explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2999: Bad Map Projection: The United Stralia

2024-10-16T19:10:05Z

162.158.158.118:

{{comic
| number = 2999
| date = October 16, 2024
| title = Bad Map Projection: The United Stralia
| image = bad_map_projection_the_united_stralia_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x651px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = This projection distorts both area and direction, but preserves Melbourne.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GIGANTIC MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA SPIDER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

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

{{comic discussion}}

2999: Bad Map Projection: The United Stralia

2024-10-16T19:09:37Z

162.158.158.118:

{{comic
| number = 2999
| date = October 16, 2024
| title = Bad Map Projection: The United Stralia
| image = bad_map_projection_the_united_stralia_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x651px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = This projection distorts both area and direction, but preserves Melbourne.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GIGANTIC MARYLAND, AUSTRALIA SPIDER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

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

{{comic discussion}}

2783: Ruling Out

2024-07-13T07:31:03Z

162.158.158.118: /* Explanation */ misplaced citation needed. its original placement calls into question whether or not Cueball is listing 5 obviously impossible objects; this placement calls into question whether or not they are 'obviously impossible'

{{comic
| number = 2783
| date = May 31, 2023
| title = Ruling Out
| image = ruling_out_2x.png
| imagesize = 295x396px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = We were able to replicate and confirm prior authors' detection of a moon orbiting the Earth with high confidence.
}}

==Explanation==
Most science studies are intended to discover new knowledge. In astronomy, the goal is often to find different types of objects in space, or learn how astronomical objects are formed and behave. But often from studying things that exist, we also learn about limits of the kinds of things that ''can'' exist; when this happens, we say that we've "ruled out" the excluded phenomena.

[[Cueball]] lists five obviously impossible {{Citation needed}} objects.

* "Earthlike stars": A play on "Earth-like planets" which scientists are very interested in finding. The [https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/overview/ Earth] is not a {{w|star}}, hence stars cannot be Earthlike.
: Searches for both {{w|List of potentially habitable exoplanets|Earth-like planets}} and {{w|Solar analog|Sun-like stars}} go unabated, with various near matches found.

* "Exoplanets in our solar system": {{w|Exoplanet}}s are by definition not in our solar system.
: Planets in our solar system (even {{w|Planets beyond Neptune|undiscovered ones}}) are unaffected, as is the {{w|List of exoplanet search projects|search for exoplanets}} around other stars, with conclusive evidence of both.

* "Habitable-zone quasars": {{w|Quasar}}s in the {{w|habitable zone}}s of stars are only theoretically feasible for relatively small {{w|black hole}}s with active {{w|accretion disk}}s in a star's habitable zone, visible from the Earth and brighter than the Sun, because of the technical criteria for classifying them in terms of their {{w|apparent magnitude}} relative to that of their galaxy.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/26] None such have ever been observed.{{fact}} While typical galaxies usually have only one quasar in their center, merging galaxies often have two far apart. Perhaps in 4-5 billion years, when the {{w|Andromeda Galaxy}} merges with our {{w|Milky Way}}, its [https://www.sci.news/astronomy/article00779.html microquasar] might qualify, but that is extremely unlikely.
:While not certain, habitable zones around some quasars have not been ruled out.[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2f/meta][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2364/1/012057/meta]

* "Stars with subsurface oceans": Because the temperatures inside stars are higher than that which can support the existence of liquids as we understand them, stars cannot have subsurface oceans. After many billions of years, a {{w|white dwarf}} will cool to the point where it no longer emits significant heat or light, becoming a {{w|black dwarf}}, eventually cooling to the point where it might develop subsurface liquids.{{acn}} However, the universe is not old enough for any black dwarfs to exist yet,[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375341/pdf] and sufficiently cool black dwarfs might not even be considered stars, but rather {{w|rogue planet}}s.
: The possibility of subsurface oceans within various planets and moons is an {{w|Extraterrestrial liquid water|active subject of study}}, and was previously mentioned 10 comics ago in [[2773: Planetary Scientist]].

* "Tectonically active black holes": Black holes do not have {{w|tectonic plate}}s, so they cannot be tectonically active.
: There are theories that neutron stars can exhibit {{w|Quake (natural phenomenon)#Starquake|tectonic-like movements}} (as some of the more typical rocky bodies certainly do), but the physics of the 'inside' of a black hole are thought to involve {{w|Black hole#Singularity|strange physics}} incompatible with any form of geology, and cannot be observed anyway – it is believed that the only externally-observable properties of black holes are mass, electric charge, and angular momentum, poetically called the '{{w|no-hair theorem}}'.

The joke is that you don't actually have to study anything to come to these almost patently obvious conclusions. The counter-proposals would need far more effort to even justify them as valid theories, by common understanding, and greater still to try to observe any supporting proof.

Some studies are also done to confirm the results of previous studies, to ensure that the conclusions were not mistaken or a fluke. The title text describes a study that was done to confirm the existence of a moon orbiting Earth, even though any sighted person can walk outside and see the Moon, the existence of the Moon has been known for at least as long as humanity has existed, and the fact that it orbits the Earth has been assumed or known for upwards of 3,000 years. The ancient Greeks and Babylonians, for example, thought that the Moon orbited the Earth, though they lacked a detailed physical understanding of the system (they also believed, erroneously, that {{w|Geocentric model|everything else in the universe orbited the Earth too}}). {{w|Anaxagoras}} (c. 500–428 BC) is credited with the correct explanation of lunar eclipses, and reportedly was the first to explain that the Moon shines due to reflected light from the Sun. However, it was not until the work of {{w|Nicolaus Copernicus}} in the 16th century that a detailed and accurate model of the Moon's orbit around the Earth was developed. Regardless, at this stage, a study to confirm the validity of Copernican orbits would contribute nothing to the scientific process, much less a study confirming the mere existence of the Moon.

==Transcript==

:[Cueball is talking to Megan.]
:Cueball: So far our astronomy group has published studies ruling out the existence of Earthlike stars, exoplanets in our solar system, habitable-zone quasars, stars with subsurface oceans, and tectonically active black holes.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Science got way easier when we realized you were allowed to do studies just to rule stuff out.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

Talk:2817: Electron Holes

2023-08-21T17:24:10Z

162.158.158.118:

I must admit... I'm not entirely convinced that one _couldn't_ build an electron hole beam. It would probably be called a quasibeam, but I think it could be done. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.175.61|162.158.175.61]] 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
: You could clearly do this if you fired a beam of physical material to carry the holes. You could also find a way to stimulate the production of holes at a distance, maybe by inducing static charge with electromagnetic emission. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.192|162.158.62.192]] 00:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Would an electron "vacuum" be an electron hole gun? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
: I think so! You’d create holes to pull the electrons, and the holes would travel away from the gun to the electron source as the electrons traveled to the gun. This is likely exactly what Randall is depicting. Could be wrong. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.36|172.70.230.36]] 14:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that "pewpewpew" was one of the incorrect pronunciations of Perseids in [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2814:_Perseids_Pronunciation 2814]? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
: Foreshadowing! Note it there? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.182|162.158.86.182]] 08:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Objection, Your Honor! Don't know if electron quasibeams (see comment above) can be done, but the "a beam consisting of a lack of something is not possible" in the current explanation is too wide. Think of antisound devices! I think a "vacuum beam" going through normal gas pressure is very possible. And what about the Meissner effect, which could be seen as a beam of absence of a magnetic field? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.211|198.41.242.211]] 07:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Anti-sound just exactly(/sufficiently) compliments the sound you're trying to 'remove'. On its own, it is sound in its own right.
::Sure, but it makes a region without sound from destructive interference. Beams take energy anyway. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.36|172.70.230.36]]
:Projecting a vacuum (which would, incidentally, quash sound except for that which travels round it or is caused by its creation/collapse) sounds like it needs a whole army of Maxwell's demons carrying their own 'portable hatches' to allow air molecules to leave the volume of the beam whilst batting away any that threaten to move into it. (That might be interesting to see, if noisy.)
::This might work at absolute zero? For example, you could electrically charge the particles of a motionless gas and then pull them using a focused electric field and make a beam that emits vacuum. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.36|172.70.230.36]] 14:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:The Meissner Effect is an interesting (practical) version of this. Upon decreasing the possibility of an interior field, an identical increase is detetected immediately outside of it (conserving flux across the whole system, or so it seems to be/makes most sense).
:Which is not to say that there's no such thing as "a nothing", in the whole weird world of science, or variously vagues analogues to it (if you don't dig too deep, maybe). Some might suggest quantum vacuum decay might be the ultimate substantial 'nothing', but not that we know how to study it... let alone harness it. Yet! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.5|172.71.242.5]] 10:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Those aren't "beams of nothing" but rather "beams of things that cause another thing to be suppressed/expelled/cancelled" [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.43|172.69.247.43]] 14:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
::I’m surprised nobody is mentioning an antimatter beam. This would eradicate matter in its brilliant path. But you could make a beam of nothing in an environment where there presence of something is controlled by another system, by engaging the system doing this. Shadows are maybe the most simple example of this. Shading a light source makes a beam of darkness. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.36|172.70.230.36]] 14:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:For sure a beam of nothing can exist - it's called Reality TV. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.164|172.70.90.164]] 09:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

When the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron positron] was first predicted it was modeled as an electron hole, a gap in the hypothetical "sea" of negative-energy electrons filling all space. Sadly, AFAIK modern quantum field theory has done away with that idea, so while a gun that shoots a positron beam is theoretically possible, it probably wouldn't qualify as an electron hole beam. [[User:Hmj|Hmj]] ([[User talk:Hmj|talk]]) 08:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:I (separately) mentioned positrons in an edit summary just now. Of course, adding the two concepts together makes for an even ''more'' ridiculous thing... A 'positron hole beam'. You know all those positrons we (don't, in general terms) have floating around us? This now projects a concentrated ''lack'' of them! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.5|172.71.242.5]] 10:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I firmly believe the printer deserved it. It knows what it did. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.19.95|162.158.19.95]]

Electrical current was defined as the flow of positive charge carriers before it was understood that the negative charge carriers (electrons) were what was moving. When talking about semiconductor physics, this became a problem because we’re very concerned about what particles are actually moving around, so the mathematical fiction of “hole flow” was invented so we wouldn’t have to use negative signs everywhere in the math. An electron hole is a property of p-type semiconductors, a place where electrons can move into, which can also be described as the nonsensical but more mathematically convenient flow of holes in the opposite direction. By analogy, if you had a children’s shape-sorting box, you could build a catapult that threw around the blocks, but you couldn’t build something that threw around the holes in the lid that the blocks fit into.
:But... sure you could!? The blocks would function like pegs obstructing unaligned travel, & the "holes" could simply be panels that can only traverse the pegs when their holes are aligned. Just because a gap in a medium lacks one thing, doesn't mean it contains nothing, & the medium itself is necessarily still a thing. None of the math for a QED vacuum even works unless a space defined by masss-energy over time, is defined; there is no "nothing".
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

== Anode ray ==

A contributor wrote, "Here, the electron hole gun might refer to the anode ray tubes." An anode ray is a beam of positive ions; these are actual particles and not "quasiparticles", and therefore the comic does not refer to them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.243|162.158.86.243]] 07:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

== Who is firing the beam? ==

Are we so sure it's Beret Guy? Depending on how dangerous or destructive it is, it could be Black Hat? And is using the first person in the title text ("my") for a character like Beret Guy, instead of for a fictionalized Randall Monroe with weird hobbies, a departure from usual norms?

Quoting the article as of my writing, "It should be noted however, that a hole in the QED vacuum is a real particle, known as the positron. See the {{w|Dirac sea}}." That very linked Wikipedia article says that the Dirac Sea is ''not'' the QED vacuum, that they are equivalent but different models. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 02:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the punchline here. a layman might be angry about this hypothetical device, but a physicist would understand that an electron hole is indistinguishable from a positron. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.118|162.158.158.118]] 17:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2506: Projecting

2021-08-24T08:53:36Z

162.158.158.118:

Is this a meta joke about how Randall projects himself onto the xkcd characters like cueball, etc.? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.87|172.70.114.87]] 22:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
:No. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.239|172.70.130.239]] 00:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
::No, in this context projection is where, instead of confronting one's own flaws, one convinces themselves other people are equally flawed. Often times people do this because it's easier to claim other people are just as bad than it is to improve yourself. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.173|172.70.110.173]] 01:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Duban

Can I delete the alternative explanation about map projections? I feel like it definitely is not the subject of the comic. [[User:Dr. Beret|Dr. Beret]] ([[User talk:Dr. Beret|talk]]) 05:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
:Nevermind [[User:Dr. Beret|Dr. Beret]] ([[User talk:Dr. Beret|talk]]) 05:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought this was about projecting the complex numbers into the reals. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.69|172.70.126.69]] 05:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
:How and why? :-D Obviously this is about the psychological feature of thinking others have your flaws as well. He even acknowledges he has a REAL problem. Had their been something with complex in the title text then maybe we could have discussed the possibility. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

In Danish we have a saying: "Tyv tror hver mand stjæler" translates to "A thief believes everybody steals." This is projecting. Is this something you would also say in English? I have looked on Google but cannot find a similar saying in English, that like the Danish version is a well known saying. Anyone that knows an English saying that would cover this? I have seen suggestions for "Takes one to know one"but this is about knowing another because you are one. But that is not the same as thinking everyone is. Also "All looks yellow to a jaundiced eye" this may be closer, but more difficult to understand, but is it a known saying? (Was attributed to A. Pope). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
:It's sort of the inverse to "Do as you would be done by", I suppose. I.e.: do as you ''think'' you could be done by; get your retaliation in first! And I also found (by surprise) that it ''was'' a known English phrase in the thief form. In my search, as direct equivalent to a Spanish 'original' that it was compared with, so probably cross-pollination across languages, in whatever directions from whatever true origin.
:Of phrases actually known to me without cheating, it's ''almost'' covered by the half-principled/self-deluding grifter's old adage of "You can't cheat an honest man", but not enough for my liking. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.118|162.158.158.118]] 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2506: Projecting

2021-08-24T08:52:32Z

162.158.158.118:

Is this a meta joke about how Randall projects himself onto the xkcd characters like cueball, etc.? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.87|172.70.114.87]] 22:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
:No. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.239|172.70.130.239]] 00:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
::No, in this context projection is where, instead of confronting one's own flaws, one convinces themselves other people are equally flawed. Often times people do this because it's easier to claim other people are just as bad than it is to improve yourself. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.173|172.70.110.173]] 01:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Duban

Can I delete the alternative explanation about map projections? I feel like it definitely is not the subject of the comic. [[User:Dr. Beret|Dr. Beret]] ([[User talk:Dr. Beret|talk]]) 05:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
:Nevermind [[User:Dr. Beret|Dr. Beret]] ([[User talk:Dr. Beret|talk]]) 05:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought this was about projecting the complex numbers into the reals. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.69|172.70.126.69]] 05:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
:How and why? :-D Obviously this is about the psychological feature of thinking others have your flaws as well. He even acknowledges he has a REAL problem. Had their been something with complex in the title text then maybe we could have discussed the possibility. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

In Danish we have a saying: "Tyv tror hver mand stjæler" translates to "A thief believes everybody steals." This is projecting. Is this something you would also say in English? I have looked on Google but cannot find a similar saying in English, that like the Danish version is a well known saying. Anyone that knows an English saying that would cover this? I have seen suggestions for "Takes one to know one"but this is about knowing another because you are one. But that is not the same as thinking everyone is. Also "All looks yellow to a jaundiced eye" this may be closer, but more difficult to understand, but is it a known saying? (Was attributed to A. Pope). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
:It's sort of the inverse to "Do as you would be done by", I suppose. I.e.: do as you ''think'' you could be done by; get your retaliation in first! And I also found (by surprise) that it ''was'' a known English phrase in the thief form. In my search, as direct equivalent to a Spanish 'original' that it was compared with, so probably cross-pollination across languages, in whatever direction from whatever true origin.
:Of phrases actually known to me without cheating, it's ''almost'' covered by the half-principled/self-deluding grifter's old adage of "You can't cheat an honest man", but not enough for my liking. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.118|162.158.158.118]] 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

2502: Every Data Table

2021-08-13T23:57:03Z

162.158.158.118: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2502
| date =
| title = Every Data Table
| image = every data table.png
| titletext = "I'm hoping 2022 is relatively normal because I don't know what symbol comes after the asterisk and the dagger."
| imagesize =
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ASTERIX and OBELIX. Please also create the Discussion tab's page, and enable 2501's "Next" button to here (add to List Of Comics?), plus any other of the necessary items that may have been missed. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is part of a series of comics about the COVID pandemic

The COVID pandemic has had a large impact on the entire world and one way this can be seen is through strange stats resulting from the effects of the pandemic. Various statistics such as employment statistics, spending power, holiday miles, pet ownerships, births (or at least conceptions) and — naturally — deaths may have been either grossly suppressed/increased for the majority of 2020, and for 2021 may have hardly recovered, partially recovered, renormalised, bounced back with a vengeance or be over-compensated for in the effort to catch up.

It is hard to know what 2022 might be like. Nothing (at the time of this comic being published) is exactly back to normal and proper recovery or the resulting compensatory readjustment may not have concluded in time for 2022 to reflect the trends expected based upon pre-2020 figures, and the additional further years that future statistics will record.

As an example, the four-year rolling average of total number of Olympic Games per year (normally a steady 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 or 1, depending upon whether the Winter Olympics and/or (Winter) Paralympics are included) will actually show a discrepancy for the next few years of a type not seen since the 1990s (when the all the Winter games were shifted away from the Summer games' years), the 1960s (the start of the Summer Paralympics) or the 1940s (the last major interuption in the main Summer Olympic cycle).

Sometimes punctuation such as an asterisk (*) or a dagger (†, also called an obelisk) is used to denote an unusual entry in a table to be explained in a footnote with a matching symbol. Common symbols that are used if the first two are taken include multiple asterisks (such as ** or ***), or a series of further symbols such as a double dagger (‡), the section symbol/silcrow (§), the parallel/double-pipe (‖) and the paragraph symbol/pilcrow (¶).

== Transcript ==

:2017....... (scribble)
:2018....... (scribble)
:2019....... (scribble)
:2020*...... (scribble)
:2021†...... (scribble)
:2022....... (scribble)
:2023....... (scribble)
:2024....... (scribble)

Every data table from now on

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:COVID-19]]

Talk:2501: Average Familiarity

2021-08-13T23:55:09Z

162.158.158.118:

I've never even ''heard'' of olivine. I think most people have heard of quartz (it's the crystal in most electronic watches, and it's pretty), and I suspect feldspar is somewhere in between. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:If you find a hard white rock, it's probably quartz; very common where I live. Decorative white pebbles? Quartz. Clear, pretty crystals might be the same compound, but they had to be pure to start with and they had to cool really slowly. (Unsigned by 162.158.167.245)
:Well, it helps if you play [https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Stone#DF_Geology_and_Geology_in_Real_Life Dwarf Fortress]. Olivine is one of the green stones (that only really has use as building material/decoration, but makes an impressive megaconstruction mayerial if you find enough of it to make that worthwhile), unlike quartz which features as raw 'gem clusters' more typically cut for decoration of mugs, crossbow bolts, etc. Of course, IRL, quartzes are ''so'' ever-present that they are very easy to forget ''except'' as fancy crystals (either for timekeeping in watches or timewasting in crystal healing) and as such you can actually find them almost anywhere (if you're not stuck on a desert island). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.20|162.158.111.20]] 12:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I resemble this comic ... I specialize in probability. Does everyone know that probability=1 means 'certain'? ... I'm not certain ... (Unsigned by 162.158.167.245)
:: In a general probability distribution, a probability of 1 means an event happens "almost surely" rather than "certainly" (see definition [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely here]). I know the distinction isn't important if one considers only finite sample spaces, but I think it's a cool enough concept that the nitpicking might be interesting to someone.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.14|172.69.63.14]] 05:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:: People who went through at least the first half of the math undergraduate program will most likely understand. In the general population, I guess, saying '100 % probability' would work much better than 'probability 1', but still people can get quite upset when something with 99 % probability of success fails, not understanding that 99 % (or even 85 %) does not mean guaranteed success (see for example 14:46 of this video about randomness in video-game design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwI5b-wRLic). [[User:CryptoNut1269|CryptoNut1269]] ([[User talk:CryptoNut1269|talk]]) 11:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As a chemist, I heard of all of them but, fun fact, there is a mnemonic in the german language known by at least all of the elderly generation: "Feldspat, Quarz und Glimmer - die drei vergess´ ich nimmer!" thats "feldspar quartz and mica - i will never forget the three". These three are the main compunds of granite and obviously this was stuff they had to learn at school. If, in a group of silverheads, start the phrase "Feldspat Quarz und Glimmer ..." and there will always be someone to finish the sentence. --[[User:Pauliprinzip|Pauliprinzip]] ([[User talk:Pauliprinzip|talk]]) 05:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

:''and may not even know the definition of "feldspar" beyond "a rock".'' Ironically, I think the person writing this may have overstated the "average Joe"'s familiarity with the word "feldspar", since I couldn't have defined it if you'd asked me. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|Enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I got the idea that ''both'' Cueball and Ponytail were geochemists, rather than Cueball being just an average adult. [[User:OblateSpheroid|OblateSpheroid]] ([[User talk:OblateSpheroid|talk]]) 20:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:Seconded. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 20:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Seemed like the examples of substances the average person might reasonably know the chemical formula for should include a mineral. Halite seems likely (though that name is probably less familiar than table salt). Diamond and graphite were the only other minerals that I could think of that many would know the formulas for (C). Chalk (calcite) seems possible, but less likely. Any other suggestions (or even better, any citations to research)? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.5|108.162.245.5]] 21:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:technically water in the form of ice is a mineral. But including salt is a good idea. And I'll look for citations. [[User:Curiouscat|Curiouscat]] ([[User talk:Curiouscat|talk]]) 21:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:I would expect lot of people would be able to name "formula" for more than several elements, along with having some idea how they look OR where they are used. Not as common knowledge as water and salt, but assuming they had SOME chemistry in school, this would be more likely to be remembered than compounds. Also, speaking about diamond, I suppose average people would claim that formula for coal is C, although I suspect that chemists would say that's not correct. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
::I probably wouldn't have been able to tell you the chemical formula for salt off the top of my head, unless you prompted me with "sodium chloride" (but even then, it's a toss-up as to whether I'd get the elements right). I studied chemistry for five years at secondary school and got good grades, but you'd be amazed at how little sticks when you have absolutely no need for it in day-to-day life. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Friendly local geologist here, I made some changes especially to the third paragraph because a lot of the science was confusingly written and not really correct (desert islands tend to be made up of primarily silicates? Even volcanic ones. Basaltic rocks have silica in them too, that's what olivine is) I wasn't sure what to do with the second paragraph. It seems a bit unnecessary to talk about quartz so much, since it isn't that relevant to the comic. I was thinking it might be good to have an explanation of the difference between sili'''con''' the element, sili'''ca''' the mineral structure, and what all these minerals actually are might be more relevant? Or at least we could put up what some of the chemical formulas are for quartz and olivine and maybe like albite, anorthite, microcline to represent the feldspars. [[User:Curiouscat|Curiouscat]] ([[User talk:Curiouscat|talk]]) 21:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:I thought (in a prior edit, by someone, may have lost its clarity in subsequent edits by others but I don't have the patience to cross-compare it all) the point was that coral-sands are not silicates, so your classic "lump of 'sand' poking out of the sea" is sparse of the stuff you might want to thrown your rock at. And any suitable rocks, unless you go diving down in the surrounding oceon to rumage beyond the living coral to the seamount/extinct-and-eroded-volcano it has been growing upon. That said, there's a lot of variation out there, so maybe I'm thinking of a too-narrow subset of examples. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.250|162.158.158.250]] 00:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

;Replaced "average Joe" with "average person"
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terms_related_to_an_average_person this term is specific to the US, and introduces specificity unrelated to the comic. {{unsigned ip|141.101.76.239}}
:It's pretty common on this wiki for explanations to throw English expressions like this at the reader and expect the, ah, average Joe to understand.
:Also, how does one use [[Template:Unsigned]]? I've definitely misused it once or twice, but reading documentations for it isn't helping (and unfortunately this is not a script; reading the src doesn't help either). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
::I'm afraid I don't know, but can I say how cool your signature is??
::Also, thanks to the person at the top who replaced "average Joe", as that did bother me too. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:::The unsigned template should used like this: <nowiki>{{unsigned ip|141.101.76.239}}</nowiki>, see above for result, except if by a known user, then <nowiki>{{unsigned|Kynde}}</nowiki> should be used, which would produce this (which I leave as my signature now) {{unsigned|Kynde}}
::::You can also add the time/date: <nowiki>{{unsigned|Lupo|13:27, 13 August 2021}}</nowiki> for this result: {{unsigned|Lupo|13:27, 13 August 2021}}

I knew quartz (SiO2) and I recognize the other two, all from having an interest in rocks (and having a little kids-oriented geology book decades ago when I was a wee lass). But beyond quartz, water, and salt, the only other chemical formula that come to mind are acids: H2SO4 and HCl. Mostly from the old rhyme: Jonny was a chemist's son / but Jonny is no more / What Jonny thought was H2O / was H2SO4. :p

Oh, also FOOF ( https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.109|172.70.130.109]] 12:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The explanation mentions carbonates as a notable exception to silicates, but sulfate minerals are widespread and economically important (and therefore ubiquitous in their finished forms -- e.g., gypsum -> plaster or drywall). Might deserve a mention? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 17:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If somebody can run perl scripts, there is a bot linked from [[User:DgbrtBOT]] that could resume autocreation of comic pages. While we're mentioning such things, are comics also published on twitter? would it be good to link the twitter discussions? sometimes an expert comments.

When somebody does the necessary to create the page for 2502: The answer is the double-dagger. (Then the silcrow, double-danda and pilcrow, in turn.) HTH, HAND. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.118|162.158.158.118]] 23:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:NVM. Someone created the page. (But they haven't yet created the Talk page for it, and I still don't have permission to do so, as an IP-only person. Nor done the necessary for the "Next" button to appear above, which I think is a function of adding 2502 to the List Of Comics page or something...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.118|162.158.158.118]] 23:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2501: Average Familiarity

2021-08-13T23:53:21Z

162.158.158.118:

I've never even ''heard'' of olivine. I think most people have heard of quartz (it's the crystal in most electronic watches, and it's pretty), and I suspect feldspar is somewhere in between. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:If you find a hard white rock, it's probably quartz; very common where I live. Decorative white pebbles? Quartz. Clear, pretty crystals might be the same compound, but they had to be pure to start with and they had to cool really slowly. (Unsigned by 162.158.167.245)
:Well, it helps if you play [https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Stone#DF_Geology_and_Geology_in_Real_Life Dwarf Fortress]. Olivine is one of the green stones (that only really has use as building material/decoration, but makes an impressive megaconstruction mayerial if you find enough of it to make that worthwhile), unlike quartz which features as raw 'gem clusters' more typically cut for decoration of mugs, crossbow bolts, etc. Of course, IRL, quartzes are ''so'' ever-present that they are very easy to forget ''except'' as fancy crystals (either for timekeeping in watches or timewasting in crystal healing) and as such you can actually find them almost anywhere (if you're not stuck on a desert island). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.20|162.158.111.20]] 12:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I resemble this comic ... I specialize in probability. Does everyone know that probability=1 means 'certain'? ... I'm not certain ... (Unsigned by 162.158.167.245)
:: In a general probability distribution, a probability of 1 means an event happens "almost surely" rather than "certainly" (see definition [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely here]). I know the distinction isn't important if one considers only finite sample spaces, but I think it's a cool enough concept that the nitpicking might be interesting to someone.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.14|172.69.63.14]] 05:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:: People who went through at least the first half of the math undergraduate program will most likely understand. In the general population, I guess, saying '100 % probability' would work much better than 'probability 1', but still people can get quite upset when something with 99 % probability of success fails, not understanding that 99 % (or even 85 %) does not mean guaranteed success (see for example 14:46 of this video about randomness in video-game design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwI5b-wRLic). [[User:CryptoNut1269|CryptoNut1269]] ([[User talk:CryptoNut1269|talk]]) 11:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As a chemist, I heard of all of them but, fun fact, there is a mnemonic in the german language known by at least all of the elderly generation: "Feldspat, Quarz und Glimmer - die drei vergess´ ich nimmer!" thats "feldspar quartz and mica - i will never forget the three". These three are the main compunds of granite and obviously this was stuff they had to learn at school. If, in a group of silverheads, start the phrase "Feldspat Quarz und Glimmer ..." and there will always be someone to finish the sentence. --[[User:Pauliprinzip|Pauliprinzip]] ([[User talk:Pauliprinzip|talk]]) 05:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

:''and may not even know the definition of "feldspar" beyond "a rock".'' Ironically, I think the person writing this may have overstated the "average Joe"'s familiarity with the word "feldspar", since I couldn't have defined it if you'd asked me. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|Enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I got the idea that ''both'' Cueball and Ponytail were geochemists, rather than Cueball being just an average adult. [[User:OblateSpheroid|OblateSpheroid]] ([[User talk:OblateSpheroid|talk]]) 20:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:Seconded. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 20:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Seemed like the examples of substances the average person might reasonably know the chemical formula for should include a mineral. Halite seems likely (though that name is probably less familiar than table salt). Diamond and graphite were the only other minerals that I could think of that many would know the formulas for (C). Chalk (calcite) seems possible, but less likely. Any other suggestions (or even better, any citations to research)? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.5|108.162.245.5]] 21:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:technically water in the form of ice is a mineral. But including salt is a good idea. And I'll look for citations. [[User:Curiouscat|Curiouscat]] ([[User talk:Curiouscat|talk]]) 21:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:I would expect lot of people would be able to name "formula" for more than several elements, along with having some idea how they look OR where they are used. Not as common knowledge as water and salt, but assuming they had SOME chemistry in school, this would be more likely to be remembered than compounds. Also, speaking about diamond, I suppose average people would claim that formula for coal is C, although I suspect that chemists would say that's not correct. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
::I probably wouldn't have been able to tell you the chemical formula for salt off the top of my head, unless you prompted me with "sodium chloride" (but even then, it's a toss-up as to whether I'd get the elements right). I studied chemistry for five years at secondary school and got good grades, but you'd be amazed at how little sticks when you have absolutely no need for it in day-to-day life. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Friendly local geologist here, I made some changes especially to the third paragraph because a lot of the science was confusingly written and not really correct (desert islands tend to be made up of primarily silicates? Even volcanic ones. Basaltic rocks have silica in them too, that's what olivine is) I wasn't sure what to do with the second paragraph. It seems a bit unnecessary to talk about quartz so much, since it isn't that relevant to the comic. I was thinking it might be good to have an explanation of the difference between sili'''con''' the element, sili'''ca''' the mineral structure, and what all these minerals actually are might be more relevant? Or at least we could put up what some of the chemical formulas are for quartz and olivine and maybe like albite, anorthite, microcline to represent the feldspars. [[User:Curiouscat|Curiouscat]] ([[User talk:Curiouscat|talk]]) 21:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:I thought (in a prior edit, by someone, may have lost its clarity in subsequent edits by others but I don't have the patience to cross-compare it all) the point was that coral-sands are not silicates, so your classic "lump of 'sand' poking out of the sea" is sparse of the stuff you might want to thrown your rock at. And any suitable rocks, unless you go diving down in the surrounding oceon to rumage beyond the living coral to the seamount/extinct-and-eroded-volcano it has been growing upon. That said, there's a lot of variation out there, so maybe I'm thinking of a too-narrow subset of examples. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.250|162.158.158.250]] 00:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

;Replaced "average Joe" with "average person"
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terms_related_to_an_average_person this term is specific to the US, and introduces specificity unrelated to the comic. {{unsigned ip|141.101.76.239}}
:It's pretty common on this wiki for explanations to throw English expressions like this at the reader and expect the, ah, average Joe to understand.
:Also, how does one use [[Template:Unsigned]]? I've definitely misused it once or twice, but reading documentations for it isn't helping (and unfortunately this is not a script; reading the src doesn't help either). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
::I'm afraid I don't know, but can I say how cool your signature is??
::Also, thanks to the person at the top who replaced "average Joe", as that did bother me too. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:::The unsigned template should used like this: <nowiki>{{unsigned ip|141.101.76.239}}</nowiki>, see above for result, except if by a known user, then <nowiki>{{unsigned|Kynde}}</nowiki> should be used, which would produce this (which I leave as my signature now) {{unsigned|Kynde}}
::::You can also add the time/date: <nowiki>{{unsigned|Lupo|13:27, 13 August 2021}}</nowiki> for this result: {{unsigned|Lupo|13:27, 13 August 2021}}

I knew quartz (SiO2) and I recognize the other two, all from having an interest in rocks (and having a little kids-oriented geology book decades ago when I was a wee lass). But beyond quartz, water, and salt, the only other chemical formula that come to mind are acids: H2SO4 and HCl. Mostly from the old rhyme: Jonny was a chemist's son / but Jonny is no more / What Jonny thought was H2O / was H2SO4. :p

Oh, also FOOF ( https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.109|172.70.130.109]] 12:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The explanation mentions carbonates as a notable exception to silicates, but sulfate minerals are widespread and economically important (and therefore ubiquitous in their finished forms -- e.g., gypsum -> plaster or drywall). Might deserve a mention? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 17:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If somebody can run perl scripts, there is a bot linked from [[User:DgbrtBOT]] that could resume autocreation of comic pages. While we're mentioning such things, are comics also published on twitter? would it be good to link the twitter discussions? sometimes an expert comments.

When somebody does the necessary to create the page for 2502: The answer is the double-dagger. (Then the silcrow, double-danda and pilcrow, in turn.) HTH, HAND. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.118|162.158.158.118]] 23:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:NVM. Someone created the page. (But they haven't yet created the Talk page for it, and I still don't have permission to do so, as an IP-only person.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.118|162.158.158.118]] 23:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

2502: Every Data Table

2021-08-13T23:50:04Z

162.158.158.118: /* Explanation */ I was going to mention this in the Talk page, but it hasn't been created yet and I don't have the permission. So I 'niced it up' as more Explanation-worthy. Remove it if you will (or transfer it to the Talk page, when you create it?)

{{comic
| number = 2502
| date =
| title = Every Data Table
| image = every data table.png
| titletext = "I'm hoping 2022 is relatively normal because I don't know what symbol comes after the asterisk and the dagger."
| imagesize =
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ASTERIX and OBELIX. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is part of a series of comics about the COVID pandemic

The COVID pandemic has had a large impact on the entire world and one way this can be seen is through strange stats resulting from the effects of the pandemic. Various statistics such as employment statistics, spending power, holiday miles, pet ownerships, births (or at least conceptions) and — naturally — deaths may have been either grossly suppressed/increased for the majority of 2020, and for 2021 may have hardly recovered, partially recovered, renormalised, bounced back with a vengeance or be over-compensated for in the effort to catch up.

It is hard to know what 2022 might be like. Nothing (at the time of this comic being published) is exactly back to normal and proper recovery or the resulting compensatory readjustment may not have concluded in time for 2022 to reflect the trends expected based upon pre-2020 figures, and the additional further years that future statistics will record.

As an example, the four-year rolling average of total number of Olympic Games per year (normally a steady 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 or 1, depending upon whether the Winter Olympics and/or (Winter) Paralympics are included) will actually show a discrepancy for the next few years of a type not seen since the 1990s (when the all the Winter games were shifted away from the Summer games' years), the 1960s (the start of the Summer Paralympics) or the 1940s (the last major interuption in the main Summer Olympic cycle).

Sometimes punctuation such as an asterisk (*) or a dagger (†, also called an obelisk) is used to denote an unusual entry in a table to be explained in a footnote with a matching symbol. Common symbols that are used if the first two are taken include multiple asterisks (such as ** or ***), or a series of further symbols such as a double dagger (‡), the section symbol/silcrow (§), the parallel/double-pipe (‖) and the paragraph symbol/pilcrow (¶).

== Transcript ==

:2017....... (scribble)
:2018....... (scribble)
:2019....... (scribble)
:2020*...... (scribble)
:2021†...... (scribble)
:2022....... (scribble)
:2023....... (scribble)
:2024....... (scribble)

Every data table from now on

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:COVID-19]]

2502: Every Data Table

2021-08-13T23:45:04Z

162.158.158.118: /* Explanation */ Rephrase to remove over-slashing.

{{comic
| number = 2502
| date =
| title = Every Data Table
| image = every data table.png
| titletext = "I'm hoping 2022 is relatively normal because I don't know what symbol comes after the asterisk and the dagger."
| imagesize =
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ASTERIX and OBELIX. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is part of a series of comics about the COVID pandemic

The COVID pandemic has had a large impact on the entire world and one way this can be seen is through strange stats resulting from the effects of the pandemic. Various statistics such as employment statistics, spending power, holiday miles, pet ownerships, births (or at least conceptions) and — naturally — deaths may have been either grossly suppressed/increased for the majority of 2020, and for 2021 may have hardly recovered, partially recovered, renormalised, bounced back with a vengeance or be over-compensated for in the effort to catch up.

It is hard to know what 2022 might be like. Nothing (at the time of this comic being published) is exactly back to normal and proper recovery or the resulting compensatory readjustment may not have concluded in time for 2022 to reflect the trends expected based upon pre-2020 figures, and the additional further years that future statistics will record.

Sometimes punctuation such as an asterisk (*) or a dagger (†, also called an obelisk) is used to denote an unusual entry in a table to be explained in a footnote with a matching symbol. Common symbols that are used if the first two are taken include multiple asterisks (such as ** or ***), or a series of further symbols such as a double dagger (‡), the section symbol/silcrow (§), the parallel/double-pipe (‖) and the paragraph symbol/pilcrow (¶).

== Transcript ==

:2017....... (scribble)
:2018....... (scribble)
:2019....... (scribble)
:2020*...... (scribble)
:2021†...... (scribble)
:2022....... (scribble)
:2023....... (scribble)
:2024....... (scribble)

Every data table from now on

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:COVID-19]]

2502: Every Data Table

2021-08-13T23:32:40Z

162.158.158.118: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2502
| date =
| title = Every Data Table
| image = every data table.png
| titletext = "I'm hoping 2022 is relatively normal because I don't know what symbol comes after the asterisk and the dagger."
| imagesize =
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ASTERIX and OBELIX. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is part of a series of comics about the COVID pandemic

The COVID pandemic has had a large impact on the entire world and one way this can be seen is through strange stats resulting from the effects of the pandemic. Various statistics such as employment statistics, spending power, holiday miles, pet ownerships, births (or at least conceptions) and — naturally — deaths may have been either grossly suppressed/increased for the majority of 2020 and hardly recovered/partially recovered/renormalised/bounced back with a vengeance/over-compensated during 2021.

It is hard to know what 2022 might be like. Nothing (at the time of this comic being published) is exactly back to normal and proper recovery or the resulting compensatory readjustment may not have concluded in time for 2022 to reflect the trends expected based upon pre-2020 figures, and the additional further years that future statistics will record.

Sometimes punctuation such as an asterisk (*) or a dagger (†, also called an obelisk) is used to denote an unusual entry in a table to be explained in a footnote with a matching symbol. Common symbols that are used if the first two are taken include multiple asterisks (such as ** or ***), or a series of further symbols such as a double dagger (‡), the section symbol/silcrow (§), the parallel/double-pipe (‖) and the paragraph symbol/pilcrow (¶).

== Transcript ==

:2017....... (scribble)
:2018....... (scribble)
:2019....... (scribble)
:2020*...... (scribble)
:2021†...... (scribble)
:2022....... (scribble)
:2023....... (scribble)
:2024....... (scribble)

Every data table from now on

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:COVID-19]]

2502: Every Data Table

2021-08-13T23:24:39Z

162.158.158.118: /* Explanation */ Fairly typical. Not universal.

Talk:2501: Average Familiarity

2021-08-13T23:19:04Z

162.158.158.118: