explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2241: Brussels Sprouts Mandela Effect

2019-12-16T10:27:21Z

162.158.166.53:

Brussels Sprouts Mandella Effect dot Tumblr dot com--[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 00:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Is liquorice ''really'' so disliked as suggested? For me it's "Meh" ({{w|Liquorice allsorts}} are all the better for being partnered with sweetness in various ways), but pallatable enough in its plain form. Although I admit the versions salted with ammonium chloride are a more acquired taste to my (apparently) non-European tastebuds. I won't eat those in handfulls, just the odd occasionally grabbed morsel from the bag that gets rapidly emptied by the continental person who brought them... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.250|141.101.98.250]] 00:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
: Black licorice jelly beans are good (the Twizzler fake stuff not so much), but I mostly don't like the allsorts. Tried the Finnish/European stuff, and that's just plain nasty. However, of my peers and co-workers, I'm apparently the only one that likes black licorice. Still, however, there's always plenty of the bags of black licorice jelly beans in the store around Easter, so the cohort of folk that like them is large enough that it's still profitable to stock.

:Most people like liquorice in The Netherlands (which comes in various forms: sweet/salty, hard/soft etc.), it is available at most supermarkets. As for the title text, when I saw today's comic title, the first thing I thought was: is that your new password, Randall? --[[User:IByte|IByte]] ([[User talk:IByte|talk]]) 09:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Silica packets are harmless to eat:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/19775/what-would-happen-if-you-ate-one-those-silica-gel-packets

The joke (a supposedly false statement) about silica gel may be actually a true, keen observation: people are “misled” to believe that it is absolutely NOT edible (i.e. poisonous) because of the strong warning DO NOT EAT they read again and again (see e.g. [https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/21181/what-would-happen-if-one-eats-silica-gel]). Maybe this ''is'' intended; maybe it's just a joke (lie) that turned out to be true. What do you think?
[[User:Yosei|Yosei]] ([[User talk:Yosei|talk]]) 04:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I remember eating Brusseles Sprouts as a kid and those were tasty (and expencive). I wonder if modern sprouts won't be tasty for me. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.244.150|172.68.244.150]]

Perhaps they were expensive because they were well prepared? I too, recall eating Brussels Sprouts and thinking they were tasty...they had been steamed by a gourmet chief, in a light wine vinaigrette with white pepper, and I decided I must have been mistaken about them; later I found I still hated them, normally, and I had just had them uncommonly well prepared that one time. Normally they are not expensive, you might have been paying for the skill, not the subject. On the other hand, there is currently a widespread discussion concerning the vast difference in the currently wide-spread and almost ubiquitous “Cavendish” banana cultivar from its predecessor, almost untasted by living tongues, so it is not unheard of for a change in the produced monoculture causing consumers to suddenly, unexpectedly, finding their tastes apparently changing, despite common parlance using one generic term for all varieties of a foodstuff. [[User:Eclair Egglayer|Eclair Egglayer]] ([[User talk:Eclair Egglayer|talk]]) 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

::I realize this is an uphill battle, but I can’t help reminiscing about how Wikipedia, about a decade ago, seemingly implied that “U.F.O.” referred to “a pseudoscientific belief in ‘flying saucers’ piloted by little green men from the planet Mars” rather than being a military and aeronautical term referring to a wide range of common phenomena, some of which are claimed, by some, to be evidence for a widely known pseudoscientific theory. I will refrain from mentioning more recent questionable editing of Wikipedia, as I don’t want to bring any more hotheaded contention to what is already a hopeless struggle, but many of you are familiar with the sort of thing I am referring to. I am aware that Randal’s characters referring to a “real Mandela Effect” already has the implication that “the Mandela Effect is not real”, but do we really want to contribute to the growing conflation of observed and documented phenomena with the pseudoscience explanations for them, simply because the pseudoscience occupies more of the popular consciousness? The redirect currently points to a subsection of a Wikipedia article on False Memories; surely we don’t want to add to any further confusion in common parlance between False Memories and esoteric explanations for them involving alternate realities? Before you dismiss my concerns, think about how often you encounter a firm conviction that “anyone who believes in UFOs is crazy or stupid”, or even more bizarre claims like “Flat Earthers aren’t real” (rather than “Flat Earthers are real people who believe in a particular pseudoscientific theory”). Just because the popular discussion of the Mandela Effect is dominated by discussions that conflate the phenomenon of commonalities in miss-remembered history, with a particular pseudoscientific explanation, must we accept that sociologists and psychologists can no longer discuss the former, because it is firmly settled, in the non-scientific discussions of the day, that any such conversation must be about that latter? [[User:Eclair Egglayer|Eclair Egglayer]] ([[User talk:Eclair Egglayer|talk]]) 09:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The title text referenced the password strength comic, and I had to go back and check that the comic's example password was really "correcthorsebatterystaple".

I found out that the new sprouts actually came out in 1999. See: [https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/nieuw-zoete-spruitjes~b6803ee03/ nieuwe zoete spruitjes]
: ...Huh. That means that the tasty Brussels sprouts I've eaten as a kid might have already been the new variety (I was 7 years old in 1999, and I ''think'' those memories go back farther than that, but I'm not actually very sure). --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.22|172.69.55.22]] 20:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

When my mother prepared brussel sprouts when I was a child, she would boil them to tenderness, aka just short of boiling them to death. This tended to leach all the soluble stuff, like sugars and vitamins, into the water and emphasize the sulphur compounds. In more recent times, I have had them prepared better and prepared them myself better (cut in half through the stem, drizzle with oil and roast or pan fry) and they can be very tasty. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 18:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I always loved sprouts as a kid. Proper loved 'em. They're OK now, but the only thing bitter about eating them now is me: nobody who hated them had any duty to eat them but, because they somehow felt they did, growers created a blander version that haters would tolerate. Wouldn't it have been better - for everybody concerned - to leave them alone?! Those who liked them would eat them, those who didn't wouldn't, and we'd all be happy. Now we have everybody saying sprouts are no good - either because of the entrenched idea that it's an accepted fact, or because these once-tasty delights have been replaced by little nuggets of bland greenness.

Oh, and the Mandela Effect: frustrating to everyone in the parts of the world with better reportage on 1980s South Africa, to whom it's like saying 'But surely Tom Cruise died in that plane crash along with Madonna, Bill Gates and Emperor Hirohito in 1987! I fucking REMEMBER it!' [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I was really damn confused by the alt text until I read the explanation. I kept thinking "saw them open" meant "cut through them" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.136|162.158.214.136]] 08:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comic seems to have been updated to fix the NPR reference number [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.53|162.158.166.53]] 10:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2241: Brussels Sprouts Mandela Effect

2019-12-16T10:26:10Z

162.158.166.53:

Talk:97: A Simple Plan

2017-08-23T21:54:12Z

162.158.166.53:

My interpretation is that it is physically impossible to feel another person's body and thoughts, hence the line "You don't know what it's like to be me" is true. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.53|162.158.166.53]] 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this is the correct interpretation. Simple Plan's stereotypical bubblegum punk whiny teenager lyrics at first listen could pass for a parody, mocking the ridiculousness of 30 year olds complaining about homework and chores. But they aren't being ironic. They're being serious. Am I wrong here? Tell me I'm wrong. {{unsigned ip|70.67.175.61}}

:No, I think you're absolutely right with your interpretation! {{unsigned ip|213.69.26.162}}

::The title text seems to prove your interpretation is right. And I must say your comment is one of the most accurate statements I've ever seen. [[Special:Contributions/18.215.1.197|18.215.1.197]] 12:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The interpretation is absolutely correct. Check this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt0WP9ZBNiY], you will find this text "You don't know what it's like to be like me" in the lyrics.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, that lyric is indeed in the song. But Randall is reflecting on the hilariously ironic "stereotypical bubblegum punk whiny teenager lyrics" as described above, not the bizarre explanation you have above. I understand if you're a Simple Plan fan, but judging by this comic Randall isn't. [[Special:Contributions/18.215.1.197|18.215.1.197]] 22:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry I am late, but it seems we are just living at different time zones. I am not native English because I am from Germany, but I thought that "teenage angst" also mentioned at the Wiki page should stay at this explanation. I was also hoping someone else would participate here at this discussion. So I am sure we will find the REAL explain. I am with you. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It says the title text stated that the text wasn't written by teenagers. As it appears now, it just says "This is true. The lyrics are ridiculous". Nothing about the age of the people who wrote them (although knowing how such singers work, I seriously doubt that any of the group actually wrote anything themselves. Which not to say that the person who wrote it for them was a teenager either. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's also important to note that the band members were in their mid-20's when they released this song (23-25, according to Wikipedia). Still a tad bit too old to be singing about teen angst, but not quite as "ridiculous" as if they were in their 30's. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.138.214|162.158.138.214]] 00:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:97: A Simple Plan

2017-08-23T21:51:32Z

162.158.166.53:

My interpretation is that it is physically impossible to feel another person's body and thoughts, hence the line "You don't know what it's like to be me" is true.

I seriously doubt that this is the correct interpretation. Simple Plan's stereotypical bubblegum punk whiny teenager lyrics at first listen could pass for a parody, mocking the ridiculousness of 30 year olds complaining about homework and chores. But they aren't being ironic. They're being serious. Am I wrong here? Tell me I'm wrong. {{unsigned ip|70.67.175.61}}

:No, I think you're absolutely right with your interpretation! {{unsigned ip|213.69.26.162}}

::The title text seems to prove your interpretation is right. And I must say your comment is one of the most accurate statements I've ever seen. [[Special:Contributions/18.215.1.197|18.215.1.197]] 12:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The interpretation is absolutely correct. Check this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt0WP9ZBNiY], you will find this text "You don't know what it's like to be like me" in the lyrics.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, that lyric is indeed in the song. But Randall is reflecting on the hilariously ironic "stereotypical bubblegum punk whiny teenager lyrics" as described above, not the bizarre explanation you have above. I understand if you're a Simple Plan fan, but judging by this comic Randall isn't. [[Special:Contributions/18.215.1.197|18.215.1.197]] 22:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry I am late, but it seems we are just living at different time zones. I am not native English because I am from Germany, but I thought that "teenage angst" also mentioned at the Wiki page should stay at this explanation. I was also hoping someone else would participate here at this discussion. So I am sure we will find the REAL explain. I am with you. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It says the title text stated that the text wasn't written by teenagers. As it appears now, it just says "This is true. The lyrics are ridiculous". Nothing about the age of the people who wrote them (although knowing how such singers work, I seriously doubt that any of the group actually wrote anything themselves. Which not to say that the person who wrote it for them was a teenager either. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's also important to note that the band members were in their mid-20's when they released this song (23-25, according to Wikipedia). Still a tad bit too old to be singing about teen angst, but not quite as "ridiculous" as if they were in their 30's. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.138.214|162.158.138.214]] 00:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1868: Eclipse Flights

2017-07-27T04:48:30Z

162.158.166.53: was trying to reply

This could use an image. Could someone more versed in this website's inner workings add one please? E.g. http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/03/23/sims_schneider_eclipse_mar202015.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.12|141.101.105.12]] 21:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

:I strongly suggest [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Images/mir1999.jpg this image of a total eclipse shadow taken from the Mir space station.] I found it on [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html this introductory astronomy lecture notes page] linked from this excerpt:
::''While we often sketch the penumbra as uniform, in reality the penumbra shades gradually from the completely dark umbra out towards the edges. The reason is simple: as you move outwards away from the edge of the umbra, you will see an increasing fraction of the Sun peeking out from behind the Moon. There is a very nice Mir image of the 1999 Aug 11 eclipse shadow showing what I mean.''
:I also suggest that fact be included into the explanation, because the comic showing a sharp shadow transition is factually completely incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.53|162.158.166.53]] 04:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking around, and couldn't find a site to give me flight information for that specific day, and overlaid on a flight path of the eclipse. Anyone have any luck? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.118|162.158.255.118]] 22:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1868: Eclipse Flights

2017-07-27T04:45:56Z

162.158.166.53: comic is wrong

This could use an image. Could someone more versed in this website's inner workings add one please? E.g. http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/03/23/sims_schneider_eclipse_mar202015.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.12|141.101.105.12]] 21:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking around, and couldn't find a site to give me flight information for that specific day, and overlaid on a flight path of the eclipse. Anyone have any luck? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.118|162.158.255.118]] 22:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Images/mir1999.jpg this image of a total eclipse shadow taken from the Mir space station.] I found it on [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html this introductory astronomy lecture notes page] linked from this excerpt:
:''While we often sketch the penumbra as uniform, in reality the penumbra shades gradually from the completely dark umbra out towards the edges. The reason is simple: as you move outwards away from the edge of the umbra, you will see an increasing fraction of the Sun peeking out from behind the Moon. There is a very nice Mir image of the 1999 Aug 11 eclipse shadow showing what I mean.''
I strongly suggest that fact be included into the explanation, because the comic showing a sharp shadow transition is factually completely incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.53|162.158.166.53]] 04:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

1830: ISS Solar Transit 2

2017-04-29T15:19:23Z

162.158.166.53:

{{comic
| number = 1830
| date = April 28, 2017
| title = ISS Solar Transit 2
| image = iss_solar_transit_2.png
| titletext = Most people don't realize it, but they actually launch a new space station every few weeks because this keeps happening.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Pretty sure we're finished, couldn't find anything wrong. Can someone PLEASE double check this one more time?}}

This Friday comic is a continuation of the Monday comic from the same week, [[1828: ISS Solar Transit]], where [[Cueball]] was preparing his camera in order to try an capture the transit of the {{w|International Space Station}} (ISS) across the {{w|Sun}}. The comic is also made in the same special way using split panels. As a noted in the first comic in the [[:Category:ISS Solar Transit|ISS series]] the {{w|white balance}} is still not set properly, because the sun looks orange instead of white/yellow.

However, instead of transiting across the face of the sun, the ISS crashes into the Sun. In reality, of course, this can never happen, because the ISS orbits Earth at an altitude of between 330 and 435 km, while the Earth orbits the Sun at an altitude of about 149.60 million kilometers or 1 {{w|astronomical unit}}. This means the minimum distance between the ISS and the Sun is only slightly less than 1 AU. Also, due to {{w|parallax}}, only people in a very localized region on earth are able to see the ISS "hit" the sun. For all others the ISS would travel past the sun.

Additionally, even if the ISS would somehow impact the sun, it would not make a noticeable splash, due to being incredibly tiny compared to the sun. It would get vaporized before reaching it. (See the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|89|Tungsten Countertop}}''). And it would make no "Fwoosh" sound to be heard on Earth, primarily because there's a lot of empty space between Earth and the Sun, and sound cannot propagate in empty space.

The title text plays on the event in the comic, by saying that a new space station is being launched every few weeks as the event in the comic keeps happening, so a continuation of ISSs gets destroyed by crashing into the Sun on a regular basis. This is clearly implausible, as it has taken many years to build up the ISS, and there are at least three astronauts on board that would get killed a couple of times a month.

It's possible that the comic is a play on conspiracy theories about space exploration, such as the moon landing being faked. In these situations, while the government may be trying to cover up or show something different from what actually happened, amateur photographers/astronomers/radio enthusiasts (such as Cueball in this comic) who observe the event independently of government or commercial sources can see what really happened. In this case, the conspiracy theory would be that the ISS actually does crash into the sun every few weeks, but we're made to believe that it orbits the earth without crashing, while Cueball is able to observe what really happens with his camera.

==Transcript==
:[Every panel is split into two half height panels above each other.]

:[The first top panel shows an image of an orange sun on a black background with a white dot labeled in light-blue letter at the top right corner. The dot is in a light-blue cross-hair and a light-blue dotted trail is behind it as indicating movement towards the sun.]
:ISS

:[In the bottom panel Cueball is kneeling in front of a small platform while operating a camera with a very long objective while holding a smartphone. The camera is angled sharply upward toward the sky as it is attached to a tripod standing on the platform.]
:Cueball: Perfect! Transit in three... two...

:[The upper image is the same but the dot has halved the distance to the sun.]
:ISS

:[Cueball sits in the panel below.]
:Cueball: ...one...

:[In the upper panel the dotted line enters the Sun and the white dot has plunged into the sun making a flare "splash" out from the surface of the Sun. This makes a sound written in orange letters.]
:''Fwoosh''

:[Cueball sits silent in the panel below.]

==Trivia==
*The ISS travels across the face of the sun in 0.47 seconds ([https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/5Page61.pdf calculation]).
**If we assume that Cueball is counting seconds, then the depicted speed of the ISS between panels 1 and 2 is too slow.
*This could be seen as a joke on {{w|Pink Floyd|Pink Floyd's}} ''{{w|Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun}}''.
*Some comedy movies (e.g. {{w|Hot Shots! Part Deux}}) feature an aircraft passing behind the sun.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:ISS Solar Transit]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|ISS Solar Transit 02]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]