explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1576: I Could Care Less

2021-01-13T17:20:15Z

162.158.74.219:

I interpreted the title text as saying that it's impossible to care so little about something that you can't care less about it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.146.170|172.68.146.170]] 02:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Another excellent comic by Randall. In case of interest to anyone a different perspective, David Mitchell did a wonder rant on this... "Dear America... | David Mitchell's SoapBox"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw {{unsigned ip|‎141.101.98.100}}

The only people who complain about this phrase are pedantic morons who have never heard such things as "head over heels".

Here, I've composed a list of common vernacular/slang idioms which are valid, clear, and diametrically opposed to their original meaning:
* "Head over heels"
* "Break a leg"
* "It's the shit"
* "That's bad"
* "She's phat"
* "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
* "Irregardless"{{unsigned|Cwallenpoole}}
: "Diametrically opposed" is redundant. The words mean the same thing. Sorry, when the topic of conversation is pedanticism I couldn't resist :P [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.170|108.162.221.170]] 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
: I think "diametrically opposed" is not redundant. I visualize "opposed" = could be points of a circle greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees apart. "diametrically opposed" = exactly 180 degrees apart, to the maximum extent possible. Whereas "opposed" implies only one dimension of opposite-ness, "diametrically opposed" implies multiple (or colloquially, even all) dimensions of opposite-ness, emphasizing that there is no common ground between the sides in question. 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
:The reason I dislike "I could care less" is because it just grates me. It disrupts the flow of parsing language in my brain, throwing up a "wait, what?" exception that I have to expend far more mental energy than usual to correctly interpret the meaning of something in my head. I'm not being pedantic for the sake of uptight rule adherence and feeling superior (I play around with language and use it in non-standard forms all the time), I'm pedantic because it causes my brain real difficulties in processing the meaning of what a person's said. I mean I'm a woman with Asperger's (and a British one at that) so maybe things are a little different for me, but that's just why I personally strongly dislike this usage. The things on your list though are all different in some way to "I could care less", at least for me, for example:
:* "Head over heels" - How is this an opposite meaning, exactly? Doesn't it give a rather nice metaphor for being giddy about something? Being hyperbolic and metaphorical doesn't make it an opposite meaning.
::*Because your head is ''normally'' over your heels. Nothing special about it. Heels over head would be much more interesting...[[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:::*Personally I always think of it as your head being bowled over your heels - not the sort of "over" as in "higher gravitational potential energy", but in the same "around" sense of being "turned over" or "starting over". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 03:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
::::*Yes, this never sounded "opposite" to me. Imagine a contortionist with knees and toes on the ground, bent over backwards so that his head is literally over his heels. This is absolutely not normal. I took it as meaning something is so exciting/surprising that one contorting himself in unnatural ways. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.124|162.158.255.124]] 21:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
:* "Break a leg" - This is closer to being an opposite, but the exact opposite to wishing an actor good luck would be to wish them bad luck. The mutation to a slightly absurdist statement marks it out as having a different meaning, especially as "break a leg" isn't really used in any other context than to wish a person good luck. While it may be the case that "I could care less" is rarely (if at all) used in its literal form, there's still nothing to mutate it and obviously mark it out as a linguistic special usage case. It's also still how I'd expect someone to phrase it if they were actually telling me they could care less about something.
::: The "Vaudeville theory" on this page is where I got my understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:* "It's the shit" - Again, this is mutated. People aren't saying "it's shit", the word "the" handily tags it for my brain parser to handle differently.
:* "That's bad" - Well, you've got me here actually. I mean, context (and tone) makes the meaning obvious but I can't objectively understand why this phrase doesn't cause me the same sort of difficulties at all. Perhaps because I grew up in the 80s, and a big part of my musical upbringing was Michael Jackson. ''♬ A-hee-hee! Hoo! ♬''
:* "She's phat" - This is completely literal, "phat" is a slang term meaning excellent or attractive. It may be a mutation of the word "fat" or not, its etymology is uncertain, but it is indisputably a very different word now (much like how "orchids" means a species of flower rather than testicles, and "sinister" hasn't meant left in centuries).
::: I understand it's an acronym: Pretty Hot And Tempting. --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:* "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - This is also completely literal, Freud meant that while he believed many things ''could'' have hidden, psychosexual meanings... that while sometimes a person might be puffing on a cigar due to some suppressed phallic desires... they could also just be puffing on a cigar because they're enjoying a nice cigar. That is to say, not everything has a hidden subconscious meaning, and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, not a substitute object to fellate.
:* "Irregardless" - Well yes, the suffix added to "regardless" here would usually invert its meaning, but "irregardless" isn't actually a word that existed before it came into use with its current meaning so it's not like saying a previously established and defined word (or phrase).
: Anyway, while I do believe language is flexible and mutable, this particular phrase fails the easily interpretable test for my brain. I try not to be too uptight about it, but it really does irritate me in a way I can't help. Obviously my opinion is not the only one, so that's just my 1.29587 British pence on the matter :D [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
::(In response to Cwallenpoole, not 141.101.98.195, who makes good points that I didn't actually read first!) "Head over heels" is of course "head over (and down), heels (upwards) (...and continue this rotation to its logical conclusion)"; "Break a leg" has {{w|Break_a_leg|a number of possible origins}} (I always assumed wishing luck was unlucky, thus the inverse, but several "the leg not being yours" versions also ring true); "It's the shit" is using a somewhat unfortunate object (certainly if you miss out the "the") that is a short-cut off-colour superlative like "the dog's bollocks"; "bad==good" I always assumed was "what's bad to the establishment is good for our own clique"; "phat" is far too modern for me, but probably arises a similar positive superlative with some counter-culture anti-standard spelling; Cigars being cigars don't sound diametrically opposed, to me, although who knows ''what'' went on in Freud's head!; "Irregardless" is an obvious portmanteau/malapropism blend that is so easy to create. - Or so I would personally explain these.
:: Here's an additional one, though, if you care for it: "Cheap at half the price". It sounds wrong if you dig deep and work out that it must mean "It is not more than or equal to twice the actually fair price you should have been asking" (i.e. it's less than double the price). But I've always internally rationalised it as really saying "If this figure you mention actually were only half of the full price you are ''truly'' asking for, the real price would still be considered cheap" (i.e. it's less than half price). Or it could just be obfuscated salesman patter, i.e. telling the truth (still making a profit, but less than a 100% mark-up) but using weasel-words and terminology that create misleading imagery in the listener's mind. i.e. No crime, no foul, should Trading Standards happen to come-a-visiting, one day... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:::''Actually'', to follow-up on myself: "It's cheap(, it being in this instance) at half the price (I would normally charge)" works best. Why has that only just occured to me? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

:::Attempting to interpret "head over heels" to somehow mean "head down, heels up" isn't etymologically accurate; it's simply a reversal of the original expression, which was "heels over head." There's a similar expression in German ("Hals über Kopf") and Scandinavian (Norwegian "hals over hode", Swedish "hals över huvud") literally "neck over head," which means "in great hurry or disarray, without thinking" and is also sometimes (particularly in Norwegian) reversed for no particular reason: perhaps it's just the "mouth feel" that makes it tempting. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 10:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

'I couldn't care less' is the standard formulation in the UK, for one. I always assumed that the US version was originally a variant on this which was later contracted, eg 'I could care less, but not much'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.106|141.101.99.106]] 07:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that xkcd is so pro-science, I don't think the analysis here should endorse the peeve that there's anything wrong with "I could care less" (or use of "literally" as an intensifier), since most actual linguists, experts on how language works, think it's fine. See for example the list of posts dealing with the question here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21170#more-21170 And of course, the comic itself points out how petty an besides the point this kind of "correction" is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

: As a linguist, regarding the claim that most actual linguists think it's fine, I'd have to respectfully say HELL NO! There is a difference between acknowledging the pragmatic implementation of the phrase, that is, its use in common parlance and the general acceptance and understanding of it, and the question wether or not it is "fine". The comic exemplifies a rather extreme version of the idea "Whatever people use is proper language" - in other words, as long as everybody involved in a conversation gets what is meant, there is no point in arguing semantics, grammer, etc. This is, however, neither the only, nor the dominant approach to language and linguistics. For exapmle, it doesn't answer the question how such an ostensibly paradox use of this phrase came to happen, where (geographically, socially, etc.) the phrase might have originated, and other puzzless regarding the origin of the phrase; this attitude also dismisses any inquiry into how humans process (or ignore) such discrepancies between literal meaning and actual use, and in general, how humans organise, structure, and conecptualise language. Additionally, this comic adds a radical deconstructional (and maybe existential) twist to this perspective by basically saying, "We're all alone, and can never really know or understand anybody else".
: Such an attitude of total relativism ("Every experience ist entirely subjective and unique") makes my skin crawl. It is by far more presumptious than being a little pedantic about grammar and the use of expressions.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.176|162.158.114.176]] 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:: Agreed. Words have meanings and reducing the amount of trust you can place in those meanings decreases the value of the language. "You could never understand me, so I might as well not even try to make myself understood" is a cop-out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.23|108.162.219.23]] 15:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

:: I stand by my comment that most linguists would argue that the phrase does not warrant censure, on the grounds that it is (1) in very common use, probably about 5 times as common as "couldn't care less" in American speech, including educated speech, and about half as common in writing, (2) long established, with the OED's first reference back in 1966, only twenty years after it first notes "I couldn't care less" (and with Google Book Search, we can push this back to the 1940s: it occurs repeatedly in the official transcript of a House Congressional Hearing in 1947, for example), (3) idiomatic, so that logical analysis of its strict literal content is not helpful, and (4) analogous to other constructions (in English and other languages) that don't raise any eyebrows or hackles. That does not mean that they don't consider it interesting and worthy of explanation, of course. Indeed, almost all the work of actually trying to explain how "could care less" arose has been done by people who are at pain to point out that they find the phrase unobjectionable (while those who disapprove of it don't seem to get much further than calling it "an ignorant substitution" or a result of "sloppy speech and sloppy writing"). It's of course hard to prove that this is the majority view in academic circles, but I refer to Lawler, Liberman, Pullum, Okrent [http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/03/18/why_i_could_care_less_is_not_as_irrational_or_ungrammatical_as_you_might.html], Pinker, the various dictionaries that list it without deprecation (e.g. RH Webster's: "usage: could care less, the apparent opposite of couldn't care less, is actually used interchangeably with it to express indifference. Both versions occur mainly in informal speech."), and linguistic popularizers such as Grammarist [http://grammarist.com/usage/could-care-less/]. This clearly reflects the descriptivist paradigm that seeks to understand language as it actually occurs, and looks skeptically on attempts to impose "rules" that are often demonstrably wrong. In other words, treating linguistics as an empirical science. The version of this position that Megan argues in the comic is obviously heightened for comic effect (she's also using a sort of mock-Gricean analysis to impute a possible helpful intent to Ponytail). You can find most of these points endorsed in a very reasonable [http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/ blog post by dictionary.com]. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.152|141.101.105.152]] 09:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 23:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As it's currently written, the explanation seems to suggest that "I could care less" is the American form and "I couldn't care less" British. In fact, both forms are in use in the US, and it wouldn't surprise me if "I could care less" occurs occasionally in British English as well. There are also other English-speaking countries in the world. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:As a Brit, I can't think of any time I've heard a fellow Briton say "I could care less", it's always seemed very much an American phenomenon. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

:Another American chiming in here to say that I never, ever, ever say "I could care less" when I mean "I couldn't care less". Characterizing it as "*the* American form" is incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.167|173.245.56.167]] 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the title text, I'd disagree with "The sentence is also ambiguous, as it may mean that literally or figuratively, the speaker could or couldn't care less." I think that Randall is pretty clear here: he ''should'' ('could' as in polite request) care less about irrational idioms instead of wasting time drawing comics about it. But he just can't resist. And without him doing so, we wouldn't be here. So in fact, it is nonsense for Randall to care less, and this contradiction is the point of the title text joke. But then again, I'm not native English speaker, and even less of a thought reader to understand what was on his mind. -- kavol, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.224|141.101.96.224]] 08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:I had an alternate take on the title text. Since I could care less literally means I care some but could stand not to care as much, I took it to mean that for all the comic says about the true spirit and nature of communication and the evils of forcing linguistic absolutism onto other people, at the end of the day Randall still does care about people using correct phraseology. Yes, language is so much more than words and sounds but without clear grammatical usage rules communication could descend into chaos. This is actually one of the pivotal points in Jet Li's movie Hero which is a great commentary on this comic's profundity. The deep resonating pools of meaning that communication stores is only useful for peace and coexistence if we can all understand each other and come together as one. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
::I'm solidly with the IP. Randall is saying that, evidently, this is something which is important to him, and something he's put a lot of thought into. [[User:FourViolas|FourViolas]] ([[User talk:FourViolas|talk]]) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think "I could care less" is completely unheard of in Britain - I had to come here to find out what this was all about! In the UK the correction wouldn't be seen as pedantic, but rather that you had said something really rather odd, possibly for effect. I'm guessing in the US this doesn't stand out, and the phrase is "familiar" so the brain will run with it, but it just sounds really weird and jarring to me. That's not being pedantic, we toss double negatives around all over the place. Randall's point is that it how you interpret the words, rather than exact rules. So if ponytail is British then she is genuinely just trying to check that it wasn't a slip of the tongue and not meant for effect. To experience how odd it sounds its like a similar phrase "I don't give a s**t", but someone saying "I do give a s**t" (unless you guy's say that as well?!). {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.205}}

: You're right, the British National Corpus has essentially no hits for "could care less" [http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/]. However, Ponytail's "correction" doesn't sound like she's unfamiliar with the expression, but more like the common pedantic objection to it, so I doubt that she's intended to be British, or that it's anything other than "showing off how well she knows some mental checklist." The Lawler link above ([http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html]) discusses the example "They could give a damn about Whitewater" (as in they '''don't''' actually give a damn about it). I think you could get away with "I give a shit?" or "[Like] I give a shit!" (with the "like" elided) as implicitly negative, but no, you can't put in an affirmative "do." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fighting a long lost battle, I know, but can I mention my fight against the (long-standing) misuse of Decimation when the speaker/writer probably means Devastation? These days it's often assumed to be its own mathematical complement (around ~10% survival, rather than the intended ~10% depletion). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am right with you on this one. Although I don't think the users are mistaking the Dev- for the Dec-, they have just forgotten or never learned that "decimate" had anything to with percentages. Heck, many English speakers don't grasp that percent has anything to do with percentages. [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Either one works, depending on how the sentence is finished:
* I could care less...about this than other things.
* I couldn't care less...about this than I already do.
--EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:Indeed, but "I could..." also begs the question "...but will I?" and so does not actually affirms that "I ''will'' care less (than with other things)", whilst "I couldn't..." is more imperative as in "...and therefore I wouldn't". (Unless you want to read the latter as "I couldn't care less because I actually care quite a lot already and I know that this will never change", I suppose! Oh dear, we uregently need to start using one of those totally-umambiguous ConLangs based upon predicate logic!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On a different note: The way the panels are set up is pretty interesting. Anyone a idea, why he set it up like that? Does he want to tell us something? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.196|162.158.92.196]] 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:The panels seem to form a logical story progression: introduction / development / conclusion, each on 3 lines. The panel on solitude and darkness is inverted -- it's literally dark -- which is a common comics idiom to emphasize a specific panel and break monotony {{Citation needed}}. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like the [http://english.stackexchange.com/ English Language & Usage Stack Exchange] :-)

It's quite amusing as most of the discussion here is about the pedantic usage solely focused on how the listener perceives the expression irregardless (;-p) of what the speaker tried to express, which is is exactly what the comic is ranting about.
If we want to be all pedantic, I'd offer the alternative that "I could care less" is a literally (;-p) perfectly sound form in itself. It's all about expressing the emotional value that someone attaches to a concept or thing -- think of it as an emotional energy or charge. Since everything is inter-dependent, there is no such thing as an absolute zero, it's the relation to other things that matters. The expression "I don't care" would imply the speaker devotes a neutral emotional energy value to the subject. Since it's a relative value, there are no boundaries in either direction and consequently "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are perfectly valid. It's all relative, as used to say Frank. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 20:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

'I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; 'but it isn't so, nohow.'
'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 23:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"I could care less, but I would have to try" is the phrase as I have always known it (shortened to "I could care less...). I always took this to mean that someone was indifferent to a thing. It is a bit of an oxymoron since to try would mean you care more when your goal is to care less. My assumption has always been that the way someone feels about something generally exists on a scale from love to hate with the dead center being indifference. To care more from an indifferent standpoint is too move towards one of the poles (love or hate) and thus the oxymoron.--[[User:The elusive pickle|The elusive pickle]] ([[User talk:The elusive pickle|talk]]) 22:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it proper to use citations or should we just link to the source? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|10:44, 12 September 2015}}

;Negation by association in French

The [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html assertion] that ''could care less'', or ''give a damn'', is "negative in its own right" in the same way as ''pas'' in French sounds dubious to me to say the least, if not downright bovine excrement. In French, the original word for negation is ''ne'', it came to be associated with ''pas'', so that there was a perceived redundancy. Dropping ''ne'' when ''pas'' is used clearly conserves the negative meaning (it is only usual in oral French though, and frowned upon in written French). The same applies with adverbs that have a negative meaning, like ''jamais'' (never). But this is a very generic process, and thus completely different from very specific cases like ''could care less''. [[User:Zoyd|Zoyd]] ([[User talk:Zoyd|talk]]) 17:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
:Absolutely off-topic: there's a fairly good overview of the evolution leading to ''ne... pas'' in French [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9gation_en_fran%C3%A7ais#.C3.89volution_de_l.27expression_de_la_n.C3.A9gation over there in The Other Wiki]. The link (or lack thereof) with ''could care less'' would definitely qualify as ''capilotracté''. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've heard people say they ''couldn't'' give a damn. Never heard someone say they ''could''. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 13:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a shame we don't know Ponytail's name. If we did, this would pass the Bechdel test. Out of interest, are there any xkcds which pass the Bechdel test? {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.183}}

I could care more. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.33|198.41.238.33]] 00:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This was done on [http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2015/08/03 Pearls Before Swine] a couple of weeks ago. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.118|173.245.54.118]] 13:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps she's saying she could care a lot about the correction if it's intended to help her, but she could care less than that if the correction stems from the desire to complete a mental checklist.
In other words, there are two interpretations of the significance of Ponytail's correction. If the first interpretation is correct, she will care a lot. If the second interpretation is correct, she will care less. But she's not sure which is the case right now, so she could either care a lot or care less.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 13:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I literally could care less about this. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.160|108.162.219.160]] 19:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire explanation seems off, to me... this comic isn't merely about a quirk of English parlance but is an exploration of the state of the human condition and relationships, and the role of communication. Sure, the comic starts off with Ponytail's attempted correction of a common English idiom, and it ends with a call-back to this idiom, but that doesn't mean the comic is all about the idiom. Rather, I think discussing the idiom is the means by which Randall can express his understanding of the role of ALL language and communication in human relationships - to remarkable depth, I would say. He has expressed the sentiment before that "literally the only thing that matters" is how others feel and our relationships with them (in [[1216: Sticks and Stones]], for example, and even as far back as [[24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey]].) This, for him, is the reason effective communication is so important and worth studying - because communication is required for human connection, and human connection has such a profound effect on our psychological well-being. Language pedants, therefore, are missing the point: why get so caught up correcting peoples' grammar, when the whole reason they're talking to you is because they feel alone in a void and they want to feel seen and understood? If you can understand them just fine, why make it harder for them? Language is more or less arbitrary anyway. The only reason we should correct others' grammar, as Megan implies in the seventh panel, is because you ''do'' understand why language exists (that is, to improve our relationships) ''and'' because you desire to improve the lives of others by helping them to express themselves more effectively. That is a noble goal; one-upping others is not. MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2408: Egg Strategies

2021-01-08T04:01:05Z

162.158.74.219:

I'm not going to get into it because it's not related to these egg cartons, but it is ''really weird'' sitting here explaining a joke while I listen to breaking news on the radio. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 22:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
:Why are you lot all anxiously listening to the radio? Is there something I should know? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.7.15|162.158.7.15]] 21:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Perhaps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol this], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_scandal this]? [[User:Nk1406|Nk1406]] ([[User talk:Nk1406|talk]]) 01:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I really thought it was just me who cared about center of gravity for eggs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.49|162.158.79.49]] 23:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We keep the hard boiled ones at one end and the fr4esh ones at the other end.

Bring True Neutral (egg carton sits lengthwise in fridge, most convenient egg is removed until carton is empty), I am ''baffled'' by the existence of other "strategies". Do people really do this? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.70|108.162.241.70]] 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
: True Neutral here, and also putting the carton in the fridge eggless side out (which is consistent with "most convenient egg removed"). The current explanation says that this is "a disaster waiting to happen". Why? As a side-note, as I understand it, the alternate strategies can be convenient if you ''don't'' put the carton lengthwise in the fridge (particularly if you don't put it in the fridge ''at all''). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.117|162.158.183.117]] 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I am also True Neutral - when putting the carton into the fridge end-first it allows me to extract it with the majority of the weight in my hand. It's a disaster if it is inserted the heavy side in first because when I grab the empty end the weight of the eggs can tip them out the other side. As an aside, I was a little insulted to find out that I am not the only person in the world who actually has an "egg carton strategy". I thought I was unique! ;-) [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
::: Ha, no, far from it! Nothing new under the sun, I guess. Here's some documentation of prior art by John McIntosh from 2006, under the title [http://www.urticator.net/essay/6/649.html "Egg Carton Theory"]. [[User:Dvgrn|Dvgrn]] ([[User talk:Dvgrn|talk]]) 17:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
: Chiming in on True Neutral strategy, which I also use, with some added thoughts: I also put the heavy end in first, but primarily because I usually have two cartons stacked, where inserting the heavy end on top of the full carton in the fridge makes it easier to push the carton the rest of the way in on top of the bottom carton. Putting it in the other way around, the heavy end is hanging off the bottom carton, resulting in less stability before it's pushed all the way in. If you can't tell, I'm an engineer! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: Chaotic Neutral here. Doing it that way means I have the benefit of a seemingly random egg without thinking too much about which egg to actually pick. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.220|108.162.229.220]] 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Being Lawful Good and married to someone who is Chaotic Good, we might sometimes argue over this. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.29|162.158.62.29]] 03:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC) MSS
:I guess my strategy is True Neutral as well, though my reason being that I put the empty side face the back of the freezer to reduce the chance of frost, which I assumed is bad for eggs. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the "neutral" part for now, what's chaotic about that? It's literally the most perfectly balanced arrangement. It has perfect rotational symmetry as well. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 04:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

===Carton size===
In Germany, there are two sizes of egg cartons, containing 6 or 10 eggs, respectively. Most refrigerators I’ve seen (in stores or households) contain an egg-holder with six dents, though I also have occasionally seen 10-dent egg holders.
Since I usually buy 20 eggs at the weekly market, my strategy is to transfer the eggs from a package to the egg holder once there are less than 9 left in the package (for the purpose of knowing how many are still left without having to open a package). If there are more than six eggs, the one or two additional eggs are placed lying besides the egg holder.
I think that counts as chaotic neutral. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.28|141.101.68.28]] 01:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:I've only seen cartons of six or ten as well, the phrase "A standard egg carton has 12 cups for 12 eggs" seems a bit presumptuous. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

===Depiction wrong===
I've got a niggling feeling that Chaotic Neutral (at least) is wrongly depicted. Too orderly. I'd have put Chaotic Good's pattern there (not necessarily vice-versa, as the current incumbent looks more Lawful or Variation-of-neutrality as well as Good) as attempting to maintain balance but with an element of chance. We don't know what sequence of removal ''led'' to each of these states, of course. That might make much of the difference in how we reach the illustrated states. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.253|162.158.158.253]] 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd go a little further and swap CG and CN (the current CG being a marginally more ordered and balanced CN) but otherwise agree. CN is the strategy I use when the carton is at risk of being centrally supported while in humid conditions (don't ask), making NG risk bending of the whole carton. LG is actually worse then NG in some circumstances, due to a drastically reduced moment of inertia contributing to the chance of dropping. On the other hand, NG increases the probability of end-shattering if the carton is actually dropped. Overall, different strategies are probably a result of experience, circumstance, relative clumsiness, and hat colour. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.75|162.158.166.75]] 05:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the chaotic good isn't random. It seems like it could be Braille or something like that, maybe? I don't know, I might looking for patterns where there are none.

Is it bother anyone that there are different numbers of eggs in each carton? At least there should have been two boxes for each alignment, one with an even number of eggs and one with odd.
:: I was thinking precisely this. Can lead to a sense of "apples and oranges" otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.49|108.162.216.49]] 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)MeZimm

===Refrigeration===
Learned something today: Americans refrigerate eggs
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.84|162.158.155.84]] 18:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
: It has something to do with the way that they're treated over here. We don't (have to) refrigerate fresh eggs. -neverdroptop 19:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I refrigerate eggs as well, and I'm not American.[[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
: If eggs are washed with a bleach solution prior to packaging, their membranous outer coating (often including quite bit of blood &\or feces) gets stripped away, leaving the shell's surface porous & receptive to contaminants; thereafter those eggs can become spoiled much more readily. In the US, all eggs shipped across state lines for sale as food must be rinsed, therefore almost all eggs shipped to any US supermarket grocery, need to be refrigerated. If you get fresh eggs unrinsed, they can sit unrefrigerated for weeks without a significant rate of spoilage. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2390: Linguists

2020-11-27T13:41:15Z

162.158.74.219:

"Fell in a hole" sounds wrong, from a (possibly) Rightpondian perspective. If it was "...into...", then that'd be better. (Falling down a hole would probably imply total inholation, while into one might mean no more than a foot getting snagged. Though the former also separately implies starting from partial or imminent holedness, the latter indicates the hole was not previously a problem but then became a novel issue to deal with. Falling 'in' a hole could mean "I was already at the bottom of a hole, minding my own business, and then I tripped on something/lost my balance and fell over..." ''Edit: as it might also be for "Fell down a hole", thinking more about it. A comma after "Fell" would make that more definite.'') I also have problems with "Lit on fire", for something that is set fire to, but I know that's definitely a transatlantic issue.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.216|162.158.155.216]] 02:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

::Yes, indeed, things are simply "lit" (if the sense of "fire" is contextually apparent) or "set on fire" (if it's not). A well lit room is a scene which need not involve a flaming component, whereas a burning room would have been set on fire.
::However. Holes, and the falling therein(to). Were one to fall "in" a hole, one would probably fall in such a way that - initially unholed at the outset of the incident - one becomes partially holed in a hole too shallow to ever threaten total enholing. The barrel of possibility is being scraped somewhat here however; my suspicion is that the above is simply an allusion to the more acceptable (dialetically speaking) "fell in a puddle" (a puddle being a hole neither "into" nor "down" which one could fall).[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 13:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
:"Fell into..." makes me think that he fell/tripped and instead of landing on the ground, he went into the hole. (BTW, I've lived in this house 45+ years. I've never fallen down the stairs, but I have fallen "up" them, ie. I tripped on the way up and face-planted, even though I didn't continue upwards.) [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 09:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I suppose "in a hole" is probably ''technically'' wrong (except for those cases where the individual in question was in a hole and then fell), but I would probably use it in speech (though maybe not more formal writing). There ''is'' a distinction between 'in' and 'down' however. When something falls down a hole, no part of it remains outside the hole. If it falls in(/to) a hole, at least some -- possibly most -- of the object remains outside the hole. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.191|108.162.216.191]] 02:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

::I'd say that under the circumstances, "Fell in a hole" carries the following implications:
::That you were already "in" the hole, in some minimal sense. EG, your foot was inside a rut.
::That you then fell.
::That when you finished falling, you were 'more' in the hole than you were originally. EG, your knees and hands were now ALSO in the rut, because you landed on them.

::Whereas "Fell Down a hole" implies that the lowest point of your body, when you STARTED falling, has actually experienced significant downward motion by the time you STOPPED falling. you can't fall 'down' a hole if your ::foot was resting on the hole's bottom when you started out.
::[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.35|108.162.216.35]] 19:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that this comic seems to have significantly higher resolution than others? It’s especially noticeable on mobile browsers, but I haven’t tested it on PC. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.154|108.162.219.154]] 02:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I fell down a hole, and while in the hole I fell.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.42|108.162.216.42]] 03:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess you could fall "in" a hole without falling "down" a hole if you like...tripped into a sideways hole, like a doorway...
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.138|162.158.75.138]] 07:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say if you mean the act of falling into the hole, you can indicate that with either 'into' or 'down' (or even both) and you could argue when to use which, but if you mean the place where you have fallen, you would use 'in'. Informally, I have heard people use 'in' as short of 'into'. On the other hand, the place where you have fallen could be "down a hole" (I have been down that hole). It now depends whether the "down" is connected to "I fell" or to "the hole". In theory, you could say "I fell down a hole down the hole" to indicate you fell down a second hole while being inside the first one.

This whole discussion is just the result of Randall doing Nerd Sniping [[356]] XD [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone needs to add a discussion of prescriptivist vs. descriptivist linguists -- the person in the comic is clearly a descriptivist, the pedants described in the caption would be prescriptivists. (Incidentally, [https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=49309 Language Log] posted about the comic and there's some discussion.) [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 14:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes this is saying most linguists are descriptivists, they find out what people say/write, and ask what they mean - Most linguists are descriptivists, and so are most dictionaries [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.128|162.158.159.128]] 15:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I predict many links to the original XKCD comic will appear in the comments of the next Tom Scott linguistics YouTube video.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.193|173.245.52.193]] 06:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"What is it that Ponytail thinks is being said, and what should have been said to avoid misunderstanding?" <-- from the incomplete explanation box.
I don't believe that Ponytail is misunderstanding anything. Ponytail (correctly) understands that the speaker-in-a-hole is in a hole and got there by means of falling. The joke is, rather than help the person out of the hole (as just about any normal human, linguist or not, would do), Ponytail sees an opportunity to do some field research, asking whether falling down a hole means the same thing to the unseen speaker as falling in a hole, or if there are subtle differences between the two. Most, if not all, native speakers of English would understand the meaning, but as you can see from the comments here, we do _have_ subtle differences between in/into/down in this context even if they might not be used in the heat of the moment. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 13:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

2390: Linguists

2020-11-26T04:40:15Z

162.158.74.219: this comic showed up on Nov. 25 Eastern time; it's 11:40 PM Nov. 25 Eastern time as I write this

{{comic
| number = 2390
| date = November 25, 2020
| title = Linguists
| image = linguists.png
| titletext = "Do you feel like the answer depends on whether you're currently in the hole, versus when you refer to the events later after you get out? Assuming you get out."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A LINGUIST IN A HOLE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Ponytail hears the cries of an unidentified person who has become trapped in a hole. She rushes over and asks whether the trapped person's chosen phrasing for their predicament - "fell down a hole" - is equivalent to "fell in a hole."

In the caption, Randall comments that linguists' desire to extract exact meaning from phrases is, in fact, done with the best of intentions. He also claims that this is worse than if they were pedants browbeating their audience, possibly because a pedant could prioritize the elements a situation better than Ponytail is doing here.

The title text introduces the additional dimension of tense.

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

[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):]
:Off-panel voice: Help!
:Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!

[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]

[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:]
:Ponytail: Hey!
:Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

2390: Linguists

2020-11-26T04:37:25Z

162.158.74.219: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2390
| date = November 26, 2020
| title = Linguists
| image = linguists.png
| titletext = "Do you feel like the answer depends on whether you're currently in the hole, versus when you refer to the events later after you get out? Assuming you get out."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A LINGUIST IN A HOLE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Ponytail hears the cries of an unidentified person who has become trapped in a hole. She rushes over and asks whether the trapped person's chosen phrasing for their predicament - "fell down a hole" - is equivalent to "fell in a hole."

In the caption, Randall comments that linguists' desire to extract exact meaning from phrases is, in fact, done with the best of intentions. He also claims that this is worse than if they were pedants browbeating their audience, possibly because a pedant could prioritize the elements a situation better than Ponytail is doing here.

The title text introduces the additional dimension of tense.

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

[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):]
:Off-panel voice: Help!
:Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!

[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]

[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:]
:Ponytail: Hey!
:Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

2264: Satellite

2020-02-06T06:15:56Z

162.158.74.219: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2264
| date = February 5, 2020
| title = Satellite
| image = satellite.png
| titletext = If you're going to let it burn up, make sure it happens over the deep end of the bathtub and not any populated parts of the house!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a KESSLER SYNDROME. Incredibly stubby. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic humorously compares the relationship between humans and {{w|satellites}} to the relationship between humans and {{w|pet}}s, with [[Science Girl]] "adopting" an "abandoned" satellite, and being lectured by her parents on how to properly discard it once it stops working, using terms and processes normally applied to satellites. ("{{w|Graveyard orbit}}" and "{{w|Kessler syndrome}}" and the {{w|Spacecraft cemetery|bit of the sea}} that is the South Pacific Ocean Uninhabited Area).

A graveyard orbit is an orbit far away from operational satellites, used as a cheaper alternative to de-orbiting a satellite and letting it burn up. Typically this is achieved by briefly accelerating the satellite to send it further away from Earth; thus, Science Girl's parents refer to "boosting" the satellite into a graveyard orbit.

Kessler syndrome refers to a scenario where Earth has become surrounded by so much man-made debris that cascading collisions make space activities difficult. Apparently Science Girl has recreated this scenario before in her parents' home, requiring extensive cleanup.

The title text is more advice from Science Girl's parents. They tell her that if she is going to let her satellite reenter the atmosphere and burn up, she should do it above the bathtub. This echoes how satellites in orbit can be purposefully deorbited, and are usually planned so that any debris that isn't fully destroyed lands in the ocean and do not pose a safety risk.

Abandoned satellites were in the news recently, as 2 defunct satellites [https://www.space.com/no-satellite-crash-of-space-junk-iras-ggse-4.html had a near miss] on January 29, 2020. This is becoming more of an issue, especially in Low Earth Orbit, as more and more satellites are built, and old satellites go defunct.

Humans being orbited by space objects previously featured in [[1300: Galilean Moons]].

==Transcript==
:[Science Girl is facing Cueball and Megan. A small satellite orbits her.]
:Science Girl: Hey, look, I found a satellite! Can I keep it? Please?
:Cueball: Sweetie, no.
:Megan: Put it back where you found it.

:[Only Science Girl is visible.]
:Science Girl: But I think it was abandoned!
:Science Girl: And it's so cute!
:Science Girl: Please?
:Science Girl: ''Pleeeease?''

:[The frame expands again. Sciene Girl has her arms raised.]
:Megan: Fine. But you have to promise to boost it to a graveyard orbit when it stops working. Don't just leave it drifting around.
:Science Girl: Yaaaay!

:[Science Girl is facing Cueball and Megan. She has lowered her arms.]
:Cueball: We're serious. I am ''not'' cleaning up after Kessler syndrome again.
:Megan: We couldn't use the dining room for ''weeks!''
:Science Girl: I promise, I promise.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Science Girl]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Space]]

1792: Bird/Plane/Superman

2017-11-15T02:07:22Z

162.158.74.219: /* Table */ Changed [citation needed] footnotes. For the lulz.

{{comic
| number = 1792
| date = January 30, 2017
| title = Bird/Plane/Superman
| image = bird_plane_superman.png
| titletext = You can apply special translucent films to your windows to help keep birds/Superman from accidentally flying into them.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a logical comparison of observations to resolve the [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034247/quotes?item=qt0317455 classic Superman catchphrase] of comic book bystanders: "Look, up in the sky... It's a {{w|bird}}!... It's a {{w|Airplane|plane}}!... It's {{w|Superman}}!", hence the title. Superman, a character originally created for comic books in the 1930's, is an alien with superpowers, including the power of unaided flight; hence the catchphrase exclaiming peoples' amazement.

At the correct distance both birds, planes and the fictive Superman could be mistaken for each other. So this comic aims to help people identify the airborne object by listing on which properties they are alike and on which they are different. This problem was also mentioned in the title text of [[1633: Possible Undiscovered Planets]], putting Superman near the bird/plane boundary explaining why all this confusion has arisen.

The observations compared range from the mundane to the bizarre and they are listed and explained below in the [[#Table|table]]. Here some highlights are mentioned, but for all these there are much more detail below.

Some of the mundane observations are that birds don't fly around with people, while Superman can do it, and planes are meant for it; and that the latter two are new "inventions", whereas birds have flown around for millions of years.

Interestingly enough there are actually two observations that have check mark for all three; the first being that there are enthusiasts for all three different flying objects. And these will obsess over small color details in otherwise similar looking objects. The other common thing is that they all may have sex in midair. The possibility of that happening for the all three are discussed in the table.

Three observations only counts for birds, where all those that do not count for birds do count for both planes and superman. Two of these relates to the fact that birds are eaten by cats and humans, the last is that birds flap their wings to fly, the others have other means of flight. There are observations that rules out only planes or only superman, but none that rules out only one of them at the same time as birds are ruled out.

There are also three direct jokes towards the bottom. The first is that {{w|David Attenborough}} may also have observed Superman's mating habits just like he has with birds in the documentary series {{w|The Life of Birds}}. The second is that not only birds poop in flight, but that Superman could and would also do so. And the third (and also final observation) is that not only birds chase insects to eat them, but Superman also chases them... though only when he is bored. These last three observations have that in common that the planes are left out of all of them, and the joke is always on Superman. As it has been before in [[1384: Krypton]] and [[1394: Superm*n]] (released just ten comics apart).

The title text refers to black stickers (decals) in the shape of an easily recognizable predatory bird, like {{w|falcons}} to enhance the visibility of clear glass windows or doors and scare smaller birds away before they crash into the window. This may actually not work very well according to this article: [https://www.allaboutbirds.org/why-birds-hit-windows-and-how-you-can-help-prevent-it/ Why Birds Hit Windows], where a falcon decal is also shown. But they are meant to warn birds away and according to this comic they could also prevent Superman from flying through your window (and thus also stop him from possibly just continue through the building). They are not known to affect the risk of airplanes flying into the building.

===Table===
{| class="wikitable"
!style="width: style="width: 55%;"| !!style="width: style="width: 15%;"| Bird !!style="width: style="width: 15%;"| Plane !! Superman
|-
!colspan=4| Explanation
|-
! Carries people || || ✓ || ✓
|-
|colspan=4| Some birds are capable of flying off while carrying a small human away, but this happens extremely rarely (although hoax stories are often reported). Of course an {{w|Ostrich}} can easily carry a human; they have done so often in arranged {{w|Ostrich#Racing|races}}. But as they cannot fly (with or without humans on their back), and this comic is about recognizing objects in the air, this will not affect the check mark! Most planes are specifically designed to carry human passengers, although many are cargo planes with humans only acting as crew, and autonomous drones without humans also exist. Superman often carries other people with him, such as his {{w|Lois Lane|girlfriend}}, rescued victims or the various villains that people need to be rescued from.
|-
! Often flies in groups || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
|colspan=4| Many types of birds fly in flocks, particularly during long-range {{w|Bird migration|migrations}}. Some birds often fly in the {{w|V formation}} which has also been {{w|V_formation#Military_flight_missions|copied by planes}}. This formation has been used at least twice in xkcd in [[1440: Geese]] and recently in [[1729: Migrating Geese]] (notice the similarity in number of that bird comic compared to the one for this comic). Planes sometimes fly in {{w|Formation flying|group formation}}, particularly when engaged in military operations where mutual support is tactically useful (or when conducting practice maneuvers for such operations). Though the people who would mistake those planes for birds will mainly see this at {{w|Air show|air shows}}. Superman is a unique person, and thus does not fly in groups of Supermen. While Superman occasionally operates alongside other flying superheroes, and in some stories is duplicated or split into multiple beings, Randall apparently considers these circumstances too unusual to meet the "often" qualifier.
|-
! Created in 20th century || || ✓ || ✓
|-
|colspan=4| Birds evolved from dinosaurs, appearing as early as the Late Jurassic period, roughly 150 million years ago. That birds evolved from dinosaur who also had wings with feathers before they evolved on to becoming birds has often been referenced by Randall in comics like [[1104: Feathers]], [[1211: Birds and Dinosaurs]] and the title texts of [[867: Herpetology]] and [[1527: Humans]] The {{w|Wright_Flyer#Flight_trials_at_Kitty_Hawk|first successful flight}} of a powered heavier-than-air craft took place on December 17, 1903 and was performed by the {{w|Wright brothers}}. There are several other claims for the first such flight, for instance {{w|Alberto_Santos-Dumont#Heavier-than-air_craft|Alberto Santos-Dumont}} from Brazil [https://youtu.be/N_qXm9HY9Ro?t=2156 was given a spot] at the {{w|2016 Summer Olympics opening ceremony|opening ceremony}} of the {{w|2016 Summer Olympics|Rio 2016 Olympic Games}}. Superman first appeared in {{w|Action Comics 1|''Action Comics'' #1}}, published in June 1938.
|-
! Uses magnetic navigation || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
|colspan=4| Some types of birds use {{w|magnetoreception}} to navigate using the earth's magnetic field as a guide. Artificial {{w|Compass#Magnetic_compass|magnetic compasses}}, along with other navigational equipment, are used by planes. Superman, while possessing a {{w|Powers and abilities of Superman|plethora of super-senses/powers}}, does not appear to be particularly sensitive to {{w|magnetism}}.
|-
! Enthusiast community obsesses over small coloration details || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
|colspan=4| {{w|Birdwatching|Birdwatchers}} identify bird species by a range of characteristics, including small details in the bird's color pattern which identify one species apart from another. Similarly, airplane hobbyists and {{w|Aircraft spotting|plane spotters}} take note of the colors of a plane's paint job and insignia. Comics fans can similarly identify the artist and date of a depiction of Superman by the coloration and configuration of his costume and be obsessed with their favorite coloration being the canon.
|-
! Preyed on by cats || ✓ || ||
|-
|colspan=4| {{w|Cats}} kill several billion birds a year, often - but not always - eating them. There has never been a case of a cat successfully catching and eating a plane.{{Citation needed}} As Superman is a fictional character the same goes for him, but also in the comics he has never been eaten by a cat, although he has been [http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/power-girl-22.jpg devoured by a dinosaur] although that (probably) did not kill him...
|-
! Occasional mid-air sex || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
|colspan=4| Almost no bird species have sex in flight. Hummingbirds, for example, engage in courting behavior which one might falsely identify as sex (explained in this article [http://animals.howstuffworks.com/birds/hummingbird-sex1.htm Do hummingbirds have sex in midair?]). This article [http://www.livescience.com/38379-animal-sex-bird-sex.html Animal Sex: How Birds Do It] explains how birds in general have sex. However, this article [http://www.commonswift.org/Aerial-mating.html Aerial mating] claims that the common swift (Apus Apus) sometimes engages in mid-air sex, an act presumably caught on video [https://vimeo.com/78453839 here]. {{w|Mile high club|Mid-air sex}} involving planes usually involves passengers (and potentially air crew), not the plane itself. However, this could also be a metaphorical reference to {{w|Aerial refueling|in-flight refueling}} (such as the depiction, set to romantic music, in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs7EikHQGlA the opening scene] of the movie ''{{w|Dr. Strangelove}}'', a movie Randall has referenced before for instance in [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/2/21/1608_1020x1083y_Torpedoes_two_steps_above_Runner_with_Beret_Guy.png this scene] from [[1608: Hoverboard]]) It could also refer to [http://avstop.com/news/plantcity.html this incident] where one plane landed atop another in mid-air. As for Superman, there have been occasional moments in the comics which indicate or at least imply that he sometimes engages in mid-air sex.
|-
! Eaten during seasonal feasts || ✓ || ||
|-
|colspan=4| {{w|Turkey (bird)|Turkeys}}, a type of bird, are eaten by Americans during {{w|Thanksgiving}}, a "seasonal feast" held on the fourth Thursday of November of each year. Britons eat Turkey or {{w|Goose}} at {{w|Christmas}}, in other countries it may be {{w|ducks}} instead. It is unlikely that normal humans would eat a plane, however it has been done by {{w|Michel Lotito}} who has digested an entire {{w|Cessna 150|Cessna}} aircraft. However he used two years to consume the plane, so although he may have eaten some parts during holidays, he did not do it because there was a seasonal feast. Superman is too strong and "made of steel" for him to let any human eat him. But as also mentioned above he has been [http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/power-girl-22.jpg devoured by a dinosaur] although that probably did not kill him... Referring back to the possible sex Superman has had in flight, it seems he is able to have sex with a human. Although the slang ''{{w|Cunnilingus|eat me}}'' (link NSFW), usually mean the man eating the woman,[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eat%20me it can also be used] the other way around. In this case Superman could have had holiday-sex with his girlfriend, where she ate him.
|-
! Propelled by flapping || ✓ || ||
|-
|colspan=4| Birds fly by flapping their wings.{{Citation needed}} Planes have fixed wings, and fly by maintaining forward velocity and exploiting the aerodynamic effects of air flowing over the upper and lower wing surfaces, which are shaped and angled to produce lift. Superman flies using superpowers which require neither wings nor flapping.
|-
! Sometimes loses ability to fly, needs to sunbathe to regain it || ✓ || || ✓
|-
|colspan=4| Birds can "lose" the ability to fly, if their wings are weighed down by water from swimming. One way for birds to dry out their wings is to [http://birding.about.com/od/birdbehavior/a/Bird-Sunning.htm sunbathe]. An airplane can lose its ability to fly, but no issues occurring in modern aircraft can be fixed by sunbathing, except in some {{w|Solar Impulse|experimental solar-powered aircraft}}. As for Superman, he is at risk of losing his superpowers, including flight, with prolonged exposure to {{w|Kryptonite}}, which makes him weak. Also the rays from the sun at his home planet {{w|Krypton (comics)|Krypton}} can {{w|Superman_II#Plot|remove his super powers}} as it happened in {{w|Superman II}}. Superman's ability to fly is a superpower caused by "electromagnetic radiation from the rays of a yellow sun", so he could regain his strength and superhuman abilities through sunbathing in the {{w|Sun|Sun's}} light here on Earth. Which was how he got his super powers in the first place.
|-
! Can take a punch || || ✓ || ✓
|-
|colspan=4| Many birds are small and fragile creatures, whose {{w|Bird_anatomy#Skeletal_system|bone structures}} are meant to be light in order to fly, and thus are not very durable. If a man punched, say, a {{w|pigeon}}, he could probably break/dislocate most of its bones, either killing it immediately or leaving it in a state from which it will probably never ever recover on its own. However, there are definitely some big, {{w|flightless birds}} that could take a punch from a human such as ostriches and {{w|emus}}, but since both are large creatures that would probably react by fighting back, it would not be wise to try. Also Randall is (again) plainly ignoring this type of birds as they cannot fly and this comic is about making mistakes regarding things flying through the air (typically far enough away from the observer to mistake a pigeon for a plane). Planes are usually massive, or at least big enough to carry a human, and have to be made of materials durable enough to withstand hurtling through the sky at hundreds of miles an hour reliably on a regular basis. You could definitely punch one safely. (Meaning safe for the plane, not your hand.) One of Superman's (the {{w|Man of Steel (film)|Man of Steel}}) trademark abilities is his near indestructibility; a punch from any regular human would not hurt him, but again hurt the hand.
|-
! Mating behavior often observed by a hidden David Attenborough || ✓ || || Not that we know of
|-
|colspan=4| {{w|David Attenborough}} is an English broadcaster and naturalist, who produced a documentary series ''{{w|The Life of Birds}}''. Included in the series is an episode entitled "Finding Partners", which discussed {{w|Bird#Breeding|mating rituals of birds}}. That these can be very strange has been mentioned in the title text of [[1747: Spider Paleontology]], of course in relation to Dinosaur behavior. Planes are dead inanimate objects with no mating behavior.{{Citation needed}} However, referring back to the observations made under the ''Occasional mid-air sex'' explanation it could be discussed if this was mating behavior. Also there are movies like {{w|Planes (film)|Planes}} and it's {{w|Planes: Fire & Rescue|sequel}} has living planes, which could mate. But Randall may know for sure that Attenborough is not interested in those. The comic states that we don't know for sure if Attenborough has observed Superman's mating behavior. As Superman doesn't exist,{{Citation needed}} Attenborough has not seen Superman in reality (which would lead to a "No" response), but maybe Attenborough has watched all the movies in which Superman courts {{w|Lois Lane}} just to observe Superman's (made up) mating behavior (which would lead to a "Yes" response). Since we do not know Attenborough's habits, this leads to Randall giving the "Not that we know of" response.
|-
! Capable of intentionally releasing poop mid-flight || ✓ || || ✓
|-
|colspan=4| Birds often poop during flight, often enough that people regularly get hit in the head by the poop, which has caused the unlucky people to come up with the [http://thepetwiki.com/wiki/Pets_and_Superstitions superstition] that it brings good luck. For birds it is just economical to shed excess mass when they are going to fly, and many birds poop just at take off. But on long flights it the best use of resources to not carry extra weight along, that increases their efficiency. Unlike {{w|mammals}} who pee {{w|urea}}, {{w|Bird#Excretory_system|bird poop}} is both pee and feces as birds only have one hole, a {{w|cloaca}}, and the black poop is surrounded by their pee which is the white stuff containing {{w|uric acid}}. Not peeing lots of water out reduces their water loss. Some planes may be able to intentionally purge their septic tanks mid-flight, depending on the design of the waste interlocks, especially assuming the controls are inside the cockpit or cabin. As the TV show ''MythBusters'' has shown, a leaky septic disposal system can unintentionally lose liquid waste and cause a "blue ice" sighting on the ground. This is, however, not the planes poop and also not the plane that released it intentionally, and planes are not supposed to do this. Superman, being more or less human, could be capable of pooping during flight, but this would generally result in unnecessary drycleaning bills. But he has probably never been shown to either take a leak or poop in any of the {{w|Canon (fiction)|canon}} comics, books or films. So he may not even be able to poop! But Randall assumes he can.
|-
! Chases and eats bugs || ✓ || || Only when bored
|-
|colspan=4| Many bird species prey on insects and similar-sized animals. Planes often fly into and kill insects (as well as birds, and sometimes humans), but this is unintentional and doesn't provide them with nutritional value,{{Citation needed}} and they certainly do not chase them around. Superman is not known for eating insects, but Randall implies that he does sometimes, but only when he's bored. This could be interpreted as if he then tries to avoid his boredom by chasing the bugs intentionally, but why also eat them then? So it would probably rather happen because if you fly around while bored you might yawn at the wrong time and {{w|There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly|swallow a fly}}, just like when riding on a bike or any other relatively fast but open vehicle.
|}

==Transcript==

{| class="wikitable"
! !! Bird !! Plane !! Superman
|-
| Carries people || || ✓ || ✓
|-
| Often flies in groups || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| Created in 20th century || || ✓ || ✓
|-
| Uses magnetic navigation || ✓ || ✓ ||
|-
| Enthusiast community obsesses over small coloration details || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
| Preyed on by cats || ✓ || ||
|-
| Occasional mid-air sex || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
| Eaten during seasonal feasts || ✓ || ||
|-
| Propelled by flapping || ✓ || ||
|-
| Sometimes loses ability to fly, needs to sunbathe to regain it || ✓ || || ✓
|-
| Can take a punch || || ✓ || ✓
|-
| Mating behaviour often observed by a hidden David Attenborough || ✓ || || Not that we know of
|-
| Capable of intentionally releasing poop mid-flight || ✓ || || ✓
|-
| Chases and eats bugs || ✓ || || Only when bored
|-
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Sex]]
[[Category:Food]]

Talk:1497: New Products

2017-11-14T21:25:16Z

162.158.74.219:

Seems to me that the humor on the first two is based on engineers and programmers not understanding the general public's needs and wants. Also based on how engineers may find products "exciting" based on how novel the product's functionality is, not based on how useful that functionality is. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.150|108.162.215.150]] 07:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)MW
:It seems to me to be a bash on various makes, remakes, re-remakes, /(re-){2,}remakes/ and sequels of sequels that become very successful. —[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.95|141.101.106.95]] 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.125|173.245.53.125]] 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I took the point of the first category to be that if smart people (programmers and engineers being assumed to be smart) can't understand why anyone would want some stupid useless piece of crap, that it will be a huge success because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one (ref: MS Windows), and the point of the second category to be that if it excites smart people, it'll fail in the marketplace because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in a chart of examples of each category {{unsigned ip|108.162.242.5}}

Sean Malstrom talked about this. In general, Super Mario Bros, the Legend of Zelda, and Metroid, while classic, are actually nothing new... just having a high level of crasftmanship. Besides, people want familiar experiences. In a way, that makes sense. Meanwhile, hype tends to inflate expectations. The only game that ever fulfilled hype was Super Mario Bros. 3... still a classic. Then again, hype is a mere tactic used in getting people to buy poor games; great games do not need hype. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading those 'quotes', I'm minded of Bill Gates's statement on exactly how much memory we wouldn't need more than, the head of IBM far earlier predicting the need for perhaps five(? look it up) computers in the whole world, the century-old prediction that the number of cars in the world wouldn't exceed the (small number of) chauffeurs who could be trained, etc. Plus things like Microsoft's failed earlier attempts at Windows tablets (and OSes) that preceded the latest craze by a decade and then died, only for the recent mania (which might again be dying, but at least has a foothold). But is it worthwhile actually putting in loads of links to these kinds of things, to illustrate each issue? Probably not...[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.188|141.101.98.188]] 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
: Well, Bill Gates actually didn't said that: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 21:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the alt text refers to the 6th row of the table as well, the speaker in the quote is nervous about handing his medical information over to KimDotCom's company, which means within 5 years he will willingly do it. The 2nd and 3rd rows made me think of the Pebble Watch, which was launched on kickstarter (pre-ordered), but I don't believe it was widely commercially successful. The concept of the Pebble is being used in the Apple Watch, but with a higher quality screen, greater focus on design elements, and a much much higher price-tag. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:No it cannot fit there. Because he has signed up and thus h does not say never in my life... I have changed back and added this explantion --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody else find this explanation borderline offensive? You can describe differences groups without being derogatory.

Something between the current text and the comment labeled 199.27.133.27 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) should do it.
--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Title text does seem to refer to 4th category. Please discuss before deleting. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:Well I disagree. I has already once removed a reference to the fourth category, and thus I did it again when you put it in again and also wrote alot of text where all of it basically was written below the Dotcom explanation. Try and read your versions, and see that most of what you wrote apart from the fourth category is more or less double. If the guy has signed up he have no problems with this company. Also it is mentioned that the fourth category is not a company he is afraid off, but just someone they do not like. At least we should try to avoid writing the same twice! I could say the same to you by the way: ''Please discuss before adding something others have already twice removed.'' --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::I had not seen your latest revision. I like the wording. I have kept the category four reference in my newest change, where I have merged the two paragraphs, keeping by far most of your text, but moving most of it below the Kim Dotkom paragraph, as it is importnat to explain him before going on with the explanation why he is so dangerous! I hope you can live with this version? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the consensus of engineers upon seeing the iPhone was that it was boring. I remember thinking it would make a killing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:Compare the iPhone 1 to the Nokia E90 (also from 2007); 3G, aGPS, clipboard, optionally larger screen with higher resolution, replaceable battery. So the iPhone has been technically inferior for its time (except the capacitive touch). The correction of the shortcomings have been sold as the next generation iPhones in the following years and many engineers knew of succsssions of better alternatives during that times. The image of Apple is and has been: The devices have less options, but do what they should. The price tag makes them a status symbol. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

added Ubuntu Edge to ""I've already pre-ordered one" which I actually did :) [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure that "preorded" is a typo? To me, it sounds like Randall was trying to emulate some kind of internet slang stuff. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 21:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

722: Computer Problems

2017-11-05T03:59:25Z

162.158.74.219: /* Explanation */ Added another example to the oversimplified comics section.

{{comic
| number = 722
| date = April 2, 2010
| title = Computer Problems
| image = computer_problems.png
| titletext = This is how I explain computer problems to my cat. My cat usually seems happier than me.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] explains to [[Megan]] that he is having computer problems. Normally, he is able to manipulate a "pattern" on his "metal rectangle full of little lights" (a reasonable, if oversimplified description of generated images displayed on a monitor). Today, however, the "pattern" is "all wrong". Megan suggests that he might be able to fix it by pressing more buttons, but following her advice doesn't seem to have the desired effect.

According to the title text, [[Randall]] uses a similar technique to explain his computer problems to his cat. Cats have the habit to walk over or lay on keyboards so they press a lot of buttons. This is however not to fix the "pattern" which they usually don't care about but rather to get the same attention the keyboard receives from the cat's owner. Often cats prefer to lay on a warm place — and a keyboard belonging to a notebook is designed to dispense some heat.

As evidenced by both past and future comics, Randall likes to [[1133: Up Goer Five|make an effort]] to explain things for simple minds.

Speculatively, Randall may be commenting on the abstract nature of events that effect Cueball's happiness or well being. While the work Cueball does on the computer seems very important to him, the deconstructed version as discussed by Megan and Cueball make his resulting distress seem out of proportion. This interpretation is further supported by the title text in which Randall's cat, unaware of more abstract representations of activity on the computer, enjoys greater happiness overall.

The concept of using simple English to explain complicated problems was first used in [[547: Simple]] and has been revisited in [[1133: Up Goer Five]], [[1322: Winter]], and [[1436: Orb Hammer]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are looking at his computer, on the desk.]
:Cueball: You know this metal rectangle full of little lights?
:Megan: Yeah.

:Cueball: I spend most of my life pressing buttons to make the pattern of lights change however I want.
:Megan: Sounds good.

:Cueball: But today, the pattern of lights is ''all wrong''!
:Megan: Oh god! Try pressing more buttons!
:Cueball: ''IT'S NOT HELPING!''

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

Talk:412: Startled

2017-10-29T00:02:03Z

162.158.74.219: Corrected my comment.

What is there to explain here? [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Looks like an analogy to some animal. --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 14:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a little wierd that it comes in between the third and fourth in the [[Journal]] series where he is shown to be pretty badass. However, he loses the hat in [[377: Journal 2]] and then regains it in [[405: Journal 3]] because - as he says: ''I LIKE my hat'' and then we see in his next apperance here how he can use the hat in an emergency... In the next Black hat comic [[432: Journal 4]] after this one he is depressed and has to seek out the woman of his life already in the next published commic: [[433: Journal 5]]. It thus seems weird with this one to interupt the journal flow? Unless it was to show he has a human side... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry, I did remove your edit. Please focus on explanations and not references to other comics here. We do have categories here to cover that. A simple close connection to an other comic can be mentioned at the trivia section. I'm sorry, but the explain section should explain the comic itself. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list of comics with little or no alttext like this one? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 16:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Asdfmovie reference? Was that later? I think it was. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.112}}

Is it Megan of Danish? [[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 05:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My view is that Black Hat is not really "surprised". He was probably expecting their approach, and even if he wasn't, he would not react in such a fashion, or otherwise calm down immediately. I think his transformation into a mere hat is an act intended to mentally disturb Cueball and Megan: revenge for (trying to) disturb(ing) him. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 00:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:412: Startled

2017-10-29T00:01:07Z

162.158.74.219:

What is there to explain here? [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Looks like an analogy to some animal. --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 14:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a little wierd that it comes in between the third and fourth in the [[Journal]] series where he is shown to be pretty badass. However, he loses the hat in [[377: Journal 2]] and then regains it in [[405: Journal 3]] because - as he says: ''I LIKE my hat'' and then we see in his next apperance here how he can use the hat in an emergency... In the next Black hat comic [[432: Journal 4]] after this one he is depressed and has to seek out the woman of his life already in the next published commic: [[433: Journal 5]]. It thus seems weird with this one to interupt the journal flow? Unless it was to show he has a human side... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry, I did remove your edit. Please focus on explanations and not references to other comics here. We do have categories here to cover that. A simple close connection to an other comic can be mentioned at the trivia section. I'm sorry, but the explain section should explain the comic itself. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list of comics with little or no alttext like this one? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 16:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Asdfmovie reference? Was that later? I think it was. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.112}}

Is it Megan of Danish? [[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 05:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My view is that Black Hat is not really "surprised". He was probably expecting their approach, and even if he wasn't, he would not react in such a fashion, or otherwise calm down immediately. I think his transformation into a mere hat is an act intended to mentally disturb Cueball and Megan: revenge for disturbing him. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 00:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

1200: Authorization

2017-10-27T19:31:44Z

162.158.74.219: /* Explanation */ Gendered pronouns are things.

{{comic
| number = 1200
| date = April 17, 2013
| title = Authorization
| image = authorization.png
| titletext = Before you say anything, no, I know not to leave my computer sitting out logged in to all my accounts. I have it set up so after a few minutes of inactivity it automatically switches to my brother's.
}}

==Explanation==
Computer {{w|Operating system|operating systems}} were initially written for the business environment. Thus they were made to be accessible to multiple employees, or {{w|User (computing)|users}}, but only fully accessible to {{w|System administrator|administrators}} (or admins). Regular users can access and use {{w|Application software|programs}} on the computer, but only the admin is allowed to make changes to how the computer runs. This same split level of security continues to this day, even in privately owned, or "home", computers.

The joke here is that the most important things on a computer are no longer the programs that it runs, but the private personal data it accesses (usually online). Anyone who wished to do real mischief on an active computer could do {{w|Identity theft|considerable damage}} without ever caring what the admin password was. The admin password, in effect, now guards a vault no one cares about.

This comic pokes fun at the {{w|authorization}} mechanisms surrounding most operating systems' administrator accounts. It makes the argument that the user's data is more valuable than the integrity of the system. This is arguably true for most personal systems, although it is probably not true in a shared-server setup, where a system compromise could lead to the exposure of many users' data.

Essentially, once a user is {{w|Login|logged in}}, he or she can typically access all of his or her data without any further restriction. Modifying the operating system (for example, to install {{w|Device driver|drivers}}) requires a separate password.

The title text alludes to the security practice where computers automatically lock the user out after a few minutes, requiring a password from the user in order to continue using it. Instead, Randall's computer automatically switches to his brother's account, presumably compromising his data instead of Randall's.

==Transcript==
:[Diagram showing several connected rooms. One in the center says "User account on my laptop," surrounded by "Dropbox," "Photos & files," "Facebook," "Gmail," "PayPal," and "Bank," which are connected to the middle room and to each other. Below the middle room is one labeled "Admin account," which is covered in spikes, and has a door to the room above it.]
:If someone steals my laptop while I'm logged in, they can read my email, take my money, and impersonate me to my friends, but at least they can't install drivers without my permission.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Identity Theft]]

1584: Moments of Inspiration

2017-10-22T02:34:07Z

162.158.74.219: /* Explanation */ Corrected a [citation needed] marker: footnotes must always go after punctuation, as per Wikipedia standards.

{{comic
| number = 1584
| date = September 30, 2015
| title = Moments of Inspiration
| image = moments_of_inspiration.png
| titletext = Charles, I just talked to John and Mildred, who run that company selling seeds and nuts, and their kids with MOUTHS are starving!
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Isaac Newton}}'s original examples describing the {{w|Newton's law of universal gravitation|force of gravity}} show an apple falling from a tree in order to explain why the apple falls toward the Earth, instead of the Earth falling toward the apple. He often said to have been inspired by watching {{w|Isaac_Newton#Apple_incident|falling apple}}s; in common folklore this developed into the legend that he was actually ''struck'' by an apple. The first part of this comic retells that famous legend. The later panels depict similar (but more and more implausible) legends that could emerge if we were to assume that other scientists' most famous examples and discoveries were based on actually observing some mundane everyday event taking place.

In the first situation we not only see the apple fall on Newton's head, we also see the Moon. This was one of the first astronomical objects on which he used his theory of gravity. He calculated its orbit around the Earth and found that it fit with the theory.

In the second situation Cueball throws a baseball towards {{w|Lise Meitner}}, but when she fails to catch the ball it hits one of her porcelain model-atoms. In this way Meitner discovered a way to split the atom. Cueball may represent {{w|Otto Hahn}}, since they were part of the Hahn-Meitner-Strassmann team that worked on this problem. Hahn was later awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, where Meitner was overlooked. Throwing something at someone and asking them to [http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/think-fast-throwing-something.1984437/ think fast] is a common "joke", where the receiver rarely has a chance to actually catch the object. But in this case it could also be a reference to the fact that she then thought fast then made a major discovery. Or if it is Hahn, then he thought faster and got the award instead of her. The porcelain models might also be a reference to {{w|Meissen porcelain}}, in German called "Meißner Porzellan", where "Meißner" is phonetically very similar to "Meitner". (Meitner has previously been mentioned in the comic [[896: Marie Curie]], which more or less explains why [[Randall]] did not choose the more famous {{w|Marie Curie}} as the female example in this comic. Meitner is not very well known in the public, compared to the three men or Curie, but this may exactly be the point for choosing her. She should have been just as famous considering what splitting the atoms has been {{w|Nuclear power|leading}} {{w|Nuclear weapon|to}}!) Also, there's not much in Marie's story that could be put down to fanciful anecdote. "All" she did was extract a few chemicals and study their properties.

In the third situation it is indicated that half of {{w|Charles Darwin}}'s children had {{w|beaks}}, a property not normally found in human children.{{Citation needed}} This would make it very difficult for them to drink soda from a glass or through a straw, compared to his normal children with mouths. Based on this assumption he developed his ideas about natural selection and {{w|evolution}}. The comic is unclear on whether this makes them more or less fit to survive and reproduce. This is a reference to Darwin's initial findings on the {{w|HMS Beagle}} on how {{w|Galapagos}} {{w|finches}} with differently shaped beaks are better suited for specific types of food, and therefore are better selected for environments where those foods are available. The title text furthers this, see below. Darwin later in life feared that having married his cousin since their {{w|consanguinity}} would increase the risk that {{w|Charles_Darwin#Children|his children}} would be born with birth defects (although he did not fear that they would be born with beaks). The difficulty caused by beaks when drinking liquids could be a reference to the Aesop's fable ''{{w|The Fox and the Stork}}''.

In the fourth situation {{w|Albert Einstein}} remarks to a man that it's annoying that the man's twin brother keeps flashing a light from a train when Einstein is trying to check his clock. He then comes to a sudden revelation. This references several of Einstein's (separate—it makes little sense together in this manner) thought experiments on {{w|special relativity}}, such as the {{w|twin paradox}} (the twin on the train should be younger after decelerating to a stop), a clock built from a beam of light, and the {{w|time dilation}} experienced by the observer in the moving {{w|frame of reference}}.

In the title text there is a description of how beaks rather than mouths are more useful when the foods have shells that need to be cracked open like nuts and seeds. Here it is clear that in the John and Mildred family you starve if you cannot eat the bird food, and thus it would be an advantage to have a beak for survival instead of a normal mouth. "John" and "Mildred" may be Mildred and {{w|John T. Scopes}} of the famous 1925 "{{w|Scopes Trial|monkey trial}}" in which John was fined $100 for teaching evolution in a Tennessee school.

==Trivia==
This comic appeared on xkcd's ten-year anniversary

==Transcript==
:[Isaac Newton, with curly long hair, sits under a tree. A waning crescent moon can be seen. An apple falls and hits him on the head. There is a caption in a frame that breaks the top border of the main frame:]
:Isaac Newton
:Apple falling: Bonk
:Isaac Newton: ''Ow!''

:[Isaac Newton rubs his sore head.]
:Isaac Newton: Aha!

:[Cueball throws a baseball towards Lise Meitner with short dark hair. (The ball can be seen in the next frame). She turns towards him too late to react and completely fails to even try catching the ball. There is a caption in a frame that breaks the top border of the main frame:]
:Lise Meitner
:Cueball: Hey Lise! Think fast!
:Ball hitting something (off-screen): Crash

:[Lise takes her hands to her mouth and she watches the broken porcelain atom lying in two pieces on the floor where it has fallen of a desk. On the desk three other intact atoms can be seen. The baseball lies behind her.]
:Lise Meitner: Oh no! My collection of porcelain atoms!
:Lise Meitner:...Hmm.

:[Four kids are standing in front of Megan and Charles Darwin (with a big beard and hair behind the ears). All the kids are trying to drink a glass of soda with a straw in them. The first kid is a boy with dark flat hair and sips soda through the straw with his mouth. The next kid is a boy with standing black hair, he tries in wain to drink with his beak open on each side of the glass. The third kid is a girl with her hair in a bun. She tries to get her beak into the glass which she has put on the floor. The last kid is a boy version of Cueball who slurps his soda through the straw. There is a caption in a frame that breaks the top border of the main frame:]
:Charles Darwin
:Megan: I gave our kids soda, but the ones with beaks always have trouble drinking it.
:Charles Darwin: I've noticed that...
:Boy with flat dark hair: Sip sip
:Boy with standing black hair and a beak: Crunch
:Girl with her hair in a bun and a beak: Peck peck
:Cueball like kid: Sluurp

:[A hairy guy is standing in front of Albert Einstein (with wild hair and a moustache), who is holding one hand to his head and has a clock in his other hand. Behind them is a train, with a locomotive at the front and a wagon behind that stretches beyond the frame. Another hairy guy has his head out of the front window of the wagon and is flashing a light towards the other two. In the next three windows can be seen passengers, two with Cueball like heads and one with hair. There is a caption in a frame that breaks the top border of the main frame:]
:Albert Einstein
:Albert Einstein: I wish your twin brother would stop shining lights at us from that train. I can barely see my clock!
:Albert Einstein: ...Wait!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Biology]]

1903: Bun Trend

2017-10-16T23:49:47Z

162.158.74.219: Added trivia

{{comic
| number = 1903
| date = October 16, 2017
| title = Bun Trend
| image = bun_trend.png
| titletext = Our experts have characterized the ecological impact of this trend as "adorable."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by Randall Munroe - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Beret Guy]] takes his bun shenanigans to the state government, reporting to the governor that the number of buns around the capitol has shown a rapid increase. The governor is confused, then finally comes to grasp that Beret Guy is talking about rabbits, lots of which can be seen if he would just go outside (by the way, there is ''small'' one '''RIGHT NOW'''!).

The governor finally takes appropriate action by calling security, and Beret Guy confronts his fate with poise and honor.

"Buns" have been mentioned previously in [[1682: Bun]] and [[1871: Bun Alert]].

==Trivia==
Discussion of previous Bun comics ([[1682: Bun]] and [[1871: Bun Alert]]) has suggested that "bun" might be a reference to or wordplay on another meaning of "bun," a small bread product or even buttocks. The governor asks (in the second panel) if [[Beret Guy]] means rabbits, and gets an affirmative response. This would seem to clarify that "buns" really are rabbits in all three comics.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Beret Guy holds a stick and points at a board next to him. The board contains a picture of a rabbit, a data point graph and other notes.]
:Beret Guy: Good morning, Governor. Our tracking systems show a rapid increase in the number of buns around the Capitol.

:[Hairy is sitting at an office desk and facing Beret Guy in a frameless panel.]
:Hairy: Buns?
:Beret Guy: Yes; there's been a long-term upward trend, but it has accelerated recently.
:Hairy: The trend in... rabbits.
:Beret Guy: Yes.

:[Beret Guy takes out his phone.]
:Hairy: So... so what?
:Beret Guy: So if you want to see some buns, there are lots of them outside!
:''beep!''
:Beret Guy: Ooh!
:Beret Guy: There's a small one right now!

:[Zoom-in on Beret Guy.]
:Hairy (offscreen): Do you... actually ''work'' for me?
:Beret Guy: Almost certainly. We had an election, right? I wrote my name in on the thing.
:Hairy (offscreen): Security?
:Beret Guy: It's been an honor to serve.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Animals]]

1882: Color Models

2017-08-28T18:39:52Z

162.158.74.219: Explained the bottom half of the chart.

{{comic
| number = 1882
| date = August 28, 2017
| title = Color Models
| image = color_models.png
| titletext = What if what *I* see as blue, *you* see as a slightly different blue because you're using Chrome instead of Firefox and despite a decade of messing with profiles we STILL can't get this right somehow.
}}

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

Randall is describing how his level of understanding of colors has changed over time. The chart starts with two tracks of understanding color.

In grade school he learned about the primary colors, and the very simple model of colors, as shown in the left track. Mixing of color solids, as in painting (or finger painting being probably the earliest exposure to color mixing), is intuitive for a child. The process is additive, and the more colors you mix the darker and closer to black you get. Color is seen by the eyes when light bounces off the solid colors and becomes light of different wavelengths that the eye can then see. However at this level, things just "look" like different colors without understanding light's role.

The right track is mixing of color light, as in prisms and light waves, where mixing colors is subtractive and the more you mix the lighter and closer to white you get. But this is without a real understanding of light bouncing off surfaces, and is limited to an understanding of different colors of light and how they mix. The first exposure in grade school is usually by shining white light through a prism to separate it into the different visible colors.

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent_process opponent color model] connects these two models, by explaining how different wavelengths of light are absorbed by different rods and cones in the eyes.

The "complex multidimensional gamut" mentions two more models: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space CIE 1931] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab_color_space L*a*b*]. These are more detailed models based on the opponent color model, which precisely define how a particular color maps to the different channels that our eyes see.

However, understanding how the eye sees color ''still'' isn't enough, because not every device can display all the colors your eye can see. Your laptop might have a different [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut color gamut] than your phone, and if you printed the page out, you might see yet another color. To handle this issue, web browsers use "color profiles", so that an image can be tagged with the color space it uses and the browser can handle it appropriately. Unfortunately, browsers do this inconsistently and not very well. The title text expands on this joke, implying that the reason for the "unknowable" answer above is that everyone's browser shows colors slightly differently.

The "hyperdimensional four-sided quantum Klein manifold" is probably a joke, implying that color models have gotten even more complicated since then.

Eventually it appears Randall has given up, hoping he won't have to deal with the difficulty in describing and understanding the concept of colors.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Needs arrows like a flowchart}}

:Evolution of my understanding of color over time:

:Grade school
:|
:| "Color" is...
:| ...three primary colors mixed together
:| ...a rainbow, and each color is a wavelength
:| ...unknowable ("maybe what ''I'' see as blue, ''you'' see as...")
:| ...three-ish primary colors mixed together (RGB/RYB/CMYK)
:| ...a mix of infinite wavelengths filtered through three eye pigments
:| [something about the opponent color model]
:| ...an abstract multidimensional gamut (CIE 1931, L*a*b*, etc)
:| ...an abstract multidimensional gamut filtered through inconsistently-implemented device color profiles
:| ...a hyperdimensional four-sided quantum Klein manifold? Is that a thing?
:| ...hopefully somebody else's problem.
:|
:Now

{{comic discussion}}

1878: Earth Orbital Diagram

2017-08-23T22:57:27Z

162.158.74.219: /* Labels and Their Astronomical Meanings */

{{comic
| number = 1878
| date = August 18, 2017
| title = Earth Orbital Diagram
| image = earth_orbital_diagram.png
| titletext = You shouldn't look directly at a partial eclipse because of the damage that can be caused by improperly aligning the solar-lunar orbital plane with the orbital bones around your eye.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Still needs a review and the picture without the labels needs an explanation. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is the third consecutive comic published in the week before the {{w|solar eclipse}} occurring on Monday, {{w|Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017|August 21, 2017}} which is a total solar eclipse and visible in totality within a band across the {{w|contiguous United States}} from west to east. The other comics are [[1876: Eclipse Searches]] and [[1877: Eclipse Science]]. The trend continued on the day of the eclipse with [[1879: Eclipse Birds]].

The comic claims that the reason that eclipses don't happen every month is simple to understand by looking at an orbital diagram. Ironically, the cartoon has so many parts and labels that it is far more difficult to understand than is implied. While the graph itself is based on {{w|Orbital elements|astronomical definitions}}, all the labels are nonsense in this context. In effect, the comic is a new take on a common joke in which a person asks a scientist a question, the scientist begins by saying "It's really quite simple", then proceeds to give a very lengthy and highly technical explanation that non-scientists would not be expected to understand.

All of the labels in the diagram are complicated words or phrases. Some are related to orbital mechanics (e.g. "equinox" and "perihelion"), while others are wholly unrelated or even made up. Each label is nonsensical in its place in the diagram. Compare/contrast with the standard {{w|Kepler orbit|Kepler Orbit}} diagram.

The title text references warnings to not look directly into the sun, but parodies those warnings by referring to 'orbit', the anatomical term for the eye socket.

===Labels and Their Astronomical Meanings===
All items are not drawn to scale. Neither the sizes of the celestial objects are that similar as shown nor the orbits are. The real scales are shown in this table:
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
!
! real (in km)
! to scale

|-
| Sun (radius)
| 695,700
| basketball

|-
| distance Earth-Sun
| 149,600,000
| length of a large truck (26 meters)
|-
| Earth (radius)
| 6,371
| pinhead (1 mm)
|-
| Moon (radius)
| 1,737
| pin (0.3 mm)
|-
| distance Earth-Moon
| 384,399
| small necklace (6.6 cm)

|}
When the distance Sun-Earth is scaled to one meter or below neither Moon nor Earth can be seen by the human eye.

;Arctangent
*{{w|Arctangent}} is the inverse function of the tangent function of trigonometry. You can determine a non-right angle of a right triangle by taking the arctangent of the length of the opposite side divided by the length of the adjacent side.
*The angle shown in the comic has no astronomical meaning.

;Astral plane
*The {{w|Astral plane}} is a plane of existence in various esoteric theories. It features prominently in {{w|Dungeons & Dragons}} cosmology, connecting the various other planes of existence.
*The picture shows the {{w|Orbit_of_the_Moon|lunar orbital plane}}, the plane in which the Moon orbits the Earth, tilted about 5.1 degrees from the ecliptic.

;Declension
*{{w|Declension}} is the inflection of nouns in a language. In {{w|Latin}} declension and declination are both called ''{{w|la:Declinatio|Declinatio}}''. In this comic, however, it might be a portmanteau of declination and (right) ascension.
*In astronomy, the {{w|Declination|declination}} is one of the two angles that locate a point on the celestial sphere in the equatorial coordinate system. It is measured north or south of the celestial equator, like the geographical latitude on Earth. But in the picture the label is at the angle for the axial tilt of the Earth.
*And the {{w|Right_ascension|right ascension}} is the angular distance measured eastward along the celestial equator from the vernal equinox to the hour circle of the point in question.

;Determinant of the date of Easter
*In Christianity {{w|Easter}} always falls on the first Sunday after the first ecclesiastical full moon after the beginning of spring (equinox). The ecclesiastical full moon is determined by a calendar that approximates the actual time of the full moon, Thus the date of easter is defined by a combination of a solar and a lunar calendar. The position of that angle isn't that bad but it should be not more than 30 degrees (slightly more than one month.)
*In mathematics, the determinant is a function of numerical matrices. In this context, however, it apparently refers to something that directly determines the date of Easter.

;Dimples of Venus
*The {{w|Dimples of Venus}} are indentations sometimes visible on the human lower back.
*In astronomy the {{w|Belt of Venus}} is a shadow cast by the Earth visible in its atmosphere.

;Enceliopsis
*{{w|Enceliopsis}} are small genus of flowering plants in the daisy family, appropriately known as "sunrays".
*In astronomy this point has also no specific meaning. But {{w|Enceladus}} is a moon around {{w|Saturn}}.

;Equinox / Solstice
{{w|Equinox}} and {{w|Solstice}} have very different meanings:
*An Equinox is one of two instants in the year when the sun is exactly over the equator; the length of day and night are very nearly equal that day at all locations on the planet, and it is the first day of Spring or Autumn, depending on the time of year and in which hemisphere (Northern vs Southern) the observer is located.
*A Solstice is one of two instants in the year when the sun's angle is maximally far from Earth's equator; when one occurs, the length of the day or night is shortest or longest (depending on whether one is in the northern or southern hemisphere), and (in the United States) it marks the first day of summer or winter.

Both types occur because the Earth's rotation axis is tilted (at 23.4 degrees) from its orbital plane (ecliptic) about the Sun.

Jokingly insisting that two different terms are American/British variants of the same word has been the topic of [[1677: Contrails]].

;Hypothecate
*{{w|Hypothecate}} is a legal verb that means something similar to "make a mortgage".
*The {{w|hypotenuse}} is the longest side of a right-angled triangle. Here it is an unrelated length, approximately equal to the diameter of the sun (half the angular size of the sun times twice the distance to it).

;Obsequity
*Obsequity means the state of being obsequious (showing an indecorous willingness to obey or serve, or "sucking up").
*In astronomy the correct word is {{w|Obliquity}}, meaning an axial tilt.

;Perihelix
*This is a portmanteau of helix and perihelion.
*The {{w|perihelion}} is the point in a elliptical solar orbit that is closest to the Sun.

;Prolapse
*A {{w|Prolapse}} is a medical condition in which an internal organ is slipped forward or down.
*{{w|Retrograde and prograde motion}} are terms used to describe the apparent motion of celestial objects through the sky.

;Sagittal plane
*The {{w|Sagittal plane}} is an anatomical plane, dividing the body in left and right.
*The correct label in the picture would be the {{w|Ecliptic plane}}. The plane the Earth orbits the Sun.
*{{w|Sagittarius (constellation)|Sagittarius}} is one of the stellar constellations of the Zodiac. The center of the Milky Way lies in this constellation.

;Solar plexus
*The {{w|Solar plexus}} is a network of nerves located in the abdomen. It was the name of [[64: Solar Plexus]].
*{{w|Solar}} is an adjective referring to the Sun, the star in our solar system.

;Tropopause
*The {{w|Tropopause}} is the boundary in our atmosphere between the troposphere and stratosphere, defined as the boundary where air ceases to cool with increasing elevation. It is 9-17 km above sea level, not the thousands of kilometers as depicted here.
*The label appears to point at the orbit of the moon.

;Angle between the Astral and the Sagittal Planes
* The angle depicted is the inclination of the moon orbit. The planes are marked with nonexistent symbols, derived from Greek letters. The lunar orbit plane is labeled by a mixture of a ''nu'' (ν) and a ''gamma'' (γ), the ecliptic is labeled with a double ''chi'' (χ), and the angle between is marked with a ''phi'' (ϕ) but having two vertical lines.

;Errata
* Errata are corrections in a published text (e.g. a newspaper article) issued after the publication.
* The angle depicted lies between the direction from Earth to the Sun in the ecliptic and the line where the lunar orbit plane crosses the ecliptic. When this angle would be zero AND the Moon is between the Sun and Earth a total eclipse would occur. This is they only part of the diagram fulfilling slightly Randall's promise on top of the picture.

==Explanation for "Why isn't there a (solar) eclipse every month?"==

If the plane of where the Earth orbits the Sun and where the Moon orbits the Earth were completely aligned, then there would be a solar eclipse at every new moon (once every {{w|Orbit_of_the_Moon#Lunar_periods| 29.5 days}}) and a lunar eclipse at every full moon (half a lunar period about 14.7 days after a New Moon). However, the plane in which the Moon orbits the Earth is tilted with an inclination of 5 degrees relative to that of the ecliptic plane (the plane defined by the Earth's orbit around the Sun). Eclipses are only possible during two eclipse seasons each year (half a year apart) where for a period of 31 to 37 days the Sun is nearly aligned with the two points in the tilted Earth-Moon plane where the Moon crosses the ecliptic plane. During an eclipse season at the time of a new moon there will be solar eclipses visible from certain locations and during full moons there will be lunar eclipses.

[[Image:Eclipse_Diagram.jpg]]

The real explanation of eclipses is evident from this xkcd comic, but is labeled with a fictional character similar to a Greek phi but with two vertical lines; the remaining labels also do not contribute to this explanation and exist only to distract or misinform or entertain the reader.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[An orbital map of the Earth is shown. The Sun is in the center, the Earth is at the right bottom, and the Moon is left below the Earth.]
:'''Why isn't there an eclipse every month?'''
:This is a common question! The answer is made clear by a quick look at the Earth's orbital diagram:

:[Label Sun:]
:Solar plexus

:[Label on the Earth's plane:]
:Sagittal plane

:[Labels on Earth's orbit (beginning at the Earth counterclockwise):]
:Perihelix, Declension, Obsequity, Hypothecate, Enceliopsis, Equinox (''Solstice'' in British English)

:[Two angles in the plane are labeled as:]
:Determinant of the date of Easter, Arctangent

:[The plane of the Moon is pictured in a small angle to the Earth's plane and named Astral Plane. The angle is presented between two lines (Greek Nu or Gamma and a double Greek Chi) and identified by a character that looks similar to a Greek Phi but with two vertical lines.]
:[The labels at the Moon's path are:]
:Tropopause, Prolapse, Errata.

:[An arrow points to the Earth at the zero meridian on the equator. The label reads:]
:Dimples of Venus

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Total Solar Eclipse 2017]]

1878: Earth Orbital Diagram

2017-08-23T22:56:00Z

162.158.74.219: /* Labels and Their Astronomical Meanings */

{{comic
| number = 1878
| date = August 18, 2017
| title = Earth Orbital Diagram
| image = earth_orbital_diagram.png
| titletext = You shouldn't look directly at a partial eclipse because of the damage that can be caused by improperly aligning the solar-lunar orbital plane with the orbital bones around your eye.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Still needs a review and the picture without the labels needs an explanation. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is the third consecutive comic published in the week before the {{w|solar eclipse}} occurring on Monday, {{w|Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017|August 21, 2017}} which is a total solar eclipse and visible in totality within a band across the {{w|contiguous United States}} from west to east. The other comics are [[1876: Eclipse Searches]] and [[1877: Eclipse Science]]. The trend continued on the day of the eclipse with [[1879: Eclipse Birds]].

The comic claims that the reason that eclipses don't happen every month is simple to understand by looking at an orbital diagram. Ironically, the cartoon has so many parts and labels that it is far more difficult to understand than is implied. While the graph itself is based on {{w|Orbital elements|astronomical definitions}}, all the labels are nonsense in this context. In effect, the comic is a new take on a common joke in which a person asks a scientist a question, the scientist begins by saying "It's really quite simple", then proceeds to give a very lengthy and highly technical explanation that non-scientists would not be expected to understand.

All of the labels in the diagram are complicated words or phrases. Some are related to orbital mechanics (e.g. "equinox" and "perihelion"), while others are wholly unrelated or even made up. Each label is nonsensical in its place in the diagram. Compare/contrast with the standard {{w|Kepler orbit|Kepler Orbit}} diagram.

The title text references warnings to not look directly into the sun, but parodies those warnings by referring to 'orbit', the anatomical term for the eye socket.

===Labels and Their Astronomical Meanings===
All items are not drawn to scale. Neither the sizes of the celestial objects are that similar as shown nor the orbits are. The real scales are shown in this table:
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
!
! real (in km)
! to scale

|-
| Sun (radius)
| 695,700
| basketball

|-
| distance Earth-Sun
| 149,600,000
| length of a large truck (26 meters)
|-
| Earth (radius)
| 6,371
| pinhead (1 mm)
|-
| Moon (radius)
| 1,737
| pin (0.3 mm)
|-
| distance Earth-Moon
| 384,399
| small necklace (6.6 cm)

|}
When the distance Sun-Earth is scaled to one meter or below neither Moon nor Earth can be seen by the human eye.

;Arctangent
*{{w|Arctangent}} is the inverse function of the tangent function of trigonometry. You can determine a non-right angle of a right triangle by taking the arctangent of the length of the opposite side divided by the length of the adjacent side.
*The angle shown in the comic has no astronomical meaning.

;Astral plane
*The {{w|Astral plane}} is a plane of existence in various esoteric theories. It features prominently in {{w|Dungeons & Dragons}} cosmology, connecting the various other planes of existence.
*The picture shows the {{w|Orbit_of_the_Moon|lunar orbital plane}}, the plane in which the Moon orbits the Earth, tilted about 5.1 degrees from the ecliptic.

;Declension
*{{w|Declension}} is the inflection of nouns in a language. In {{w|Latin}} declension and declination are both called ''{{w|la:Declinatio|Declinatio}}''. In this comic, however, it might be a portmanteau of declination and (right) ascension.
*In astronomy, the {{w|Declination|declination}} is one of the two angles that locate a point on the celestial sphere in the equatorial coordinate system. It is measured north or south of the celestial equator, like the geographical latitude on Earth. But in the picture the label is at the angle for the axial tilt of the Earth.
*And the {{w|Right_ascension|right ascension}} is the angular distance measured eastward along the celestial equator from the vernal equinox to the hour circle of the point in question.

;Determinant of the date of Easter
*In Christianity {{w|Easter}} always falls on the first Sunday after the first ecclesiastical full moon after the beginning of spring (equinox). The ecclesiastical full moon is determined by a calendar that approximates the actual time of the full moon, Thus the date of easter is defined by a combination of a solar and a lunar calendar. The position of that angle isn't that bad but it should be not more than 30 degrees (slightly more than one month.)
*In mathematics, the determinant is a function of numerical matrices. In this context, however, it apparently refers to something that directly determines the date of Easter.

;Dimples of Venus
*The {{w|Dimples of Venus}} are indentations sometimes visible on the human lower back.
*In astronomy the {{w|Belt of Venus}} is a shadow cast by the Earth visible in its atmosphere.

;Enceliopsis
*{{w|Enceliopsis}} are small genus of flowering plants in the daisy family, appropriately known as "sunrays".
*In astronomy this point has also no specific meaning. But {{w|Enceladus}} is a moon around {{w|Saturn}}.

;Equinox / Solstice
{{w|Equinox}} and {{w|Solstice}} have very different meanings:
*An Equinox is one of two instants in the year when the sun is exactly over the equator; the length of day and night are very nearly equal that day at all locations on the planet, and (in the Northern Hemisphere) it is the first day of Spring or Autumn, depending on the time of year.
*A Solstice is one of two instants in the year when the sun's angle is maximally far from Earth's equator; when one occurs, the length of the day or night is shortest or longest (depending on whether one is in the northern or southern hemisphere), and (in the United States) it marks the first day of summer or winter.

Both types occur because the Earth's rotation axis is tilted (at 23.4 degrees) from its orbital plane (ecliptic) about the Sun.

Jokingly insisting that two different terms are American/British variants of the same word has been the topic of [[1677: Contrails]].

;Hypothecate
*{{w|Hypothecate}} is a legal verb that means something similar to "make a mortgage".
*The {{w|hypotenuse}} is the longest side of a right-angled triangle. Here it is an unrelated length, approximately equal to the diameter of the sun (half the angular size of the sun times twice the distance to it).

;Obsequity
*Obsequity means the state of being obsequious (showing an indecorous willingness to obey or serve, or "sucking up").
*In astronomy the correct word is {{w|Obliquity}}, meaning an axial tilt.

;Perihelix
*This is a portmanteau of helix and perihelion.
*The {{w|perihelion}} is the point in a elliptical solar orbit that is closest to the Sun.

;Prolapse
*A {{w|Prolapse}} is a medical condition in which an internal organ is slipped forward or down.
*{{w|Retrograde and prograde motion}} are terms used to describe the apparent motion of celestial objects through the sky.

;Sagittal plane
*The {{w|Sagittal plane}} is an anatomical plane, dividing the body in left and right.
*The correct label in the picture would be the {{w|Ecliptic plane}}. The plane the Earth orbits the Sun.
*{{w|Sagittarius (constellation)|Sagittarius}} is one of the stellar constellations of the Zodiac. The center of the Milky Way lies in this constellation.

;Solar plexus
*The {{w|Solar plexus}} is a network of nerves located in the abdomen. It was the name of [[64: Solar Plexus]].
*{{w|Solar}} is an adjective referring to the Sun, the star in our solar system.

;Tropopause
*The {{w|Tropopause}} is the boundary in our atmosphere between the troposphere and stratosphere, defined as the boundary where air ceases to cool with increasing elevation. It is 9-17 km above sea level, not the thousands of kilometers as depicted here.
*The label appears to point at the orbit of the moon.

;Angle between the Astral and the Sagittal Planes
* The angle depicted is the inclination of the moon orbit. The planes are marked with nonexistent symbols, derived from Greek letters. The lunar orbit plane is labeled by a mixture of a ''nu'' (ν) and a ''gamma'' (γ), the ecliptic is labeled with a double ''chi'' (χ), and the angle between is marked with a ''phi'' (ϕ) but having two vertical lines.

;Errata
* Errata are corrections in a published text (e.g. a newspaper article) issued after the publication.
* The angle depicted lies between the direction from Earth to the Sun in the ecliptic and the line where the lunar orbit plane crosses the ecliptic. When this angle would be zero AND the Moon is between the Sun and Earth a total eclipse would occur. This is they only part of the diagram fulfilling slightly Randall's promise on top of the picture.

==Explanation for "Why isn't there a (solar) eclipse every month?"==

If the plane of where the Earth orbits the Sun and where the Moon orbits the Earth were completely aligned, then there would be a solar eclipse at every new moon (once every {{w|Orbit_of_the_Moon#Lunar_periods| 29.5 days}}) and a lunar eclipse at every full moon (half a lunar period about 14.7 days after a New Moon). However, the plane in which the Moon orbits the Earth is tilted with an inclination of 5 degrees relative to that of the ecliptic plane (the plane defined by the Earth's orbit around the Sun). Eclipses are only possible during two eclipse seasons each year (half a year apart) where for a period of 31 to 37 days the Sun is nearly aligned with the two points in the tilted Earth-Moon plane where the Moon crosses the ecliptic plane. During an eclipse season at the time of a new moon there will be solar eclipses visible from certain locations and during full moons there will be lunar eclipses.

[[Image:Eclipse_Diagram.jpg]]

The real explanation of eclipses is evident from this xkcd comic, but is labeled with a fictional character similar to a Greek phi but with two vertical lines; the remaining labels also do not contribute to this explanation and exist only to distract or misinform or entertain the reader.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[An orbital map of the Earth is shown. The Sun is in the center, the Earth is at the right bottom, and the Moon is left below the Earth.]
:'''Why isn't there an eclipse every month?'''
:This is a common question! The answer is made clear by a quick look at the Earth's orbital diagram:

:[Label Sun:]
:Solar plexus

:[Label on the Earth's plane:]
:Sagittal plane

:[Labels on Earth's orbit (beginning at the Earth counterclockwise):]
:Perihelix, Declension, Obsequity, Hypothecate, Enceliopsis, Equinox (''Solstice'' in British English)

:[Two angles in the plane are labeled as:]
:Determinant of the date of Easter, Arctangent

:[The plane of the Moon is pictured in a small angle to the Earth's plane and named Astral Plane. The angle is presented between two lines (Greek Nu or Gamma and a double Greek Chi) and identified by a character that looks similar to a Greek Phi but with two vertical lines.]
:[The labels at the Moon's path are:]
:Tropopause, Prolapse, Errata.

:[An arrow points to the Earth at the zero meridian on the equator. The label reads:]
:Dimples of Venus

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Total Solar Eclipse 2017]]

Talk:1867: Physics Confession

2017-07-28T03:22:24Z

162.158.74.219:

F1rst P0st http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/269:_TCMP [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.190|172.68.141.190]] 07:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Fuckin' ice skates, [https://youtu.be/_-agl0pOQfs?t=1m52s how do they work]? [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 11:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Any relation to #1489? They're both about things physicists don't understand. http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1489:_Fundamental_Forces {{unsigned ip|172.68.132.5}}

Explain physics: It's 'cause Randall's dumb. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.47}}

;Explanation of skating
A lot of people both here and on Reddit seem to be talking about pressure of the skates reducing the melting point. Pressure of the skates can only reduce the melting point by about 0.5C, so this is clearly not sufficient to produce a layer of liquid below -0.5C. The more correct explanation is that there is an ever-present layer of liquid on the surface of most crystals, including ice - this is the best explanation that exists right now, and explains why ice skating stops being possible below around -30C (and is hard at intermediate temperatures). This is the explanation offered by most modern university courses on thermodynamics or materials science - here is an excerpt from a University of Cambridge materials science course: [https://imgur.com/a/8bZxG Excerpt] [[User:Jaredjeya|Jaredjeya]] ([[User talk:Jaredjeya|talk]]) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

: I've just looked at the article linked in the explanation, whoever put it in didn't read the full article because it goes on to mention exactly this explanation. [[User:Jaredjeya|Jaredjeya]] ([[User talk:Jaredjeya|talk]]) 13:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
::Good ol' circular reasoning. [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 15:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"...ice skating stops being possible below around -30C". Not true. I've skated at -40C. It's effing stupid, risk of frostbite in minutes, but still works. (Living North of 60 for 4+ decades)

1861: Quantum

2017-07-10T17:02:39Z

162.158.74.219: Initial explanation

{{comic
| number = 1861
| date = July 10, 2017
| title = Quantum
| image = quantum.png
| titletext = If you draw a diagonal line from lower left to upper right, that's the ICP 'Miracles' axis.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Initial explanation of the idea behind the comic, still needs more detail.}}

The comic depicts a relationship between how philosophically exciting the questions in a field of study are, versus how many years are required to understand the answers. For example, special relativity poses very complicated philosophical questions - something like "Are our observations about the universe true for everyone, or are they merely relative to our current frame of reference?" But it doesn't take a lot of mathematical knowledge to understand the answer - that when objects move very close to the speed of light, time slows down and their lengths contract. Hence, Special Relativity is very high up on the y-axis but not very far on the x-axis. Basic physics is not very philosophically interesting but also not very complicated. Fluid dynamics is very complicated, but it's concerned with a very specific topic - how water or other fluids flow around - so it doesn't lead to big philosophical questions.

The "danger zone" in the top right of the chart is when a field of study is wide-ranging enough to pose broad philosophical questions, and also so complicated that most people can't answer those questions. Quantum mechanics deals with some very strange concepts that readily lend themselves to philosophical questions, such as the idea that merely observing something can change it, or the idea that something can be both a wave and a particle at the same time. However, the explanation for those phenomena is a very complicated piece of math, which means that most people don't have accurate answers to those questions. Randall suggests that this is the reason why so many people have "weird ideas" about quantum mechanics.

[[1240: Quantum Mechanics]] also discusses weird ideas that people have about quantum mechanics.

The title text references the Insane Clown Posse song "Miracles", made memetic by the lyric "Fucking magnets, how do they work?!" An axis is the direction on a graph in which some quantity is increasing or decreasing. So things that are far along the "miracle" axis are presumably more miraculous. As you move from bottom-left to top-right on the graph, items become both more philosophically interesting and harder to understand. It would be fair to describe something that's hard to understand and raises big philosophical questions as a "miracle."

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

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1798: Box Plot

2017-02-13T17:54:52Z

162.158.74.219:

No Valentine's comic this year? (Or could it be later this week?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.163|162.158.154.163]] 16:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
:Trump killed Valentine's Day for Randall. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 17:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1793: Soda Sugar Comparisons

2017-02-01T18:21:17Z

162.158.74.219:

And that's why I don't really drink soda. [[User:Cardboardmech|Cardboardmech]] ([[User talk:Cardboardmech|talk]]) 06:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
:...sadly, coke zero costs as much as normal coke, despite one having 0% sugar, and thus, give the body zero energy. No financial incentive to switch. :D --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.76|162.158.150.76]] 10:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
:The problem is that juice (like orange-juice) has not that much less sugar – and if you drink not pure juice, it can has more. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 15:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Stellar work from [[User:Schroduck|Schroduck]] but can we get a better idea of the calories in a candy counter. We're looking at approx 3000 candy bars (a catering box holds 48 bars, is designed to be usable for display and about 2 bars wide) ballpark figures though so not adding the edit yet, but 3 tiers of boxes would be about right [[User:Luckykaa|Luckykaa]] ([[User talk:Luckykaa|talk]]) 09:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
:Thanks! I did a bit of digging, and updated the data. It looks like it significantly overestimates the sugar (''if'' the display only holds chocolate/candy and not, say, sugar-free gum). [[User:Schroduck|Schroduck]] ([[User talk:Schroduck|talk]]) 11:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

One issue I have personally with these comparison are that it is easy to get huge numbers just by adding time. However, in this case, if you translate this into body fat it does make sense. Another tangent: Eating an orange is 9 grams of sugar according to google sources. 7 oranges per day is a lot of fruit. Throwing this out there for anyone to play with. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.214|141.101.80.214]] 11:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The page mentions "Crème eggs." While this is a common autocorrect, Cadbury don't use this on their packaging. Confusingly, this appears to be the case in the USA as well, even though Hershey on its website uses it. Can someone find a citation to confirm or deny that this this is ever the correct spelling? Also, don't drink soda. Really. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.18|141.101.107.18]] 13:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't like how he compares the consumption of soda at a constant rate over a period of time to a grand total of candy. This could be reversed, e.g. eating 100ml of skittles a day for six months is the same as drinking 180 bottles of soda, to make it seem as though candy contains a lot of sugar in comparison to soda rather than vice versa. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.239|141.101.99.239]] 14:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
:Yes, it's a real problem that these comparisons don't dig at the core of the problem - that carbohydrate-rich food is often junk food. You can store lots of fat for a long time, but not carbohydrates (the human stores are maxed out at +/- 1200 g for an adult male). So, apart from athletes, nobody manages to deplete these stores in the liver and the muscles. Nobody, apart from athletes, has therefore a genuine need for carbohydrate-rich food. Our consumption of carbohydrates is like refilling a car's gasoline tank even if it is 90% full.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.76|162.158.150.76]] 14:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
::You forgot that the human body can convert sugar to fat quite easily. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 15:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
:::...which is not a reason for sugar consumption. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.76|162.158.150.76]] 16:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
::::"Reason for sugar consumption" is like needing a motive for a sexually-based crime. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 18:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector

2017-01-27T14:59:16Z

162.158.74.219:

Nitpick: The refracting telescope, drawn correctly, has a mirror in the optical path (image inverter), but it is made with a special vampire reflecting material Ichorium.
:Doesn't the one in this image have a mirror too? at the bottom to make the image come out at the side instead of the end? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.187|162.158.89.187]]

That's a good point: as drawn, the refracting telescope still has a mirror and also wouldn't be able to see space vampires. However, the refracting telescope doesn't have to have a secondary mirror, and there are plenty that don't, so it is more the drawing that is wrong rather than the text of the comic.[[User:Cmancone|Cmancone]] ([[User talk:Cmancone|talk]]) 14:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Typically refractors use a prism rather than a mirror at the end, though it does the same thing. Can vampires be seen in a prism? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.172|108.162.241.172]] 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
:Only if they're pink. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 14:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector

2017-01-27T14:57:56Z

162.158.74.219:

Nitpick: The refracting telescope, drawn correctly, has a mirror in the optical path (image inverter), but it is made with a special vampire reflecting material Ichorium.
Doesn't the one in this image have a mirror too? at the bottom to make the image come out at the side instead of the end? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.187|162.158.89.187]]
Something went wrong on my comment - only the part after "doesn't" is from me, the part before was what i was commenting on, idk why it is not seperated [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.187|162.158.89.187]]

That's a good point: as drawn, the refracting telescope still has a mirror and also wouldn't be able to see space vampires. However, the refracting telescope doesn't have to have a secondary mirror, and there are plenty that don't, so it is more the drawing that is wrong rather than the text of the comic.[[User:Cmancone|Cmancone]] ([[User talk:Cmancone|talk]]) 14:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Typically refractors use a prism rather than a mirror at the end, though it does the same thing. Can vampires be seen in a prism? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.172|108.162.241.172]] 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Only if they're pink. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 14:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector

2017-01-27T13:47:58Z

162.158.74.219:

Nitpick: The refracting telescope, drawn correctly, has a mirror in the optical path (image inverter), but it is made with a special vampire reflecting material Ichorium.

1790: Sad

2017-01-26T15:12:12Z

162.158.74.219: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 1790
| date = January 25, 2017
| title = Sad
| image = sad.png
| titletext = With the right 90-degree rotation, any effect is a side effect.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic is about [[Cueball]] confronting [[Ponytail]] about her recent behavior and emotional state, which has lasted a few months. It seems possible she (and [[Randall]]) is venting anger following the {{w|United States presidential election, 2016}}{{Citation needed}}. Although it is not mentioned directly there are good reason to suspect this is the case because it was the first comic released after {{w|Donald Trump}} really took office the Monday before this Wednesday comic. Trumps {{w|Inauguration of Donald Trump|inauguration}} took place the Friday before this comic, but he did not start to sign decrees (that would make it even worse for those already sad) until after the Monday comic was out. See more abut sad comics under [[#Trivia|trivia]].

Ponytail seems unwilling to acknowledge that anything she is doing is wrong, offering absurd justifications for her behavior.

Ponytail has retreated to video games for solace and to the point that her real life projects are suffering.
''{{w|Stardew Valley}}'' is a video game in which a player creates and manages a virtual farm. And when Cueball mentions that her projects have stagnated, she retorts that her farm in the game does great.

Cueball's comment about not being able to hide from everything is a common one to give to insecure people or to those trying to run away from their problems. Ponytail's reply is in the form of a {{w|PolitiFact.com|PolitiFact}} reply, claiming (possibly quite truly) that such assertions are ''mostly false'', one of the six options, but it is far from being the worst, thus acknowledging that you can't hide from everything, just mostly. See more about Politifact.com in the comic [[1712: Politifact]].

{{w|Comment (computer programming)|Comments}} are something a programmer adds to their code such to make a note for themselves or others, typically to explain a complicated piece of logic or explaining external dependencies of a piece of code. Instead, Ponytail has been writing unrelated notes filled with obscenities. Ponytail's reply is one of typical advice given to amateur fiction and non-fiction writers, that to "write what you know.", implying that all Ponytail knows right now is obscenities.

{{w|Subroutine|Functions}} are pieces of code which developers create to avoid repetition and make the code clearer (such as "calculate distance between points" or "process values"). A function which does nothing is almost useless (although sometimes programmers leave functions empty, when they create the skeleton of a program, but then they usually intends to fill them out later). It is expected that a function ''does'' something with a given parameter, but Ponytail’s function does nothing with the parameters except returning the parameter but with the comment ''No, '''you''' deal with this''. Thus she wishes that somebody/something else ''deals'' with any problem, probably what she would also wish for right now, where she is so sad that she even neglects her projects.

Ponytail replies that she writes them like this in order to try to avoid {{w|Side effect (computer science)|side effects}} (i.e. unexpected, unintended, and typically unwanted effects upon calling a piece of code), in line with a {{w|functional programming}} paradigm. When Cueball points out that she avoids all effects, Ponytail [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/quotes?item=qt2959706 quotes] part of a famous quote from Ripley in {{w|Aliens (film)|Aliens}}: ''I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the '''only''' way to be sure'''. By replying that it's the "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q only way to be sure]" she is thus indirectly saying better safe than sorry, but in reality she just don't care about her programming anymore because of her sad state of mind.

The title text is a pun, interpreting the phrase "side effect" literally. If you turn an object 90 degrees along the right axis you will place it on its side, so thus making it a effect of putting something on its side, or a "side effect." You can also turn 90 degrees (along another axis), facing what was previously your side.

The title "Sad" is a common interjection in Trump's tweets. The time-frame of "the past few months" from the first panel is consistent with this, as the election was on November 8, 2016, and the comic was posted on January 25, 2017 four days after Donald Trump's inauguration as 45th president of the United States on January 20, 2017. The reference to fact-checking in the second panel is also reminiscent of the election and post-election coverage. This is not the first sad comic since Trump was elected, see more under [[#Trivia|trivia]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking up to Ponytail who sits at her desk in an office chair typing on her computer.]
:Cueball: How are you doing?
:Ponytail: Hah.
:Cueball: You seem distant lately. For the past few months.
:Ponytail: Can't '''''imagine''''' why.

:[Cueball talks to Ponytail at her desk from off-panel.]
:Cueball (off-panel): Your projects have stagnated.
:Ponytail: But my Stardew Valley farm is doing '''''great'''''.
:Cueball (off-panel): You can't just hide from everything.
:Ponytail: '''''Fact check''''': Mostly false.

:[In a frame-less panel Cueball is seen standing behind Ponytail at her desk.]
:Cueball: I'm glad you're including more comments in your code, but it would be nice if they were comments '''''about''''' your code.
:Cueball: Or at least a bit less obscenity-filled.
:Ponytail: Look, they say to write what you know.

:[Cueball leans forward towards Ponytail at her desk (who has looked on the screen in the same position through the entire comic).]
:Cueball: All the functions you've written take everything passed to them and return it unchanged with the comment "No, '''''you''''' deal with this."
:Ponytail: It's a functional programming thing. Avoiding side effects.
:Cueball: You avoid '''''all''''' effects.
:Ponytail: Only way to be sure.

==Trivia==
*Not since [[Randall|Randall's]] wife's [[:Category:Cancer|cancer diagnosis]] has there been so many sad/negative or depressing comics.
**This is the fourth such comic since the election.
**Even [[1779: 2017]] "celebrating" New Year was depressive, and it was a first that a [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]] had such a depressive mood.
**But earlier two other sad comics show that this comic and the New Year comic just followed the trend of negative comics released after Trump's victory.
**The first being [[1761: Blame]] and the second being [[1773: Negativity]], which both refer to the negativity on the internet spawned by Trump's election (among other things).
**In the first of these sad comics Cueball actually begins by stating that: ''I feel sad!''
**Hopefully Randall is not spiraling into a depression as many others have due to Trump's election. <--- wowie cool triva!!!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Sarcasm]]

1790: Sad

2017-01-26T15:06:42Z

162.158.74.219: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1790
| date = January 25, 2017
| title = Sad
| image = sad.png
| titletext = With the right 90-degree rotation, any effect is a side effect.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic is about [[Cueball]] confronting [[Ponytail]] about her recent behavior and emotional state, which has lasted a few months. It seems possible she (and [[Randall]]) is venting anger following the {{w|United States presidential election, 2016}}{{Citation needed}}. Although it is not mentioned directly there are good reason to suspect this is the case because it was the first comic released after {{w|Donald Trump}} really took office the Monday before this Wednesday comic. Trumps {{w|Inauguration of Donald Trump|inauguration}} took place the Friday before this comic, but he did not start to sign decrees (that would make it even worse for those already sad) until after the Monday comic was out. See more abut sad comics under [[#Trivia|trivia]].

Ponytail seems unwilling to acknowledge that anything she is doing is wrong, offering absurd justifications for her behavior.

Ponytail has retreated to video games for solace and to the point that her real life projects are suffering.
''{{w|Stardew Valley}}'' is a video game in which a player creates and manages a virtual farm. And when Cueball mentions that her projects have stagnated, she retorts that her farm in the game does great.

Cueball's comment about not being able to hide from everything is a common one to give to insecure people or to those trying to run away from their problems. Ponytail's reply is in the form of a {{w|PolitiFact.com|PolitiFact}} reply, claiming (possibly quite truly) that such assertions are ''mostly false'', one of the six options, but it is far from being the worst, thus acknowledging that you can't hide from everything, just mostly. See more about Politifact.com in the comic [[1712: Politifact]].

{{w|Comment (computer programming)|Comments}} are something a programmer adds to their code such to make a note for themselves or others, typically to explain a complicated piece of logic or explaining external dependencies of a piece of code. Instead, Ponytail has been writing unrelated notes filled with obscenities. Ponytail's reply is one of typical advice given to amateur fiction and non-fiction writers, that to "write what you know.", implying that all Ponytail knows right now is obscenities.

{{w|Subroutine|Functions}} are pieces of code which developers create to avoid repetition and make the code clearer (such as "calculate distance between points" or "process values"). A function which does nothing is almost useless (although sometimes programmers leave functions empty, when they create the skeleton of a program, but then they usually intends to fill them out later). It is expected that a function ''does'' something with a given parameter, but Ponytail’s function does nothing with the parameters except returning the parameter but with the comment ''No, '''you''' deal with this''. Thus she wishes that somebody/something else ''deals'' with any problem, probably what she would also wish for right now, where she is so sad that she even neglects her projects.

Ponytail replies that she writes them like this in order to try to avoid {{w|Side effect (computer science)|side effects}} (i.e. unexpected, unintended, and typically unwanted effects upon calling a piece of code), in line with a {{w|functional programming}} paradigm. When Cueball points out that she avoids all effects, Ponytail [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/quotes?item=qt2959706 quotes] part of a famous quote from Ripley in {{w|Aliens (film)|Aliens}}: ''I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the '''only''' way to be sure'''. By replying that it's the "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q only way to be sure]" she is thus indirectly saying better safe than sorry, but in reality she just don't care about her programming anymore because of her sad state of mind.

The title text is a pun, interpreting the phrase "side effect" literally. If you turn an object 90 degrees along the right axis you will place it on its side, so thus making it a effect of putting something on its side, or a "side effect." You can also turn 90 degrees (along another axis), facing what was previously your side.

The title "Sad" is a common interjection in Trump's tweets. The time-frame of "the past few months" from the first panel is consistent with this, as the election was on November 8, 2016, and the comic was posted on January 25, 2017 four days after Donald Trump's inauguration as 45th president of the United States on January 20, 2017. The reference to fact-checking in the second panel is also reminiscent of the election and post-election coverage. This is not the first sad comic since Trump was elected, see more under [[#Trivia|trivia]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking up to Ponytail who sits at her desk in an office chair typing on her computer.]
:Cueball: How are you doing?
:Ponytail: Hah.
:Cueball: You seem distant lately. For the past few months.
:Ponytail: Can't '''''imagine''''' why.

:[Cueball talks to Ponytail at her desk from off-panel.]
:Cueball (off-panel): Your projects have stagnated.
:Ponytail: But my Stardew Valley farm is doing '''''great'''''.
:Cueball (off-panel): You can't just hide from everything.
:Ponytail: '''''Fact check''''': Mostly false.

:[In a frame-less panel Cueball is seen standing behind Ponytail at her desk.]
:Cueball: I'm glad you're including more comments in your code, but it would be nice if they were comments '''''about''''' your code.
:Cueball: Or at least a bit less obscenity-filled.
:Ponytail: Look, they say to write what you know.

:[Cueball leans forward towards Ponytail at her desk (who has looked on the screen in the same position through the entire comic).]
:Cueball: All the functions you've written take everything passed to them and return it unchanged with the comment "No, '''''you''''' deal with this."
:Ponytail: It's a functional programming thing. Avoiding side effects.
:Cueball: You avoid '''''all''''' effects.
:Ponytail: Only way to be sure.

==Trivia==
*Not since [[Randall|Randall's]] wife's [[:Category:Cancer|cancer diagnosis]] has there been so many sad/negative or depressing comics.
**This is the fourth such comic since the election.
**Even [[1779: 2017]] "celebrating" New Year was depressive, and it was a first that a [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]] had such a depressive mood.
**But earlier two other sad comics show that this comic and the New Year comic just followed the trend of negative comics released after Trump's victory.
**The first being [[1761: Blame]] and the second being [[1773: Negativity]], which both refer to the negativity on the internet spawned by Trump's election (among other things).
**In the first of these sad comics Cueball actually begins by stating that: ''I feel sad!''
**Hopefully Randall is not spiraling into a depression as many others have due to Trump's election.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Sarcasm]]

Talk:1789: Phone Numbers

2017-01-23T21:44:40Z

162.158.74.219:

I've definitely seen this comic before. Deja vu? [[User:OfftheRails|OfftheRails]] ([[User talk:OfftheRails|talk]]) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
[http://www.xkcd.com/1254 #1254] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 21:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

“Also White Hat never actually answers the question originally posed by Cueball.” – AFAIS he should use the #2 (the Google voice one). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)