explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3045: AlphaMove

2025-02-03T07:25:22Z

162.158.187.55: Round up vs round down comment.

Ask Tom Murphy VII to get on this [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.103|141.101.99.103]] 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This has actually been done and tested against other strange algorithms:
https://youtu.be/DpXy041BIlA?t=729

I have attempted to run the proposed bot against itself — if I haven't made any errors, here are the resulting games:

Rounding down:
1. e4 e6 2. f3 f5 3. e5 g5 4. d4 d5 5. exd6 g4 6. d7+ Kf7 7. dxc8=N Ke8 8. fxg4 h6 9. gxf5 Kd7 10. g4 h5 11. fxe6+ Ke8 12. g5 Na6 13. h3 Nc5 14. h4 Ne7 15. Kd2 Ne4+ 16. Ke1 Nf5 17. g6 Nf6 18. g7 Ng3 19. gxf8=N Nge4 20. Ke2 Ng4 21. Kf3 Ngf2 22. Ke2 Nh3 23. Ke3 Nhf2 24. Nb6 Nh3 25. Na4 Nhf2 26. Nac3 Nxc3 27. Kxf2 Nxd1+ 28. Kf3 Qc8 29. c4 Ne3 30. Ke4 Nf5 31. Kd3 Ng3 32. e7 Nxh1 33. Kc2 Qb8 34. d5 Kxe7 35. d6+ Kf6 36. dxc7 Nf2 37. c8=R Ng4 38. Kd2 Nh2 39. Ke3 Ng4+ 40. Kd4 Nh2 41. Kd5 Nxf1 42. Nc3 Nh2 43. Nce2 Ng4 44. Nd4 Nh6 45. Nd7+ Kf7 46. Ndf3 Qd6+ 47. Ke4 Qd2 48. Nf8 Qd5+ 49. Ke3 Qd2+ 50. Ke4 Qd5+ 51. Ke3 Qd2+ 52. Ke4

Rounding up:
1. f3 f5 2. e4 f4 3. d4 e6 4. e5 g6 5. g3 fxg3 6. c3 g2 7. d5 gxf1=Q+ 8. Kxf1 exd5 9. Ke2 d6 10. Kd3 g5 11. Kd2 dxe5 12. Ke2 d4 13. Kd3 dxc3+ 14. Ke3 e4 15. Ne2 exf3 16. Ng1 f2 17. Nxc3 fxg1=N 18. Qc2 Kd7 19. Ne2 h6 20. Qa4+ Ke6 21. Qb3+ Ke7 22. Qb4+ Ke8 23. Qb5+ Kf7 24. Qa6 Kg7 25. Qa4 Kg6 26. Qb3 Kg7 27. Qb4 Kh7 28. Qb5 Kg7 29. Qa6 Nc6 30. Nxg1 Na5 31. Qb6 Kh7 32. Qb3 Kg6 33. Qb4 Kg7 34. Qb6 Kh7 35. Qb3 Kg6 36. Qb4 Kg7 37. Qb6

Rounding down code:
const { Chess } = require("chess.js");

const chess = new Chess();
while (!chess.isGameOver()) {
const moves = chess.moves();
moves.sort((a, b) => b.localeCompare(a));
const move = moves[Math.floor(moves.length / 2)];
chess.move(move);
}
console.log(chess.pgn());

To round up, swap the a and b in the sort function.

Both games end in a threefold repetition draw. The game with rounding down does, in fact, have 6 knights in it, so I believe he did code this to see what would happen.

[[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] ([[User talk:Ohpointfive|talk]]) 22:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate on the Tom VII point - this is the YouTube video that possibly inspired the comic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.179|141.101.98.179]] 22:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
:Specifically, it's the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA&t=1483 Arithmetic Player at 24:43] set to ½. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately for white, it's mate in 1 with Bb4# [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.124|162.158.90.124]] 23:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if white makes a different move, its still forced mate in one. RIP XKCD Bot. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 00:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Well, for most options. Queen to a4 puts Black in check, forestalling an immediate move to mate White; capturing the knight de-threatens enough squares around the king that Black can't check next turn without leaving an escape route. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.28|172.70.176.28]] 17:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

<s>Although it wouldn't change the outcome much (either by changing black's move or white's general options), I'm currently not understanding why Kd4 isn't on the list of options at this point in time. So long since I played serious(ish) chess, and the only reason I could think of is that it's probibited by some strict ortbodox game rule recognising the ''potential'' moving of the knight out of the way (in the next white move-cycle). But I'd have treated that later option as forbidden, as a revealing-mate. But, as I said, it's been a while, so maybe I'm just blind to something like a sweeping bishop-range that disbars this (much as the near knight, bishop and pawn disbars four out of the five moves).</s> ...darn, it's just clicked. That's the AlphaMoved white-knight's destination (before that, the black queen was entirely covering that square, and double-teaming one of the adjacent black-knight covered squares), I'd been thinking that was the piece's origin (with the empty highlighted square as its destination) until I'd finally read the highlighted movelist item properly and deciphered it as Knight To King Two (done), not the (intention of) Knight To King's Bishop One. So ignore the above. Although, just to note, for the Black Queen to have even achieved that position would probably have required at least ''one'' normally-sacrificial exposure to the deadly white Q/B/R pieces guarding the obvious entry, give or take the algorithmic development of their (and the "gateway pawns"') current positions. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.104|141.101.99.104]] 02:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Follow-up... As far as the black queen is concerned, I suppose she could have done d6, (x?)g3 then f2, in-between the other black and white moves made, largely safe from the white 'defence'. Or to d4 then f2, if white Queen's Pawn was shielding still. (Appears to have been taken, but it would have been bold to have done that with the queen, for a normally immediate pawn-queen exhange!) A bolder/more opportunistic set of moves than I would have tried, either. Even (unknowingly) against AlphaMove, I'd have been wary of the unconventionally developing white disposition actually being an idiot-trap (and I'm really not that far off being an idiot, insofar as chess). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.162|172.70.162.162]] 02:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The explanation gives both O-O and 0-0 as notations for castling and then explains why 0-0 can never occur, even though O-O can be sorted pretty centrally. So, which is the correct notation? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.250.91|172.71.250.91]] 09:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:According to the [https://ia802908.us.archive.org/26/items/pgn-standard-1994-03-12/PGN_standard_1994-03-12.txt pgn spec], section 8.2.3.3: they are capital Os and not zeros [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 15:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we're looking at a retrograde puzzle. [[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] is onto something here, with the six knights on the board a strong indicator. The question is, of course, where is the joke? White plays Alphamove all along and must have started with e4 (rounding down) or f3 (rounding up). Both are consistent with the end position. So from my point of view, the joke is
* either that the "stronger engine" is not a strong engine at all but maybe the same algorithm, rounding up instead of down
* or that black doesn't win this position (in real chess, White is of course toast) because its algorithm is even worse
@Ohpointfive, could you run the two versions against each other? --[[User:Pganon|Pganon]] ([[User talk:Pganon|talk]]) 15:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I created a playable version of this game in like 10 minutes using ChatGPT ;)

https://enn-nafnlaus.github.io/AlphaMove/alphamove.html

Git page here:

https://github.com/enn-nafnlaus/AlphaMove

-- [[User:Rei|Rei]] 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I checked, castling and en passant both work. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.25|172.68.245.25]] 19:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pganon certainly:
White rounding down vs. black rounding up:
1. e4 f5 2. f3 f4 3. d4 e6 4. e5 g6 5. d5 exd5 6. g3 fxg3 7. c4 g2 8. h3 gxf1=Q+ 9. Kd2 Kf7 10. Kc3 Ke8 11. Kc2 Kf7 12. Kb3 Ke8 13. Kc2 Kf7 14. Kb3 Ke8 15. Kc2
White rounding up vs. black rounding down:
1. f3 e6 2. e4 f5 3. e5 g5 4. d4 d5 5. f4 gxf4 6. h3 h5 7. h4 Kd7 8. Kd2 Kc6 9. Kd3 Kb6 10. Ke2 Kb5 11. Ke1+ Kb4 12. Ke2 Kb5 13. Ke1+ Kb4 14. Ke2 Kb5

The first game is quite exciting, with black at one point having a chance at checkmate in one, but alas too many available pawn moves drives the winning move Qxc4# far past the center of the list. The second game is much less exciting.

[[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] ([[User talk:Ohpointfive|talk]]) 21:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a question: What is the quickest way to checkmate AlphaMove? Here's the quickest that I have found so far:
# f3 d5
# e4 d5xe4
# f4 e5
# g3 Bg4
# d4 Qxd4
# f5 e3
# f6 Qxd1#
Thus, we have mate in seven. This might be good to mention outside the comments section as a demonstration tha AlphaGo is not very good (not to mention failing to attack black's queen with a less valuable piece), but a quicker checkmate might be possible, in which case we should mention that instead.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.159|172.70.207.159]] 11:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

: Checkmating Alphamove is easy. Getting checkmated *by* Alphamove is challenging. You basically have to forget everything you know about normal chess. -- [[User:Rei|Rei]] ([[User talk:Rei|talk]]) 14:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

One possible move, Kd2, is missing! /[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.164|141.101.76.164]] 17:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
:That can't be done. The Knight isn't between d2 and the Q@f2 at the point that the moves are being compiled. The Ne2 hasn't happened yet (we now see it, as having moved there, ''as a result'' of Ne2 being selected from the list, so ''next'' turn the King could move there, assuming the game isn't lost (or black decides to do something ''else'' which prevents it, for some strange reason). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.25|162.158.74.25]] 18:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I [https://lichess.org/analysis/r1b1k2r/1pp1nppp/8/p1b1p3/2PnpP1P/2K5/PP3q2/RNBQ1BNR_w_kq_-_0_1?color=white put the position before White's move into Lichess] and it says it's mate in 12 for Black.

On a related note, I'm also wondering how they got to the comic position in the first place. Anyone want to try constructing a proof game? [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot of the explanation is based on a round-up version of AlphaMove. It should round down for even lists like the title text says. The [https://enn-nafnlaus.github.io/AlphaMove/alphamove.html example implementation] is wrong too. The first move should be e4, not f3. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.55|162.158.187.55]] 07:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T12:01:15Z

162.158.187.55: /* Explanation */ second largest

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Please DO delete this tag too soon.}}
[[File:Animation of Europa Clipper trajectory around Jupiter.gif|thumb|right|The ''Europa Clipper's'' projected course around {{w|Jupiter}}, represented as the stationary green dot. In gold is Jupiter's moon {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, in cyan is the moon {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}} — the primary target of the spacecraft's study — and in orange-red is the innermost of Jupiter's four {{w|Galilean moons|"Galilean"}} moons, {{w|Io (moon)|Io}}. The spacecraft's track is shown in magenta. Jupiter's other Galilean and its largest moon {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}}; and its second largest moon {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}} are not shown, but their gravity bears heavily on the ''Clipper's'' trajectory.]]

The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, USA, on 14 October 2024. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. Beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water, which may contain living microbes. To sample this liquid, its crust (water ice) would need to be broken.

In the comic, the surface ice is likened to the caramel crust on the dessert ''{{w|crème brûlée}}''. This dessert was invented in France{{acn}}, which is, of course, part of Europe. To eat the dessert, the crust is broken with a spoon. Having conflated Europa with Europe, the makers of the probe expect to encounter crème brûlée, and have equipped it with a spoon for the purpose of collecting samples. No such spoon is present on the actual spacecraft{{cn}}, whose trajectory is designed to ''avoid'' contacting Europa so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination of any life there}} by microorganisms on the spacecraft.

The title text expands on the main joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of the dessert/water ocean to Earth, presumably because Randall is keen to taste the samples. (Although crème brûlée is often served with fruit, it is not mentioned whether Randall expects the sample to be served with {{w|Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer|Juice}}.) Desirable as this might be (for non-gustatory reasons, as the taste of Europa's water ocean would likely be a surprise to a person expecting a custardy flavor), it is impractical.

This may also be a reference to the Cassini-Huygens lander, which, shortly after landing on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan, detected a surface that was [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan described] as having a creme brulee consistency.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a massive spoon on the bottom, longer than the length of its solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
The Clipper spacecraft was at one point to be developed alongside a lander, which was later dropped from being part of the same (or very closely partnered) mission. The latest version of the {{w|Europa Lander}} proposal is far behind the Clipper in implementation, not yet even being guaranteed funding.

Any actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the related plans for exploration}}, along with the possibility of digging deep enough into the ice to finally confirm or dismiss some of the more interesting theories about the world concerned.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

Talk:2972: Helium Synthesis

2024-08-15T10:08:22Z

162.158.187.55: reply

I had imagined that, rather than destroying the entire universe, they just somehow made a big bang INSIDE THE MACHINE that they could somehow obtain helium from safely. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.166|141.101.109.166]] 07:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:I get the impression that, like an abbreviated version of the cyclical {{w|Big Bounce}} hypothesis, they did indeed recreate the conditions for a (sufficiently similar) universe.
:The question as to whether they obliterated their current one (in a short-sighted and {{w|Instrumental convergence#Paperclip maximizer|paperclip-maximiser}}-like effort that disregards the safety of their current existence) or create a new instance of universe-within-the-universe (like [[2688: Bubble Universes]], presumably with some way of [[248: Hypotheticals|bringing the stuff out]]) is left open.
:If the latter, it could be that the ''reason'' why each universe's helium-users are chronically short of helium is that their universe ''has'' been used as a source for the next-universe-out's helium by the equivalent outwards recursion of the very same people. (The former would imply a kind of {{w|The Last Question}} situation, only not with the same timing.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.118|162.158.74.118]] 08:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you probably couldn't create a big bang in the lab capable of replaying the events of the current universe exactly without obliterating at least, as the explanation says, all the closest galaxies. If new inflation pushes the existing universe apart, it's still smeared quite thinly outside the new expanding edge.
::But I really like the idea, it's kind of like Rick's car battery in ''Rick and Morty'', one of my favorite episodes. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.4|172.70.210.4]] 08:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:::What if inflation doesn't disturb the matter and space around it, it just shrinks the apparent size of the matter inside it to create the expanded space relative to observers inside, by curving the interior spacetime and distorting the gravitational field to block it from its surroundings? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.45|172.70.206.45]] 10:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Could this comic maybe be a reference to a certain popular space video game? Sadly, in what I call a reverse spoiler, I cannot tell you which game I mean without massively spoiling that game. I hope some people know which one I mean and can reply basic on that guess. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 09:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:If it's [https://www.mobiusdigitalgames.com/outer-wilds.html Outer Wilds], there's nothing here that's a gameplay spoiler, is there? Just for a pretty small part of the story, right? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.55|162.158.187.55]] 10:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

2967: Matter

2024-08-04T10:22:38Z

162.158.187.55: /* Explanation */ title per rules

{{comic
| number = 2967
| date = August 2, 2024
| title = Matter
| image = matter_2x.png
| imagesize = 234x341px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = He was the first person to land a 900, which is especially impressive because pulling off a half-integer spin requires obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOOFY FRONTSIDE WIKI GRIND TO SECRET PHYSICS DEMO TAPE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In {{w|skateboarding}}, the term 'goofy' means to push with the left foot, using the {{w|Footedness#Goofy_stance|opposite stance}} to standard footing, a stance pushing with one's right foot. The comic uses this as a analogy for {{w|antimatter}} in particle physics, which exhibits the opposite charge to ordinary matter and will destroy both upon collision, releasing energy proportional to their combined mass in a process called annihilation. {{w|Tony Hawk}}, a professional skateboarder of great renown, has apparently obtained a professorship and is teaching this very non-standard theory. Professor Hawk has a comic named after him: [[296: Tony Hawk]], from the early days of xkcd.

Hawk's appearance could be a play on the name of {{w|Stephen Hawking}}, a famous astrophysicist and professor at the University of Cambridge before his death in 2018. As Tony Hawk does not have a degree in physics, teaching inaccurate lessons would be a likely pitfall of his professorship.

This analogy also indirectly raises the problem of {{w|baryon asymmetry}}, in which ordinary matter appears to be much more common than antimatter, unlike most{{citation needed}} distributions of handedness, chemical {{w|chirality}}, or the {{w|skewness}} of {{w|Multimodal_distribution|bimodal statistics}} describing asymmetries in nature (called {{w|homochirality}}, e.g., organ shape and centering, or plants favoring one branch over the other at a fork) and in artificial methods, because 'goofy-footed' skateboarders are about as common as those using standard footing. The baryon asymmetry is often thought to have resulted from inhomogeneities, or fluctuations, during {{w|Inflation (cosmology)|cosmological inflation}} which occured between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the Big Bang,[https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251301] although there are several other candidate explanations of varying falsifiability.

The title text describes Hawk as the first person to "land a 900," meaning the successful completion of a {{w|900 (skateboarding)|skateboarding trick}} involving two and a half rotations, or nine hundred degrees (2.5 × 360° = 900°).[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YYTNkAdDD8&t=1m30s] In physics, {{w|Spin (physics)|spin}} is a {{w|quantum number}} describing subatomic particles (see [[1862: Particle Properties]]), named for the vaguely analogous ''but crucially distinct'' concept of {{w|angular momentum}} in classical physics. Obeying {{w|Fermi–Dirac statistics}} requires that the particles involved are {{w|fermion}}s, which include all of the electrons, protons and neutrons that comprise the entirety of everyone's mass and electrochemical state. Fermions all have {{w|half-integer}} (i.e., ...–1½, –½, ½, 1½...) {{w|spin quantum number}}s which do indeed include 2½, but only extremely rare particles have a spin of 5/2.[https://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/s137] However, it's very important to remember that [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYeRS5a3HbE&ab_channel=ScienceClicEnglish quantum mechanical spin is ''not'' rotation, but how quickly the corresponding particle changes state when rotated.]

While everyone and most everything we ordinarily interact with except light and cosmic rays are comprised entirely of fermions, {{w|Boson#Composite_bosons|any composite particle made of an even number of fermions, including entire atoms and their nuclei, are not fermions}} but {{w|boson}}s, which do ''not'' obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Luckily, landing a 900 does not actually require obedience to Fermi–Dirac statistics, because a skateboarder comprised entirely of bosonic atoms would still have fermionic electrons in the orbitals of those atoms, and thus would still obey the far more macroscopically fundamental and consequential {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}}. That principle gives mostly empty atoms the property of substance, allowing you to hold things, walk, make sound waves with your voice, employ any mechanical property of matter, and gives a sufficiently skilled skateboarder the ability to land a 900.[https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/pauli-lecture.pdf]

==Transcript==
:[Tony Hawk (drawn with short hair) is gesturing at a narrow whiteboard on which illegible things are marked, what may be a Feynman diagram with one of the particle/antiparticle pair going into a circle (possibly representing a black hole, and thus depicting the popularized (incorrect) analogy for {{w|Hawking radiation}}), and at the bottom, a 2x3 table of illegible values.]
:Tony Hawk: In the standard model, regular matter will annihilate if it comes in contact with oppositely-charged ''goofy'' matter.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Tony Hawk becomes a physics professor

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Skateboard]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

2964: Olympic Sports

2024-07-27T19:01:46Z

162.158.187.55: /* Explanation */ fix links

{{comic
| number = 2964
| date = July 26, 2024
| title = Olympic Sports
| image = olympic_sports_2x.png
| imagesize = 553x328px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Thankfully for everyone involved, the Winter Olympics officials spotted me and managed to stop me before I got to the ski jump.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A VERY CONCERNED OLYMPIC OFFICIAL - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Randall]], an armchair athlete, imagines himself participating in various events at the {{w|2024 Summer Olympics|2024 Paris (Summer) Olympics}}, with his degrees of failure measured in terms of their humor potential.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Olympic Sports Ranked by How Funny It Would Be If a Regular Person Competed
! Sport !! Level of Fun !! Reason
|-
| {{w|Rowing}} || Not that funny || The person would simply struggle to row effectively.
|-
| {{w|Fencing}} || Not that funny || They might fail to land any hits, but it wouldn't be overly humorous.
|-
| {{w|Weightlifting}} || Not that funny || They might just fail to lift the weights.
|-
| {{w|Golf}} || Not that funny || They would likely miss the ball or hit poorly.
|-
| {{w|Archery}} || Not that funny || Arrows might miss the target, but it's not particularly amusing.
|-
| {{w|Swimming}} || Pretty funny || They might struggle to stay afloat or swim awkwardly.
|-
| {{w|Long jump}} || Pretty funny || They would likely make a very short jump.
|-
| {{w|Pole vault}} || Pretty funny || They might struggle to even get over the bar.
|-
| {{w|Diving}} || Pretty funny || Awkward or painful-looking dives could ensue.
|-
| {{w|Hurdles}} || Pretty funny || They might trip and fall over the hurdles.
|-
| {{w|Figure skating}} || Incredibly funny || They might slip and fall continuously on the ice.
|-
| {{w|Horizontal bar}} || Incredibly funny || They might fail to perform any flips or fall off the bar.
|-
| {{w|Equestrian sports}} || Incredibly funny || They might struggle to control the horse or fall off.
|-
| {{w|Freestyle BMX}} || Incredibly funny || They might crash or fail to perform tricks.
|-
| {{w|Pommel horse}} || Incredibly funny || They might awkwardly flop around or fall off.
|}

The title text may be a reference to ski jumper {{w|Vinko Bogataj}}, whose spectacular crash at a (non-Olympic) ski flying event in 1970 in Oberstdorf, (then) West Germany became emblematic of the expression "the agony of defeat" in the opening narration of the popular US television program "{{w|Wide World of Sports (American TV program)|Wide World of Sports}}".

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Olympic Sports ranked by how funny it would be if I, a regular person without athletic training, snuck onto the team to compete:
:[Three panels are shown with a header, a bullet list with five listed sports in each, and one or two depictions of sports.]
:Not that funny
:Rowing
:Fencing
:Weightlifting
:Golf
:Archery
:[Cueball putts a ball with a golf club and misses the hole.]
:[Cueball is aiming with a bow. Three arrows are on the ground at various distances from the target.]
:Pretty funny
:Swimming
:Long jump
:Pole vault
:Diving
:Hurdle
:[Cueball runs stomach-first into a hurdle, while holding a hand on his head. Another hurdle behind him has fallen down.]
:Cueball: [Bonk] Ow! [Bonk] Ow!
:Incredibly funny
:Figure skating
:Horizontal bar
:Equestrian
:BMX freestyle
:Pommel horse
:[Cueball tries to balance himself on a bench. His both hands and one leg are down, while the other leg is slightly raised.]
:Cueball: Look! Look!
:[A horse rider wearing a black helmet is struggling to maintain balance on the running horse.]
:Horse rider with black helmet: AAAAA!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Sport]]

1862: Particle Properties

2024-05-30T04:16:10Z

162.158.187.55: generalize

{{comic
| number = 1862
| date = July 12, 2017
| title = Particle Properties
| image = particle_properties.png
| titletext = Each particle also has a password which allows its properties to be changed, but the cosmic censorship hypothesis suggests we can never observe the password itself—only its secure hash.
}}

==Explanation==
A table is presented comparing the range (maximum and minimum value) and scale (how big number increments are) of several measures. The table begins by listing properties pertinent to {{w|particle physics}} as the title suggests, but quickly devolves to other domains such as role-playing games (such as D&D) and sports after failing to provide a good definition of {{w|Flavour (particle physics)|flavor}}.

{| class=wikitable
! Property
! Scale
! Explanation
|-
| Electric charge
| [-1,1]
| The {{w|electric charge}} is shown in increments of a third from -1 to +1 which are the only known charges of fundamental particles (leptons, quarks and gauge bosons); however there are some exotic composite particles with twice integer charge, e.g. the recently discovered {{w|Ξcc++|double charmed Xi baryon}} with a charge of +2.

Quarks are the only particles with charges of ± ⅓ or ± ⅔, but cannot exist individually; below the {{w|Hagedorn temperature}}, they are only found within hadrons. To date, all hadrons (particles composed of quarks), leptons, and bosons have integer charge, and current models indicate that this must be the case.
|-
| Mass
| [0,∞) in kg
| Mass (specifically {{w|rest mass}}) is the measure of an object or particle's resistance to force, as well as its ability to distort {{w|spacetime}} (its gravitational attraction).
Theoretically, any object's mass could approach infinity, but mass cannot be below 0 (as far as {{w|Negative mass|we know}}). The mass units shown (kilograms) are, however, far too large for particles. Some particles, such as photons, have zero rest mass and are therefore massless.

All particles with rest mass obtain it through confinement, either by the {{w|Higgs field}} (the quarks; leptons; and W, Z, and Higgs bosons) or the strong nuclear force (hadrons).
Particles with no rest mass (photons and gluons) can only move at lightspeed.
|-
| Spin number
| (-∞,∞) (Intervals of ½)
| {{w|Spin (physics)|Spin}} is an intrinsic property of particles, a relativistic form of angular momentum. The spin of a particle determines what statistics the particle follows, half odd integer spin particles are classified as fermions and integer spin particles are bosons.

Two fermions cannot have exactly the same state, an observation known as the Pauli exclusion principle. Thus, for fermions to exist in the same position, they must have opposite spins, of + ½ and - ½. It follows that a maximum of two fermions of the same flavor (e.g. two electrons) may exist in the same position.
|-
| Flavor
| Misc. quantum numbers
| Flavor is a series of {{w|quantum numbers}} that do not fit neatly onto a set of dimensional axes.

The most general theory breaks flavor down into four distinct conserved values, the electric charge, the weak isospin, the baryon number and the lepton number, but more specific models increase the number of distinct values. Quarks, for example, add five more flavor numbers: isospin (upness vs. downness), strangeness, charm, topness and bottomness (the last four are literally just the number of strange, charmed, top and bottom quarks, minus the corresponding anti-quarks).
|-
| Color charge
| Coordinate system with R, G and B axes
| The primary {{w|strong nuclear force}} has six mutually attractive charges, arranged in three perpendicular axes each analogous to electric charge. These charges are commonly referred to as "{{w|Color charge|color}}" and the three axes are given the names of the three primary colors of light: Red, Green and Blue. The black dots in the diagram represent the actual colors while the white dots are the anti-color charges: anti-Red (colored cyan in diagrams), anti-Green (magenta) and anti-Blue (yellow). To complete the analogy, a color charge of zero is referred to as "White". The names of these charges are purely allegorical, but they do make it convenient to refer to them, especially in diagrams.

The color of a particle not confined by the strong force must be White, either as the sum of a color and its anti-color (as in a meson), as the sum of RGB or anti-RGB (as in a baryon), or as a sum of those sums (As in tetra-, penta- or hexaquarks). The attraction of the strong nuclear force is so strong that attempting to separate two quarks from each other creates enough energy to create two new quarks, which then bind to the original quarks. This property is known as "confinement" and means that color charge can never be observed directly.

Randall is incorrect in stating "Quarks only", since {{w|gluon}}s (the particle that carries the color force) are themselves colored. However, the colors of gluons are much more complicated, with a total of eight distinct superpositions of every possible color-anticolor pair. The fact that gluons are subject to the force they mediate also means that the strong force has a defined radius of effect, unlike the electromagnetic force, whose gauge bosons (the photon) are uncharged.
|-
| Mood
| 5 emojis on a number line ranging from angry to joyful
| Particles are not considered to have mood, even in the allegorical way they have color or flavor, but Randall implies that there is a quantized 5 point scale (from "angry" to "ecstatic") which would have some effect on the properties of the particle. This would be more appropriate for measuring customer satisfaction. Charts such as this are also sometimes used in medicine to indicate levels of pain, and in some psychiatric treatments as a quick way to track changes in the patient's condition.

In grammar, {{w|Grammatical particles|particles}} are a nebulous class of words, usually defined by a lack of declension or conjugation (such as prepositions in English). Some languages use particles instead of or in addition to "standard" declension/conjugation, much like auxiliary verbs are used in English. These particles may well carry "{{w|Grammatical mood|mood}}" as an attribute, as well as tense and aspect.
|-
| Alignment
| 3x3 grid with varying shades (columns Good-Evil, rows Lawful-Chaotic)
| A reference to the tabletop RPG ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}'', where characters have an {{w|Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|alignment}} that is either Good, Neutral, or Evil (describing whether they have a propensity to help or harm others) and either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic (describing how much they care about organizations, social norms, and the status quo). Common examples of these alignments include Darth Vader (Lawful Evil), Superman (Lawful Good), Robin Hood (Chaotic Good), and the Joker (Chaotic Evil). This may be a reference to the now defunct names of the two heaviest known quarks ("truth" and "beauty").
|-
| Hit points
| [0,∞)
| Games (videogames, board games, CCGs, RPGs, etc.) often have values for players and other entities that represent {{w|Health (video game)|health}} (also called hit points or HP). Generally there is not necessarily a limit on this value, but it does not often go below 0 as the zero value is considered "dead" (or some equivalent).
|-
| Rating
| 5-star scale
| The five-star rating system is often used to rate films, TV shows, restaurants, and hotels. Randall has previously criticized this system in [[937: TornadoGuard]] and [[1098: Star Ratings]].

Interestingly, unlike the "Heat" rating with the chili peppers below, this scale doesn't have a creatively labeled number line, merely a rating (3.5, in this case). Considering [[1098]], could Randall be subtly self-deprecating here?
|-
| String type
| Bytestring-Charstring
| In computer science, this denotes what type of data is stored subsequent set of elements or a {{w|String_(computing)|string}}. This is likely a pun on {{w|String_(physics)|string}} types that appear in {{w|string theory}} and particle physics, and may also be a reference to {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, in which the difference between a byte string and a (Unicode) character string is a cause of difficulties for some programmers.
|-
| Batting average
| [0,100] in %
| In {{w|baseball}}, a player's {{w|batting average}} is calculated by dividing their hits by their at-bats. Instead of using the percent sign (%), it is usually presented as a number between 0 and 1 (inclusive) expressed as three decimal places with no leading zero: [.000, 1.000]. It is pronounced as though it is multiplied by 1,000: A batter with a batting average of .342 (which is very good) is said to be "batting three forty-two." A perfect batting average (unattainable except in very small samples) gives rise to the expression "batting a thousand." The 0-100 scale would be a better match for the batting average statistic in {{w|cricket}}, although percents would still not be used.
|-
| Proof
| [0,200]
| This refers to {{w|alcohol proof}}, which is the measure of the amount of ethanol in a beverage by volume. In the United States, 100 proof correspond to 50% alcohol, so the proof of a beverage is two times the percentage of ethanol, so the maximum value is at most 200, and usually around 190 because of e.g. the formation of hydrates.
|-
| Heat
| No jalapeño icons - 3 jalapeño icons, increasing
| Spicy dishes are sometimes measured by the intensity of the spicy flavor, usually ranging from values like "mild" to "hot". The gray jalapeño likely represents negligible or no spicy taste in the food. However, as an objective scale it is largely meaningless, since there is no reliable consistency in how these ratings are applied - what may be considered a 3-chilli dish in one establishment may only be a 1-chilli dish in another (as restaurants rarely if ever intend their dishes to be rated on the {{w|Scoville scale}}). The scale being unlimited may be a reference to the practice of some restaurants where a fourth or fifth chilli may be added to exaggerate the heat of their dishes.

This measure of heat is unrelated to the particle's {{w|Thermodynamics|thermodynamic}} momentum.
|-
| Street value
| [0,∞) in $
| The value of a good or service (particles are usually not services{{fact}}) in non-retail or -wholesale transactions between individuals.
|-
| Entropy
| ''This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.''
| The term "entropy", which {{w|History of entropy|began}} as a {{w|Entropy (classical thermodynamics)|thermodynamic measure}}, has since been adopted {{w|Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory|by analogy}} into {{w|Entropy (disambiguation)|multiple seemingly unrelated domains}} including, for example, information theory. The table allows that the term "entropy" must mean something in the context of particle physics, but isn't certain whether it's the classical, Gibbs' modern {{w|Entropy (statistical thermodynamics)|statistical mechanics}}, Von Neumann's {{w|Von Neumann entropy|quantum entropy}}, or some other meaning.

In classical thermodynamics, entropy is a macroscopic property describing the disorder or randomness of a system with many particles. However, in statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, the concept of entropy can also be applied to single particles under certain conditions. If the particle's position is not precisely known and can be described by a probability distribution, this contributes to entropy. Similarly, if the particle's momentum is uncertain and described probabilistically, this also contributes to entropy. A single quantum particle in a pure state (e.g., an electron in a specific atomic orbital) has zero entropy. This is because there is no uncertainty about the state of the system. If the single particle's state is described by a density matrix representing a mixed state (a probabilistic mixture of several possible states), the Von Neumann entropy can quantify the degree of uncertainty or mixedness of the state.

Imagine two identical balloons filled with the same gas and heated from two opposite sides with identical heat sources, creating symmetric temperature gradients in both; because the distribution of temperatures is the same, the Gibbs statistical thermodynamic entropy 𝑆 of the gas molecule particles in each balloon will be the same. In contrast, if one balloon is heated by a low-power heat source and another from by an otherwise identical high-power heat source, the balloon next to the high-power heat source will have a steeper temperature gradient, increasing the number of [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/accessible-microstates accessible] {{w|Microstate|microstates}, so the Gibbs entropy 𝑆low power < 𝑆high power. Now consider electrons in two atoms excited by absorbing identical photons to a mixed state; if the mixed states have the same probabilities for different energy levels, their Von Neumann quantum entropy 𝑆 values will be the same. Conversely, if one atom has electrons excited to a {{w|Purity_(quantum_mechanics)|pure state}} and another to a mixed state by photons of different energies, the mixed state will have higher entropy due to greater uncertainty, i.e., 𝑆pure = 0 and 𝑆mixed = ln(2).

Please see also [[2318: Dynamic Entropy]].
|}

The title text says that in addition each particle has a password, but only hash of the password can be observed. This is a computer science reference. In computer science, properties (e.g. of an object or program) often can be changed with a single command. In physics as we observe it, properties can locally change with the environment. There are several {{w|Time-variation_of_fundamental_constants|experiments}}, whether physical constants are really time-const. Password hashing is the practice of hiding the password itself by storing only an irreversible representation of the password. Since the password itself is not stored, the password cannot ever be viewed by the user or a hacker (outside of the login page). This method is considered to be safest way of storing passwords. Password hashing using some {{w|key derivation function}} makes it impossible to steal passwords even if the server that stores hashes is cracked, unless the hash function is also broken, which should be a task which cannot be completed in any feasible time for sufficiently strong passwords. The title-text claims this is predicted by the {{w|cosmic censorship hypothesis}}, which in reality claims that a {{w|gravitational singularity}} must always be obscured by an event horizon (i.e.: there can't be a {{w|naked singularity}}). There is also a hint of quantum mechanics in the statement, as observation is one of the central concepts of the field, and {{w|Heisenberg's uncertainty principle}} actually states that it is impossible to observe (measure) some property of a particle with arbitrary precision when another one is known (e.g.: you can't determine the momentum and position of a particle). This makes the title text a mix of several domains, as was the above table.

==Transcript==
:<big>Particle Properties in Physics</big>
{| class=wikitable
! Property
! Type/scale
|-
| Electric charge
| [Scale with -1, 0 and +1 labeled and markings dividing the units in thirds. The endpoints are both dots.]
|-
| Mass
| [Scale with 0, 1kg and 2kg labeled and markings dividing the units into thirds. The endpoints are a dot on the zero end and an arrow on the other end.]
|-
| Spin number
| [Scale with -1, -½, 0, ½ and 1 labeled and no additional markings. The endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]
|-
| Flavor
| (Misc. quantum numbers)
|-
| Color charge
| [Coordinate system of three axes labeled R, G and B clockwise from the 10 o'clock position. Endpoints are arrow-dots on all ends, with black dots for the labeled ends and white dots for the unlabeled ends.] (Quarks only)
|-
| Mood
| [Scale labeled with 5 emoticons, from angry to happy, and markings dividing the units in thirds. Endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]
|-
| Alignment
| [3x3 grid with varying shades] Good-Evil, Lawful-Chaotic
|-
| Hit points
| [Scale starting from 0, markings but no labels other than zero. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Rating
| [Star rating of 3.5/5 stars.]
|-
| String type
| Bytestring-Charstring
|-
| Batting average
| [Scale from 0% to 100%. Endpoints are dot at 0% end and arrow-dot at 100% end.]
|-
| Proof
| [Scale from 0 to 200. Endpoints are dot at 0 end and arrow-dot at 200 end.]
|-
| Heat
| [Scale labeled with pepper icons, from 0 (a grayed-out pepper) to 3 black peppers. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Street value
| [Scale with $0, $100 and $200 labeled. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Entropy
| (This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.)
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Baseball]]

1263: Reassuring

2019-12-22T07:00:31Z

162.158.187.55: /* Explanation */ Changed an erroneous statement referring to the publishing of XKCD 1875, from being 4 years after AlphaGo's victory in 2017, to 3 months (May 2017 - August 2017)

{{comic
| number = 1263
| date = September 11, 2013
| title = Reassuring
| image = reassuring.png
| titletext = 'At least humans are better at quietly amusing ourselves, oblivious to our pending obsolescence' thought the human, as a nearby Dell Inspiron contentedly displayed the same bouncing geometric shape screensaver it had been running for years.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|Go (game)|Go}}'' is an abstract strategy board game considered computationally difficult, compared to chess. Because of the size and number of possible combinations, computers don't have an easy way to exhaustively search for the best move. Still, {{w|Computer Go|they are getting better and better playing it}}. [[Megan]] suggests that computers may soon reach the level of being able to beat the best human players, an {{W|artificial intelligence}} milestone that has already been accomplished with other games. At the time of this comic, Go was one of the last games where a computer can still be beaten by top humans (see [[1002: Game AIs]]). However, in May 2017, Google's AI AlphaGo [http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google-ai-becomes-world-s-top-ranking-go-player-1.3097756 defeated the world's top human Go player]. This was referenced three months later in [[1875: Computers vs Humans]].

As a common human response, [[Cueball]] attempts to offer the consolation or defensive statement that humans remain better than computers at something else (see also [[894: Progeny]]). In this case, the first thing he thinks of is that humans are better at making such consoling statements. However, Megan disproves Cueball's statement by creating a script in the {{w| Python (programming language)|Python programming language}} to create an abundant supply of such statements. An irony here is that each of the statements the computer generates defends humans, not computers.

Another such statement is made in the title text, that humans are better at quietly amusing themselves, oblivious to our "pending obsolescence" - which may refer alternatively to our inevitable deaths, or to the comic's own topic of our being replaced and surpassed by computers. The title text then again suggests, however, that the human statement is not true, referring to an Inspiron model of {{w|Dell}} computer which "quietly amuses itself" by showing a geometric {{w|screensaver}} as it presumably one day will be obsolete and replaced by a newer computer.

The original purpose of screensaver programs was to prevent images or characters from being burned into the phosphor layer of the older CRT displays. In more modern displays, including newer CRTs (cca mid-90s or newer), this could be achieved by simply turning it off after some period of time but originally there was no way to turn the display off programmatically. Thus the screensaver itself is already obsolete.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is sitting at a computer, and Cueball is standing behind her.]
:Megan: Looks like computers will beat humans at '''Go''' pretty soon.
:Cueball: Wow.
:Cueball: That's the last of the big ones.
:Megan: Yeah.
:[Megan looks back over her shoulder at him.]
:Cueball: Well, at least humans are still better at, uh,
:Cueball: coming up with reassuring parables about things humans are better at?
:Megan: Hmm.
:[Megan types on her computer.]
:''type type''
:[She leans back over her chair again and addresses Cueball.]
:Megan: I made a Python script that generates thousands of reassuring parables per second.
:Cueball: ''Dammit.''
:Computer: Computers will never understand a sonnet computers will never enjoy a salad comp—

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Computers]]

2105: Modern OSI Model

2019-01-30T05:43:48Z

162.158.187.55:

{{comic
| number = 2105
| date = January 30, 2019
| title = Modern OSI Model
| image = modern_osi_model.png
| titletext = In retrospect, I shouldn't have used each layer of the OSI model as one of my horcruxes.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a seven-layered BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model The OSI Model] is a computing model for network communications that abstracts a communication between two services like a Facebook client and Facebook servers all the way from physical to user interaction layers. As Facebook is one of the most used websites in the world with more than a billion users, Randall claims that the "application" layer (what the client sees and uses) is mostly Facebook.
The data link layer and application link layer refer to Amaxzon and Google's respective cloud hosting services: Amazon AWS and Google Cloud. Because they host the majority of the internet, Randall notes that most of both of these layers is made up by them. However, this is not entirely accurate because ISPs like Comcast or AT&T play a massive role in data link and physical layers as well.
The title text refers to Horcruxes used by Voldemort in the Harry Potter book series, of which there are 7 (same number of layers in the OSI model).
==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

2105: Modern OSI Model

2019-01-30T05:42:22Z

162.158.187.55:

{{comic
| number = 2105
| date = January 30, 2019
| title = Modern OSI Model
| image = modern_osi_model.png
| titletext = In retrospect, I shouldn't have used each layer of the OSI model as one of my horcruxes.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a seven-layered BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[The OSI Model] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model) is a computing model for network communications that abstracts a communication between two services like a Facebook client and Facebook servers all the way from physical to user interaction layers. As Facebook is one of the most used websites in the world with more than a billion users, Randall claims that the "application" layer (what the client sees and uses) is mostly Facebook.
The data link layer and application link layer refer to Amaxzon and Google's respective cloud hosting services: Amazon AWS and Google Cloud. Because they host the majority of the internet, Randall notes that most of both of these layers is made up by them. However, this is not entirely accurate because ISPs like Comcast or AT&T play a massive role in data link and physical layers as well.
The title text refers to Horcruxes used by Voldemort in the Harry Potter book series, of which there are 7 (same number of layers in the OSI model).
==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

2105: Modern OSI Model

2019-01-30T05:41:40Z

162.158.187.55:

{{comic
| number = 2105
| date = January 30, 2019
| title = Modern OSI Model
| image = modern_osi_model.png
| titletext = In retrospect, I shouldn't have used each layer of the OSI model as one of my horcruxes.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a seven-layered BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[The OSI Model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model) is a computing model for network communications that abstracts a communication between two services like a Facebook client and Facebook servers all the way from physical to user interaction layers. As Facebook is one of the most used websites in the world with more than a billion users, Randall claims that the "application" layer (what the client sees and uses) is mostly Facebook.
The data link layer and application link layer refer to Amaxzon and Google's respective cloud hosting services: Amazon AWS and Google Cloud. Because they host the majority of the internet, Randall notes that most of both of these layers is made up by them. However, this is not entirely accurate because ISPs like Comcast or AT&T play a massive role in data link and physical layers as well.
The title text refers to Horcruxes used by Voldemort in the Harry Potter book series, of which there are 7 (same number of layers in the OSI model).
==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:276: Fixed Width

2018-12-28T15:48:33Z

162.158.187.55:

All these statements would have been aligned, too:
No this is for real
I love you so much!
I really love you!!
It’s the real thing
You can believe it!
I love you!!!!!!!!!
I love you. Really.
Definitely for real
This is an odd one, because Emily presented two alternatives, both of the same length. Both choices would have retained the pattern.--[[Special:Contributions/46.142.61.98|46.142.61.98]] 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)madd

:No it isn't - 'rob' is two characters shorter than 'emily', so his answers have two be two characters longer. So Emily's answers won't do. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

::Nope. 'for real' and 'just sex' (assuming the use of a monospace font, which appears to be the case) are the same length. As 'definitely just sex' allows the lines to match up, 'definitely for real' should also. -- 22:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

:::This is because 'for real' and 'just sex' are both being said by Rob to complete his 19-character message. All of Emily's messages are 17 characters long, because her name is two shorter. [[Special:Contributions/101.162.138.9|101.162.138.9]] 17:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

:...other alternatives:
Just sex?Ridiculous
Justsex?Ridiculous!
Just sex? No way!!!
This isn't just sex
This is for serious
I want to marry you
This is not for sex
:[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this statement: "Rob then attempts to justify what he said which, possibly by design, is the normal text alignment for making text being even on both the left and right sides of a page." Does it need clarifying, or am I just confused? [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

::He's referring to the implied pun on the word "justified", which can mean "done for a good or legitimate reason" or "having been adjusted so that print forms a straight line on one or both margins." I'll clarify it. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 13:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The "alternative replies" suggested above are hilarious because they betray that their suggesters probably can't relate to compulsions well. To begin with, they begin with capital letters, while the comic lines don't! This is inconsistency. And then, they include trailing punctuation, repeated punctuation, spacing mistakes... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.225|141.101.89.225]] 18:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's not worth mentioning, Rob doesn't start the conversation intending to synch line-lengths. His first comment "<rob> hi" is the same length as "<emily> ", so she can't possibly reply with the same length. His second comment is conversational too, but his third is probably lined up on purpose. I figure it's also worth noting to alternative-seekers, especially if he was compulsively making the line lengths match, he probably didn't give himself very much time to reply, and "definitely just sex" was the first thing that came to mind. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 17:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Here a few ways that could've worked out well, or at least better (all appended together to make easier to see the alignment) :
<rob> hi
<emily> hey you
<rob> last night was nice
<emily> the best i've had
<rob> yeah it was AMAZING
<emily> ok, i have to ask
<emily> is this for real?
<emily> or is it just sex
<rob> em, it is for real!
<rob> as real as it gets!
<rob> it is more than sex
<rob> i think i'm in love
<rob> definitely in love!
<rob> love is undeniable!
<rob> i heart you verily!
<rob> i want you forever!
<rob> i want your babies!
<rob> please don't leave!
<rob> love is in the air!
<rob> you and me, wedding
<rob> sex good, love more
<rob> justifiably in love

I could think of more, but I got bored. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.213|108.162.212.213]] 05:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a parody of the game Emily is away[[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.59|141.101.66.59]] 13:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
:It was released THREE YEARS after the comic. [[User:Sobsz|Sobsz]] ([[User talk:Sobsz|talk]]) 16:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
:"141.101.66.59 is away" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.55|162.158.187.55]] 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

2062: Barnard's Star

2018-11-19T20:41:41Z

162.158.187.55: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2062
| date = October 22, 2018
| title = Barnard's Star
| image = barnards_star.png
| titletext = "Ok, team. We have a little under 10,000 years before closest approach to figure out how to destroy Barnard's Star." "Why, does it pose a threat to the Solar System?" "No. It's just an asshole."
}}

==Explanation==
[[File:Near-stars-past-future-en.svg|thumb|300px|Distances to the nearest stars from 20,000 years ago until 80,000 years in the future]]
{{w|Barnard's Star}} is a very-low-mass {{w|Red dwarf|red dwarf}} about 6 light-years away from Earth in the constellation of {{w|Ophiuchus}}. It is the fourth-nearest known individual star to the {{w|Sun}} after the three components of the Alpha Centauri system; it is the closest star to Earth in the Northern Hemisphere. It is a red dwarf with a mass of 0.144 Solar masses, a diameter one fifth that of the sun, and it is 7–12 billion years old. Because of this low mass the gravitational pressure in the core is much lower and thus the fusion rate is far smaller than in the core of the Sun. In fact this star is so dim that, even though it's one of the nearest, it can't be seen by the naked eye. The low fusion rate also means that the lifespan of small stars is much longer. While huge stars might last a few hundred million years, and the Sun about 10 billion years, a small red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years.

Barnard's Star is the star with the greatest proper motion in the sky. Proper motion is motion in the sky other than that caused by Earth's rotation or orbit. Barnard's star is both very close to the sun (as these things go) and moving now at a speed of more than 140 km/s toward the Sun. It will make its closest approach to the Sun in approximately 10,000 years, at a distance of about 3.75 light-years.

The image on the right shows different stars near the Sun over 100,000 years and it can be seen that none of them are getting closer than 3 light-years. This is a safe distance to our Solar System and the stars will not influence the orbits of the planets or smaller bodies. It's also obvious that much closer approaches never have happened since the Solar System formed 4.5 billion years ago because otherwise the nearly circular orbits of the planets in the same plane wouldn't be possible. Closer encounters have happened in the past by mostly small stars like {{w|Scholz's Star}} which actually passed through the {{w|Oort cloud}} at a distance of 0.82 light-years about 70,000 years ago, and at least one estimate suggests that a star is expected to pass through the Oort Cloud every 100,000 years or so. This distance is still too far away to influence the orbits of the planets, but those encounters cause {{w|Comet|comets}} perturbed from the Oort cloud to the inner Solar System roughly 2 million years later.

The comic shows the sizes and the distances not in a proper scale. If the Sun was 1.4 cm (1.4 Mio km in real) in diameter, Barnard's Star would be less than 3 mm at a distance of 356 km. Even Jupiter wouldn't fit into this picture -- at ten times smaller than the Sun, it would be a few pixels, but at a distance of 7.8 m to the Sun and all the other planets would fit into a circle less than 100 meters in diameter. The distances to others stars are far beyond human imagination and at its closest distance a message still takes 3.75 years from Barnard's Star to the Sun.

In regards to "20,000-year-long high-speed flyby", the joke here is suggesting Barnard's Star would need to scream out the maleficent, trolling statement as quickly as possible due to 20,000 years being such a small segment of time relative to the lifespan of the star (and our Sun, for that matter).

The title text emphasizes that this close approach will not be any hazard to the Solar System, but someone is envious of the long lifetime of Barnard's Star or annoyed by its unpleasant behavior (yelling at the sun for 20,000 years would be a minuscule amount of time for the stars, but for humans it would be a vast length of time, and would get annoying very quickly).

=Transcript=
:[A black sky is shown with a yellow spot near the bottom, left of the center. Three smaller red spots at the diagonal from top left to bottom right indicate a moving star over time. Above these red spots lines are connected to a text that starts and ends with many ''A''s, first growing, and at the end getting smaller:]
:...AAAAHHi Sun! I was here billions of years before you formed and will shine for trillions of years after you dieEEEEEAAA...

:[Caption below the frame:]
:Sometimes, I wonder what Barnard's Star is saying to the Sun as it performs its 20,000-year-long high-speed flyby.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]