explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2932: Driving PSA

2024-05-17T23:44:28Z

162.158.33.164: /* This discussion ^^ */

Did the best I could on the explanation, even if it's a bit clunky. [[User:Trogdor147|Trogdor147]] ([[User_talk:Trogdor147|talk]]) 03:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Pretty lame strategy. Even with someone waving me on, when I get past them I'll look to the right to make sure. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: Right? Just pull into the median in front of the left-turners, then re-assess the situation. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 12:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::Just an FYI: It's illegal to use turn lanes for merging, & illegal to wait mid-intersection. By law, you must not enter the intersection until the right-of-way is clear. No stopping partway through; that can get you a ticket.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:: As a pedestrian (amongst my other road-uses), I occasionally have to cross a two-lane carriageway (to the median, then across the opposite two-lane carriageway) near a junction (roundabout, in the UK; and the first lane dedicated to turning in (left, equiv. to a US right-turn) to the side-road) and the initial lane is often either entirely empty or jammed up by those trying to turn into the retail park that sits there. I have to juggle the kindness of drivers who will slow (or stay stopped) to let me across their lane with the possibility of having other (faster-moving) traffic still coming up on the other lane. It's possible to use the twixt-lane white line as a kind of unofficial demi-median (the stopped driver will not forget that they let you go there), but I'd rather not surprise the through-traffic lane by giving them an alarming glimpse of a pedestrian maybe about to step out in front of them, so I might try to indicate to the kind driver (with friendly gestures) that I'm observing someone coming up on their offside (due to slight bend, on entry to the junction, they might not see them in their own offside mirror), perhaps even then stand back and wave them past because ''I'' can see a glut of offside traffic, from my head-height position. Or just avoid those times of the day when there's heavy shopping/commuting traffic causing that sort of problem.
:: (Yes, it ''is'' a proper crossing point. Dropped kerbs for those that need dropped kerbs, though not given pelican/zebra/etc explicit crossing markings and signage. An alternate way 'across' is a walk down to a canal that the onward road crosses by bridge, under that bridge on the tow-path and then back to meet the opposite side of the road.)
:: The junction-exit carriageway is far simpler. You can see when traffic is coming down the through-road ''or'' spinning round the island from the RP exit (or U-turning from the first carriageway!) and either there's a third-of-a-mile queue backed up from the next junction or there's no traffic impeding those going that way to leave me with space to cross.
:: The opposite crossing is a matter of the 'easy' junction-exit carriageway (as just given) plus an unrestricted view of the fast-lane, but then you need to catch the eye of any queued turn-lane vehicles (and look at what round-the-roundabout traffic might be holding the front of that queue up, in the near future) to make sure that when you take advantage of a clear offside then the subsequent nearside cars don't start shuffling up. And recognise the oblivious/inconsiderate/obtuse drivers by their general road positioning and attitude at the wheel. (It's a bit of an art, but stood me in good stead so far.)
:: There is also, elsewher, a ''particularly'' akward right-turn (UK, remember) onto a mainish road, that I sometimes need to drive round. It comes in as single-becoming-double lane, but these days that double is buslane and singular other (from the right, the double-becoming-single is also buslane nearside, except for inward turners who aren't in contention with me but ''are'' potentially view-blocking). Between the two carriageways (which merge, at the single-lane side, as two standard single contra-carriageways beyond an actual light-controlled staggered pedestrian crossing) is the central turning refuge that I potentially need to pause in to turn right, and left-approaching traffic may need to pause in (crossing my path) to turn into the road I'm emerging from. The most problematic are the turning-in cars that ''don't signal'' (or far too late), given that everyone (not a bus) has to keep right anyway on this widened stretch, but some of them are keeping right in order to turn right. And driver-to-driver visual communication (or even seeing if they're glancing in your direction/meeting your questioning gaze) is isn't helped by angled windscreens often drowning out (apparent) driver-on-driver visibility by the reflection of the sky above. So it pays to be cautious, and taking a moment before taking apparent cues (arm waves, light flashes, etc) as you think they might be intended. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.248|172.70.160.248]] 15:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:Not reading all that. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they're not trying to kill Randall, but the person in the other lane. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.225|172.71.154.225]] 05:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:It doesn't even need to be a fatal crash. Maybe the person in the other lane is an obstetrician who will intercede in a complex childbirth, and this "accident" will be major enough that that no longer happens, and the child dies... [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 06:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::Or possibly the aim is actually to engineer a meet-cute between Randall and the driver of the other car, so that a critical birth can (eventually) take place...[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.249|172.70.160.249]] 08:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Well now I want to see a movie where there is a tragic accident and the dying words of one character to another that survives is to take care of their spouse (critically injured in said accident) and their turbulent and tumultuous relationship as they try to get over both survivors guilt and potentially blaming themselves/each other for the death of that first character. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.21|172.70.38.21]] 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Just curious, as I'm from Germany - does the USA have no traffic lights? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.210|198.41.242.210]] 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: They do, and they are placed where you can actually see them --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 12:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: They do, and they're placed where they can be used for Captcha challenges.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.81|172.70.86.81]] 14:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: Only on some intersections. This is likely a case where a relatively small / quiet road intersects with a busy one. Traffic lights tend to be used in the USA where both roads intersecting are beyond a minimum throughput of traffic to justify the cost. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.33|172.64.238.33]] 12:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
: I think I've seen such setups in Ohio, but here in New Jersey I cannot imagine a scenario like this. Any movement between a divided highway and another road where left turns are allowed in both directions will be controlled by a traffic light with a left arrow. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.69|162.158.63.69]] 16:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Uncontrolled intersection with a left turn onto a 4-lane road? US road design, combined with US car-centric settlement planning, must have been made by those more clever, trying-harder assassins that Randall mentions in the title text, and it looks like they've got a lot of people on their list. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.229.131|162.158.229.131]] 07:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: If it was a single lane street, and not three-lane road (or stroad), then accepting granting the right of way / waving in would be perfectly safe (assuming that you watch left). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: This is very common in some areas such as Tucson, AZ. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.66|172.70.214.66]] 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: Agreed. This is likely a case where a relatively small / quiet road intersects with a busy one. Traffic lights tend to be used in the USA where both roads intersecting are beyond a minimum throughput of traffic to justify the cost. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.33|172.64.238.33]] 12:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:: Outside of US, joining a "quiet" road onto one that is so "loud" that it needs two lanes each way *and* a separated median is ... kinda crazy. The fact that you see it as "normal as per the minimum throughput criteria" shows that you're entrenched in a car-centric view. Any <s>sane</s> non-US road designer either doesn't join two roads together in the first place when the loud/quiet ratio is so out-of-whack, or if they *have* to join them (but still don't want traffic lights) then they'll provide something along the lines of a merge/acceleration lane, or a "no left turn" traffic control. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.223|172.68.64.223]] 03:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
::: UK roads vary considerably in this. If sufficient side-road use, then lights ''may'' be used (with proximity sensors, if side-traffic is light but ''ocasionally'' needs to get a chance to get out by pausing through-traffic), but for very minor roads abutting sufficiently major ones (to have medians and multiple lanes per direction) they may just have no cross-median (to turn across and right), just left-turn (merge onto the nearside) and rely upon the roundabout not far down the road to allow seemless U-turn for those needing that direction. This is the default for 'motorway standard' roads (actual "M-roads", including "A#(M)" ones, and upgraded trunk-roads probably maintained/developed under Highway Authority budget rather than anything left to (sub)regional-responsibility) which now have far fewer roundabouts even (except as flyovers, of various configurations, up slip-roads), in the name of keeping the traffic flowing.
::: Roundabouts do a ''lot'' of this heavy lifting for any road less than motorway standard, and motorway-standard junctions will have fly-over/-under for one or other topological permutation of a cloverleaf junction so that you always merge from the left.
::: If the median-based cross-slip is still used, then it'll often include a widening of median for sufficient length to have deceleration lanes (the comic one looks rather short, as evidenced by there being no more room for any further cross-turning vehicle to join the queue without blocking the 'fast' lane) and a better way to observe all lanes by the onward-turning traffic and accelerate-merge properly onto the carriageway. If it isn't (''especially'' as per illustrated for [https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html Highway Code item 173]) then you're expected to use best judgement to deal with it.
::: With a few caveats (such as there clearly having been enough instantaneous traffic to fill up the cross-turn deceleration lane, which can't be 'all' explained by the right-of-way-waiving vehicle, and some slightly different shapes of kerbing in the vicinity), you certainly ''could'' see an equivalent-but-mirrored junction as the comic in the UK. You could also see the non-turning vehicle zooming through, but a) it should not be sitting in the offside lane (unless overtaking an unseen, off-comic vehicle on the nearside), and b) it'll probably be going faster (technically could be up to 70MPH for National Speed Limit on dual-carriageway, though it's very likely the junction itself will be re-restricted down to 60MPH or even 50MPH). Not that drivers necesarily keep out of the 'overtaking' lane(s) when they don't need to, or stay below the statutary/posted limits. And if this is an 'urban trunkroad' it may actually even be 40MPH all the way, with frequent 30MPH (or even 20MPH) sideroads feeding/fed-by it.
::: But there'll be exceptions, both more restrictive and less restrictive, than even the various range of places and solutions that I can immediately bring to mind. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.180|172.69.195.180]] 23:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but... time traveller asassins don't get sent for random harmless people? Getting not one, but MULTIPLE asassins hell-bent on offing him suggests he's going to do something incredibly bad for the world that they're trying to prevent?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.68|162.158.103.68]] 08:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: Randall isn't random and it's not entirely clear that he's harmless either.{{unsigned ip|172.70.91.146}}
: It seems reasonable to guess that the future assassins were sent to prevent Randall from writing this very same strip, as it was thwarting many of their other future asassination attempts. [[User:Rumormonger Omega|Rumormonger Omega]] ([[User talk:Rumormonger Omega|talk]]) 14:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: You are assuming the assassins are "good guys", it is just as likely that Randall will do something that most of us would regard as a good thing but it impedes the assassin's, or their master's, evil plan; akin to Skynet sending the Terminators to kill Sarah/Young John Connor to remove the human resistance as an effective counter to the machine uprising. There's also the possibility that Randall is part of a "butterfly effect" scenario where he doesn't directly do anything of note, but something he does will have downstream effects that result in someone else doing something impactful to the assassin's preferred future.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.56|172.70.135.56]] 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: It's quite obvious that one of examples in What If 3 will be used to win World War IV. The assassins from losing side are trying to prevent writing the book, hoping that without it the other side never get so crazy idea. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy, a comic about my second-greatest pet peeve on the road! Now if only we could have an xkcd guide to using the acceleration lane. [[User:Phil Srobeighn|Phil Srobeighn]] ([[User talk:Phil Srobeighn|talk]]) 09:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:...and turning signals... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:
:As we do not have intersections like this, MY personal pet peeve is people stopping to wave kids over the road. Wrong for SO MANY reasons.
:First, the people in the car usually don't think of the OTHER lane (and kids won't, either).
:Second, I am trying to teach my kids to look left and right and only cross the road when there are no cars. If a car approaches, they are to wait until it has passed. Well, but then the car STOPS and the kid gets irritated and doesn't know what to do, because when they are small they just stare at the car and not at the driver, so they never see the waving. And so we are at a stalemate, the car is just standing there, the kid is just standing there, and chances are the kid will decide to cross the road right at the same moment the driver decides he has waited long enough.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.227|172.70.243.227]] 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A corollary PSA would be to ignore the gestures of any passengers in the other car. I've seen passengers in the front seat wave people to go ahead, without the agreement of the person actually driving the car.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.45|172.70.178.45]] 10:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Pat

I don't even drive and I hate these people lmao [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A discussion of the liability issue in this situation. [https://www.allenandallen.com/can-i-be-successfully-sued-for-waving-a-car-in-front-of-me/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20you%20can.%20There%20are%20circumstances%20in%20which,be%20legally%20liable%20for%20injuries%20and%20financial%20losses.] [[User:Philhower|Philhower]] ([[User talk:Philhower|talk]]) 15:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 TL;DR: Waving makes you liable in the state of Virginia (also in Germany)

I remember when taking my driver's education class (in New Jersey, in 1987), the instructor made a point of teaching us to ignore civilians waving and to never wave other traffic anywhere. If you wave a car in this manner, and it ends up getting into a collision, you can be held liable for the damage. You could also be charged with directing traffic without authorization - something typically only done by law enforcement officers and road construction crews. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 17:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I must point out, no one has a privilege to go. The "right of way" only refers to the side of the road. Stop using the term wrong. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 20:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:I'm going to assume this is a joke, but for everyone who might believe it, "right of way" {{w|Right_of_way_(traffic)|does}} [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_of_way indeed] [https://www.safemotorist.com/articles/right-of-way/ refer] to the privilege ("right") to use a road ("way").
::Like everything else in the comic and the comments here, that depends on jurisdiction. For example, in Australia "right of way" doesn't exist - at least not as a right that can be asserted. Throughout the road rule legislation, references are made to situations where a driver has to give way to other traffic, but there is nothing that explicitly gives a driver "right of way" over any other traffic. As a driver I am obliged to recognise situations where I have to give priority to other drivers, but there is no explicit right to take priority. The legislation also requires all drivers to do what they can to avoid collisions. [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 23:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:I concur. It depends on Jurisdiction. Some states definitely use the phrase "right of way" in their traffic laws. If there's an accident, the party with the right of way is presumed not at fault because he had the right to do what he did. In other states (like NJ), there is no such thing - the law only states that drivers in certain situations "must yield". In a state like this, if a traffic case goes to court, the judge will only try to determine the answer to "were you able to prevent the collision?" If you were (and in many cases, the answer is "yes" for both parties), then you may be found liable, even if the other driver violated the law (e.g by failing to yield where he was required to). [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify that the initial post on this thread is not entirely correct, as it is dependent on the jurisdiction, whether it be on a national level, state level, etc. Where I am from in the United States in the state of Utah, for instance, it is codified in Utah traffic code 41-6a-801 Subsections (3)(b)(i) and (3)(d) (see https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S801.html?v=C41-6a-S801_2015051220150512 if you want) that traffic can turn into the turn lane and wait until the opportunity arises to merge, provided they do not travel further than 500 feet in that lane (in addition to other qualifications that are largely irrelevant to the present subject). While that is inapplicable in the case of this comic, as I do not know of ANY jurisdiction where turning onto a median itself is legal, that does not necessarily mean that it is illegal to turn into a dual direction turn lane and then merge into traffic in all jurisdictions. Apologies if I formatted this comment poorly.[[User:SilentLurker|SilentLurker]] ([[User talk:SilentLurker|talk]]) 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If this has happened to Randall several times during the last month alone, then MAYBE he has a habit of stopping his car too far out and/or too far on the left? So that the left-turning time travellers would have difficulties getting past him? Just asking, because this is when people regularly wave ME out. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.77|162.158.154.77]] 08:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:Randall lives in Boston. When I lived in Boston variations on people helpfully waving me to my death was a common occurrence. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 11:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Applauds rare actually funny use of Citation needed. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:There's no "citation needed" used here, what. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::It was added at [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2932:_Driving_PSA&diff=prev&oldid=342201 this point], and removed at [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2932:_Driving_PSA&diff=next&oldid=342242 this one] (it had actually bother arrived ''and'' disappeared during a period I wasn't checking, and didn't see the .121's comment until even later, but it was easy enough to track down). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 23:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::(PS, for the IP suggesting filter-banning "explainxkcd.com" addresses, elsewhere, the above links wouldn't be directly possible - yes, maybe a more wikimarkup/wikitemplate-mediated replacements for various non-trivial parameterised local site URLs could fill that gap, but it's just so much easier to [] the URL. For the same reason, I wouldn't suggest a wikipedia.org filter-ban, even though we do need to stop people doing that as well.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 23:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Why does the assassin have to be time-travelling? This method would work just as well (or badly) for a regular assassin as long as they can track the car and head them off at busy intersections. As an assassination method, it leaves something to be desired because (1) collisions at 45 mph are not guaranteed to be fatal, especially side or rear collisions where the target is inside a car with modern safety features, and (2) there would be a police investigation and the assassin would have their details taken, at the least. [[User:Comsmomf|Comsmomf]] ([[User talk:Comsmomf|talk]]) 10:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

==Churchill's Law==
Just to reframe "''Car that they are waving you into the path of''" into an awkaward phrase NOT ending in a preposition: "''Car into the path of which they are waving you''". (The Churchill thing is a myth, though <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/04/churchill-preposition/> .) {{unsigned ip|162.158.134.225}}
: Yuck - that construction needs waving into the path of an oncoming car. Or possibly it already has been.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.183|172.69.43.183]] 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

==PSA==

I thought PSA was Peugeot Société Anonyme, and was wondering why this was specific to French Cars.
Or possibly Prostate specific antibody.
Maybe Platform Security Acrhitecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.223|172.69.43.223]] 07:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:in America, PSA usually stands for Public Service Announcement-and Randall is from and lives in America.
[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:I just cackled so loudly that I scared my cat off my lap. Prostate-specific antibody? Help [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

== This discussion ^^ ==

For a bicyclist like me, it is quite weird to have such a lengthy discussion about laws in using an intersection by car.
Here in Germany, we would rather talk about psychological aspects (like being put under pressure by having been granted right-of-way).

I, as german bicyclist, often observe how “polite” drivers get angry because I don’t use the right-of-way they granted me.
They even sometimes open their window and swear at me.
(And if they are bicyclists too, they don’t even need to open the window.)
It’s like some people are trying to kill me, just like Randall has exemplified here.
(Oh, by the way, only males have sweared at me so far.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.195.212|172.68.195.212]] 08:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
:Can't speak of Germany (only been a pedestrian or car passenger, there), but I've cycled in France, Netherlands and lands inbetween. (Plus Denmark!). In Belgium ''in particular'', motorists will patiently wait for cyclists to go first at junctions. Awkward when we've just been stopped to read the map, are still confering and aren't really in a hurry to go in the chosen direction yet.
:But it's a breath of fresh air compared to here in the UK where the right-of-way of cyclists is often ignored, if not worse. Noting here that I'm talking from the perspective of cyclists who are obeying the rules of the road, and put a lot of the blame against "people on bikes" who do not. As well as excessive, yet simultaneously inadequate, cycle-paths and lanes which change everyone's expectations and make motorists and "people on bikes" convinced that the right (indeed, often obligation!) for bicycles to use the road doesn't exist.
:(The more wheels being ridden on the pavement/footway, the worse. It's actually illegal, unless designated and marked as a shared/split cycle+pedestrian path, but often the limited stretch of 'token cycle infrastructure' is badly implemented/observed. I've seen bikes being ridden on the pavement at the side of a road with a ''cycle lane'' clearly marked on the roadway (and not blocked by parked cars, or anything). I'd actually rather no 'special infrastructure' and instead a universal (non-Motorway/etc, of course) acceptance that bicycles/horses/etc can and may be on the roads.)
:With that, what you're getting in Germany (I've extended experience of wandering all across Berlin, albeit a couple of decades ago) is probably rooted in more sympathetic laws/practices added to the universal possibility of any road-user to be irritated by any other (with or without justification – there are bike-riders that totally get on my nerves, at least by proxy, when I see them just dodging on and off the road, on the wrong side, passing through red lights, across in-use pedestrian crossings, etc... if they aren't in contention with me, directly, they're souring the pitch for when I'm the one trying to be a responsible rider).
:I also get annoyed by pedestrian and driver behaviour (or apparent obliviousness) when I'm pedestrianing/cycling/driving through the same space. Not saying that I'm perfect, or might not be seen as imperfect. If I take an opportunity to walk across/near a crossing without pressing the button, it ''probably'' is because I judge that I can dodge across between streams of traffic safely without adding the (longer than I need, and delayed before it starts) stop light to their travel woes (if I'm the only person who would be waiting). Very occasionally, a car on the opposite lane, who I had comfortably judged to have passed (with empty road behind them) before I get anywhere near them will spot me and stop (I probably then am forced to bend my path to pass behind them), misunderstanding the whole consideration I was attempting to grant them (though it often does mean they weren't hazard-perceiving enough to start with, to have only seen me as they were basically almost past me – if I were as oblivious, I'd have been walking into their side!). But the world isn't perfectly in tune.
:Of course, people sealed in metal-and-glass boxes aren't as easy to transmit intentions to/from, leaving the "after you"/"no, after you"/”the thing is, I'm just pausing to decide which way to go" (howsoever abbreviated) dialogue reduced to a bit of arm-waving/hand-unfurling that might get supplemented by various mechanical audible signals or whole-vehicle micro-movements. But converging cyclists (or pedestrians) can also have that awkward period when (perhaps) both parties are fully aware of the imminent brief joining together at at the same rough space-time coordinates, but sufficiently comprehensive communication for negotiation/coordination purposes is not yet achievable. You have to take each situation as it comes, and the two parties may have entirely different mindsets and drives in control of their current attitude to cooperation in this endeavour. ("I'm late for lunch!", "Where ''shall'' I have lunch?", "That lunch really isn't agreeing with me.", "...after lunch, I'm going to have to talk to...", "I can't ''believe'' this lunchtime traffic!"...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.191|172.70.90.191]] 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter if you are talking about car or bike - they have to abide to the same rules. Especially if there are no dedicated traffic lights for bikes. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::Yes and no. For example, in the UK a bicyle-rider cannot be charged with exceeding the speed limit (although "wanton and furious riding" and various other carlessness/inconsiderateness charges could be applied), and there is perhaps going to be [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016715 the adding of] "Death by dangerous cycling" to the statutes (IMO, and IME, this is not a current problem... causing death by ''any'' means is already capable of being prosecuted, or deemed [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335 not prosecutable]), it's not like people on bikes are getting away with anything (if anything, car drivers aren't being properly punished enough for their dangerous driving - speaking as a car-driver myself, even).
::But, definitely road signals/etc that don't have explicit differentiations to them should be obeyed equally. Seeing several cars go out through a red-light, today (I was walking and saw it, a kid-on-a-bike(-on-the-pavement) nearly got hit by one where he ''may'' have been Ok if he'd have been on the road and obeying ''his'' set of traffic lights), it's not really a bike problem, let alone a cyclist one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.164|162.158.33.164]] 23:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

1803: Location Reviews

2024-03-07T13:27:25Z

162.158.33.164: /* Reviews */

{{comic
| number = 1803
| date = February 24, 2017
| title = Location Reviews
| image = location_reviews.png
| titletext = Google and Yelp keep deleting my scathing reviews of the Mariana Trench, the Chernobyl reactor core, the jet stream, and the equator.
}}

==Explanation==
Many online advertising services and social media networks (like {{w|Google}} and {{w|Yelp}}, both mentioned in the title text, and for instance {{w|Facebook}}) allow users to leave reviews of stores, businesses and locations. For various reasons these sites often find themselves with pages dedicated to, as [[Randall]] puts it, "places that really don't need reviews" such as municipal works installations, government property, and natural landmarks. This naturally attracts both clueless people and lots of self-styled comedians leaving less-than-helpful comments on such review pages.

Randall is just poking fun at this phenomenon by inventing possible reviews for the (fictional) location ''Canyon River Nuclear Launch Facility'', depicted with a {{w|Google Map|Google Maps}}-styled map page along with a series of so-called reviews. (There does exist a {{w|Canyon River (Ontario)|Canyon River}} located in {{w|Ontario}}/{{w|Canada}} and one in {{w|Washington (state)|Washington}}/USA (the latter is a significant tributary to the {{w|Satsop River}}). Canada does not maintain nuclear weapons since 1984, so the launch site should be located in Washington).

See explanations for the [[#Trivia|11 visible]] (out of 22) reviews in the [[#Reviews|table below]]. Of course those responsible for such a facility with {{w|nuclear missiles}} would not like the attention they would be getting in this way, especially not when one of the comments mentions a hole in the fence... Although this comic makes a joke about reviews it has chosen a very dangerous facility to joke about.

In the title text Randall mentions that both Google and Yelp keep deleting his scathing reviews of several locations like the above. The questions is if they would have done it if they had not been so harsh... While Canyon River Nuclear Launch Facility appears not to exist, the places/phenomena he lists in the title text certainly do, and are places that you either cannot or would not normally visit as destinations. Here below each "location" is explained. That the deletion of such reviews is real has been proven by this comic, as [[#Trivia|it also happened]] for those that (of course) posted these reviews on Google maps as a response to this comic.

{{w|Mariana Trench}} is the deepest area of the world's oceans, about 10,994 meters (36,070 ft) deep, located between Japan and Australia. The pressure in the Mariana Trench is about 1,086 bars, more than 1,000 times the standard atmospheric pressure of about 1 bar at sea level. Despite this enormous pressure some organisms {{w|Mariana_Trench#Life|live in the Mariana Trench}}. Humans can reach the ground only by special deep-sea submarines, like Jacques Piccard did in 1960 with the {{w|Bathyscaphe Trieste}}. See reviews for the Mariana Trench at [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mariana+Trench/@17.75,142.4978113,17z/data=!4m7!3m6!1s0x67328f3cd57de715:0x1bbe64e7a21aa7fc!8m2!3d17.75!4d142.5!9m1!1b1?hl=en Google Maps] and [https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marianengraben/108402422518280 Facebook].

The {{w|Chernobyl}} reactor core is the most dangerous part of the {{w|Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant}}. It is located in the North of Ukraine. In the reactor No. 4 there was a nuclear disaster that happened on 26 April 1986. It caused devastating damage and massive radioactive contamination. There is still a {{w|Chernobyl Exclusion Zone}} 30 kilometers around the power plant. See reviews for the Chernobyl power plant at [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chernobyl+Nuclear+Plant/@51.3852262,30.1003411,15z/data=!4m14!1m6!3m5!1s0x472a7d09e1ec5ef3:0x6b27a13ab968d17c!2sChernobyl+Nuclear+Plant!8m2!3d51.3889447!4d30.0988421!3m6!1s0x472a7d09e1ec5ef3:0x6b27a13ab968d17c!8m2!3d51.3889447!4d30.0988421!9m1!1b1?hl=en Google Maps] and [https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kernkraftwerk-Tschernobyl/118179298239715?rf=116556918391753 Facebook].

{{w|Jet stream}}s are a meteorologic phenomenon about 9 to 16 kilometers above the ground. A stream consists of air currents with speeds from 92 km/h (50 kn; 57 mph) to over 398 km/h (215 kn; 247 mph). Such jet streams are routinely used for reducing fuel usage for long distance plane travels. As it is a ribbon rather than a point, it could not have a single point on the map. Also, the jet stream fluctuates north and south; so even if it could be pinpointed, the location would be constantly changing.

The {{w|equator}} is, as with the jet streams, not a singular place but a circumference around the Earth. Reviewing the equator as a singular location is rather pointless ([[No Pun Intended|no pun intended]]), though there is a whole range of specific (and interesting) locations around the equator, with countries with {{w|tropical rainforest climate}}, which many people from European and North American countries struggle with. That said, most of the equator goes over water.

===Reviews===
In the table the rating is given with the review. After that an explanation both of the rating and of the review is given. Notice that any or all of the reviews could be sarcastic or "trolling", as is fairly typical on the internet, especially for reviews given for such a location as this one. This table assumes all the reviews are played straight.
{| class="wikitable"
! Rating
! Review
! Explanation
|-
| ★★★★★ || Greatest country on earth || A patriotic review (5/5), though provides no information on the actual nuclear site. The location is in the "greatest country", although this makes fun of people who go too specific, because all places in that country could be rated like this. This comment resembles what an extremely patriotic person would say. They believe that the United States is the greatest country on Earth, and therefore are pleased that the country is being protected by nuclear weapons.
|-
| ★★☆☆☆ || Looks cool but you can't get in || This reviewer, although initially positive, attempts to highlight what they perceive as a major flaw with the site: namely, that it is off-limits to unauthorized personnel and heavily-guarded, so it's impossible to actually go inside (thus only 2/5 stars). This is typical of a nuclear facility,{{Citation needed}} but this kind of review could also be seen for a fancy restaurant that needs very early pre-booking.
|-
| ★☆☆☆☆ || What is this store || Reviewer really, really has no idea what this facility actually is, mistaking it for a store, and thus giving it only 1 star.
|-
| ★★★★☆ || My cousin worked here || If true, this review is a serious security risk (e.g. kidnapping the reviewer to extort information from his cousin). The comment may also just be a way for the reviewer to pretend he knows someone who works in the higher levels of the government. Usually this kind of comment together with a four star rating is to signal that you know more about the location than a regular reviewer does. Of course you could then also be perceived as partial.
|-
| ★★☆☆☆ || Waitstaff heavily armed and very rude || This review mistakes the facility's security guards for a restaurant's waitstaff. Since the guards are protecting some of the most dangerous weapons in existence, and would not let unknown outsiders into the facility, it follows that the guards would be heavily armed, and quite rude to those who sought entry without proper permission. Thus they earn the place only 2 stars.
|-
| ★☆☆☆☆ || Stop doing chemtrails || This reviewer believes in the {{w|chemtrail conspiracy theory}} and is urging the government to cease spreading the chemtrails. Believing this place has something to do with it of course leads to only one star. This conspiracy was earlier mentioned both in [[966: Jet Fuel]] and [[1677: Contrails]], and later in [[2654: Chemtrails]]
|-
| ★☆☆☆☆ || This place is a symptom of the {{w|military-industrial complex}} strangling our democracy and...(read full review-1184 words) || A slightly tongue-in-cheek reference to essays against 'The Military-Industrial complex' and how they are often copy-pasted by people who don't really understand them in inappropriate places. Or just to people who rant far beyond anything that people would ever read, except if they are already agreeing with the writer. Of course such an activist would only give one star.
|-
| ★★★★☆ || Anyone else notice the hole in the west fence? || The adventurer's travel guide to government installations... Posting a comment like this would (at best) bring the hole to the attention of the site staff to be repaired and (at worst) bring the writer unwelcome attention from the authorities for publicizing a security vulnerability at a missile site. This might also be a reference to {{w|Richard Feynman}}'s account of finding a hole in the fence surrounding the {{w|Los Alamos, New Mexico|Los Alamos}} facility during the {{w|Manhattan Project}}. Using the hole to get in, this reviewer had an excellent time and gives 4/5 stars.
|-
| ★★★★★ || Whoa, missiles! || The writer is impressed and apparently surprised to discover that the site has missiles. Seems like the reviewer just loves anything to do with missiles and hands out five stars. This may also be a reference to the "Whoa, technology!" meme, which originated when YandereDev, a Youtuber best known for his work on the infamous {{w|Yandere Simulator}}, uttered the phrase in one of his videos.
|-
| ★★★☆☆ || Good idea but confusing web site. How do I preorder? || This reviewer thinks that one can order a nuclear missile launch here, but can't find a preorder form on the website. He loves the idea but since he cannot find out how to order there are only 3/5 stars. In reality, the decision to launch nuclear missiles often rests with the heads of state or government, and outside persons are not allowed to control them.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| ★☆☆☆☆ || Please don't launch these || A plea to the facility owners not to launch the nuclear missiles, due to their deleterious effects on human life.
|}

==Transcript==
:[Inside the main panel there is a frame with a Google location map with the typical red pin stuck in the center of the map inside a large gray region of the map. A river goes from the north through the gray region and out to the west. East and south of the river some roads and other items are shown, several of them also outside the gray region. The red pin is stuck next to a corner in one of the roads.]

:[Below the map is the name of the location at the red pin, and below that there are three lines of unreadable text:]
:<big>Canyon River Nuclear Launch Facility</big>

:[Below that there is broken line with text in the break, and below that follows 11 reviews with yellow stars to the left. The stars are either just outlines or colored completely, with the left one always being filled:]
:Reviews (22)
:[5 of 5 stars filled] Greatest country on earth
:[2 of 5 stars filled] Looks cool but you can't get in
:[1 of 5 stars filled] What is this store
:[4 of 5 stars filled] My cousin worked here
:[2 of 5 stars filled] Waitstaff heavily armed and very rude
:[1 of 5 stars filled] Stop doing chemtrails
:[1 of 5 stars filled] This place is a symptom of the military-industrial complex strangling our democracy and...(read full review-1184 words)
:[4 of 5 stars filled] Anyone else notice the hole in the west fence?
:[5 of 5 stars filled] Whoa, missiles!
:[3 of 5 stars filled] Good idea but confusing web site. How do I preorder?
:[1 of 5 stars filled] Please don't launch these

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I love finding reviews of places that really don't need to have reviews.

==Trivia==
* Only 11 of the 22 reviews posted are shown. For those 11 the average star rating is 2.6/5 stars. All five possible ratings are represented at least once.
* For a few days after the release of this comic the Google Search results for "[https://www.google.com/search?q=canyon+river+nuclear+launch+facility Canyon River Nuclear Launch Facility]" briefly showed the facility was located at 43.428445, -101.124018 in {{w|List_of_townships_in_South_Dakota#B|Blackpipe Township}}, {{w|Mellette County, South Dakota}} and it included the reviews shown in the comic and more.
** Randall's statement about Google deleting these kinds of reviews turned out to be true as they were quickly deleted, but not before someone made [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/8/8a/1803_Location_Reviews_for_Canyon_River_Nuclear_Launch_Facility.PNG this screenshot] of one of the other reviews.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Google Maps]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theory]]
[[Category:Online reviews]]
[[Category:Nuclear weapons]]

1455: Trolley Problem

2024-02-09T10:31:30Z

162.158.33.164: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1455
| date = December 3, 2014
| title = Trolley Problem
| image = trolley_problem.png
| titletext = For $5 I promise not to orchestrate this situation, and for $25 I promise not to take further advantage of this ability to create incentives.
}}

==Explanation==
The {{w|trolley problem}} is a thought experiment often posed in {{w|philosophy}} to explore moral questions, with applications in {{w|cognitive science}} and {{w|neuroethics}}. The general version is that an out of control trolley (or train) is heading towards 5 people on the track who can't get out of the way. On an alternative branch of the track is 1 person who can't get out of the way. The trolley can be diverted by using a lever, with the consequence of saving the 5 people but killing the 1 person.

The choice is between a deliberate action that will directly kill one person, or allowing events to unfold naturally, resulting in five deaths. The question posed is whether or not it is morally right to pull the lever. The moral question is not as simple as it may first appear.

This results of [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default4.aspx this test] report that around 86% of respondents choose the utilitarian option of diverting the trolley.

There are, however, several alternative formulations of the same basic dilemma. One such scenario allows you to stop the trolley by deliberately pushing "a very fat man" into its path, killing the man but saving the other five people. Another scenario involves selecting a healthy young and innocent person to die, in order to save five others going through organ donation. In both of these examples the basic dilemma is the same. However, most people reject the utilitarian option in these cases.

After discovering a variation on this problem posed in a strip of the [http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3556#comic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal] webcomic (which can be seen on the tablet he is carrying), [[Rob|Cueball]], Black Hat's roommate, presents it to [[Black Hat]]. Before Cueball can finish explaining the problem, most notably leaving out the disadvantage to flipping the lever where it would kill one person, Black Hat questions whether he would need to get up to reach the lever and how much it would interrupt his other activities. As usual, he cares nothing at all about what happens to other people. This response is linked to another theory in philosophy, that of {{w|self interest}} or {{w|egoism}} or {{w|Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism}}, in which a person will choose the action with the most benefit for them personally.

Black Hat then poses an offer: he promises to divert the trolley if Cueball is one of the five endangered people, provided that Cueball pays him $1 now. Again Black Hat is twisting the situation to his own benefit, in this case monetary. In the case of self-interest, the $1 could be the price at which Black Hat values his time and effort, below which he feels there is no benefit to himself in pulling the lever. Cueball decides that there is no point posing the problem to someone like Black Hat and gives up. This further shows that it is challenging for people with different ethical frameworks to function together without a common understanding, either mutually or with one side using that understanding to motivate a mutually agreeable or horrible solution.

The title text follows this up by continuing Black Hat's offers. For $5 he will not deliberately arrange this situation and for $25 he will quit looking for further incentives. These attempts to exploit the thought exercise for personal gain further demonstrate Black Hat's cynical amorality.

Black Hat's offer makes Cueball himself the subject of the trolley problem: Cueball now has a choice of expending $1 to save 5 people (including himself) while sacrificing one person, or $5 to save all 6 people. Of course, he could dismiss the offer as a joke, if not for the fact that the person making it, which, as we know from other comics, is very much capable of such exploits.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Ever heard of the trolley problem?
:Black hat: No. What is it?

:Cueball: A trolley is barreling towards five helpless people on the tracks. You can pull a lever to direct it onto another track, but-

:Black hat: Can I reach the lever without getting up?
:Cueball: Wait, I'm not-
:Black hat: In this scenario, how busy am I?

:Cueball: I guess I forgot who I was talking to.
:Black hat: For a dollar, I'll promise to pull the lever if one of the five people is you.

==Trivia==
*Three years later two comics were released with about one month between them where the Trolley problem was mentioned. In [[1925: Self-Driving Car Milestones]] it is in the last ''milestone'' on the list and a month later, in [[1938: Meltdown and Spectre]], it is used as a metaphor for the way some computer programs work. It would subsequently come up again in [[2635: Superintelligent AIs]], [[2702: What If 2 Gift Guide]], and [[2818: Circuit Symbols]].

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Megan

2024-01-27T16:43:29Z

162.158.33.164: Being 37 until 38th birthday, sometime after (but within a year of) mid 2019

{{Infobox character
| image = Megan.png‎
| imagesize = 200px
| caption = '
| first_appearance = [[24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey]]
}}

<noinclude>:''For a list of comics, see [[:Category:Comics featuring Megan|Comics featuring Megan]].''
:''For Megan's boyfriend, see [[Cueball]].''</noinclude>

'''Megan''' is a [[stick figure]] character in [[xkcd]]. She is the second-most frequently appearing character, after [[Cueball]], and the most frequently appearing female character. She does not necessarily always represent the same character from comic to comic. She is essentially the female equivalent of Cueball, representing the every-woman to his {{w|everyman}}. This is less clear than for Cueball as there are several comics where there are [[:Category:Multiple Cueballs|multiple Cueball-like figures]], any of whom could be called Cueball. There are very few comics where this happens with Megan-like characters, with the few including [[139: I Have Owned Two Electric Skateboards]], [[173: Movie Seating]], [[1409: Query]], [[1496: Art Project]], [[430: Every Damn Morning]], [[2040: Sibling-in-Law]], and in [[1951: Super Bowl Watch Party]].

Of course, she also appears several times in some of the comics with [[:Category:Large drawings|large drawings]], like [[1110: Click and Drag]]. Often this should be seen as different small comics, where there is just one Megan in each story. In [[1608: Hoverboard]], however, there are two identical Megans at the bottom rear end of the Destroyer, where one is talking to the other. As opposed to with Cueball, an example where this is a problem for Megan has yet to be found.

Megan does sometimes appear to have slightly specific personality traits; she has quite odd habits and is sometimes shown to be very focused and intent on a goal. However, as explained above this is not a general rule for a given Megan character.

==Name==
''Explain xkcd'' originally referred to this character as "Cutie" (complementing "Cueball" with a matching first syllable). But then a "Cutie" was given a specific name, Megan, in [[159: Boombox]] and later in for instance [[215: Letting Go]], [[420: Jealousy]], [[478: The Staple Madness]], and [[654: Nachos]]. The name was also used without displaying a drawing of Megan in [[596: Latitude]] and in the title text of [[627: Tech Support Cheat Sheet]]. The name Cutie was then changed to Megan. If this rule should be followed generally, then Cueball should be re-named Rob after [[276: Fixed Width]] (and the [[:Category:Comics featuring Rob|other 12 times]] a Cueball has been named Rob in total). But as mentioned above this was not to be.

She can also be drawn under a different name as in [[672: Suggestions]], where a sexy image of her, hair hanging loose over her face, is called Susie. And in [[1221: Nomenclature]] Megan is called Mrs. Whatsit in the transcript provided in the comic source. In [[734: Outbreak]] Cueball and Megan are named Ryan and Laura, but that is a movie, so they could be actors called Cueball and Megan in real life. A character that looked a lot like Megan, but with somewhat longer hair and a much meaner attitude, was distinguished from her as [[Black Hat]]'s girlfriend [[Danish]]. A similar long-haired version of Megan also appeared in [[1730: Starshade]], although without the attitude.

==History==
Early comics often feature Megan-style characters who may or may not be identified as Megan. [[Randall]] appears not to have standardized his character lineup early in the comic's run, and as a result, certain early female characters sometimes have similar hair to Megan, but some different features. The name (or even pseudonym) "Megan" may be reference to a lost love of Randall's, given that he wrote a passive-aggressive toast for Megan's wedding in [[420: Jealousy]] about how he was madly still in love with her, put across in a way that would generally ruin the day for everyone involved. We also see this earlier in [[215: Letting Go]]. Several of the [[:Category:Cancer|comics about cancer]] have Megan representing Randall's fiancée and later wife.

==Characteristics==
Megan is distinguished by her black shoulder-length hair which generally appears to be parted in the middle in front and is draped behind what are presumably her (undrawn) ears. It is shorter than the character of similar appearance, [[Danish]]. Megan also tends to behave less defiantly than Danish does.

Megan's age is sometimes given, like in [[1409: Query]], we learn that she is 30 or younger, implying that she was born in 1983-84, and in [[630: Time Travel]], we learn she was born in 1983 (born after August 14). But in [[2178: Expiration Date High Score]], we can calculate that she was born in 1981-82 which is slightly different.

{{navbox-characters}}
[[Category:Characters]]
[[Category:Major characters]]

User talk:Asdf

2023-12-25T21:38:51Z

162.158.33.164: /* 'Latest comic' trouble. */

==Welcome==
I know you are not a newbie and so I would like to see your opinions at this talk page: [[explain xkcd talk:Editor FAQ]]. The main issues right now are ''tables'' and ''headings''. While avoiding tables seems to be consensus the headers are a more difficult issue. I try to keep this as simple as possible while a good layout is the final goal. Not easy. Any thoughts? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the image. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

== "Another one" ==

You got there ''just'' before I did. My intended revert colllided with yours. At least that one helpfully left who they are... *ponders what I can do to them... hmmm...* Anyway, thought I might comment, as you actually have a page sitting here ready for something to be said... Keep up the good work! ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.121|162.158.159.121]] 14:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

== Eric's spam. ==

You know, I'd be absolutely astonished (and very concerned) if I randomly visited any website and I ended up answering a call from those who run it. Not withstanding that it's something we'd never want here (or to advertise on here, despite the best efforts of 'Eric') I can't believe it even works. And if it does work, it shouldn't! But as 'Eric' isn't going to be receptive to my thoughts on this, I thought I'd let you know, as a fellow reverter of his stuff, who would at least know what I'm talking about... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.71|162.158.34.71]] 18:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

== <s>[[File talk:history of unicode zoom.png]]</s> ==

<s>{{File talk:history of unicode zoom.png}}</s>

== CREEP ==

Just wanted to follow up on your https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2870:_Love_Songs (first!) edits. Thanks for the amazing work you do, you might not know what the hell you're doing here but I really enjoy reading your explanations and you definitely belong here! [[User:Sjcjoosten|Sjcjoosten]] ([[User talk:Sjcjoosten|talk]]) 02:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

== 'Latest comic' trouble. ==

You might be interested to know that the "Go to latest comic" mechanism still worked (sidebar, and "|>" button worked on all comics priot to 2871). The fault appears not to be with 2872 (or incorrect "2871: Page Name"), but in the refreshing/caching mechanism for the established 2871: Page Name page.

However, as I was investigating it for myself, it actually started working as it should. I was forcing refreshing, which might actually have nudged the on-site-cache, but I'm really not sure if I had anything to do with it. But you don't need to worry about it any more. At least from my perspective. There might be browser-side refreshing required for some, still. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189|172.69.79.189]] 21:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)