explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-22T10:17:05Z

172.64.238.33: Fixed a couple of things with Fahrenheit, which makes more sense when reading Rømer's definition.

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

There are many different temperature scales. Most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements, as it is part of the {{w|metric system}} that has been widely adopted as at least the more officially favored civil measurement. However, the United States and Liberia retain the US customary (or 'imperial') system, where the unit is {{w|Fahrenheit}}. There are also many more temperature scales. Most notable is {{w|Kelvin}}, using the 'separation' of Celsius degrees but rooted upon {{w|absolute zero}} (as {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} does with Fahrenheit degrees), which is more directly useful for the purposes of scientific calculation. This comic showcases all these, as well as a lot of mostly unused but still real (except for in the title text) scales.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water Freezes
! scope="col" | Water Boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || All but a handful of countries use degrees Celsius as their default measurement of temperature, and most of the remainder use Celsius in conjunction with another scale. Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. This (along with Kelvin) is considered the least cursed temperature system (at least from those where the ranking values make any sense), likely due to Randall's background. Notably it is still considered a 2/10, implying an inherent degree of cursedness for all systems.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} that intends to use the same base metric as degrees Celsius, but zero is set to absolute zero and (by way of using the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}, as of 2019) the melting point of ice (0°C) is considered to be 273.15K. Immediately prior to this, the {{w|Triple point#Triple point of water|triple-point of water}} was precisely 273.16K (and 0.01°C), and the conversion remains commonly considered that ''°C = K – 273.15'', within any useful degree of precision.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit is a system officially used in only 5 countries/regions in the world (Liberia, the USA and its three associated free states in the Pacific), and unofficially in several countries across the globe, mostly those with ties to the UK or the US, alongside Celsius. It was originally defined from the Rømer scale{{citation needed}} by multiplying its values by 4 (translating the fixed points of freezing of brine 0 °Rø=new 0, melting of ice 7.5 °Rø = new 30, and human body temperature 22.5 °Rø= new 90), recalibrating the scale for the melting of ice and body temperature{{citation needed}} and slightly changed the number for better divisibility (new 30 = 32 °oF and new 90 = 96 °oF) and finally noticed that the boiling point of water seemingly became around 212 °oF instead of the 256 it was supposed to and redefined the scale so that the freezing point of water became exactly 32 °F and its boiling point exactly 212 °F, which somehow made the other two fixed points become out of whack{{citation needed}} (4 °F and 98.6 °F, respectively). Despite being in common use in Randall's home country, due to being defined by such arbitrary fixed points (and Randall's scientific education) it is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius{{citation needed}}
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in standard atmosphere being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labelling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero || 6/10 || Randall has shown disdain for this before, like in [[2292: Thermometer]].
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. Randall has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood (''without the e'').
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || Galen, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/–4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpreted as –100% cursedness.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || As most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large but there exists an absolute minimum temperature, defining the scale in this way (giving an absolute maximum but allowing indefinitely negative values) is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. This might be interpreted as "infinitely cursed", or else just {{w|NaN|Not a Number}}.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This direction 'survives' in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celcius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures.

The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e. the cursedness could be understood as 50/50 (or 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
|-
| °X ([[Randall]]'s new temperature scale as defined in the title text) || 41.9 || 154.4 || Title text: "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || ∞ (estimated) || Usually temperature records are measured 1 m above ground as surface temperatures can be much higher. It is uncertain if Randall actually meant surface or just normal temperature records as the ones mentioned here.

The record lowest temperature on Earth is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983. This would then be set to 0°X unless it is surface temperature instead.

The {{w|List_of_weather_records#Highest_global_average_temperature|hottest ever average temperature of Earth}} as of 2024 is 17.16°C (62.9°F.) on 22 July 2024. [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history][https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/][https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024]. However it is the average temperature not the record temperature that should be used. This would then be set to 50°X but the question is if this should change on a daily basis or depend on a yearly average? But definitely not the highest ever average that should be used. Also again this is not the average surface temperature.

The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California. This is though disputed and 54°C (129.2 °F) seems a more reasonable record, which has been recorded more than once in recent years. This would then be set to 100°X unless it is surface temperature instead. Surface temperatures on the ground of up to 90°C has been recorded, in {{w|Furnace_Creek,_California#Climate|Furnace Creek up to 94°C}} (201°F).

{{cot|Derivation}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 17.16°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 17.16°C (from –89.2°C to 17.16°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 17.16°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (17.16 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (17.16 + 89.2) = 50 / 106.36 ≈ 0.47</center>

Now, using the point (17.16°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.47 × 17.16 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 8.06 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 8.06 = 41.94</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 17.16°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.47 × C + 41.94'''</center>

2. Above 17.16°C (from 17.16°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 17.16°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 17.16) = 50 / 39.54 ≈ 1.26</center>

Now, using the point (17.16°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.26 × 17.16 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 21.63 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 21.63 = 28.37</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 17.16°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.26 × C + 28.37'''</center>

;Freezing and Boiling Points

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 17.16°C, we use the equation X = 0.47 × C + 41.94:

<center>X = 0.47 × 0 + 41.94 = 41.94</center>

So, the freezing point is 41.9 °X.

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 17.16°C, we use the equation X = 1.26 × C + 28.37:

<center>X = 1.26 × 100 + 28.37 = 126 + 28.37 = 154.37</center>

So, the boiling point is 154.4 °X.
{{cob}}
See also [[2701: Change in Slope]].
|}

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

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:1503: Squirrel Plan

2024-10-03T17:48:08Z

172.64.238.33: am i being too businessdirect

Reminds me of the Ice Age squirrel [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:Also reminiscent of the star wars scene in Kingmen [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 06:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::Um ya, like why didn't those balloons have a pressure release valve instead of blowing up? A relatively cheap device could have aided that character immensely.[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Clunky prototype? (And/or they want the maximum amount of elevation. Any presseure release valve would give a safe(r) ceiling of operation lower than the "just before the pop" one they theoretically have, as is. It's still a design-flaw, though, if there's no effective warning of balloon failure, and you're now left swinging on the other, on-the-edge-of-failing, one. And now with only half the lift. Yeah, clunky. Yeah, I've thought about this a little, already.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 13:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Though as soon as the first balloon popped you'd start loosing altitude - due to half of your lift disappearing. So the question comes up - '''how did the second balloon pop'''? ;) And as a side note - if you catch the pan around the control room right after our hero dispatches the nerd villain, you'll see a corpse with a head. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::'''Obviously there was a squirrel...''' ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the squirrels are just a vehicle for the joke, which is poking fun at "obvious" conclusions based on personal beliefs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 06:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:Absolutely - the current first line of explanation fails, as squirrels being stupid is not a joke. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 07:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"...due to the expansion of the acorns inside." I love you guys. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.89|141.101.104.89]] 07:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
: We know [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.39|108.162.216.39]] 08:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)BK201

This comic puts me in mind of the simplistic plot points and devices of a lot of modern scifi movies ... poking fun at them the same way as "Scorcher" from Tropic Thunder does ...--[[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.38|198.41.239.38]] 09:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the squirrels are a stand-in for ancient humans. Their understanding of the world and what is obvious reflects their pre-scientific state of knowledge. Their interests as squirrels have affected their conclusions, just as humans have projected their interests on what they interpret the sun to be (source of acorns instead of a sun god). I'm pretty sure the "halfway to the sun" part refers to a point where they think they're halfway but probably aren't even close to leaving the atmosphere, drawing parallels again to ancient human assumptions (the sun and moon are small orbs that are just high in the sky). {{unsigned ip|108.162.225.80}}
: Alternatively, it might be referring to people assuming the sun is golden in some literal fashion. What else could the sun be made of, if it's so gloriously radiant and stuff? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.109|108.162.216.109]] 13:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Or possibly replace "ancient" with "superstitious" - or even nothing at all for that matter to apply to humans in general - and I'll agree with you even more. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.70|141.101.80.70]] 09:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that the real sun is "full of" hydrogen and helium. The same is true for real squirrel lifting balloons.{{unsigned ip|108.162.230.161}}

It's possible that the comic is a commentary on the human condition, constantly reaching out for some grand goal, that is both unreachable, and even if reached is shown to be far less grand then previously thought. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.237|108.162.210.237]] 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the squirrel in the picture is actually halfway to the sun. I think the title text is a hypothetical future event, and that the description is overthinking things. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.106|108.162.216.106]] 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it a possibility that the squirrels represent the government or similar entity? {{unsigned|Mikemk}}

Not quite sure i like the explanation about acorns obviously not being able to contribute to flying. Not because i think they can, but because the exact same argument could be used for a jet engine on a plane as those are also heavy. {{unsigned ip|141.101.75.53}}
: maybe the acorns are pushing on the quantum vacuum virtual plasma? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.18|108.162.241.18]] 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I seriously suspect this has something to do with [[1356: Orbital Mechanics]] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.185|173.245.56.185]] 10:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the balloon of the title text is a reference to earth herself : the analogy must be natural to a squirrel believing the sun is an accorn field... {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.250}}

I am fairly sure this comic is to mock humanity's tendency to assume what they first think of to be fact. This could also be about religion but I probably shouldn't mention that. Too many fights. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 14:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Randall's squirrels are cute. A Montrealer [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.191|173.245.52.191]] 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropping squirrel research I haven't found. Dropping cats I found here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RtWbpyjJqrU And freefalling astronauts, too! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJcno_XL4RU [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 12:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What scene in Kingsman: TSS is this similar to? I've seen the movie but durned if I can recall anything remotely like this comic happening in it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.192|108.162.216.192]]
:Read the very first cascade of comments at the top of this page to jog your memory, perhaps? It may have been a technical sideline to the main action, at that point, but it wasn't Blink And You'd Miss It, either.... (For the record, I don't think it's an intended reference. Because all the meme really shares is the balloon bit. But I won't say it definitely isn't, either.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.131|141.101.98.131]] 18:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternate Explanation: The two landed squirrels are trying to get rid of the squirrel attached to the balloon. {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.105}}

These are squirrels from the future that can survive in a vacuum, the balloon is no ordinary one, and the sun is actually a superstructure filled to the brim with acorns... Of course, this is not the case for the moon, which is just a big rock in the earth's orbit. {{unsigned ip|141.101.96.184|08:28, 3 January 2024}}

Why is there a furry category? Furries aren't mentioned once and the anthropormorphic style here is very far from anything which could be considered canoically furry [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.17|162.158.122.17]] 18:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:There was (still is?) an editor who believed strongly that anything with (or mentioning) animals even slightly not-just-animals was "furries" territory. These squirrels or even just showing the Narnian wardrobe with no actual furriness seen on-comic, even if you consider actual (albeit talking) animals or fawns to be 'furries'.
:It's debatable, and the extents to furry-culture is ill-defined/subjective, but that editor was notably persistent. My vote would be not to, but I have no influence here. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.133|172.70.85.133]] 05:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:: I've removed the furry category because it is not appropiate for this comment. If one wishes to add it back, i urge that they put reasoning in this thread. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.33|172.64.238.33]] 17:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-03T19:27:04Z

172.64.238.33: Further reasons why hot air balloons are less than suboptimal.

{{comic
| number = 2940
| date = May 31, 2024
| title = Modes of Transportation
| image = modes_of_transportation_2x.png
| imagesize = 510x518px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = My bold criticism might anger the hot air balloon people, which would be a real concern if any of them lived along a very narrow line directly upwind of me.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Transportationally convenient but insidiously dangerous robotic car - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Randall's chart compares different modes of transportation by how convenient and dangerous they are. At the top-left (high in convenience and low in danger) are airliners and trains, as these are both fast-moving vehicles on which many millions of dollars have been spent to make them safer. In the top-right, motorcycles are at the same convenience level, but are rated much more dangerous, since they are easy to lose control of at high speeds, and careless drivers (of cars) can easily hit a motorcycle and cause extreme harm. Things like unicycles (bottom-left) are considered much lower on the convenience scale, being not very fast or easy ways to travel, but relatively safe, while towards the centre, skis are apparently moderately convenient and moderately dangerous, since they are relatively easy to fall on if going fast downhill. Way out on their own in the bottom-right, hot air balloons appear to be unique in being rated least on convenience and highest on danger. Presumably, modes of transportation similar to hot air balloons (like zeppelins and blimps) are left off the chart to increase the gap for comedic effect.

Because a hot air balloon is rated so poorly, if an optimization algorithm considers it the optimal mode of transportation, it must be the result of a sign error (e.g. having a minus sign where a plus sign is supposed to be, or vice versa), making the algorithm optimize for the opposite result by mistake. This could be because, unusually, on the y axis of the chart higher is better, whereas on the x axis lower is better. If these were treated the wrong way around, it would result in the air balloon appearing to be the best result. More typically, you might plot convenience vs ''safety'', so that a higher value on either axis would represent a better result. However, both measures are still likely to need to take underlying data (for safety, incident counts, etc.; for convenience, travel time, etc.) and invert them, leading to potential for errors.

In order to compare the relative danger from each mode of transport, one can look at statistics of fatalities and injuries sustained during each activity. Traditionally this can be reported in fatalities/{{w|Killed_or_Seriously_Injured|KSI}} per mile driven or passenger mile (or other unit of distance), to account for the fact that some modes are used much more than others and make valid comparisons. They may also be reported per capita (but this ignores the relative usage of different modes), or per journey (but this doesn't take into account the fact that different modes typically have different journey lengths and times). All of these are somewhat flawed, since they are really measuring the danger ''to'' users of that mode of transport, both from their own conveyance, and from other sources such as other road users. Since ballooning is not a very common mode of transport, hot air balloon incidents are [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9533500/ correspondingly uncommon], and flights are not routinely monitored or registered, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions from the data for hot air balloons.

The title text makes a joke that if a hot air balloon enthusiast disagrees with the ranking and is angered by it, they may wish to remonstrate or retaliate, but will have a difficult time getting to Randall's house with their preferred mode of transportation, because they are limited to travelling in the direction of the wind. If they chose an alternative form of transport, they would be making his point for him. In reality, hot air balloons have some freedom to choose their direction of travel, since by controlling their altitude they can access different wind directions at different heights. Randall should, therefore, be concerned about hot air balloonists who live within a wedge spanned by the various wind directions accessible on a given day. In principle, if the weather conditions are favorable, this could cover every direction from Randall's house. The phrase "hot air balloon people" is reminiscent of "autogyro people" from the title text of [[1972: Autogyros]].

Curiously, the comic includes most common forms of transport, and a number of less common ones, but omits examples such as buses (a mass transit solution arguably more convenient than trains). It is not clear if this is an error, or a deliberate choice to maintain the comic's layout and presentation.

This is the second comic in a row to feature an algorithm.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Transportation !! Description !! Convenience !! Danger !! Zone
|-
|{{w|Train}}s
|Mass transit on rails, typically between urban centers.
|data-sort-value=""|Convenient and comfortable, provided proper funding/maintenance and filled timetables. Allows relatively cheap travel for many people at once.
|data-sort-value=""|Exceedingly safe, due to dedicated tracks along a controlled environment. Accidents are largely limited to individuals wandering onto the off-limit tracks.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Airliner}}s
|Mass transit by aircraft
|data-sort-value=""| Extremely fast travel between population centers for larger groups of people. Less comfortable and more expensive than trains.
|data-sort-value=""| Extremely safe due to strong regulation and relatively little traffic interactions. However, the few catastrophies that do happen have high death counts.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Car}}s
|Motorised road vehicle<br/> Most common method of long distance travel, used by many individuals to reach specific destinations
|data-sort-value=""| Owners of a car can usually go easily to any road-accessible location within a 200 mile/300 km radius. Requires constant focus, but can transport a few passengers or some cargo. Parking, maintenance, and infrastructure requirements are often ignored when judging car convenience.
|data-sort-value=""| Insides of cars are covered with safety features, because collisions are relatively common. Assuming appropriate speed limits and proper focus by the driver, accidents can largely be avoided. Driving is the most dangerous thing most people do, and cars are very dangerous to nearby pedestrians and cyclists.
|Practicality
|-
|Scooters
|Either:<br/>
*{{w|Kick scooter}} - Less convenient than the placing would suggest.
*{{w|Scooter (motorcycle)|Low powered motorbike/moped}} - More dangerous than the placing would suggest.
*{{w|Motorized scooter|Engine-powered scooter}} - A middle-ground.
|data-sort-value=""| Kick scooter-style vehicles are probably less convenient than bicycles as they do not provide seating, and are less efficient at converting energy into motion. A low-powered motorbike is about as convenient as a bicycle, requiring refueling in lieu of pedalling, and going much faster.
|data-sort-value=""| Kick scooters are much slower – and therefore safer – than bicycles. A motorized scooter can exceed bicycle speeds, but falling might be slightly safer. Low-powered motorbikes often go much faster than bicycles, and would therefore be much more dangerous. All leave the rider vulnerable to danger from motorised traffic sharing the same space.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Bicycle}}s
|Human-powered (or {{w|Electric bicycle|mostly so}}) two-wheeled road vehicle
|data-sort-value=""| Assuming proper road or trail connections, bicycles are highly flexible for traveling to any location within a ~10 km radius, or further.
|data-sort-value=""| Bicycles mostly move slow enough for falls or collisions to have little impact, though they are vulnerable to motorized traffic where it shares the road, and are often perceived to be much more subject to danger than they really are.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Boat}}s
|Watercraft of various types
|data-sort-value=""| Specialized for water traffic, which is a very common form of transportation. Quite comfortable (unless you suffer from seasickness), but usually very slow.
|data-sort-value=""| Sinking, capsizing, or falling overboard, whether by collision or misuse, can be lethal, especially on the sea. However, collisions are very rare.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Walking}}
|Personal bipedal ambulation<br/>
|data-sort-value=""| Can travel between any two connected points regardless of infrastructure, but most people only find it comfortable for a few kilometers. Very slow compared to even bicycles, but the energy intensity is good for exercise.
|data-sort-value=""| Most danger to those walking comes from others, such as being hit by a motorized vehicle. Has the potential for trip injuries, and walking up or down stairs is particularly dangerous, since a greater fall can result.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Motorcycle}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""| As practical as cars to move between locations, and sometimes quicker, due to the ability to filter in traffic, but generally less comfortable, especially in rough weather.
|data-sort-value=""| Cars with all the safety features of bicycles. Exceedingly dangerous at higher speeds, especially when sharing the road with cars.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Helicopter}}s
| Rotorcraft in which lift and thrust are supplied by horizontally spinning rotors.
|data-sort-value=""| Effective to move between any two points as long as there are landing pads of reasonable size. Can be used to hover relatively still in the air. Speed for utility helicopters is comparable to trains. Very loud, and very difficult to learn to fly.
|data-sort-value=""| As per {{w|Harry Reasoner}}: "An airplane by its nature wants to fly, and if not interfered with too strongly by unusual events or by a deliberately incompetent pilot, it will fly. A helicopter does not want to fly. It is maintained in the air by a variety of forces and controls working in opposition to each other, and if there is any disturbance in this delicate balance the helicopter stops flying; immediately and disastrously. There is no such thing as a gliding helicopter."
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Light aircraft}}
|In the United States, the general category of [https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/categories small aircraft] covers a variety of aircraft certified to weigh 19,000 pounds (8618 kg) or less at takeoff. Maximum allowed weight varies by specific category.
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Go-kart}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""| A lack of proper suspension makes for a bumpy ride, poor clearance would leave them at risk of grounding on more uneven terrain, and the maximum speed is quite low.
|data-sort-value=""| Crashing is much more likely to cause spinal damage than bicycles, but the relatively low speed would make them much safer than other motorized vehicle options.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Skateboard}}s
| A board on four wheels
|data-sort-value=""| Much slower and less energy-efficient than bicycles.
|data-sort-value=""| As long as you're not doing mad tricks in a quarterpipe, using a skateboard for transportation carries little risk, other than being struck by other users of the same space. Safety gear is common.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Inline skates|Rollerblades}}
| Shoes with a single line of wheels at the bottom
|data-sort-value=""| Much slower and less energy-efficient than bicycles.
|data-sort-value=""| As long as you're not doing mad tricks in a quarterpipe, using rollerblades for transportation carries little risk, other than being struck by other users of the same space. Safety gear is common.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Ski}}s
| Narrow strips of material to stand on while sliding across a low-friction surface
|data-sort-value=""| A fine way to move downhill relatively fast, but maintenance of the slope is required. Also a fairly quick way to travel on the flat when there is snow cover that would make other modes of transport challenging. Less useful in less conducive conditions.
|data-sort-value=""|Downhill skiers can reach high speeds at which collisions could cause significant injury to the skier's lightly protected body. It can be hard to control your speed at lower skill levels, but as long as low speeds are maintained (as it might when used as a transportation option), skiing is not that dangerous.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Unicycle}}s
| One-wheeled human-powered vehicle
|data-sort-value=""|Can be a [https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/24351890.wellington-teen-circumnavigates-globe-unicycle/ practical form of transport] for skilled riders. Because unicycles lack a gear system, they are less mechanically efficient than bicycles and have a much lower top-speed.
|data-sort-value=""| Because of the lower top-speed, unicycles would be safer than bicycles, though you may fall off it more frequently.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Sled}}s
| A construction that can slide over snow, ice, or sand
|data-sort-value=""| Useful in limited conditions in which other forms of transport might struggle to cope with.
|data-sort-value=""| It is hard to properly control your speed downhill, but extremely safe on level terrain or slight slopes.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Bumper Cars}}
| Small electric karts with rubber bumpers
|data-sort-value=""| Only really convenient for making ''very'' short journeys. Typically require an electronic mesh in the ceiling to move at all.
|data-sort-value=""| Apparently safe enough to be a hardly-supervized children's entertainment attraction.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Hot Air Balloon}}s
| A basket tied to a huge bag of heated air
|data-sort-value=""| Provide limited control and low speeds. They were the only form of air-travel available in the 19th-century, but were overtaken by powered air-travel.
|data-sort-value=""| A malfunction in the balloon can result in a very rapid descent, from great height. A poorly executed descent could result in a mid-air collision (e.g. with trees, powerlines, etc.) with potential for a nasty fall.
The air that provides the lift is heated by a flame, which may be open (and even in covered flame heaters, a malfunction may allow the flame to escape outside), and some roughhousing due to movement inside the basket or a gust of wind can make the envelope to catch on fire, a situation that prevents the balloon from going down until the moment in which not enough lift can be provided, causing the basket to plummet to the ground, which will kill the passengers unless they jump out before it happens (in which case they are already dead by then).
Further known dangers are malfunctions of the propane tanks fueling the burner causing an explosion and falling down the edge of the basket due to improper or no tethering.
|?????
|}

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

:[A chart is shown, where the Y axis is labeled "Convenient for travel" and has an arrow pointing up and the X axis is labeled "Dangerous" and has an arrow pointing right.]
:[In gray text, "Zone of practicality" points to a large irregular area fitting in to the top left corner of the chart with a gray background. The following modes are shown in this area, starting with the first few bunched at highest convenience:]
::Trains [very convenient, very safe]
::Airliners
::Cars
::Scooters [the most dangerous of this set, at medium-low danger]
::Bicycles
::Boats [medium-high convenience, a slight amount of danger]
::Walking [the least convienient, at roughly half, and lowest danger of this set]
:[In gray text, "Zone of specialty and recreational vehicles" points to a large irregular swathe from the top right to the bottom left with a gray background. The following modes are shown in this area, with the nodes spread in rough order from high convenience/danger to low convenience/danger:]
::Motorcycles [highly convenient, nearly maximum danger]
::Helicopters [not quite fully convenient, most danger]
::Light aircraft
::Go karts
::Skateboards
::Rollerblades
::Skis
::Unicycles
::Sleds
::Bumper cars [lowest convenience and lowest danger item]
:[In gray text, "?????" points to a small blob in the bottom right corner with a gray background, notably distant from the nearest other group. A single mode is included in this area:]
::Hot air balloons [placed as almost the least convenient and most dangerous, of all labels]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Hot air balloons are the optimal mode of transportation, if your optimization algorithm has a sign error.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:2932: Driving PSA

2024-05-15T12:06:21Z

172.64.238.33: Added two reply comments

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

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

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

Just curious, as I'm from Germany - does the USA have no traffic lights? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.210|198.41.242.210]] 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: They do, and they are placed where you can actually see them --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 12:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: They do, and they're placed where they can be used for Captcha challenges.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.81|172.70.86.81]] 14:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: Only on some intersections. This is likely a case where a relatively small / quiet road intersects with a busy one. Traffic lights tend to be used in the USA where both roads intersecting are beyond a minimum throughput of traffic to justify the cost. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.33|172.64.238.33]] 12:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Uncontrolled intersection with a left turn onto a 4-lane road? US road design, combined with US car-centric settlement planning, must have been made by those more clever, trying-harder assassins that Randall mentions in the title text, and it looks like they've got a lot of people on their list. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.229.131|162.158.229.131]] 07:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: If it was a single lane street, and not three-lane road (or stroad), then accepting granting the right of way / waving in would be perfectly safe (assuming that you watch left). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: This is very common in some areas such as Tucson, AZ. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.66|172.70.214.66]] 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
: Agreed. This is likely a case where a relatively small / quiet road intersects with a busy one. Traffic lights tend to be used in the USA where both roads intersecting are beyond a minimum throughput of traffic to justify the cost. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.33|172.64.238.33]] 12:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must point out, no one has a privilege to go. The "right of way" only refers to the side of the road. Stop using the term wrong. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 20:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:I'm going to assume this is a joke, but for everyone who might believe it, "right of way" {{w|Right_of_way_(traffic)|does}} [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_of_way indeed] [https://www.safemotorist.com/articles/right-of-way/ refer] to the privilege ("right") to use a road ("way").
::Like everything else in the comic and the comments here, that depends on jurisdiction. For example, in Australia "right of way" doesn't exist - at least not as a right that can be asserted. Throughout the road rule legislation, references are made to situations where a driver has to give way to other traffic, but there is nothing that explicitly gives a driver "right of way" over any other traffic. As a driver I am obliged to recognise situations where I have to give priority to other drivers, but there is no explicit right to take priority. The legislation also requires all drivers to do what they can to avoid collisions. [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 23:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Applauds rare actually funny use of Citation needed. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

==PSA==

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

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

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.223|172.69.43.223]] 07:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

1100: Vows

2024-03-04T15:45:12Z

172.64.238.33: do i need a citation needed for the citation needed?

{{comic
| number = 1100
| date = August 27, 2012
| title = Vows
| image = vows.png
| titletext = So, um. Do you want to get a drink after the game?
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a joke parodying wedding ceremonies and {{w|American Football}} plays intended to misdirect or fool the opponents about what is really happening.

A standard misdirection play involves the offense misdirecting the defense into thinking that the play being executed is actually a different play: for example, a {{w|American_football_positions|passing play}} could actually be a running play, or that a ball being run left is actually being run right, or that a {{w|field goal}} or {{w|Punt_(gridiron_football)|punt}} end up being attempted to get a {{w|Down_(gridiron_football)|down}}.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] is about to get married to Amy, a girl looking like [[Megan]], but the bride interrupts the ritual by saying that she doesn't want to get married. The bride then reveals herself to be a Cueball-like man and after questioning reveals that the relationship and the wedding was an elaborate con to get the advantage on the football field. "Amy" turns out to be a player for the opposing team and he had a football on his person. He then proceeds to run the ball in for a touchdown. This clearly constitutes the ''greatest high school football misdirection play of all time''. {{cn}}

[[Randall]] takes the deception in a misdirection play to the next, virtually impossible level; it is unlikely that a relationship could develop to the point of marriage within the time-frame of a football game, with "the groom" not noticing that Amy was in fact a football player, or that he was standing on the football field.

The title text indicates that, in spite of the deception, "the groom" still has feelings and is not ready to give up the relationship (or at least he would like to share a beer with the opposing team like after a friendly game). Alternatively, as it is unclear who is speaking, "the bride" may have also developed feelings for "the groom" and is now awkwardly asking for a date after deceiving "the groom."

===Misdirection Plays===
Occasionally, especially at the high school level, extreme misdirection plays are attempted where teams try to misdirect the opposing team into thinking that a play is not even being run. Good examples of that can be found on YouTube, such as this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkA3nxuMJoM "wrong ball" trick], or that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UIdI8khMkw "five more yards" trick]. Despite conforming to the rules of the game, these are considered to be dirty tricks and usually only work in little league football.

==Transcript==
:[A bride in full wedding dress, that looks like Megan, and Cueball with a bow-tie as the groom stand next to each other. Each has a hand outstretched toward the other.]
:Officiator (off panel): Do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband?
:Bride: ...No.

:[Cueball steps back in surprise. The bride removes a wig to reveal that she is in fact a Cueball-like man.]
:Groom: ''What? Amy!?''
:Man: I'm not Amy. None of this was real. You're back in senior year. It's the big game.

:[Cueball puts his hands to his head in confusion. The man holds up an American football, still holding the wig in his other hand.]
:Cueball: What ''is'' this!?
:Man: ''The greatest high school football misdirection play of all time.''

:[Cueball puts his hands to his mouth as the man in the wedding dress begins to run backwards, away from him holding up the ball.]

:[Cueball remains frozen in horror as the man turns and dashes toward the goalpost in the distance.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Wedding]]
[[Category:American football]]