explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2313: Wrong Times Table

2020-06-07T12:21:14Z

162.158.155.80:

I wonder if there is such a mathematical expression which follows the definition of "multiplication" as in advanced calculus which actually provides the results on the table; i.e, some sort of bijective homomorphism that maps v: V*V --> V

Such an illogical table. Smaller numbers multiply to larger answers than larger numbers? Even numbers multiply to odd numbers?! How?!?! What sort of illiterate alien declared this to be the multiplication table?! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Feels like an element of logarithmic thinking, like the idea that the space between 1 and 2 is greater than between 99 and 100, or that 3 is halfway to nine. [[User:ancepsinfans|ancepsinfans]] 21:24, 2 June 2020 (MSK)

This is easily one of the worst XKCD comics, period. Not funny, nor clever. Just seems like noise. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.183|172.69.68.183]] 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I suspect Randall may have just been feeling random, perhaps after several months of mostly Coronavirus-related comics. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::That's fair, I'm being a bit harsh, but this just comes across as exceptionally meaningless and contrived, so much so that I felt the need to come here and comment immediately for the first time ever [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.56|172.69.71.56]] 21:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I relate to certain mathematical facts not sounding right, like how 54 intuitively feels like it's divisible by 4. Nonsensical, but makes sense anyway. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.233|162.158.62.233]] 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like the multiplication equivalent of looking at a word and thinking it is spelled incorrectly. Sometimes I look at a simple word like "fish" and think: "That can't be right." Sometimes multiplication can feel that way, particularly 7's because those were tricky for some reason. The alt text confirms fishiness with 7's [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.173|108.162.246.173]] 21:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Is it weird that I ''don't'' get this? I have this sense of "that is obviously wrong" when it comes to multiplication of small numbers like these, even with sevens and eights. If I read that 7 * 8 = 54, my brain screams "NOOOOOOOOO IT IS 56 YOU IDIOT!". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::It's lucky for you! Careless errors [of all types] can be annoying, and sometimes difficult to locate... Some of us have ingrained this information better than others. (This comic seems less like a joke and more sharing a hindrance Randall suffers from when doing arithmetic. And speaking personally, I can certainly relate to that.)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.50|162.158.78.50]] 18:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::I wouldn't say it's weird, but maybe you don't get it because you're better at the memorisation or multiplication that we were taught in school. Try spending a few hours working in base nine or base thirteen, you might see how you commonly make the same errors. I know that I have difficulty with multiplying even small numbers, so I take longer to do it so I infrequently make these common errors. But I do like to work in other bases occasionally so I can vaguely relate to the subject matter of this comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.41|162.158.74.41]] 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::I never fully memorized the times tables, to this day (50+ years later) I use tricks... 7*6? Well, I know the 5's, and 7*5=35, so now add another seven.... 42? I've always preferred to understand how to get to an answer than to memorize the answer, for some reason. Stuff I use frequently or that are especially useful (i.e. 5's) I end up memorizing of course, but things like 7's not so much. I suspect Randall is the same way. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::In fact, your example, where 7*8 screams 56 to you? I used my method and, like Randall, kept coming up with 54. 8*5=40, plus two more sevens (14) = 54. Feels right, but for some reason it's not. Took some head scratching to realize... it should have been two more EIGHTS, not two more sevens. Here's where the memorization thing would have been better. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 16:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, 2,2 that's actually 2^3=8. 2,3 is addition instead of multiplication. 1,2 is division instead of multiplication. 1,1 is subtraction. 10,10 seems to be a visual gag, though most of the 10s row is either multiplication by 11 or 12... There's some logic to some of these, but it's different for each row, column, or cell. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.167|162.158.74.167]] 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Yeah, there is something going on. It looks like a lot of it is remembering the correct answer to a different problem. By my count 55 squares are the correct answer to a square next to it and 31 have a correct answer for somewhere else on the grid. Also, 2*2, 4*4 and 5*5 are double the correct answer.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.76|108.162.245.76]] 21:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's almost disappointing that he didn't hide one or two asymmetries in there just to throw us off! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I think that was his nerd-snipe, there are no asymmetries (currently). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.41|162.158.74.41]] 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I get the idea that this is the sort of table you'd get if you tried to train an Adversarial AI from scratch to determine x*y purely by stochastic guessing and comparing to a co-evolving 'scorer' that also starts off naively but supports each answer according to the 'rightness' it thinks it has ''except'' for the real answer which is always hard-coded to be down-scored. (Also noting that DA reportedly came by his choice of 42 by asking people which numbers were 'funnier' than others, which can be said to be a similar kind of process but without the arrayed "original multiplication" element.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.179|162.158.158.179]] 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who often confuses 7*8 as 54, I found the alt text very humorous. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.118|172.69.34.118]] 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that 6*9 isn't equal to 42. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 23:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is just a collection of equations with the wrong answers. I'm not sure who finds this funny. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.96|108.162.219.96]] 00:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:It's not funny per se, it's relatable.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1210:_I%27m_So_Random[[User:Overlord of oddities|Overlord of oddities]] ([[User talk:Overlord of oddities|talk]]) 01:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have asked [https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/205425/67157 a Code Golf Stack Exchange question] with the goal of producing the shortest program that computes this function. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 02:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @Aaron I had a similar thought, but was going to settle for the generator function for the main diagonal. If we can come up with one, we should submit it to https://oeis.org/ [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 13:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that 17 does not show up in any product cell, seeing as I've known since at least 1970 that 17 is the world's most random number. <-- a fact proved for a limited case here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JPSJL7Kvus [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 13:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I too was unimpressed with this... unitl I got to the alt text. I'm in my sixties now, and for some reason, 8*7 has ALWAYS been difficult for me. I find myself always doube-checking to make sure I did it right. And 6*7 gave me problems too, but I got over that a few decades ago. I wonder what it is about those that gave us trouble. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.75|162.158.62.75]] 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that the table was constructed rationally, but intuitively by Randall. He took the two factors (in both permutations) and thought, which resulting number he felt best about. It is more like a psychological experiment than a table constructed with a system or code in mind. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.193|162.158.89.193]] 16:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one who reads the author's intention slightly differently? I don't think that he intended that these values feel more correct than the real multiplication table. Rather, I thought he meant that from all possible ''wrong'' values, these feel ''most'' correct to him. In this way, I at least could sympathise with many values given here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.216|162.158.238.216]] 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:Agreed--he doesn't feel that the answers are incorrect, but rather, if he were given the problem on a test, "True or False: One times two equals one half.", he'd have to think for a minute. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.50|162.158.78.50]] 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::I just edited that (first) bit, myself, before seeing your comments. I hope this version is better for you (might need further editing later in the paragraph, but stil considering this). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.201|162.158.158.201]] 19:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether I am reading too much into this, but couldn't it be an allusion to all contemporary anti-science and anti-rational movements? We hear a lot of times from this kind of people that they do not need big professors to tell them what is true, because they now what "feels right" to them. What feels right to them may be just as wrong as this multiplication table, but that does not stop them to keep believing it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.135|141.101.69.135]] 21:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"...this probably doesn't mean anything." Douglas Adams himself confirmed that the 6*9 in base 13 was a coincidence. He said himself in a BBC interview, "I don't make jokes in base thirteen." --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.26|108.162.237.26]] 02:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"The title text (referencing Randall's suspicion that 6x7=42 may be wrong) is an allusion to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," Are we sure that this is an allusion to HGG? Not everything that has 42 is an allusion to HHG, there's no mention of the ultimate question or answer, nothing but a comment that 6x7 doesn't feel like it should be 42. Seems pretty irrelevant to include it in the explanation.[[User:Argis13|Argis13]] ([[User talk:Argis13|talk]]) 23:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, haven't had a "Randy, get out of my head" moment for a while. After the rhyme and reason of 5x5 and 6x6 the multiplication by 7 has always felt off to me, too.

All of use who spent a few hours trying to find a formula have been nerd-sniped. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.56|172.69.71.56]] 15:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm sure these some logic to these numbers, we just can't see it. I 'feel' they're not random. Anyway, who can get their one times table wrong ? Also, is there anything solid about the text being a H2G2 reference ? Other than the mention of 42 ? Does H2G2 mention 56 ? And why do the whole multiplications of 6's, 7's and 8's (yeh I know, errant apostrophe's but it feels better this way) get people (including me) all at {{w|all sixes and sevens|sixes and sevens}} (apparently worldwide - Chinese & Russians too). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.80|162.158.155.80]] 12:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2316: Hair Growth Rate

2020-06-05T22:54:13Z

162.158.155.80:

Based on the rate at which I shed hair, mine must be growing at an above average rate or I'd be completely bald by now.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this a Dr. Seuss reference? The [https://seuss.fandom.com/wiki/Zed Zed] "all have one strand of hair up on each of their heads, their hair grows very fast, so fast, people say that they need a haircut everyday" [[User:Usernaminator|Usernaminator]] ([[User talk:Usernaminator|talk]]) 21:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

So, anybody have some idea how is this related to covid? :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
: The link is clearly that there are no open barbers now! (THIS IS A JOKE) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.80|162.158.155.80]] 22:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
: i was like omigod a normal xkcd they freed randall celebrate celebrate!!!! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.52|108.162.216.52]] 22:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2315: Eventual Consistency

2020-06-04T09:09:36Z

162.158.155.80:

The current explanation says that "Cueball's employer wants him to continue his work in the COVID-19 pandemic," but that's a "citation needed" sort of statement. Even if the comic is taken to be literally occurring on the day it is published (which is not always the case as comics have taken place in the past, the future, alternate presents, and even spanning large periods of time), there are perhaps multiple things adding up together to make it "hard to focus right now." In the USA, there's hot temperatures, civil unrest, economic woes springing from or accelerated by the pandemic, and even political considerations that may make it hard to focus (governmental responses to current events potentially being out of proportion with the events, etc). If Cueball is elsewhere in the world, there may be other local conditions that might make things hard to focus. There's stuff going on in Hong Kong, the Middle East, Brazil, Somalia, and all over the world that could be making it hard for someone in those locales to concentrate on their work even if the pandemic weren't a possible contributing factor.
: Is it me, or is "continue his work *in* the COVID-19 pandemic" also incorrect? It's a database, not (necessarily) anything to do with COVID-19. Perhaps "in" should be "during" (leaving aside the other arguments)? [[User:John.Adriaan|John.Adriaan]] ([[User talk:John.Adriaan|talk]]) 01:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::Hi, this is the "makes an edit before checking if anyone already thought to comment about it" contributor. Same again, with added complication of an edit-conflict (someone posted whilst I was trying to identify bicycles, fire-hydrants and traffic lights in the CAPTCHA). Reworded the thing to identify the situation as being ''popularised'' (not the right word!) by the pandemic. Though if Cueball were an existing home-based worker, I'm surprised they didn't fire him at the first hint of an excuse to do so. Anyway, moved the Citation Needed that the conflicter edited into the midst of my chosen edit, hopefully a mutually agreeable spot. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.194|141.101.98.194]] 02:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:I agree, Randall has clearly taken a break from the COVID-19 comics in the last weeks, and there no obvious clue that this is a new one. If the "hard to focus right now" has to refer to something current as of June 3rd 2020, it's more likely to be the civil unrest related to George Floyd's death, but that's just another guess.

Just shows that the database needs more testing - as the page is obviously not reaching consistancy. I must admit that I have not looked at this for a dozen years, but I thought it was an unsolved problem in the general case as there was no way of resolving conflicts like these. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Then, of course, since the comic doesn't specify what is causing it to be hard to concentrate, it's a bit deictic, and the comic can be linked as a response to multiple future situations (not all of them bad -- having a baby, for instance, can make it hard to concentrate on work.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.52|108.162.216.52]] 20:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Side note: YouTuber Tom Scott explained ''eventual consistency'' in one of his ''[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL96C35uN7xGLLeET0dOWaKHkAlPsrkcha The Basics]'' videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_2gElt3SA "Why Computers Can't Count Sometimes"]. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 21:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The current explanation says "His boss retorts that in a heat death, nobody can work" which is completely missing what I assume is intended by "maximum entropy means no useful work can be done!" This statement is likely a reference to the relationship between entropy and the useful work that can be extracted from a thermodynamic system. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.206.40|172.68.206.40]] 04:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Purely coincidental, but The Infinite Monkey Cage podcast just had an episode on the end of the universe: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08dy6ym. ...and I'd like to add, in that regard, that I predict it'll be Death-By-CAPTCHA (more hydrants, more bicycles, then motorcylcles, when I made a comment above. Let's see what it thinks I need to pursuasively do ''this'' time, eh?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.96|141.101.98.96]] 02:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we agree that this is one of the most Dilbert-like of all xkcds? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.91|141.101.69.91]]Eric

Protest! After the heat death of the universe, suppose there is still a database left (let's skip the fact that alone the existence of a computer means maximum entropy hasn't been reached yet - a local order bubble after heat death is normal anyway). User 1 (also miraculously surviving) checks the files to find data "random1". User 2 "random2". How could that be termed consistent (unless consistent random)? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.223|162.158.158.223]] 08:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

2307: Alive Or Not

2020-05-29T07:38:10Z

162.158.155.80: Alternatively, corals can be considered as lying between animals and fungi because they are sessile

{{comic
| number = 2307
| date = May 15, 2020
| title = Alive Or Not
| image = alive_or_not.png
| titletext = Computer viruses currently fall somewhere between prions and fire.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an alive virus. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is another in a [[:Category:COVID-19|series of comics]] related to the {{w|2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|2020 pandemic}} of the {{w|coronavirus}} {{w|SARS-CoV-2}}, which causes {{w|COVID-19}}. Randall appears to be using this comic to spark discussion about whether viruses (COVID-19 for starters) are alive. This comic follows directly after the one with anthropomorphized cold viruses in comic [[2306: Common Cold]].

There is no universally-accepted definition of "{{w|life}}"; {{w|Life#Definitions|all definitions}} thus far proposed have either excluded some things commonly understood to be alive or included some things commonly understood to not be alive. Take reproduction, a trait commonly assumed to be essential and unique to life; by this definition, anything which cannot reproduce (including {{w|mules}}, {{w|worker bees}}, and postmenopausal women) would be considered nonliving, while anything which can duplicate itself (including {{w|computer viruses}}, {{w|3D printers|advanced 3D printers}}, and {{w|fire}}—see below) would be considered alive.

Many more elaborate definitions of life have been attempted over the decades. Some common additional factors include:

* {{w|Homeostasis}}, the ability to control an internal environment to maintain a constant state;
* {{w|Metabolism}}, converting nutrients into energy and building blocks for growth, reproduction, and so on;
* {{w|Adaptation}} through heredity and natural selection; and
* Responding to the environment.

Despite all of this, the only definite definition of "life" is "something everyone agrees is alive". This comic attempts to rank several types of things by how likely people are to perceive them as "alive".

=== Things ranked as alive ===

* '''Animals (normal)'''
* '''Animals (weird ones like jellyfish and coral)''': Randall's categorization of animals as "normal" or "weird" is a simplified version of the {{w|Great chain of being}}, a philosophical framework in which humans are seen as the most "advanced" form of life, followed by a divine or otherwise justified hierarchy of progressively lesser life-forms (mammals, birds, fish, lizards, insects, and so on). Categorizing weird animals was already done in [[1587: Food Rule]]. Alternatively, corals can be considered as lying between animals and fungi because corals, like, fungi and plants, are {{w|Sessility (motility)|sessile}}, i.e., they "grow" in one place. Jellyfish are not sessile, but {{w|Cnidaria#Basic_body_forms|many jellyfish are the same species as corals}} in different generations.
* '''{{w|Fungi}}''': Fungi represent a unique lineage of eukaryotic, mostly multicellular organisms. Although historically studied by botanists specializing in the sub-discipline "mycology", modern scholarship places fungi in the "opisthokont" lineage, which contains both the animals and the fungi. Fungi, like animals, cannot make complex organic molecules from carbon dioxide, and must consume organic molecules as food to survive. Like plants, fungi are typically unable to move on their own. The various types of fungi include mushrooms, yeasts, rusts, smuts, and molds. Fungi evolution is also referenced in [[1749: Mushrooms]].
* '''{{w|Plant}}s''': Those often green, often leafy things outside your current isolation dwelling, sometimes inside, next to the window. They are primarily distinguished from other eukaryotes by being able to use photosynthesis to convert water, carbon dioxide and energy from light into sugar and free oxygen.
* '''{{w|Slime mold}}s''': Slime molds are eukaryotic single-celled organisms (so "more advanced" than bacteria). In the "plasmodial" slime molds, the "single cell" may expand to spread across several feet of territory, and weigh several pounds, while the "cellular" slime molds are most notable for their occasional congregation into macro-sized colonies which can appear to move as a single creature. It's interesting that Randall ranks them as "less alive" than fungi (which they were once thought to be), especially given some of their curious behaviors (e.g. [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/feb/18/slime-mould-rail-road-transport-routes optimizing transportation networks] when presented with a collection of food flakes and obstacles).
* '''{{w|Bacteria}}''': Bacteria are one of two groups of prokaryotes, meaning cells that do not contain a nucleus and rarely harbour membrane-bound organelles. A small portion of Bacteria are pathogenic, but most are actually harmless. Bacteria's ability to convert raw materials into nutrients available for other living things makes them essential to other living things.
* '''{{w|Archaea}}''': Archaea (misspelled as ''Archea'' by Randall) is a {{w|domain (biology)|domain}} of organisms, which do not fall under eukaryotes or bacteria. They are single-celled organisms that lack a nucleus, and were initially thought to be ancient lineages of bacteria (i.e. ''archaeobacteria'') found in extreme environments similar to the early Earth, which is probably why Randall ranks them as "less alive" than bacteria. However, it is now known that they live pretty much everywhere that regular bacteria do, and that they have very distinct biochemistry from bacteria; they are actually more closely related to eukaryotes (i.e. slime molds and up) than bacteria are.
* '''{{w|Virus}}es''': Viruses are infectious agents consisting of a genome surrounded by a protein or lipid shell. When a virus contacts a cell, it delivers its genome inside the cell which causes the cells' reproductive machinery to create more viruses. Since viruses are incapable of reproducing without the aid of larger cells, [https://www.google.com/search?q=are+viruses+alive it is often debated] whether or not they are actually alive. Randall has ranked viruses as "alive" but on the lowest possible rung of such; indeed, many biologists say [https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/are-viruses-alive viruses fall in a gray area], or that [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848616300103 the question is arbitrary and non-scientific]. By another criterion life on Earth is defined by the presence of extremely long molecules that can be replicated (copied). Every organism above viruses contains both DNA and RNA. Viruses only contain either RNA or DNA. Nothing below here contains any (biologically active) DNA or RNA.

===Things ranked as not alive===
* '''{{w|Prions}}''': Prions are misfolded proteins that cause other proteins to misfold. They are most famously the cause of various brain diseases such as "{{w|mad cow disease}}", and may be involved in Alzheimer's disease. Similarly to viruses, prions require something else to replicate, but unlike viruses, they do not possess a nucleic-acid genome or any other means of carrying heritable information, and they do not alter the cell's production machinery, but rather interact with proteins which are already made. In that sense, they're more like a particularly tricky kind of metabolic waste product or pollution.
* (from title text) '''{{w|Computer virus}}es''': A piece of code which hijacks computer systems to replicate itself, named by analogy to biological viruses. Strictly speaking, they're just a particular encoding of information, usually stored in electromagnetic media (although there's no reason one couldn't be stored on punch cards). Randall ranks them as "''currently''" more alive than fire, because they do carry "genetic" information (which anti-virus programs can be programmed to look for, analogous to vaccination) and some are capable of modifying themselves to adapt to new environments, but less alive than prions because they only operate within information systems. However, if a virus were able to e.g. hijack an electronics factory to start making flash drives and memory cards that carry the virus's code, then perhaps it might move up in the hierarchy.
* '''{{w|Fire}}''': Fire is a common example of something which meets many common definitions for life; it grows, reproduces by spreading seeds (sparks), and consumes energy and excretes waste (ashes and smoke) by the same net chemical process as respiration. However, while fire can be a necessary part of the life cycle of other organisms (e.g. redwood trees), it does not maintain a constant environment within itself, nor does it perform {{w|anabolism}}, the construction of larger molecules from smaller ones. Respirating life-forms use helper molecules to moderate the oxidation reaction into small steps to produce useful units of energy, rather than letting it all happen at once to produce heat.
* '''Clouds''': Random shapes taken by clouds may resemble animals and other objects, but arguably they are not alive in any sense. Things like tornadoes and hurricanes, on the other hand, can meet some definitions of life: they maintain homeostasis, actively seek and consume energy, and occasionally reproduce. Cf. ''Fire'' above.
* '''{{w|Fossils}}''': Fossils are the petrified remains of once-living organisms, so in that sense they are more connected to life than "regular rocks", and some may hold DNA that could theoretically be used to clone the fossilized life-form.
* '''Rocks shaped like faces''': Humans have an extremely advanced capability for seeing patterns, and one of the most powerful patterns we seek is {{w|Face perception|faces}}, so much so that we see faces even where they don't exist (a common form of {{w|pareidolia}}). Humans instinctively anthropomorphize any object which vaguely resembles a face as having a sense of attention and mood, and so a rock shaped like a face would likely be treated differently than a rock not shaped like a face. Randall does not distinguish between rocks intentionally carved to look like faces (such as the famous {{w|Moai}} sculptures) or rocks that happen to look vaguely like faces under the right lighting conditions (such as the famous {{w|Face on Mars}}.)
* '''Regular rocks''': Modern taxonomy originates from Carl Linnaeus, who categorized all objects on Earth as animals, plants (often stated as "''vegetable''" in quiz games like Twenty Questions), or minerals. Minerals are most obviously not alive, although some cultures and works of fiction have creatures that turn to stone and will return later to life, and some people keep {{w|Pet Rock|rocks as "pets"}}.

Interestingly, the vertical line linking the categories extends beyond both the most-alive and least-alive things, making one wonder what Randall might think is more alive than "normal animals" or less alive than "regular rocks". In the latter direction an explanation might be that shortly before this comic the scientific press wrote about heat-resistant bacteria that live in the desert and slowly eat regular rocks generating their own water in this process making even the sand in the desert partially alive.

==Transcript==
:[A chart consisting of vertical line, with 14 dots and a horizontal dashed dividing line drawn across the list a bit below the middle. Each dot has a label to the right of the line with a line pointing to the dot they belong to. Above and below the dividing line is a label with a broad arrow pointing up above and down below.]
:Up arrow: Alive
:Down arrow: Not alive

:[Dot labels from top to bottom above the dashed line:]
:Animals (Normal)
:Animals (Weird ones like jellyfish and coral)
:Fungi
:Plants
:Slime molds
:Bacteria
:Archea
:Viruses

:[Dot labels from top to bottom below the dashed line:]
:Prions
:Fire
:Clouds
:Fossils
:Rocks shaped like faces
:Regular rocks

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Geology]]