explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1475: Technically

2018-07-04T23:30:59Z

162.158.142.70: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1475
| date = January 19, 2015
| title = Technically
| image = technically.png
| titletext = "Technically that sentence started with 'well', so--" "Ooh, a rock with a fossil in it!"
}}

==Explanation==
When the word "technically" is used to start a sentence, the remainder of the sentence tends to follow one of a number of patterns:

{| class="wikitable"
! Sentence pattern
! Example
|-
| An explanation which is far more complex than the listener needs/wants.
| "Technically, a {{w|Hemiptera|bug}} is a very specific order of insects, including aphids, cicadas..."
|-
| A justification of a particular (usually unpopular) viewpoint through an unusual technical definition.
| "Technically a tomato is a fruit, so there is no reason it shouldn't be used in a fruit salad."
|-
| A pedantic overapplication of rules or laws, often to avoid the inquiry through a technical and usually unrelated loophole.
| [http://factually.gizmodo.com/technically-american-flag-napkins-are-illegal-1599774198 "Technically, American flag napkins are illegal."]
|-
| The speaker repeating a 'little known fact', believing that he/she sounds incredibly knowledgeable. In many cases these 'facts' are actually false, as in the example to the right (see {{w|Ten_percent_of_brain_myth|the 10% of the brain myth}}).
| "Technically we only use 10% of our brains, so imagine what we could do if we used 100%"!
|-
| An attempt to disguise an outright lie as a simple misunderstanding in point of view.
| "Technically, we're not cows. We're aardvarks."
|}

[[Cueball]], possibly representing [[Randall]] has decided that any sentence beginning with the word "technically" is highly likely to be completely worthless for him to listen to; so whenever he hears it at the beginning of a sentence, he allows himself to be distracted by anything which happens to be around.

There are many cases where an item is classified in what appears to be an illogical way. Some fairly well known examples are 'Tomatoes are a fruit', 'Whales are not fish', 'Peanuts are not nuts' and so on. The reasoning behind these seemingly unusual classifications is typically down to the technical definition of the class, which may differ from the intuitive understanding that the general public have learned. It is not unusual for people to try and appear knowledgeable by demonstrating that they are aware of correct technical classifications.

[[White Hat]] starts to pedantically answer the typically incredulous rhetorical question “Are you on drugs?!” by explaining that according to the technical definition, food is classed as a drug. This classification is false due to his incorrect interpretation of the word "drug" and lack of understanding of the role of food in human physiology, and would fall under the fourth example in the chart above. Indeed, "drug" is defined as "a substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom, or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose", followed by a secondary definition of "a psychoactive substance, especially one which is illegal and addictive". Food, on the other hand, is defined as "any substance that can be consumed by living organisms, especially by eating, in order to sustain life". In other words, food is consumed in order to sustain the normal, innate state of the body, while drugs are consumed in order to alter certain states. The Wikipedia {{w|drug|article}} for drug goes so far as to explicitly disqualify food from the definition of “drug.”

Regardless of whether or not the classification was valid, Cueball has already allowed himself to be distracted by a passing bug.

The title text starts to pedantically over-apply Cueball's rule to the comic panel, noting that technically White Hat's sentence started with the word 'well' instead of the word 'technically', and thus Cueball is wrong to have ignored it. This would fall under the second or third example in the chart. Halfway through the sentence, this argument is cut off by the discovery of a rock with a fossil in it, correctly applying the rule to a sentence that began with the word "technically".

==Transcript==
:[White Hat talks to Cueball who looks at a flying insect.]
:White Hat: Well, technically, food is a "drug", since it's a substance that alters how your body works, so yes, I'm—
:Cueball: Hey, look at that weird bug!

:My life improved when I realized I could just ignore any sentence that started with "technically."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Food]]

Talk:1967: Violin Plots

2018-03-15T18:29:34Z

162.158.142.70:

Wow, a new low for Randall. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.70|198.41.238.70]] 10:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
:For someone from the other side of the globe this looks like a new high... (posted after I could stop laughing)[[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.10|172.68.51.10]] 11:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
::Yes it has been way too long since he last made one of these :D See for instance [[136: Science Fair]], and of course alle these categories: [[:Category:Penis|Penis]], [[:Category:Fleshlights|Fleshlights]] and generally just [[:Category:Sex|Sex]].--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
:So you're saying... Randall went down on this one? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.121|162.158.154.121]] 02:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Wonder if Friday's comic (or maybe already a tomorrow Thursday release) will be about the as of today late {{w|Stephen Hawking}}? I hope so considering Randall's earlier [[:Category:Tribute|Tributes]]. Just got a Facebook reminder yesterday that it was three years ago the he posted this comic (and I posted it on Facebook): [[1498: Terry Pratchett]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
:I thought Wednesday's comic would be the tribute... Wonder what Friday's comic will be like. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
::He {{w|Stephen_Hawking#Death|died early Wednesday morning in the UK}}, so he would have had to be quick about it. I think he has a script that automatically post a comic, if he doesn't stop it. I'm in UK+1 time zone (Europe) and [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1967:_Violin_Plots&action=history here] I can see that the comic was released no later than 05:25, 14 March 2018‎, so that is probably before Stephen died... Or at least while Randall was sleeping and had not heard of his death... Still waiting to see... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it a coincidence that the Pi day comic refers to Pie Charts? Probably [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 14:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
:Maybe, but Randall is acutely aware of anything Pi... Just saw that a video on this topic: [[1292: Pi vs. Tau]] was released yesterday on pi-day and that it referred to the Pi vs. Tau comic with an image of it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcPTiiiYDs8 How pi was almost 6.283185...] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the interpretation of the title text. However, I wonder if we should point out this is not in fact true about violin plots and is just a pun in the comic. What does everyone else think? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 11:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The "incomplete" tag mentions that there isn't anything on Wikipedia called a "line plot". However, line plots do in fact exist. However, they don't seem to have any correspondence to the type of chart on display. https://www.mathplanet.com/education/algebra-2/equations-and-inequalities/line-plots-and-stem-and-leaf-plots [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.70|162.158.142.70]] 18:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

1948: Campaign Fundraising Emails

2018-02-04T00:12:24Z

162.158.142.70: /* The emails */

{{comic
| number = 1948
| date = January 29, 2018
| title = Campaign Fundraising Emails
| image = campaign_fundraising_emails.png
| titletext = The establishment doesn't take us seriously. You know who else they didn't take seriously? Hitler. I'll be like him, but a GOOD guy instead of...
}}

==Explanation==

Many politicians and organizations in the United States have taken to using aggressive fundraising campaigns by email to seek campaign contributions. Signing a petition or expressing interest in a cause can lead to being added to a myriad of mailing lists for similar groups, all looking for support. This comic shows a caricature of the kind of inbox that can result from this. The emails get more and more absurd as the list goes on. For example, the last one combines a request for campaign contributions with the infamous Nigerian Prince phishing scheme.

==The emails==

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
! E-mail Body !! Explanation
|-
|'''Donate now.''' It's crunch time, and we're low on cash. If you chip in just $5 by midnight, we...
|This is the classic formula, and may be a real example. It is always "crunch time" during a campaign (at least between filing for candidacy and election day), and campaigns are always "low" on cash relative to the unlimited funding they would prefer. The ends of financial reporting periods, often at midnight, are conflated with "deadlines" of significant consequence. Further, the donation requested is less about the actual money - even if $5 each from several thousand voters can add up - but to get a donor to have their money placed on a candidate, making it more likely that donor will vote for the candidate (via encouraging {{w|Sunk cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy|the "sunk cost" fallacy}}).
|-
|'''Donate $35.57 now!''' Our data team has determined that we should ask you for $35.57 to optimize the...
|While fundraisers will try and work out how to gain as much money as possible, they would never explain this to their supporters. Such a precise amount would come about as a result of running the numbers through a computer simulation, and the obvious lack of humanity behind the calculated dollar amount would probably be offputting to a lot of would-be supporters.
|-
|'''Help.''' Our campaign made some mistakes and we need a lot of money ASAP. Any kind, but cash is...
|This email is honest about the campaign's incompetence, but is not likely to get much sympathy except from those already sympathetic to the candidate. Any campaign reduced to this level has probably already lost, though. The reference to "cash" lacks sufficient context to be clear; if the full message requests that recipients send cash that would raise several red flags (suggesting that the campaign's finances are in such disarray that it cannot process checks, credit cards, etc in a timely manner, and raising concerns that cash could be stolen or otherwise diverted more readily than other forms of payment).
|-
|'''Washington is broken.''' When I win, I'll look those other senators in the eye and tell them: "Jobs." Then I...
|This may be another real example. This appeal to emotion promises specific action that is unlikely to accomplish much, and is probably unlikely to happen even if the candidate wins, while suggesting the candidate vaguely cares about issues of importance to most voters, as measured by the polls, but may not be genuine or fulfilled. The mere statement of "jobs" as a meaningful political point is patently ridiculous, especially since no context or intent is provided with it.
|-
|'''Hopeless.''' It's bad. Really bad. If you don't chip in now, the darkness spreading across the land will...
|This is a favorite of moral campaigns, on both sides of a debate. Grand statements about evil and corruption taking over the country if the campaign does not get enough support are common, but they are extremely biased and dramatic.
|-
|As the first woman to fly a fighter jet through our state's formerly all-male university, I learned...
|Normally one would be the first ''from'' a university to do something, not the first to achieve something involving the university itself. Flying a plane through a university is risky at the very least, and depending on the definition of "through" here, could imply destruction of buildings or the plane itself, which might paint the candidate in an irresponsible light. May also refer to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_McGrath 2017 viral Congressional campaign ad] of Amy McGrath, the first female marine to fly F-18's in combat.
|-
|'''We're broke.''' No paid staff. No ads. And the cafe has told us to stop using their wifi to send fundraising...
| This campaign tactic attempts to appeal to the reader's sympathy by describing financial struggles and poverty, but said tactics may instead make the movement look pathetic and poorly-organized, especially because the group is apparently so poor, they can't continue sending emails to ask for funding.
|-
|When Amy decided to run for Congress, I was like "Huh?" but I checked Wikipedia, and apparently it's a branch of...
|The reader would expect that the writer expressed surprise because they weren't expecting Amy to run for Congress, but the actual reason is because they didn't know what Congress was. If the aim is indeed fundraising, as the comic's title would imply, this message is very likely to give very poor results. While the familiar tone could be a communication strategy (although you might want to look serious and professional when asking for money), the author openly states not knowing what the campaign was about until recently, which would make potential donors doubt that their money would be put to good use.
|-
|-
|'''Are you familiar''' with the Dutch painter Hieronymous Bosch? His work illustrates my opponent's plan for...
|The works of {{w|Hieronymus Bosch}} are famous for depictions of {{w|Hell}} and {{w|Limbo}} as brutal places of highly imaginative torments, which the sender implies would be similar to the country under the opponent's plan.
|-
|Being a single mom running a small business while going to law school while being deployed to Iraq taught me...
|Each of these are typical "inspiring" stories for someone to bring up once they reach success, to show how they have persevered and come out on top, but it is extremely unlikely that all of these responsibilities and hardships would be burdening one person at the same time, and said person surviving all of these is even less likely.
|-
|-
|'''I will lead the fight''' against the big banks, special interests, the Earth's climate, and our children. I...
|A promise that starts with more normal and relatable issues, but then moves to the controversial topic of climate change (with the implication that damaging the climate is the goal), and the universally ridiculous idea that children are an issue that needs to be contained. The fight "against our children" may be a reference to a popular {{w|Bushism}}.
|-
|'''Wow.''' Have you seen this video of the squirrel obstacle course? Incredible! Anyway, I'm running because I...
|A typical form of {{w|clickbait}}. (Don't read another table entry until you've followed that link! Reference #10 will shock you.)
|-
|'''Outrageous.''' Granted, this was a few years ago, but did you hear what President Ford said about...
|When a politician makes an offensive comment, it's common for the politician's opponents to send out fundraising emails pointing out the politician's offensiveness as a reason to give money to an opponent. Here, the sender's reaction and e-mail fundraising effort appears to be unusually delayed, as it refers to an alleged comment by {{w|Gerald Ford}}, whose term as President of the United States ended in 1977 and who died in 2006.
|-
|'''Whoops.''' Due to a typo, we spent months running attack ads against Tom Hanks. Now, we need to make up for...
|The email apologises for running months of attack ads against American actor {{w|Tom Hanks}}. Hanks is generally a popular and uncontroversial figure with a reputation for being nice and likable in person{{Citation needed}}, making him an unusual target for attack ads. This implies that the sender does not even know who their opponent is, and has mistakenly targeted the wrong person, demonstrating some significant ignorance and incompetence.
|-
|'''They say we can't win-''' that we're "underdogs" with "no money" who "lost the election last week." But they don't...
|May refer to {{w|Roy Moore#U.S._Senate_special_election_campaign|Roy Moore's attempts to overturn his loss in the December 2017 election for one of Alabama's US Senate seat}}, which came about a month before this comic and made national headlines. After the initial election count had him losing, he demanded a recount. That initial count said he had lost by a large enough margin that Alabama law required him to pay up front for a recount, and his campaign did not have enough funds available.
|-
|'''Our campaign's only chance''' is to seduce Jennifer ActBlue, heir to the ActBlue fortune. For that, we need a fancy...
|This e-mail alludes to [https://secure.actblue.com/ ActBlue], a political action committee that collects donations online for Democratic candidates. In reality, there is no ActBlue family nor any "Jennifer ActBlue" who is the heir to its fortune; the name ActBlue comes from the words "act" and "blue", referring to the {{w|Red states and blue states|color currently associated with the Democratic Party}}.
|-
|'''Doom.''' Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed, like rain on...
|This is an excerpt from {{w|J. R. R. Tolkien|Tolkien's}} poem ''[http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Lament_for_the_Rohirrim Lament of the Rohirrim,]'' appearing in ''{{w|The Two Towers}}'': 
Where now the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? 
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing? 
Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing? 
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing? 
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow; 
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. 
Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning, 
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?
|-
|'''Warmest greetings.''' I am the crown prince of Nigeria. I am running for Congress because I believe that...
|The opening line is designed to sound like spam for an {{W | Advance-fee scam}}. These scams typically involve impersonating someone rich, often a Nigerian prince, who claims to be in trouble and promises to share a large sum of money if the victim helps him by sending a small fee in advance electronically. However, the second sentence of this email switches to sounding like a political fundraising email instead of an outright scam. This is either to establish a degrading comparison between flagrant scams and fundraising emails, or just to create a bait-and-switch joke.
|-
|The establishment doesn't take us seriously. You know who else they didn't take seriously? Hitler. I'll be like him, but a GOOD guy instead of... (title text)
|A candidate who compares himself to {{w|Hitler}}, even when promising to be GOOD instead, will probably not get many votes. The title text does however conform to {{w|Godwin's law}}.
|}

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

[An e-mail inbox window is displayed. On each line appears an illegible e-mail address and a checkbox.]

'''Donate now.''' It's crunch time, and we're low on cash. If you chip in just $5 by midnight, we... 
'''Donate $35.57 now!''' Our data team has determined that we should ask you for $35.57 to optimize the... 
'''Help.''' Our campaign made some mistakes and we need a lot of money ASAP. Any kind, but cash is... 
'''Washington is broken.''' When I win, I'll look those other senators in the eye and tell them: "Jobs." Then I... 
'''Hopeless.''' It's bad. Really bad. If you don't chip in now, the darkness spreading across the land will... 
As the first woman to fly a fighter jet through our state's formerly all-male university, I learned... 
'''We're broke.''' No paid staff. No ads. And the cafe has told us to stop using their wifi to send fundraising... 
When Amy decided to run for Congress, I was like "Huh?" but I checked Wikipedia, and apparently it's a branch of... 
'''Are you familiar''' with the dutch painter Hieronymous Bosch? His work illustrates my opponent's plan for... 
Being a single mom running a small business while going to law school while being deployed to Iraq taught me... 
'''I will lead the fight''' against the big banks, special interests, the Earth's climate, and our children. I... 
'''Wow.''' Have you seen this video of the squirrel obstacle course? Incredible! Anyway, I'm running because I... 
'''Outrageous.''' Granted, this was a few years ago, but did you hear what President Ford said about... 
'''Whoops.''' Due to a typo, we spent months running attack ads against Tom Hanks. Now, we need to make up for... 
'''They say we can't win-''' that we're "underdogs" with "no money" who "lost the election last week." But they don't... 
'''Our campaign's only chance''' is to seduce Jennifer ActBlue, heir to the ActBlue fortune. For that, we need a fancy... 
'''Doom.''' Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed, like rain on... 
'''Warmest greetings.''' I am the crown prince of Nigeria. I am running for Congress because I believe that...

{{comic discussion}}

1924: Solar Panels

2017-12-06T01:48:37Z

162.158.142.70: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1924
| date = December 4, 2017
| title = Solar Panels
| image = solar_panels.png
| titletext = This works for a surprising range of sunlit things, including rooftops (sure), highway surfaces (probably not), sailboats (maybe), and jets, cars, and wild deer (haha good luck).
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SOLAR POWERED DEER - Please make this the standard replacement for BOT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This handy decision tree aims to help in finding out whether a given object should have {{w|solar panel}}s installed on it.

The root question is whether the object of choice moves. If it doesn't and has no nearby empty space that would be more practical for the solar panel installation, then yes, the object should be equipped with the solar panels. If the object is static, but you could more easily install the panels somewhere else nearby, probably that's the best place. An example of this is a slanted rooftop of a house or a field on a hillside: it's certainly possible to put solar panels there, but it would generally be easier to put them on a flat surface, like a flat-roofed house or a level field if such is available. This way, you are not restricted as to the direction (which might not be optimal on a given incline) and the panels can face the optimal direction or even [https://www.linak.com/business-areas/energy move to track the sun]. For another example of things where "putting next to it" instad of "on it" is generally the easier (and arguably) option, see the "highway surfaces" of the title text.

If the object moves, the next question is whether its batteries can be recharged or swapped with ease, in which case batteries may be a better option than solar panels. The idea is that solar panels on a vehicle sound like an interesting idea, but batteries can be much more easily (and economically) recharged from a fixed electrical station than using solar panels on the vehicle as a power source.

Finally, if the object moves and batteries are not an option, the last question is whether the object heats up during operation. If so, solar panels may not work well. [[Randall]] doubts it mockingly. Solar panels do not work effectively when excessively hot [http://news.energysage.com/solar-panel-temperature-overheating/] (solar panels are typically designed to operate in temperature ranges of 15-25 celcius). Moreover, solar panels can only produce electrical power equal to about 20% of the solar radiation they receive. Thus, a device which heats up during use likely consumes much more power than the amount which could be produced by solar panels covering its surface - so "good luck." Obviously, many animals are also "moving objects" fitting this condition, and installing solar panel on them is bound to be a challenge{{Citation needed}}.

But if changing batteries is not an option and heat production and power requirements are low, then solar panels can be an excellent solution on a moving object. An excellent case for this is on probes and satellites, which are typically powered entirely by solar panels.

The title text suggests that this flow chart is very broadly applicable to anything the Sun hits; however, the flow chart does not mention if the thing in question actually ''needs'' solar panels.

"Highway surfaces" is likely a reference to "{{w|photovoltaic pavement}}". Engineers commonly regard the idea as a nightmare to implement; it would be more practical to install the solar panels ''beside'' the road where damage by cars is less of an issue.

==Transcript==

:<big>Should I put solar panels on it?</big>

:[A flow chart that features yes/no options for each question.]

:[The left branch from the top:]

:Does it move around?
::yes [leads to] Does it have regular chances to recharge or swap batteries?

:Does it have regular chances to recharge or swap batteries?
::yes [leads to] Probably not
::no [leads to] When running, is it hot to the touch?

:When running, is it hot to the touch?
::no [leads to] Maybe
::yes [leads to] Haha good luck

:[The right branch from the top:]

:Does it move around?
::no [leads to] Is there an empty space nearby where it would be easier to put them?

:Is there an empty space nearby where it would be easier to put them?
::yes [leads to] Probably not
::no [leads to] Sure

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Flowcharts]]

1924: Solar Panels

2017-12-06T01:47:39Z

162.158.142.70: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1924
| date = December 4, 2017
| title = Solar Panels
| image = solar_panels.png
| titletext = This works for a surprising range of sunlit things, including rooftops (sure), highway surfaces (probably not), sailboats (maybe), and jets, cars, and wild deer (haha good luck).
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SOLAR POWERED DEER - Please make this the standard replacement for BOT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This handy decision tree aims to help in finding out whether a given object should have {{w|solar panel}}s installed on it.

The root question is whether the object of choice moves. If it doesn't and has no nearby empty space that would be more practical for the solar panel installation, then yes, the object should be equipped with the solar panels. If the object is static, but you could more easily install the panels somewhere else nearby, probably that's the best place. An example of this is a slanted rooftop of a house or a field on a hillside: it's certainly possible to put solar panels there, but it would generally be easier to put them on a flat surface, like a flat-roofed house or a level field if such is available. This way, you are not restricted as to the direction (which might not be optimal on a given incline) and the panels can face the optimal direction or even [https://www.linak.com/business-areas/energy move to track the sun]. For another example of things where "putting next to it" instad of "on it" is generally the easier (and arguably) option, see the "highway surfaces" of the title text.

If the object moves, the next question is whether its batteries can be recharged or swapped with ease, in which case batteries may be a better option than solar panels. The idea is that solar panels on a vehicle sound like an interesting idea, but batteries can be much more easily (and economically) recharged from a fixed electrical station than using solar panels on the vehicle as a power source.

Finally, if the object moves and batteries are not an option, the last question is whether the object heats up during operation. If so, solar panels may not work well. [[Randall]] doubts it mockingly. Solar panels do not work effectively when excessively hot [http://news.energysage.com/solar-panel-temperature-overheating/] (solar panels are typically designed to operate in temperature ranges of 15-25 celcius). Moreover, solar panels can only produce electrical power equal to about 20% of the solar radiation they receive. Thus, a device which heats up during use likely consumes much more power than the amount which could be produced by solar panels covering its surface - so "good luck with that." Obviously, many animals are also "moving objects" fitting this condition, and installing solar panel on them is bound to be a challenge{{Citation needed}}.

But if changing batteries is not an option and heat production and power requirements are low, then solar panels can be an excellent solution on a moving object. An excellent case for this is on probes and satellites, which are typically powered entirely by solar panels.

The title text suggests that this flow chart is very broadly applicable to anything the Sun hits; however, the flow chart does not mention if the thing in question actually ''needs'' solar panels.

"Highway surfaces" is likely a reference to "{{w|photovoltaic pavement}}". Engineers commonly regard the idea as a nightmare to implement; it would be more practical to install the solar panels ''beside'' the road where damage by cars is less of an issue.

==Transcript==

:<big>Should I put solar panels on it?</big>

:[A flow chart that features yes/no options for each question.]

:[The left branch from the top:]

:Does it move around?
::yes [leads to] Does it have regular chances to recharge or swap batteries?

:Does it have regular chances to recharge or swap batteries?
::yes [leads to] Probably not
::no [leads to] When running, is it hot to the touch?

:When running, is it hot to the touch?
::no [leads to] Maybe
::yes [leads to] Haha good luck

:[The right branch from the top:]

:Does it move around?
::no [leads to] Is there an empty space nearby where it would be easier to put them?

:Is there an empty space nearby where it would be easier to put them?
::yes [leads to] Probably not
::no [leads to] Sure

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Flowcharts]]

1731: Wrong

2017-07-04T13:55:46Z

162.158.142.70:

{{comic
| number = 1731
| date = September 9, 2016
| title = Wrong
| image = wrong.png
| titletext = Hang on, I just remembered another thing I'm right about. See...
}}

==Explanation==

All objects on Earth are matter, meaning they are made of {{w|Atom|atoms}}, which are specifically '''not''' made up of {{w|antimatter}}. Atoms, while once (when they were named) believed to be the smallest unit of matter, are now known to be made up of {{w|Proton|protons}}, {{w|Neutron|neutrons}} and {{w|Electron|electrons}}. Protons and neutrons are in turn made up of {{w|Quark|quarks}}. Quarks come in six different "{{w|Flavour (particle physics)|flavors}}" (up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange), with protons and neutrons being made of the first two types. Each flavour also has a corresponding flavour of the quark's {{w|Antiparticle|antiparticle}}, an antiquark, which would make up antiprotons and antineutrons.

[[White Hat]] and [[Megan]] appear to be discussing the topics of {{w|Antimatter|antimatter}} and subatomic particles. White Hat makes the assertion that we (referring to people and objects) are made partially of antimatter, because, as he claims, a proton (one of the particles which makes up all matter) is made of two quarks and an antiquark. In fact, protons are made up of two up quarks and a down quark. He is making the simple mistake of mixing up the difference between "up" and "down" flavors of quarks (which in some ways are "opposite" flavours of quarks) with the difference between particles and antiparticles. He continues to elaborate on his idea by mentioning neutrons, which are made of two down quarks and an up quark (which he incorrectly reasons as two antiquarks and a quark).

(White Hat may have incorrectly remembered that, while the valence quarks in a proton are all matter, quantum field theory says that protons also contain an indefinite number of "virtual" anti-quarks, quarks, and gluons. See this video ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraNu_78sCwv What are Quarks?]'' about this. His final comment could be referring to the ontological debate over whether virtual particles are in some sense real or only an artifact of perturbation theory.)

When Megan (accurately) doubts his claim, White Hat takes out his smartphone to look it up, in order to show Megan that he is correct. However, upon researching online, he realizes that he was, in fact, '''wrong''' (hence the title of the comic). Not wanting to admit being incorrect or yield his position in the discussion, he convinces himself that he wasn't actually wrong, as depicted by his mentally erasing the realization that he was wrong. Instead, he completely changes the topic to try and re-frame it so that he is not wrong. In this case, he circles back and criticises the entire scientific concept of "particles". Presumably he will go on to explain how scientists are wrong and how he remains correct that humans are made up, in part, of anti-matter.

It is rather common to be unwilling to admit fault (the whole topic of this comic) and to instead try to maintain an air of infallibility and intelligence. Some people are just too prideful to admit that they are inherently fallible. White Hat is one of those people, as depicted in several of his earlier appearances (see [[#Trivia|trivia section]]). [[Randall]] uses this comic to criticize people who are unable to put aside their ego and re-assess what they know in the face of empirical data. Such thinking flies directly against scientific rigor (adding an extra layer of irony to the situation, since White Hat and Megan are discussing a ''scientific'' topic). This method had already been called ''wrong'' in [[803: Airfoil]].

White Hat's new topic, where he can be right, includes the {{w|Quantum field theory}}, a very complicated field, which it is likely Megan is not well versed in (inferred by the fact that she was not quite sure about the anti-quarks). So he may be raising the topic because he believes she will not understand it sufficiently to refute his correctness. Megan, however, recognizes exactly what he is trying to do, and can only sigh in response to his failed efforts. In {{w|Quantum field theory|QFT}} particles are often described as {{w|Resonance (particle physics)|resonances}} or {{w|excited state|excited states}} of the underlying physical field, in the same way as photons may be thought of as excitations in the electromagnetic field; in this way White Hat appears to be dismissing his earlier errors by implying that particles are merely an effect of something more complex, of which he can demonstrate his knowledge.

In the title text, White Hat just remembers another thing he's right about. This shows that he is not interested in a discussion on the merits of a topic, but instead is seeking only recognition and validation for being right. This bears some similarity to [[386: Duty Calls]], in which [[Cueball]] stays up late correcting someone on the Internet.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat is walking beside Megan, index finger extended]
:White Hat: Really, we're all made of antimatter. A proton consists of two quarks and an antiquark.
:Megan: ...I don't think that's right.

:[White Hat stops to take out his smartphone tapping on it. Megan stops and turns towards him.]
:White Hat: Sure it is. Neutrons are, too.
:Megan: Do you mean "up" and "down" quarks? I think antiquarks are a different thing.
:White Hat: No, let me show you...
:Tap
:Tap

:[Zooming in on White Hat's head, while he is holding his phone up looking at it. He is thinking as shown with a bubbly thought bubble.]
:White Hat (thinking): I'm...wrong?

:[White Hat has lowered the phone. He is still thinking the same but the text has been scribbled out.]
:White Hat (thinking): I'm...wrong?

:[White Hat purges the thought from his mind]
:White Hat (thinking): ...

:[Similar setting as in the first panel, but in a full row wide panel, and White Hat is still holding his smartphone]
:White Hat: Really, the whole idea of "particles" is inaccurate. These are abstractions arising from quantum field theory, but what most people don't realize is...
:Megan: *Sigh*

==Trivia==
*This comic could be seen as a follow up to [[1605: DNA]]. Going back through the last White Hat appearances it turns out that DNA, 13 White Hat comics back, is actually the last where White Hat has been the fall guy. For instance he has the opposite role in [[1640: Super Bowl Context]], and he is not "the stupid guy" in the comics between that and this one, but often just another guy than Cueball. Further back in [[1255: Columbus]] he was again the fall guy, and again it reminds a bit about this comic. Actually Megan even begins that comic with a *sigh* like she finished this one.
*Quarks are also referenced in [[1418: Horse]], [[1621: Fixion]] and the first time they were mentioned, in [[474: Turn-On]], all six flavors were also mentioned.
*Antimatter is also referenced in [[683: Science Montage]], [[826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)]] and [[1621: Fixion]] as well as being the subject of the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|114|Antimatter}}''. It was also mentioned in another ''what if?'': ''{{what if|79|Lake Tea}}''.
*A similar thought process where earlier thoughts are scribbled out was used by Cueball in [[1650: Baby]], but for different reasons.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]

Talk:1794: Fire

2017-02-03T17:14:48Z

162.158.142.70:

This is probably the first time I have ZERO idea what the comic is supposed to mean... --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.88|141.101.96.88]] 17:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a reference to the way fire departments measure fire intensity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-alarm_fire
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.161|108.162.212.161]] 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The joke being that because its an alarm factory its 50,000 alarms, the amount of physical alarms on site, as opposed to the alarm rating given by the fire commander [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.70|162.158.142.70]] 17:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC) MrMX