explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2845: Extinction Mechanisms

2023-10-24T08:03:51Z

162.158.95.104:

-Hello, I'm a Christian that has done research to be intellectually fulfiled, and I would just want to say that I did not know that paleontologists were having trouble with this problem. A general Christian solution is that Noah's Flood, combined with the aftermath being much cooler, was the cause of the dinosaur extinction. Also, before you hate on me, I'm not trying to correct anyone, or be offensive. I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this and add another theory to the mix. This is my second time posting a comment, so sorry if I did something wrong or something. Also, I know there's a comic that "debunks" this, but there seems to have been more evidence and research done since then. Also, the biggest help to me has been ''The Case for A Creator'' by Lee Strobel. [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Reading a book (or even many books) is not research. Science means you're never absolutely sure about anything. You're only relatively certain until contradictory proof of the currently theory (or theories) exists. This is not a weakness, but exactly the strength of the scientific method. If you have significant and non-controvertible proof that men and dinosaurs existed at the same time, I'll tentatively accept your ideas. Until then, it's all just bunk. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.197.151|162.158.197.151]] 15:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

:Paleontologists are not having an issue with this. It is merely the premise for the comic. The available evidence vastly points to the extinction of the non avian dinosaurs ~66 million years ago. Of course the scientific community always welcomes new evidence to evaluate and see if it leads to a different conclusion or modification of the current consensus.

:It's a troll folks, treat it with the contempt it deserves. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.240|172.69.43.240]] 19:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

One obvious type of hole was not discussed. The Acme Portable Hole™ is an entirely different class of holes as extensively demonstrated in (this)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_the_Road_Runner] documentation.

-Ok, thanks for the comments in return! And thanks for not being extremely rude! Here's one article that shows several bio-organic materials that should have decayed if in the situations they were in for -66 million years. https://genesisapologetics.com/faqs/dinosaurs-lived-recently-and-died-in-noahs-flood/ Also, can I see the evidence shown in the second comic? I would like to see all this evidence. Also, I wasn't aware that scientific ideas shown in xkcd that were heavily implied to be true were false. That sounds a bit rude, but usually xkcd
gives funny interpretations of actual problems, like all the ones about COVID, or the Heartbleed Bug. Also, I'm not a troll. I'm willing to debate as long as people aren't saying things like "Science says" and equivocal stuff, and shows evidence instead of just giving vague statements. Thanks! [[User:Azerty99|Azerty99]] ([[User talk:Azerty99|talk]]) 22:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
:There's little disagreement that an asteroid striking the Yucatan around 66 mya caused or was a significant contributor to the extinction of the dinosaurs, but there are multiple (not necessarily mutually exclusive) hypotheses about what exact mechanisms had the biggest effects.
:It's like finding a body with nineteen bullet wounds. The detectives will have to piece together the evidence and come to tentative conclusions about what kind of gun was used, from how far away, whether the body was moved after the shooting, whether the victim died immediately or after some time, etc. But until someone finds something major that suggests otherwise, "death by shooting" is going to have to remain the working theory. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.41|172.69.247.41]] 23:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

-That analogy makes almost perfect sense, except there's a pretty big difference between finding 19 bullet holes in a man and concluding "death by shooting" and thinking that a meteor caused extinction because fossils were found in rocks that could be from the time that the meteor struck. Also, assuming that the mechanisms shown in the comic that are crossed out have been shown to not be possible, then what evidence is there that the meteor was the cause at all besides the correlation of the meteor impact and the extinction time? Does the correlation imply causation? Also, the theory of the meteor assumes the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs, which, while excepted by the majority of scientists, has been called into question.
:Ah, you figured it out. The extinction of the dinosaurs must have caused the meteor impact. The crossed-out mechanisms have '''not''' been ruled out; they're the leading hypotheses. That's the whole joke. Whoosh! There's plenty of evidence to conclude that the meteor was the cause of the mass extinctions. I don't see the need to provide you with them - they can be easily found. But you're not really interested in learning about evidence that could falsify your beliefs; you're fighting tooth and nail against anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusion. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.140|172.69.34.140]] 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:well dinosaur fossils are found below the cretaceous-paleogene boundary and not found above, so the major groups (excluding birds) most likely died out around that exact period; it contains a large amount of iridium, which is common in asteroids and there would be a low chance that there would be any other method to deposit iridium worldwide. its age can also be estimated using radiometric dating which puts it at around 66 mya (66.043 ± 0.011 mya to be exact) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.181|172.69.134.181]] 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

-While Noah's Flood was likely an actual event, it would not have been worldwide. Christianity originated in ancient Rome, which is near the Mediterranean Sea, and it is likely that after the last Ice Age, the sea levels rose, and the Atlantic Ocean flooded through what is now the Strait of Gibraltar, creating the Mediterranean Sea. Although this was not a worldwide flood, to the people living in the affected area, it would have seemed as such. [[User:Unknown User|Unknown User]] ([[User talk:Unknown User|talk]]) 01:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Unknown User

- Issues with Noah’s flood. 1. If it was worldwide and lasted 40 days, all the salty ocean water would have contaminated all fresh water on earth. This would have killed all fresh water fish within minutes or hours. Yet we have fresh water fish. Maybe in the millennia since fish have evolved the ability to survive in fresh water again? 2. The math shows that it would take 3-4 times the current amount of water to cover the earth worldwide. Where did all that water go? It’s not on earth now. We would be aware of that. The math ain’t mathing.

What the meteor does, looks like a cluster bomb. BTW does one like to do the math for the meteor falling apart into pieces of 1l and those being randomly distributed. What is the expected value of dinosaurs of various area sizes being hit? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.219|162.158.94.219]] 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2815: Car Wash

2023-08-17T13:38:03Z

162.158.95.104: Why I removed the sentence about animals in car washes

You know, I've ''never'' been in a carwash. Not even through a hand-wash (these days set up in just about every other ex-petrol(/'gas') station forecourt not redeveloped otherwise. Driven (or walked) right past them on the ways to places (my walk to the supermarket goes past a hand-car-wash, grocery store and tyre business in an ex-petrol station - then I wander past the autocarwash 'booth' at the supermarket-aligned fuelstop, perhaps through the jetwash lanes if nobody's using them), but never took a car to one. There's buckets and sponges/etc at home. Am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.11|172.71.242.11]] 20:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:The bucket and sponge method takes time and effort. Automatic car washes are quick and easy. I'm mostly indifferent to car washes, but I like them more than doing it by hand because I'm lazy. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm indifferent to car washes too. Five years later you just have to do it all over again [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 23:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
::Time and money for the carwash: Driving there (risking incidents), possible queuing to get into retail park, queuing to pay (£££s!), possible queuing for car wash, waiting for it to do its thing (risk of damage!), possible queuing to get out drive back (risking incidents, also normal road-grime)...
:::I've never gone out specifically to get my car washed. I'm usually out doing other things, I notice the car wash, and realize that my car is dirty, so I go in. And I can't recall ever having to wait more than 5 minutes on the line, usually there isn't any line at all. It's probably not a coincidence that several of the carwashes in my area are near supermarkets. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::Time and money for home-wash: Don't need to leave home. Buckets are older than me, sponges/cloths/brushes may in some cases by younger than 50 years old (but all pre-millenium), car-wax/-shampoo bottle (used sparingly) is 5-10yo and nowhere near empty, water (with a water meter, so does cost) is perhaps equivalent to two days of (hand-!)dishwashing [possibly buying a home jet-washer could bring that down, if it "does a lot more with a fastly moving lesser amount", but I might then also be tempted to jetwash the drive/windows/rooftiles as well and I'm not even sure it'd be less water through the nozzle as the tap] and (depending on time of year) may involve various mixes of hot and cold (so heating, though practically individible from other hot-water uses other than the kettle for drinks). Time taken: maybe 15 minutes (±5), at leisure while I appreciate all the distracting luxuries of home, or a highly abbreviated (one-bucket) washover/rinse at significantly less than 5 minutes (I'd still be trying to get into the supermarket, even with no queueueuing; perhaps I'd have been handwashed if ''they'' have no queue, but I wouldn't be back again...) and done. Maybe occasionally get the vacuum out and self-valet the insides, for another <5 minutes and probably entirely covered in electricity by what the solar panels have been feeding in during carwashing-friendly daytime conditions.
::Of course, it'll typically rain shortly afterwards (the rain-gods perhaps even being hopefully invoked by the very act of de-mudding the wheel-arches), but that's not going to differ between either (or neither) efforts to wash. :P [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.45|172.70.85.45]] 21:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:::What is the point of [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.45|172.70.85.45]]'s comment above? Is it trying to suggest that the time to self-wash is low? Or is it trying to suggest that it is high? (It is hard for me to tell, and definitely not clear!) I am under the general impression that hand-washing of cars, like hand-washing of dishes in the kitchen sink, consumes more water than automatic washing, in addition to the questions about pollutants that are raised below. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Less time, I'd say. A bit of personal effort, but can be done at leisure rather than having to take time out (even 'in passing') from other activities.
::::I also don't trust the "hand washed dishes takes more water than dishwasher-washed" claim. It's quoted as something like 20 ''gallons'' of water for hand-washing. Couldn't work out if that's US gallons (75 litres) or imperial (90 litres), but a washing up bowl holds 8-10 litres ''full'' and you never really need to fill it to the brim (and it rarely needs to be above ⅓rd full) to do a good job even for a family meal's-worth of crockery and cutlery. Certainly not 7 to 10 bowls'-worth. (I'm guessing it assumes a continuously running tap for rinsing. If you need any rinsing, you just need a short spurt as necessary ''or'' being pre-rinsed under the tap as it third-fills up the bowl, at least in my experience. But only far more profligate methods can possibly reach 70-90 litres, mostly straight down the drain.)
::::Typically quoted UK usage for dishwasher, however, seems to be around 9.5 litres (a full bowl's-worth, i.e. definitely more than a handwash as described). You also can't easily then use the 'grey' water, not-in-a-bowl, directly on some garden plants if you want. So getting double-duty out of it is trickier.
:::: Not sure how much the car-washing bucket would be, but 20 litres seems to be capacity. Car-wash usages seem to be 120 litres (or greater), apparently less than home hosepipe/jetwash amounts, but (IME) I'd never use more than three (not full) buckets to wash even the dirtiest car. Perhaps two (wash and rinse, but the rinse being less full even than the not-full one that has the 'soap' in) or even just the one (rinsing it all, in one go, getting the top and windows nice with the 'fresh' water before working all the way round each level of possibly more mud-splashed bodywork, then hubcaps and wheel(-arches) last). 5 minutes? Yeah, if the car didn't need more than that rinse'n'shine. I'd set aside 10 minutes (non-continuous, if necessary, a bit at a time during TV ad-breaks perhaps) for a decent roof-to-wheels of a typical-sized family car. Can't speak for SUVs or other over-sized models. Much as I can't speak for wasteful hosepipe use or whatavyer... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.166|172.71.178.166]] 22:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:In Germany, you are discouraged and in many localities it's directly forbidden to wash your car on your premises; it is completely forbidden to wash your car on the street. This because of oil that will enter the sewer system. Automated car washes will recycle water and seperate oil from it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.150.92|172.69.150.92]] 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
::Oil? If I notice oil in(/on) the water, I know there's a problem. Maybe a little residue from cleaning inside the fuel-port hatch. The way some people (over)use detergent, I could see ''that'' being an issue, but if you've an oil-leak then that's happening on or off your premises (and mostly off), I'd have thought and you might ''never even know...'' if you don't even wash your own car. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.45|172.70.85.45]] 21:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yeah. You wash your car because it is dirty, right? What exatly is that dirt, that is being washed off into the gutters? Some mud or earth, sure. But most of it is actually asphalt particles, tyre particles, oil (yes, most probably not from your own car, but from that vintage Cadillac that you were stuck behind all the way home from work), lubricants and grease from heavy trucks and machinery, soot particles and pollutants from industries and old/poorly maintained vehicles. The list goes on and on and most of the stuff is not very friendly to the environment and/or the runoff water treatment systems. Stuff that really should be disposed off properly, like in a dedicated carwash facility as stated above. {{unsigned ip|162.158.111.184|09:05, 16 August 2023}}
::::If it rains whilst your car is in the driveway(/at the kerbside), the same stuff potentially gets washed off. The fraction of particulates/contaminants that you can deliberately ''keep'' on your car until you go to a (''presumably'' particulate-filtering and safe-disposing?) car wash is minimal. Assuming it does filter, at all. The environment (and civil drainage infrastructure) cannot be considered that much better just because you take your practically clean car to the autowash occasionally just so that you could eat your dinner off of it. Perhaps a special exception when you've been off-road/driving through quarry tailings/whatever and are particularly caked with muddy grime/grimy mud, but not when dealing with the latest 'saharan sand' dustings/etc. There's scope for judgement, at least.
::::I'd worry more about surfactant over-use, but looking at the "one size fits all" foam-fest of a typical carwash/jetwash soaping (and unsure how you'd filter that from water, without effort, the whole point being the (half-)hydrophillic nature of the substance) I'm sure that adds more water-treatment effort at the ultimate end of the drains from either the home, street or nearby carwash (which, given we don't have separated rainwater and wastewater drainage systems is already potentially taking away everything that was left to settle on the roads, oil and dirt and mud and leaves and everything else that gets washed/dumped down there). Local laws/situations aside, I'm more comfortable with home-carwashing than it seems some are. Without wasting resources on running a home jet-wash. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.73|141.101.99.73]] 10:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Am I the only one who actually tried to find out whether baleen really used to be used in car washes or not?
: I added a quote on its use in the manufacture of brush bristles, although editing is needed. Next might be to figure out what vehicles were used in the 1800s and how they were washed. EDIT: https://academic.oup.com/liverpool-scholarship-online/book/43282/chapter-abstract/363026681?redirectedFrom=fulltext has a paragraph in google's cache that mentions that we can tell there was heavy use of baleen for brushes throughout the 1800s because of the heavy presence in museums. Maybe Randall's comment was inspired by a museum display. This seems possible because there's not much mention of this on the internet. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.185|162.158.154.185]] 01:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No mention of the fact that baleen is in whale mouths, so that's where Randall got the idea that the brushes are "licking" the car? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that baleen coming from whale mouths would be the main inspiration for the "licking" analogy as much as the motion of the typical automated carwash brushes are. If you swing baleen, or even a tongue for that matter, like a bat to hit something, licking wouldn't make sense as an analogy for that type of motion, regardless of the source, I think. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.161|172.70.210.161]] 15:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Do people actually like car washes? It always seemed like an uncomfortable and at times terrifying experience to me. Maybe some people like it, but I would be very surprised if it's just me, Cueball and now Ponytail who don't like it. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.31|198.41.238.31]] 18:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:I always thought they were fun and cozy, like being in a car during a rainstorm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.107|172.70.100.107]] 20:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:I used to really like them, but after reading this comic I like them even more. Thinking about car washes as a giant robot licking my car makes it so much more impressive than just "car wash". [[User:Conantheimp|cdesign proponentsists]] ([[User talk:Conantheimp|talk]]) 10:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Apart from queueing, I am not against car washes - happy to stay inside but not always I am allowed to. Kids do not like it. However, most times the only time I wash my car is when I have to take a flight: the parking lot where I usually leave the car provides optional car wash plus interior cleaning during the stop. [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 19:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I like car washes. I love the feeling of being enclosed like that; it feels rather like our spring and summer rainstorms in the Pacific Northwest. I also have to do it more often than most; my car is painted in pearl white (not my choice, I got it used like that 3 years ago and it's 20 years old so no point in changing it now), which is a trilayer paint that shimmers and has slight bluish undertones. It shows every speck of dirt and mud, so I need to clean it or it looks really bad. (Tricoat 062 is the color code). [[User:Darkwolf0218|Darkwolf0218]] ([[User talk:Darkwolf0218|talk]]) 23:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The final line of the current explanation text is "Are there car washes without brushes?" There are. They use high-pressure streams of water, detergent, and possibly other chemicals. The following links distinguish (sort of) between 'brushless' and 'touchless' car washes. I don't know if this information has a place in the public-facing text. https://www.wikimotors.org/what-is-a-touchless-car-wash.htm https://www.wikimotors.org/what-is-a-brushless-car-wash.htm [[User:Nekoninda|Nekoninda]] ([[User talk:Nekoninda|talk]]) 02:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:I removed that question (in amongst other edits I made) as either being rhetorical or a misplaced genuine query more properly voiced in here. As you've answered it, as well, I think there's no point deciding to transplant it, verbatim, any more than your quote of it. And, yes, useful additional info, but not really relevent to main explanation (if I'm any judge), just an interesting "not even Trivia" note that is welcome enough here in the Talk page/transclusion. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.73|141.101.99.73]] 10:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

::'' While the people of the 19th century likely needed some way to wash their vehicles, car washes in the modern style would not likely be useful, as most land vehicles were drawn by horse or human, and neither of those is likely to willingly walk into a car wash.{{Citation needed}}''
I removed that sentence, because it makes no sense.
If a vehicle is drawn by horse or human (like [[:File:Africa on the Move.jpg|here]]), that doesn’t mean the animal has to stay attached to the vehicle while the car wash machine is operating.
Many humans (including [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.11|172.71.242.11]]) are willing to walk into a car wash while it is not running. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.104|162.158.95.104]] 13:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)