explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1637: Salt Mine

2016-02-02T06:30:34Z

162.158.180.215: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1637
| date = February 1, 2016
| title = Salt Mine
| image = salt_mine.png
| titletext = This one is a little bland. Pass the saltshaker?
}}

==Explanation==
[[Ponytail]] has built a {{w|particle detector}} (an expensive device used in experimental {{w|particle physics}}) in a {{w|salt mine}}. [[Hair Bun Girl]] assumes that this is to block out {{w|cosmic rays}}, as is the case with the real life {{w|Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven (detector)|Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven}} (IMB) detector, started in {{w|Lake Erie}} in 1979, or the {{w|Enriched_Xenon_Observatory|Enriched Xenon Observatory}} (EXO), placed in the {{w|Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant|Waste Isolation Pilot Plant}} (WIPP) salt mine in 2007.

The IMB detector was initially used to search for {{w|proton decay}} in very pure water kept in the mine, and it was thus important to keep out cosmic rays that would create the same type of signal as a decaying proton. Although the IMB became famous for detecting {{w|neutrinos}} from {{w|supernova 1987a}} (which pass through virtually all materials, salt or lead etc with only the smallest fraction of them interacting), it never observed a single proton decay out of the 1031 protons present in the water of the detector. If it had detected even a single positive observation it would have contributed to the ratification of the {{w|Grand Unified Theory}}, which predicts that protons eventually decay. At the time of this comic the lower limits for proton half-life from {{w|Proton_decay#Experimental_evidence|experimental evidence}} is of the order 1034 year.

Ponytail affirms Hair Bun Girl's assumption; however, based on the wording of her response, it is clear that Ponytail and her colleagues, [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]], have an ulterior motive of using the mine to get access to an enormous supply of {{w|salt}} for eating. This is absurd, since salt is already plentifully available in grocery stores, the cost of the particle detector far exceeds the value of the salt and their intake appears to be ''far'' beyond any medically-advised healthy limit (and likely to be sickening in other regards). However, just like fruit and vegetables you grow in your own gardens, rarely can compete in price with the cheap super market prices, there is something special about just taking an apple from your own tree. Maybe the same applies when you can just pick up the salt from your own mine...

In the comic, when Ponytail says "Yes, That's definitely why" it could refer to the large expectations that such detectors had promised when first devised and created. In the comic, Cueball and Megan are shown as possible employees of the particle detector, but are instead shown eating salt with salt, which could be a humorous reference to the lack of proton decay results. However, it is more likely to refer to the fact that when queried about the reason for building the detector (apparently to gain access to large quantities of salt), Ponytail is quick to leap on Hair Bun Girl's more scientific-sounding explanation, in an attempt to save face and appear professional.

The title text is intended to be absurd. Salt is normally used to add flavor to otherwise {{w|Bland diet|bland foods}}. However, the "bland" food that the speaker is eating is itself a chunk of salt, and they wish to season their salt with yet more salt. The substance they are eating could be bland {{w|Halite|rock salt}} (a mixture of rock and salt in raw form resulting in a lower salt content). Another explanation could be that Randall is referring to the comical quality of this particular comic as "bland," therefore creating a joke more akin to a pun.

==Transcript==
:[Hair Bun Girl (with glasses), Ponytail, Megan and Cueball are in a salt mine. Hair Bun Girl and Ponytail talk in front of what appears to be a control console for a particle detector with a chair on each side. To the right Megan and Cueball are eating salt in large amounts straight of the rocks in the mine. They are eating so fast that salt spills from their hands and falls to the ground.]
:Hair Bun Girl: So you've built this particle detector in a salt mine to block out cosmic rays?
:Ponytail: Yes.
:Ponytail: That is definitely why.
:Cueball and Megan [eating salt]: Homf nomf nomf

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Hair Bun Girl]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:1605: DNA

2015-11-19T21:59:45Z

162.158.180.215:

The source for Google.com can be found at `<nowiki>view-source:https://www.google.com/</nowiki>` for Firefox and Chrome. Also [http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=u8SMf7G6 here]. —[[User:Artyer|Artyer]] <big>([[User Talk:Artyer|talk]]<big>'''|'''</big>[[Special:Contributions/Artyer|ctb]])</big> 16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:Should there be a link to the code in the explain. I do not understand these links or the source code, and would not like to place these links in the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I really like this comic. IMHO, just another good example of intelligent design. Google's dev had to design, plan and carefully code. If that is seemingly simple compared to DNA and biology then how much more intelligence and thought was needed for the coding of all living things?--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:With all the stupid things going on in our bodies (rendered useless by natural selection but staying put anyway like the {{w|Appendix (anatomy)|Appendix}} or our {{w|tailbone}}) then it is to me just a clear example that there has been no intelligence behind our genome, but just trial and error, and then 4 billion years to get it right enough that it works but not smart. And don't get me started on how our air and food/drink has to go in the same way with the risk of being (nearly) killed by a pretzel...([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-94567/I-feel-great-President-Bush-declares-pretzel-incident.html even if you are the president of the US] ;-) That is just plain stupid design. But few enough dies from this, that it was necessary for nature to change it once it was working. Humans and the genes survived long enough to reproduce. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
::Without an appendix how would our gut immune system develop properly? Without a tail bone how would we stand upright? It's a fallacy to think that just because we don't understand something it must have no purpose. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 00:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Without a pretzel-choaking mechanism, how could we ever hope to weed out less-desirable presidents? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.180.215|162.158.180.215]] 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, when I saved my comments it blitzed someone else's that must have been being written at the same time :'-( [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yeah it was my two comments above? I have now moved the one right her above back in place from the bottom where Davidy22 had placed it when he tried to fix it. No harms done but as he says: ''Read error messages, I know mediawiki gives them to you''. You can always see in the history what you have changed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
::I, for my part read the edit conflict (with Kynde, 18:43) like a good little boy, re-edited in light of that, resubmitted and... forgot to answer the security question. For completeness I wrote the following. If it's still helpful...
Had the same thought. Although I just use "View | Source" from the menu or right-click and "View Page Source", or whatever that browser tends to want to give me. And, having had that same thought: For reference, in case anybody wants it, the source of the google.co.uk main page (assumed not far off google.com in its nature) is 51 lines. But that's 51 ''long'' lines of mostly javascript, with much of the unnecessary whitespace (including line-feeds) taken out of it, overwhelmingly single-character variable names, over 150 'if' statements (including 'else if' ones, in continuation to a prior one) and perhaps 56 'for' loops, at first glance. Whether 'optimised' or obfuscated, it certainly could be a challenge to fully understand.
:: HTH, HAND [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.161|141.101.106.161]] 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

::: I don't think that Google's homepage is only optimized. I'm sure part of obfuscation is deliberate. That said, just removing comments and changing variable names is usually enough to make program unreadable. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO DNA with its redundant sections for things not currently used and the bodges in biological design are a good example of unintelligent design. For example the blood supply to the retina is between the iris and the retina, so it is in the way. An intelligent designer would do an eye mark II. But this has nothing to do with the comic. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
: Sigh. Another of the "I could do a better job" brigade. Go ahead. Try it. Post back here after you learn enough about the existing eye design that you recognise just how incredible it is. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

::Eye mark II is used in octopuses: {{w|Cephalopod eye}}. Solves multiple problems of our eyes. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

White Hat is showing the hubris often seen by people who think their (often limited) knowledge in one field can be used as an anology for something very different. Megan only manages to showchim his error by showing that a "simple" web page, which has only been evolving for a few years is more complex than he thinks, and the role of any one line/command in the page is probably far from clear without deep analysis [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The evolution of life is composed exclusively of copy-paste programming on top of legacy code, global variables, and hacks on hacks on hacks at every level, from telomeres and DNA looping, to the structure of the human hip (childbirth), to our breathing tract, optic nerve, and brain structure and cognition. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.234|199.27.130.234]] 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
: That's what you get when you hack the universe together with perl. {{unsigned|Dsollen}}

: Or C. Reminds me of a joke going around in the 90s ... http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/dna.en.html [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.38|141.101.98.38]]

Talk:1179: ISO 8601

2015-11-13T09:47:15Z

162.158.180.215:

Apparently there are some mistakes in the Roman numerals in the comic, the year MMXII is 2012. Also LVII/CCLXV = 57/265, whereas February 27th is the 58th day of the year (which has 365 days). --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 07:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:Just guessing, but could this have something to do with the divergence of various Roman calendars, e.g. Julian vs. Gregorian? [[Special:Contributions/98.122.166.235|98.122.166.235]] 13:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:Another error: Obviously 1330300800 is intended to be Unix time, but it corresponds to 2012-02-27 00:00:00 UTC. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 08:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:The day part "57" is not wrong: Since Feb 27 is the 58th day of the year, at the beginning of that day, 57 days have gone by since the year started. (At the end of the day, 58 days have gone by) Since we associate days with their beginning (like we do with e.g. hours and minutes), 57 is the correct number (or else Dec 31 would be 2013+365/365 = 2014, and therefore in the wrong year) -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 13:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
::The day part is ambiguous. It could be as Xorg suggests, the fraction of the year past at the start of the day. On the other hand it could be interpreted as "day 57 or 365," as with pieces in a shipment or page numbers. In the latter case it should be 58/265. But then, that (ambiguity) is the point, isn't it? [[User:Jqavins|Jqavins]] ([[User talk:Jqavins|talk]]) 17:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
::Meanwhile the comic was replaced, with CCLXV corrected to CCCLXV. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) Prima vigilia, XVI Kal. Mar. MMDCCLXVI
::I was just about to publish my theory of how "2012" in the Roman numerals in just the same vein might be intended to indeed represent the year we denote "2013", but by counting only the finished years. This would also connect with the confusion over {{w|year zero}}, another thing that ISO 8601 tried to straighten out. (They placed it before year 1.) Everything fit so well. Then there was an edit conflict, following Randalls correction to "2013". I guess you can't always be right. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone explain 01237 (last interpretation before the cat)? Thanks [[Special:Contributions/68.230.38.154|68.230.38.154]] 08:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:The small numbers above and below the larger ones show which digit is used where. For example, the 2nd and 5th digit is a 0, the 3rd digit is a 1 etc. [[Special:Contributions/82.115.151.1|82.115.151.1]] 08:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:01237 are the digits used in the date, and the numbers above and below them reflect the order in which they are written; 0 is the second and fifth digit, 1 is the third digit, 2 is the first, sixth and seventh digit, 3 is the fourth digit, and 7 is the eighth digit: 20130227 [[User:Bdemirci|Bdemirci]] ([[User talk:Bdemirci|talk]]) 08:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone can explain me what means: ((3+3)×(111+1)-1)×3/3-1/33? {{unsigned|95.23.147.48}}
:Read the comic explanation. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Many of these format mirror how the dates are spoken in languages. For example, Americans will say "February 27, 2013" and write "2/27/2013", whereas the French will say "27 février 2013" and write "27-02-2013". As a scientist, I was encouraged to write "27 II 2013" (which is apparently standard in Hungary, according to the explanation above) in my lab notebook to avoid ambiguity. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A strange thing is that he forgot the form mostly used in Europe: 27.01.2013. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 12:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:: That form is mostly used in Germany. Belgium and France use 27/01/2013 more, Netherlands use 27-01-2013. No idea what the UK prefers although I could imagine 01.27.2013.[[Special:Contributions/62.159.14.62|62.159.14.62]] 12:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
::: The UK prefers 27/02/2013 --[[User:H|H]] ([[User talk:H|talk]]) 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
::: That form (27.02.2013) is also common in all of Scandinavia. --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The image text has a subtle twist as "12/01/04" offers no contextual clues to it meaning at all, can be read three different ways : "December 1st 2004", "January 12, 2004" or "January 4th, 2012" (as opposed to, for example, "01/15/98" which could only be interrupted as "January 15th, 1998") [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 14:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
: Technically speaking, it could also be interpreted as April 1st 2012 or April 12th 2001, though that would be the least likely interpretation. I personally like spelling out 3 letters of the month and using an apostrophe before the year, such as 27 Feb '13. --[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 15:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:: And of course December, 4th 2001 Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.118.249|178.26.118.249]] 19:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way to convert the time-stamp placed on these comments to the YYYY-MM-DD format? --16:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
: If you're logged in, you can set your [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-datetime|date and time preferences]]. I doubt it will affect the timestamps on this page, though, since those appear to be saved as plain text. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 23:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like the cat thing is a reference to something, but I'm not sure what... is it something? A quick google image search pulls up nothing. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 17:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
: Seems to me that Randall missed an opportunity: Why a cat? Why not a '''bob'''cat? It still could be some other reference that I'm missing too.
:: Black cats are considered unlucky. I don't see any reference beyond that. [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen|talk]]) 17:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
::: It's taking the last two digits from 2013 and emphasizing triskaidekaphobia. Doing a web image search on "Cat 13" will pull up similar artwork of hissing black cats combined with the number 13, including both flyers for Friday 13th drink specials at bars, and combat airplane noseart. Apparently combining the unlucky "13" with an unlucky black cat emphasized that they were bad luck for the enemy. [[User:Columbus Admission|Columbus Admission]] ([[User talk:Columbus Admission|talk]]) 19:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:::: "You're a Kitty!" http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=231
::::: The cat's "Hissss" could be a reference to timestamp formats in PHP web programming, where the desired date format is generally followed by "H:i:s", the standard 24-hour time format. That would explain the specifically lowercase "i" in the cat's hiss.[[Special:Contributions/208.87.234.180|208.87.234.180]] 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool, this is my birthday. [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen|talk]]) 17:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"However the list then starts listing formats ranging from uncommon to absurd, such as writing the date partly in Roman numerals [...] " -
My math teacher uses a very similar format (in reverse order, d/m/yy, with m being in Roman numerals, because this is Germany (see above)), so I wouldn't call it absurd. She is the only person I know who uses it though. [[Special:Contributions/87.189.150.212|87.189.150.212]] 19:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The image and explanation needs to be updated for the corrections. I could do the explanation part, but I have no idea how to do the image part. And one without the other would be confusing for the readers, so I'll leave that to wiki-magic. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 21:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

: I updated the image as well as the explanation (and transcript). There is still the error on the Unix timestamp though (will this comic be fixed a third time?...). - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 21:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweden uses the ISO 8601 format. (If only food producers could understand this as well..)
[[Special:Contributions/46.59.16.141|46.59.16.141]] 21:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

- What can we learn from this? - I've learned that no matter the system we use today to communicate with others, it's probably seems silly for someone else. It's great to document what we do and propose it as an option to others, but it will be next to impossible to force them to adopt. When someone will develop a time reference that makes sense to everyone, it will be adopted all over the world without much effort. - e-inspired [[Special:Contributions/24.51.197.187|24.51.197.187]] 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the cat (because of the vagueness of the system) was referring to not the 27th of February 2013. but instead referring to the 13th of February in 1327 which would make it Friday the 13th. {{unsigned|66.35.1.98}}

Just so you know, Explainxkcd wiki uses the ISO certified date standard for its "All Comics" page. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally I've always preferred to use Year-Month-Day my personal stuff. I like it because the format is written the way we write any other number: Most significant to left, least significant to right. I didn't know this was a standardized method and I've always wondered why it wasn't used. Nice to know it is![[Special:Contributions/172.191.224.64|172.191.224.64]] 04:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)ExternalMonologue

Personally, I like yyyy-mm-dd because it sorts correctly. I really hate running into a list of dates sorted by month name, or worse, day of the week. I suspect this was part of why ISO chose this format. I've never been able to remember the american vs european ordering... My only other options is: February 27, 2013. [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 12:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

: I'm not sure what standard the Canadian Military officially uses, but as soldiers we were all taught to use a "7 Feb 2013" format when writing dates. Seems the most clear and concise to me. {{unsigned|24.85.225.143}}

:: Most of the dates I've seen used by the Canadian Military have been of that format but have only used 2-digit years - e.g. 27 Feb 13 (they didn't learn from Y2K!) {{unsigned|64.140.113.219}}

- What can we learn from this? - I've learned that keeping our time relative to earth rotation is outdated, we keep having to add seconds here and there just to keep time. And as an engineer don't get me started on complexity of mktime function. I personally think of time as oscillation of a flawed crystal in my circuits that I constantly need to keep accounting for through endless calibrations, and keep wishing that better time references would be cheaper (to me good is never good enough) - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 15:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha E-inspired you should read the "falsehoods programmers believe about times" http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time http://infiniteundo.com/post/25509354022/more-falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time-wisdom [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 20:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:Dude, you've just made my DAY! I forgot the last time I've laughed as hard. Why didn't I know about this site before? - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 20:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is the date of this comic written as "February 27, 2013" and not "2013-02-27"? [[Special:Contributions/93.73.186.104|93.73.186.104]] 08:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The hover hint says "ISO 8601 was published on 06/05/88 and most recently amended on 12/01/04." which must be a joke - because it is impossible to know whether these days are 6 May 1988 and 12 January 2004 or 5 June 1988 and 1 December 2004. Why make a comic about ISO 8601 then use ambiguous dates in the hint? {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.95}}

Amateurs, you don't put periods in format with roman month number. So it's 27 II 2012 [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.209|141.101.89.209]] 12:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The chief advantage of the American system is that placing the year last makes it easy to simply drop the year in casual conversation, given how slowly years change. While it might technically follow just as logically to have the day precede the month, in practice the sequence means less for the first two numbers. The 31 days or fewer between month changes are relatively frequent, while the 365.25 days between year changes can easily go "out of sight, out of mind" except when approaching a transition. In either case, placing the nigh-irrelevant year number first in the text string causes the reader to pay attention to that number first, and have to "skip ahead" to discover the month and day, when in truth the day is the most salient datapoint. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.52|173.245.54.52]] 20:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
: Hmm... The comic's point is about '''writing''' dates as '''numbers'''... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.180.215|162.158.180.215]] 09:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1161: Hand Sanitizer

2015-11-06T09:30:56Z

162.158.180.215:

Does anyone think the "peak" referred to in the title text could be the 1918 flu pandemic? Or even the bird flu outbreak?[[User:Chexwarrior|Chexwarrior]] ([[User talk:Chexwarrior|talk]]) 10:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:I'm thinking the "hipster" comment is a reference to how hipsters always think stuff was better (or it peaked) in the past so it must be on the downslide.--[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That 99.99% number on the hand sanitizer is probably made up anyway. Any actual scientific measure of effectivity would need to take into account different resistance of different types of germs. So, question is, is the sanitizer more or less effective? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

:I actually had in the back of my mind that the 99.99% figure wasn't a "dead germ count," but the number of strains of germs the sanitizer has the ability to kill. i.e. there are some strains which it doesn't kill. —[[Special:Contributions/98.122.166.235|98.122.166.235]] 12:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

:: Actually 99.99% isn't made up, its actually derived from how accurate the lab tests are. Most antibacterials, even plain 15% alcohol, will kill ALL infectious bacteria and viruses but you cannot confirm this because there are errors inherent in the tests such as contamination from the environment or more often that the samples have to grow (in the case of bacteria) or infect (in the case of viruses) to give a measurable result since you cannot tell by normal observation which are dead and which are live. With the tiny numbers that may survive the likelihood of infection or growth is low, resulting in errors with even the strongest chemical agents. --[[Special:Contributions/31.205.24.175|31.205.24.175]] 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

::: 15% alcohol is hardly effective (please state source), most effective is 70%, which means anything lower doesn't kill all bacteria. Alcohol is also only partially effective against viruses. It needs other agents to boost its effectivity. [[Special:Contributions/178.197.254.3|178.197.254.3]] 09:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't 200 million times .01% actually be equivalent to 200 million times .0001, which equals 20 000 germs? [[Special:Contributions/134.169.169.121|134.169.169.121]] 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:: The error depends on the calculator, I think. In my calculator 200000000 ✕ 0.01% = 20000 - [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I wonder if he will change it when he notices? [[Special:Contributions/24.93.151.187|24.93.151.187]] 13:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 2 000 000 * .01% = 20 000 is correct
:: ... Except that the calculation should be 0.01% of 200`000`000 - [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:: It is perfectly fine to write 200000000*0.01%. "%" is simply shorthand for 1/100. 09:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite aside from the arithmetic, right now the US has two epidemics: influenza and norovirus, which is often known by the misnomer of "stomach flu." According to infectious disease experts, while alcohol is likely pretty effective against bacteria and SOME viruses including influenza, alcohol is probably NOT very effective against norovirus. The best way to stop the spread of norovirus: frequent hand washing with soap and water.
[[Special:Contributions/24.91.233.200|24.91.233.200]] 13:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

:I'm sure that it will not stop people from trying to use alcohol to get rid of norovirus infection. :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"The humor (if a worldwide disaster can be said to be humorous)" I found this funnier than the comic, really. [[Special:Contributions/189.123.133.183|189.123.133.183]] 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)