyberspace". This weird, nerdy, futuristic thing. Then it became mainstream and the term mostly vanished. And since then "cyber" was very dated. It only stuck around in some words like "cyber cafe". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.186|162.158.94.186]] 11:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The UK Government still thinks 'cyber' is in use in 2020: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/fatima-ballet-dancer-job-cyber-government-campaign-a4568641.html
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.158|141.101.98.158]] 11:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2391: Life Before the Pandemic

2020-11-27T16:08:23Z

141.101.98.158:

This reminds me of the Four Yorkshiremen from At last the 1948 show. Tell that to youngsters nwadays. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 15:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It is actually not clear to which ongoing pandemic the comic is referring. Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics] is listing 10 epidemics currently going on. The longest ongoing one is the HIV/AIDS pandemic since 1981. It is not unlikely that the majority of humans on earth has no recollection or barely remembers the time before 1981. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.43|162.158.158.43]] 15:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
:You are *techinally* correct. (The best kind of correct) But, only one pandemic has made people wear masks, moved indoor activities outdoors, is referred to as THE pandemic, we -as a society- are waiting on a vaccine for, and is currently the central topic of our discourse. [[User:Argis13|Argis13]] ([[User talk:Argis13|talk]]) 15:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
:: The HIV/AIDS pandemic is making people wear condoms, which on some level could be compared to masks or safety nets. I believe there are some people to be found that miss the time before the 1980s restriction in their sex life.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.158|141.101.98.158]] 16:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Non native speaker, here. Should the mouse-over text be understood as riding a horse in a shopping mall? That would make sense as it is as absurd as the other activities mentioned in the strip. "Mall" can have also other meanings, but riding through the National Mall in Washington DC or the Mall in London doesn't seem outrageous as all.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 16:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2391: Life Before the Pandemic

2020-11-27T16:07:29Z

141.101.98.158:

This reminds me of the Four Yorkshiremen from At last the 1948 show. Tell that to youngsters nwadays. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 15:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It is actually not clear to which ongoing pandemic the comic is referring. Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics] is listing 10 epidemics currently going on. The longest ongoing one is the HIV/AIDS pandemic since 1981. It is not unlikely that the majority of humans on earth has no recollection or barely remembers the time before 1981. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.43|162.158.158.43]] 15:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
:You are *techinally* correct. (The best kind of correct) But, only one pandemic has made people wear masks, moved indoor activities outdoors, is referred to as THE pandemic, we -as a society- are waiting on a vaccine for, and is currently the central topic of our discourse. [[User:Argis13|Argis13]] ([[User talk:Argis13|talk]]) 15:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
:: The HIV/AIDS pandemic is making people wear condoms, which on some level could be compared to masks or safety nets. I believe there are some people to be found that miss the time before the 1980 restriction in their sex life.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.158|141.101.98.158]] 16:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Non native speaker, here. Should the mouse-over text be understood as riding a horse in a shopping mall? That would make sense as it is as absurd as the other activities mentioned in the strip. "Mall" can have also other meanings, but riding through the National Mall in Washington DC or the Mall in London doesn't seem outrageous as all.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 16:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2384: Set in the Present

2020-11-12T02:15:28Z

141.101.98.158:

Although I've described the TV as being wall-mounted, a literal reading of the scenario is that it and Cueball are both floating in a featureless void (which has covid). [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 02:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I just say this is ''so'' true... GOOMHR! Anything even vaguely archival (repeats or first-runs of shows recorded before ~Marchish 2020) that don't have a prominent "This was recorded prior to..." announcement look... strange. Unsettling, even. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.158|141.101.98.158]] 02:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:810: Constructive

2016-11-13T13:31:27Z

141.101.98.158:

I know just the guy to create this system. I'm going to PM him now :D {{unsigned ip|184.11.73.88}}

No guys, if spammers invent a bot which can give constructive comments, that will be an ***AI***, i.e. a major breakthrough in itself. {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.200}}

Mission. A-Fucking. Complished. {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.7}}

One problem: trolls who rate everything as non-constructive. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.11|108.162.218.11]] 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
:But Trolls like that are also unable to make constructive comments, so they won't get counted anyway (at least, if the system is designed with any sense) Anonymous 15:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, isn't this how Slashdot works? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.64|173.245.49.64]] 19:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I came here to get a better explanation of how the system would actually work. Assuming it operates at sign-up, the bots would go through and rate comments, which would have no effect if the system didn't already know whether they were good or not, then it makes it own comments that need time to be rated; so you would have to give it time to start 'contributing' to the community while waiting for others to rate it, or else users would basically be on a community-approval waiting list. So in short, I feel like the system is flawed; presumably because I'm understanding it wrong. (Bonus: Captcha while posting this) - Zergling_man [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.231|162.158.2.231]] 12:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't work. People could rate anything they disagree with as'nonconstructive'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.158|141.101.98.158]] 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-06T12:09:11Z

141.101.98.158:

I think Randall missed a trick here.. He should have had Black Hat offer to leave the lever (killing the 5) if Cueball was the 1 person on the other track, for $1 of course. That way Cueball is put in a situation of moral contradiction: The utilitarian in him says save the 5 (sacrifice self), self interest says save yourself (thereby killing 5). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Randall had to make a choice between your scenario and Black Hat interrupting Cueball to emphasise BH's lack of care for the people on the track. As he chose the latter, BH didn't know there was a person on the second track, so couldn't have offered your scenario. -- [[User:Notso|Notso]] ([[User talk:Notso|talk]]) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good point, I hadn't noticed that BH was never aware of the single person. That makes BH an even less moral person than I'd realised! As far as he knows, he could save 5 lives with no consequences, but that means standing up.... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I think Randall made the morally correct choice there, don't you? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Thats the thing with morals, something is only 'morally correct' if I subscribe to your moral viewpoint. While not such a popular view, some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events, or some other reason). While most would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human, as you start changing the circumstances, it become difficult to stick to hard and fast rules. What about abortion of a foetus, abortion where a life-limiting condition is detected, use of condoms, the death penalty, euthanasia? I would really recommend anyone to run through some of the [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ Philosophy Experiments], it certainly made me examine my own morals, which previously I thought were well defined and logical. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::"''some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events''"
::::If you base morality on what choices are made, rather than what actions are taken, then '''failing''' to intervene, choosing not to take action, would be morally wrong. Basing morals on actions suggests someone could stand by and always do nothing and remain moral. A position I don't think anyone could seriously defend. But you're absolutely right that "morals" are never well defined or logical. An example can always be found to put someone's strong moral stance in an immoral position. --Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The majority of people will make a distinction between killing someone and letting someone die, even if that distinction isn't something they are conscious of. Of course the end result is the same, whether it is classed as killing or letting die. For those whose morals are guided by christianity for example, the ten commandments specifically states 'Thou shalt not kill', and your action of pulling the lever could be seen as killing the 1 person, whereas by not acting, or choosing not to act, you are 'merely' letting 5 people die. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Folks who make some kind of moral distinction between choosing to kill someone and choosing to let someone die are just trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. It's a self-righteous and self-serving. Masking that by claiming some religeous basis (God said "Thou shall not kill" so I'm, ''ahem'', just following orders.) doesn't change that.
::::::I'm not in any way suggesting it wouldn't be a wrenching and difficult decision to have to make. But someone claiming they can choose not to decide who lives and who dies (while in fact they are thereby actually making that decision) and therefore not have any responsibility for what happens as a consequence is simply lying.
::::::To perhaps more clearly show how choosing to "let" multiple people die isn't really OK morally, make it a large number of people. What if the train is headed toward 500 people? Most folks who might be OK with "letting" 5 die would balk well before the exchange rate got near 500:1. I realize this kind of contemplating "where do you draw the line" is what the trolley problem is designed to produce. Thanks for the discussion.--Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Very interesting discussion, all. A few points. First, some eastern philosophies ascribe moral culpability to one who intervenes; if, indeed, one intervenes to save the 5 by throwing the switch, one is responsible for the death of the other (and you also responsible for the subsequent actions of the 5 you saved.) Yes, this flies in the face of western values, but it is no less valid (echoing the "if you agree with my morals" sentiment.) Not right. Not wrong. Just different. Secondly, if it is morally wrong to sit by and do nothing, thus letting the 5 die, there is a bit of hypocracy there. By that reasoning, failing to give every dollar you have to feed the hungry (that would otherwise die for lack of food) would be equivalent of not throwing the switch. That is to say: for each dollar you have, you could do nothing and let 4 people die, or you could donate it and save them. That's not intended to be a screed for any viewpoint or dogma, only an observation that morals and values tend to shift with circumstances... Anyway, excellent stuff. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 06:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Its so refreshing to have this discussion with people who actually consider the variety of opposing viewpoints, rather than going "This is my view, and everything else is wrong." As far as changing the ratio of people on the tracks, my guess is that as the number of people saved goes up, the more people would feel it was morally right to change the lever. Along the lines of 70% of people would switch at 5:1, 85% at 50:1, 95% at 500:1 (Just my guesses). I would also guess that there are a certain percentage of people would not switch even with 5,000,000 on the first track. These people have their moral rule set in stone, even where others may not understand it. If you bring the ratio in the other direction, I wonder what would happen at 1:1? How many people would actively change the person who was killed? I would guess that people may well start using the word 'fate' to explain their decision... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::The curve would probably not be so perfectly asymptotic, as other influences (or releases of moral pressure) come to play. "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Of course, the choice of 5 million vs 1 via runaway track-based vehicle is going to be... contrived at best... perhaps the closest 'likely' equivalent would be an Armageddon/Deep Impact-type situation and influenced (in a typically cinematic way) by your emotional attachment to the one person your actions (setting off the "save the planet" mechanism) would end up killing instead. At some point, "everyone on Earth vs the one person might actually care about" might turn out to be a no-brainer in the (wrong?) direction. Perhaps sending two people (or a close-knit team) with no Earthly attachments on the potentially suicidal mission isn't ideal. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.247|141.101.98.247]] 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Hat first sells his hypothetical decision for $1, which can be seen as a cheap bargain for one's life; but how probable is this concrete situation with these exact persons to come true, except we are speaking of Black Hat here. $5 still is for a hypothetical, but more probable scenario given Black Hat's attitude; agreeing to pay would make Cueball open for further blackmailing in general and so be imprudent, but even for that counter-argument Black Hat has an even more expensive solution. Black Hat goes more and more meta and counters arguments bringing the concrete decision from hypothesis to reality and earning money on the way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Pudder

Or one can treat this like Captain Kirk did with the infamous "Kobayashi Maru" problem and cheat, and say that they would throw the lever after the lead wheels have cleared the switch. This would divert the trailing wheels onto the other track which would cause the trolley to derail and thus save all six.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:And kill everyone on board! Its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. To me its more interesting to examine and challenge the thought process involved in making a decision where the answer isn't necessarily 'correct'. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Nowhere does it say there are people on the trolley. You are assuming that there are. I am assuming the opposite — that it is a runaway and no one is aboard; otherwise someone would be able to apply the brakes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::My response was an off the cuff joke, it doesn't matter whether there are people on board, whether they would survive, whether they could pull the brakes on, if the brakes have failed, whether you could fire an orange portal in front of the 5 people and a blue one after them, etc etc etc. The importants part is the second half of my statement, that its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. Once you accept the hypothetical limits of the situation, that is where the interesting philosophical questions lie. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::The correct answer is to have a moral trolley company that trains its workers to OSHA rules; thus the correct answer would be to throw the lever to head towards the worker, confident that the worker has been trained to listen to the "singing of the rails" indicating an approaching vehicle and will jump out of the way. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::In the original problem, all 6 potential victims are bound and helpless and none of them are "workers". [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::If the trolley is a runaway trolley, then it's a good chance that all on board (if anyone) would die anyway, so may as well save all six people on the track. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.131|108.162.217.131]] 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The explanation is missing that Black Hat doesn't offer to press the lever for $1. He offers to promise to press the lever for $1. [[User:Hsdgsgh|Hsdgsgh]] ([[User talk:Hsdgsgh|talk]]) 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends - are any/all of those five people Hitler? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.48|108.162.215.48]] 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The tiered levels appear similar to kickstarter campaigns. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]]

The trolley problem continues: The trolley is under control, but heading towards a bend. If the driver brakes now, then the five people hidden round the corner will survive. You could certainly make the driver brake by pushing someone onto the track. If you would divert the trolley in the original scenario, would you also push a random stranger into the path of an oncoming train, and if not, why not. Does the more visceral act of pushing someone onto a track make this morally different? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:[http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default4.aspx The statistics] show that far fewer people will push the person onto the track than would change the lever. As you say, its far more visceral and personal to push someone than to flick a switch. {{unsigned|Pudder}}
:(Without checking that link, which probably contains the reasons why what follows is incorrect), my first thought is that if I'm in a position to push a person onto a track, I'm probably close enough to myself run onto (or at least close enough to) the track, waving my arms to alert the driver, perhaps at my own risk. Also, I was on a train that ran into a (small, recently felled) tree on the line, the other day. Not relevent, probably, but an interesting synchronicity to me. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.247|141.101.98.247]] 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Depending on the speed of the trolley and the steepness of the turn after the points, the trolley could derail anyway, saving the lives of all six but bringing a hastened demise to anyone on board. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.204|108.162.250.204]] 02:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Black Hat may also be attempting to solve such interruptions for the bargain price of a $1, by claiming he would pull the lever to save Cueball when really he just wants some future distractions to be in danger - namely Cueball". - I don't understand this line at all. Is anyone able to clarify? --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The comic strip "Cow and Boy" once posed this question, and I cannot find fault with Cow's answer - Cow stated that no, you should not pull the lever, because "why punish the only person smart enough to avoid an oncoming train?" --Andrew Williams, 6 December 2014

1442: Chemistry

2014-11-07T18:07:38Z

141.101.98.158: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1442
| date = November 3, 2014
| title = Chemistry
| image = chemistry.png
| titletext = These are all sans-serif compounds. Serif compounds are dramatically different and usually much more reactive.
}}

==Explanation==
Chemical bonding is a well-known subject which explains the formation of {{w|molecule}}s from {{w|atom}}s. This comic refers to three {{w|chemical element}}s: Carbon (C), Hydrogen (H), and Oxygen (O). In real chemistry, the formation of bonds between atoms depends on the number of valence electrons each atom has, and how accessible those electrons are for bonding. The comic jokingly replaces valence electron theory with a theory that the number of bonds an atom can form depends on the number of {{w|Leaf vertex|leaf vertices}} possessed by the chemical symbol's letter. A leaf vertex is a vertex having only one edge connecting to one other vertex. "H" for example, the chemical symbol of Hydrogen, has 4 leaf vertices. This is shown in the comic by the four half-circles placed at each leaf vertex of the "H". Thus, in the comic's theory, elemental hydrogen can form 4 bonds. Oxygen, however, having the chemical symbol "O", has no leaf vertices, and according to the comic's theory should not bond to anything, and is therefore inert.

Of course, the theory is completely inconsistent with observed chemistry. While the comic declares oxygen is inert and forms no bonds, this is not really the case: the two unpaired valence electrons in a lone oxygen atom makes oxygen reactive, and oxygen readily form molecules. Diatomic oxygen, O2, makes up about 20.9% of Earth's atmosphere, and is essential for aerobic life, including human life. Similarly, a water molecule consists of an oxygen atom tightly bonded to two hydrogen atoms.

By observing real chemical compounds, chemists have deduced that hydrogen atoms really have 1 valence electron, carbon 4 and oxygen 6, allowing Hydrogen to have up to 1 bond, carbon up to 4, and oxygen up to 2. Thus it is Carbon which can have up to four bonds, and really is {{w|graphite|often found}} in {{w|diamond|crystalline form}} in nature (e.g., diamonds, coal); Oxygen which can have up to 2 bonds, and can combine with Carbon to form CO2 (instead of C2H in the comic). We can see here that [[Randall]] is giving "typographic" Hydrogen real-life Carbon qualities, since "typographic" hydrogen can have 4 bonds, just like real-life carbon. The same goes for giving "typographic" Carbon real-life oxygen qualities, etc. "Typographic" oxygen simply takes on the properties of the real-life noble gases in the comic (Helium, etc.), which form no bonds and are inert, just like "typographic" Oxygen is in the comic.

While the compound "ethynyl radical" with structure ∙C≡C-H has the formula C2H, there is no molecule with the C-H-C structure in nature. The word "mydrane" is a whimsical neologism for this fictional substance: the "hydr-" prefix for hydrogen is changed to "mydr-" (a prefix which does not exist) and combined to the "-ane" suffix for alkanes (simple H-C structures). Maybe Randall has named this compound "Mydrane" to declare ownership of it ("My-" as in "mine").

The title text points out that the theory as presented only applies to sans-serif text. A {{w|serif}} is a small line across the end of each stroke. "H", for instance, has four serifs, each with two leaf vertices. Thus hydrogen in a serif font would be able to form 8 bonds making it, according to the comic's theory, "more reactive". This would be the case with real atoms that have fewer than four valence electrons, as they would have more space for bonds to other atoms.

==Transcript==
:[The symbol for Hydrogen.]
:Hydrogen can form four bonds. It readily bonds with itself, and often exists as a crystal.
:[A diagram with several 'H's is shown. The 'H's are connected in a pattern like a crystal.]
:Crystalline Hydrogen

:[The symbol for Carbon.]
:Carbon can only form two bonds. It readily bonds with Hydrogen to form C2H (Mydrane) or itself.
:[Two diagrams, one with two 'C's connected together and the other with two 'C's and one 'H' connected.]

:[The symbol for Oxygen.]
:Oxygen is inert, forming no bonds...
:[A diagram of several 'O's is shown. None are connected to anything.]
:Monoatomic Oxygen gas.

:Typographic Chemistry

{{comic discussion}}