explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3089: Modern

2025-05-14T22:23:57Z

141.101.99.129:

Hate to be that guy, but wow, it’s empty [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This strip reminded me of the comments in [[3063]]. Historians / historiographers typically define (early) "modernity" to begin around 1500. {{w|early modernity}} [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.126|172.71.182.126]] 19:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

A similar problem exists, where a recent version of the Bible is known as the New Revised Standard Version. It will be a bit awkward when it is not new, revised, or standard. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 19:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:The US Military has a similar problem: naming a system "Next-Gen [X]" but then the "Next Gen" item eventually becomes the current generation, and is eventually moving towards being obsolete and you need a successor (next-next gen?).[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.111|172.69.6.111]] 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::I guess the phone companies got it right with the 3G, 4G, 5G naming. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Except for that {{w|10G}} glitch. And Dilbert predicted people copyrighting "8G" years before that. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.172.75|104.23.172.75]] 20:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::There is a (not ''always'' consistent) "nth generation" classification system that is quite developed. The F-22 Raptor is a 5th Generation fighter, for example, with the (next-)next-gen ones being designed for the next decade being 6th. Though, yes, "Next Gen" still pops up (currently the programs I know of are ''mostly'' aimed at the solutions for #6, of course). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.129|141.101.99.129]] 22:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't there an earlier strip describing a similar problem on Wikipedia edits, maybe tied to the {{w|recency bias}}? There's the idea that every more recent slice needs a new, relevant name. It also seems to work going backwards, where humanity's genus, tribe, subfamily, and family are "homo", "hominini", "homininae", and "hominidae" respectively. We seem to crave a name for every arbitrary slice that is relevant for a particular researcher. And now I'm thinking of Futurama's "New New York". I'm surprised there's not already a New New York somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.117|162.158.233.117]] 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:Eventually, there'll be a [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/New_New_York New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New York]...
:Anyway, I actually live not far from a(nother) {{w|New York#United Kingdom|New York}}, and am also a regular visitor to (old) York. So I may not have been to New York, New York, on my travels, but I've got it covered on both sides. (I ''have'' been to both new Boston ''and'' the old one, but only been to the old Washington, both the original Richmond and its first copycat (but none of the US copycopyⁿcats), etc.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.175|162.158.216.175]] 22:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::Hmmm. I've a suspicion I know who you are.
::I'm gonna say...you ain't heavy? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

3084: Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object

2025-05-04T17:38:57Z

141.101.99.129: Undo revision 376314 by 172.69.34.106 (talk)

{{comic
| number = 3084
| date = May 2, 2025
| title = Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object
| image = unstoppable_force_and_immovable_object_2x.png
| imagesize = 297x379px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Unstoppable force-carrying particles can't interact with immovable matter by definition.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by an INFINITE MASS, MOST COMMONLY KNOWN AS "YOUR MOM". Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
An "unstoppable force meeting an immovable object" is a common expression when two things with mutually exclusive properties are forced to interact.

In the comic this is depicted with three drawings, first showing an arrow representing an unstoppable force moving toward an object that is immovable. In the next drawing they meet and the force arrow enters the object. In the final drawing the force arrow is moving past the object that has, of course, not been moved. But the force has also not been stopped. In the caption below [[Randall]] states that he cannot understand why people find this scenario to be tricky.

Most of the time, the expression is just that, an expression, one that is meant to convey there will be a lot of destruction when the two things meet. Sometimes it is a euphemism for more complex things such as people or ideologies (who have contradictory goals and are unwilling or unable to compromise), other times it's an exaggeration for large and powerful forces that are not literally unstoppable but still cause massive damage when they run into each other.

Randall proposes a solution to the paradox: the unstoppable force will not actually interact with the immovable object; the unstoppable force is not stopped and the immovable object is not moved.

An example explanation of this situation is described in a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eKc5kgPVrA video] by {{w|Minute Physics}}. This comic could actually be said to show what is shown in the video.

Randalls comic makes a play on the word "force" which has different interpretations depending on context. In casual language, an object can be a "force" if it carries enough energy, while to a physicist like Randall it describes a fundamental influence between particles of matter, and not all forces interact with all types of matter, nor ''can'' they be stopped (only depleted, by interaction and dispersion over their effective distance). The humor derives from the differences between the lay-impressions of the scenario and a more technical interpretation, in line with prior [[123: Centrifugal Force|informative comics]] of this ilk.

In the title text Randall makes it clear that unstoppable force-carrying particles do not interact with immovable matter by definition. Thus each of these "impossible" concepts can exist, but since they can never interact, the problem of what will happen when they do, is thus not relevant. In quantum physics all forces are mediated by force-carrying particles, but this is not usually something that is relevant to take into account, when macroscopic objects interact.

==Transcript==
:[In one panel there are three drawings representing the same scenario at three different times. In the first drawing shows a right-pointing arrow ti the left, and a rounded trapezium-like object to the right of the centre. They are both labeled with a line going from the label above down to the objects:]
:Unstoppable Force
:Immovable Object

:[In the second drawing the arrow is shown in the process of moving through the trapezoid, the part of the arrow within the trapezoid is drawn in gray lines.]

:[In the third drawing the arrow is to the right of the trapezoid.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I don't see why people find this scenario to be tricky.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:381: Mobius Battle

2025-04-29T10:46:44Z

141.101.99.129:

The gif should alternate left/right in order to properly portray the battle. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 06:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

: Look again, it does already! --[[Special:Contributions/83.243.48.2|83.243.48.2]] 08:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, there's only one guy. He passes through the comic twice for every one time the ball passes through. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.167|199.27.128.167]] 20:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
:Agreed. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::I wanted to critique you for bringing up a thread that was 11 years ago, but decided that comic [[2363|2363: Message Boards]] would be a perfect substitute. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.108|162.158.158.108]] 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The explanation says "[the projectionist] would have no way to feed a Mobius strip film reel properly into a normal projector." That depends on how you define "normal". I just tried this on my grandfather's 16mm cine (film) and it worked fine. I cut ~300 frames from the start of a movie, twisted 180°, and spliced. Since my projector loads from the side it went in no problem and I used empty takeup reels to hold the loops. This wouldn't work on 8mm, though, cause the holes are only on one side. Can't speak to 35mm or IMAX film; I suspect not, because they have soundtracks, but I don't know for sure. Oh, I just thought of something to try with my 16mm loop; if I cut it in half lengthwise I should have a 600 half-frame 8mm loop, right? I'm not gonna try 'cause I don't have any way to cut down the middle in an exact enough way but that would be cool to try. Oh, and isn't it spelt Möbius? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.213|173.245.54.213]] 03:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[[Template:Kick]] was DELETED!!!!!!!! {{unsigned|Translated ORK|09:58, 29 April 2025}}
:Whether or not it was, [[Template:kick]] is still very much there... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.129|141.101.99.129]] 10:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

1681: Laser Products

2023-03-02T20:04:25Z

141.101.99.129: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1681
| date = May 16, 2016
| title = Laser Products
| image = laser_products.png
| titletext = ERRORS: HAIR JAM. COLOR-SAFE CONDITIONER CARTRIDGE RUNNING LOW. LEGAL-SIZE HAIR TRAY EMPTY, USING LETTER-SIZE HAIR ONLY.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic takes three {{w|laser|laser-based}} technologies - laser eye surgery, laserjet printers, and laser hair removal - and conflates them, with humorous results. These are illustrated through reviews by users of the resulting combinations. For the original combinations, the reviews are highly positive. For the new combinations, most are negative, because most of these new "technologies" are ill-conceived and possibly harmful.

'''{{w|Laser eye surgery}}''' gets a positive review, since it has successfully corrected the reviewer's vision, so that they no longer require glasses. There are a range of laser eye surgeries to correct near- and far-sightedness, as well as various other conditions. {{w|LASIK}}, one of the more common laser eye surgeries, works by using lasers to cut open the cornea and ablate a small amount of the lens.

'''Laser eye removal''' would be very painful, and thus the review is negative, stating that the reviewer had read the description incorrectly, likely believing it to be one of the real combinations on the chart. The screams of pain expressed in the review have the humorous implication that the review is being typed directly after the ill-advised procedure, though this may just be an after-the-fact expression of the reviewer's feelings. If they produced the review without aid, this would probably have been made more difficult as a result of the surgery. At least in animal surgery, however, laser eye removal [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smK0NYUtoqk does exist](WARNING: EXPLICIT/GRAPHIC CONTENT).

'''Laser eye printer''' refers to printing on (or possibly ''of'') an eyeball, which only prompts a disgusted "Eww" response. Both probably can find their applications, either in adding images onto ones eyes or creating artificial eyes for implantation, but would probably be quite disgusting to operate for many people.

'''Laser jet surgery''' could be performing maintenance on a jet with lasers, which would be potentially dangerous and error-prone{{Citation needed}}. Alternatively, it could mean laser surgery done on a human from a jet aircraft, using a laser mounted to it. The human being operated on could be aboard that aircraft, on another aircraft, or on land: in any case, it does not sound like a safe approach. Another interpretation is that it could refer to surgery using a jet made of lasers, which is even worse, as it would probably cause the entire body to be disintegrated.{{Citation needed}} Yet another interpretation is that the procedure would implant parts of a jet into one's body. The statement's ambiguity may contribute the reviewer's concern, or the reviewer could be nervous over the fact that it would be a very difficult and delicate procedure and trying it could easily go horribly wrong.

'''Laser jet removal''' appears to be the destruction of jets with lasers, which apparently works, but angered the Federal Aviation Administration, and probably resulted in legal consequences for the reviewer. This could be a reference to [https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/lasers/ the real FAA concern] of the many incidents of [http://www.laserpointersafety.com/laser-hazards_aircraft/laser-hazards_aircraft.html people using laser pointers] against aircraft. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Weapon_System "Laser Jet Removal"] actually exists as a military weapon system, though it's primarily meant to be used against jet ''missiles'', rather than jet planes.

'''LaserJet printer''' is a popular {{w|HP LaserJet|line of Hewlett Packard laser printers}}. {{w|Laser printing}} is a technology which uses a laser to electrically charge a drum so that it collects ink in the form of the image to be printed, before transferring it to paper. The printer seems to work well for the reviewer, as it has been given a positive review.

'''Laser hair surgery''' turns out to be a fancy name for cutting hair with a laser -- an overengineered, and potentially dangerous, technique for achieving the same results that you could with clippers and scissors. It is rated neutrally, since it did the job, but the reviewer found the name confusing and they disliked the smell of burning hair.

'''Laser hair removal''' is the {{w|laser hair removal|process}} of destroying hair follicles with bursts of laser light to prevent the growth of unwanted hair. This appears to have been effective for the reviewer.

'''Laser hair printer''' appears to be a bizarre printer that uses hair in place of paper, or perhaps as the construction material for a {{w|3D printing|3D printer}}. Unsurprisingly{{Citation needed}}, this just creates disgusting messes of hair and keeps jamming the printer, resulting in a negative review. The title text extends this joke, giving some common printer error messages amended for the hair printer. A paper jam is when paper gets stuck in the workings of the printer, usually because it was creased, or more than one sheet fed in at once; in the hair printer this becomes a hair jam. An inkjet printer requires replaceable ink cartridges, and when the ink is used up this will usually result in an ink cartridge running low error; the hair printer appears to require cartridges of {{w|hair conditioner}}. As an additional twist, it uses color-safe conditioner, a product intended to prevent the washing out of dye from the users hair; here, it presumably protects the color of the printed image or item. Legal and Letter are {{w|Paper_size#North_American_paper_sizes|paper sizes}} used in North America; apparently, the same terms are used for standard supplies of hair for the hair printer.

Laser eye removal has been mentioned before, see the lower right part of the [[1619: Watson Medical Algorithm]] chart.

==Transcript==
:[Heading above the table:]
:Online Reviews of Laser Products

:[A three by three table with one word to the far left, from which three lines split out and goes to three words just left of each of the three rows. Above each column is three other words. Below in the table are nine reviews with star rating on a five star scale. The actual rating is indicated with black stars and also use half filled stars in the rating system. The ratings are written in the table in square brackets.]
:{| class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|
! ...surgery
! ...removal
! ...printer
|-
!rowspan="3"|Laser
! eye...
| [4 1/2 stars] "I don't need glasses anymore!" || [1/2 star] "Aaaaaaa! Misread the description! Aaaaaaaaaaaa!!" || [1 star] "Eww." 
|-
! jet...
| [1 1/2 stars] "Too nervous to try it." || [2 1/2 stars] "Effective, but the FAA got ''really'' mad." || [4 stars] "Prints great!" 
|-
! hair...
| [2 1/2 stars] "Confusing term for haircut. Burning smell." || [4 stars] "Great results!" || [1/2 star] "Disgusting, won't turn off, jams constantly." 
|-
|}

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

Talk:1338: Land Mammals

2014-03-05T20:48:37Z

141.101.99.129: /* Stab at the numbers */

Is it mass or weight? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.119|173.245.53.119]] 06:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:It says weight. Since most land animals live on the... land, there is not much difference. I suppose if a lot of aninimals lived near a [https://xkcd.com/852/ prime pole vaulting location] it could skew the results. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 06:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really curious, what are the other, unlabeled groupings? [http://vaclavsmil.com/the-earths-biosphere-evolution-dynamics-and-change/ Author's website] {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.46}}

<pre>
On page 186 of Smil's referenced book, there is a bar chart with the following values in millions of tons (*=not used in Randall's graphic):
elephants 0.8
horses 40
pigs 100
cattle 450
people 280
*whales 80
*all wild vertebrates 30
*all domesticated vertebrates 650
</pre> {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.46}}

I think that this graph is actually more illustrative of how much support humans need to maintain themselves (the amount of cattle is astonishing). [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:''need''? I don't think we ''need'' so much cattle. It's just that most people prefer hamburgers and steaks to beans. So, how much we ''use'' to maintain ourselves would be better. (BTW, you don't count yourself as human?) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:According to [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201209/how-many-dogs-are-there-in-the-world] there are 525 million dogs, assuming 20 kg as average weight, this should give 10 squares in the diagram. I can't find reliable numbers for cats, but there are more cats than dogs, but they don't weigh as much, so their total weight could be similar to that of the dogs. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.160|108.162.254.160]] 08:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The blob of 13 under the word Livestock may very well represent both dogs and cats. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.46}}

Does anybody see a reason for the particular layout of the blocks? My first impression was a globe but obviously it doesn't correspond to any continents, etc. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.66|108.162.254.66]] 08:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
: I've been wondering myself... I do think it is a picture of something. My ideas so far: an eye, a fried egg, a cell. --[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 09:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

::It may simply be something-like-a-circle of humans with the rest surrounding it. But it DOES look like a cell. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:: Could it be a sort of relationship diagram? It looks like we're in the centre, with the animals we have the closest relationships with — our pets and our food — nearest, and those we're less concerned with further away. [[User:Gidds|Gidds]] ([[User talk:Gidds|talk]]) 11:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yes, the overall layout is human-centric, but that doesn't explain the intentionally lumpy and asymmetric regions. It would have been easier to place the blocks in regular shapes (circular, rectangular or otherwise) but Randall chose to do it this way. Cell with a nucleus is a reasonable guess. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 14:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I think it resembles a (low resolution) globe, with humanity representing the major continent [[User:Boxy|Boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]]) 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

::::I think it shows the relationship of the title text (assuming we are part of land mammals): there are about 1.2K squares in total representing a factor of 1K:1 overall. Thus the shape (resembling bacterium) is explained, the incorporation of all mammals into the shape, and the potential central location of humans (assuming most bacteria lives in our gut). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.31|108.162.219.31]] 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would love to identify specific groups. The unlabelled animals come in groups, even the wild animals, even though only *one* of those groups (elephants for some reason) has been labelled. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:Reason for elephant label == "This is how much/little the whole population of the largest land mammals amass to."? (Actually, given the scarcity of elephants, I'm surprised it's a full block. I suspect something else that could have been labelledsuch as "rats" would be far more.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.7|141.101.99.7]] 14:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the wikipeda page[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#Distribution_and_numbers] on camels I expect that they are the blob of 3 gray squares. [[User:Mwiser|Mwiser]] ([[User talk:Mwiser|talk]])

Non [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_SI_definitions SI] units should just die [http://xkcd.com/526/ already]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.8|108.162.241.8]] 20:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

;Stab at the numbers
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="width: auto; text-align: center; font-size: 95%; table-layout: fixed; line-height:1.25"
|-
! Land Mammal
! population in Billions
! Average Kilograms
! Total Kilograms in Billions
! xkcd value
! Notes
|-
! Humans
| 7.2
| 70
| {{sort|00504|504}}
| 556
| as of 2013
|-
! Cattle
| 1
| 1740
| {{sort|01740|1740}}
| 1918
| as of 2012
|-
! Pigs
| 1
| 350
| {{sort|00350|350}}
| 386
|
|-
! Chickens
| 19
| 1
| {{sort|00019|19}}
| 21
| not mammals
|-
! Goats
| 0.865
| 46
| {{sort|00039.7|39.7}}
|
| as of 2008... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat#Worldwide_goat_population_statistics src]
|-
! Sheep
| 1
| 80
| {{sort|00080|80}}
| 88
|
|-
! Elephants
| 0.000105670
| 5000
| {{sort|00000.5|0.5}}
|
| as of 2012 [http://www.elephantdatabase.org/preview_report/2013_africa/Loxodonta_africana/2012/Africa src]
|-
! Horses
| 0.058372106
| 500
| {{sort|00029|29}}
|
| as of 2006 [http://horsetalk.co.nz/2007/09/12/world-horse-population-58m/#axzz2v7dtQwJK src]
|-
! Rats
| 10
| 0.35
| {{sort|00003.5|3.5}}
| 4
| 10B is a guess
|-
! Cats
| 0.6
| 5
| {{sort|00003|3}}
| 3
|
|-
! Dogs
| 0.4
| 40
| {{sort|00016|16}}
|
|
|-
! Seal
| 0.022
| 200
| {{sort|00004.4|4.4}}
| 5
| not a land mammal
|-
! Krill
|
|
| {{sort|00175|175-725}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_krill#Biomass_and_production]
| 175-725
| Wild species with largest biomass
|}
* 1 billion kg == 1 million tons [https://www.google.ca/search?q=convert:+1+kg+to+metric+tons src]
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heaviest_land_mammals
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_mammals_by_population
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.8|108.162.241.8]] 16:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:uhh.... chickens aren't... mammals? (?) [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 17:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)