explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2120: Brain Hemispheres

2019-03-07T08:50:58Z

172.68.110.100:

{{comic
| number = 2120
| date = March 6, 2019
| title = Brain Hemispheres
| image = brain_hemispheres.png
| titletext = Neurologically speaking, the LEFT hand is actually the one at the end of the RIGHT arm.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an AUTONOMOUS LEG and a CHICKEN. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
It is thought that the right half of the brain controls the left arm and left leg, and vice versa for the left half of the brain, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1872.pdf competing] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02972358 theories] exist for why this is the case. Also, many people incorrectly argue that different parts of the brain control logic and emotion, due to the importance of the [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393211000285?via%3Dihub left] brain for language processing. Randall joins and spoofs these by suggesting that the right brain instead controls the upper torso. This would suggest that your left leg moves independently of your brain. To explain the areas of the body controlled by both halves of the brain, Randall declares those sections "disputed," echoing a note added on maps that must display a border which is part of a {{w|territorial dispute}}. This suggests that the halves of your brain fight for control of the region, and is also described similarly to two countries disputing territory. Alternatively, there would be cooperative shared control (= dual control).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A stick figure with the right half of the figure's brain (on the viewer's left) colored orange and the left half (on the viewer's right) colored iris blue. An iris blue box is overlaid over the right half of the figure's body (on the viewer's left), and an orange box is overlaid over the top half. An arrow labeled 'DISPUTED/DUAL CONTROL' points towards the overlapping area.]
:'''Neuroscience Fact:'''
:The LEFT half of the brain actually controls the RIGHT half of the body... [Arrow pointing to iris blue rectangle]
:...while the RIGHT half of the brain actually controls the TOP half of the body. [Arrow pointing to orange rectangle]
:This leg is fully autonomous. [Arrow pointing to stick figure's left leg (on the viewer's right)]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:2118: Normal Distribution

2019-03-02T00:18:05Z

172.68.110.100:

Is there a statistician in the house? [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 15:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I think they all got annoyed at the graph and left. [[User:Margath|Margath]] ([[User talk:Margath|talk]]) 15:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.22|162.158.214.22]] 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As an example: When measuring the height of people in the same age bracket, then you'll expect the number of people at each height to look like this graph. There will be a lot of people around the average height, fewer a foot shorter/taller, some (but very few) exceptionally tall people, and some (but very few) exceptionally short people. The x-value represents the height, the y-value essentially represents the amount of population that share that height. When we measure the middle 50% of the population using vertical bars, then people at a certain height are either inside '''OR''' outside the middle. Randall uses horizontal bars here, which means some people at a certain height will be counted in the middle 50%, but other people with the same height won't be. In fact, some people with the exact average height of the whole population would fall outside the middle. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214|108.162.241.214]] 16:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to rip me apart for referring to it as the "number of people at each height", since y-axis is more complicated than a simple count. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214|108.162.241.214]] 16:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to say, Randall's horizontal slice isn't entirely meaningless. It's a calculation I've had to do, where I have a series of binned samples of a population (say I knew how many fell in -10..10, how many fell in -5..5, how many fell in -2..2) and wanted to combine them with an appropriate weighting to approximate a Gaussian. I was using it for filtering, but it's logically similar. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::Also, the slice sampler for MCMC is a trick for sampling from a distribution by "turning it on its side". But I don't think the 50% figure would be meaningful in that context. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.136|172.68.54.136]] 21:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pedant: etymologically, there *is* actually a connection between a normal (to a surface or line) and the normal distribution; the former comes from the Latin for a set square (giving you perpendicular), and it later came to mean "standard". The "tangential distribution" certainly fits the etymology of "odd/unusual" though. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the difference between Riemann(-Stieltjes) and Lebesgue integration. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.160|172.68.54.160]] 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As the axis are not labeled (see comic 833) we could consider this a multivariate distribution where one parameter is uniform and the other is normal. That was my first thought when I saw this. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.88|172.68.34.88]] 18:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any meaning to midpoint: 52.7%? Maybe that is the arbitrary center he formed the horizontal bounds around? Maybe it relates to data? Is this a reference to something? It's certainly reminiscent of how normal distributions produce statistically meaningful numbers that have weird decimals in them (like the % represented by being within so many standard deviations). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 19:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::Maybe it's because the meaning of "50% of the chart lies between these lines" specifically becomes roughly useless for discerning error if the lines are not centered around the origin. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 19:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::I might get it!!! The area between the lines is 52.7% of the total area: which means that 50% is technically included in what lies between them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 23:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The correct way to do this is to have the topmost vertical line equal to or above the top of the normal plot. Then the bottom-most line would represent the same values as vertical lines would. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 23:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Say I want to build a diverse team or a representative council. And it is more important that the selection is representative of several subpopulations (who should not be voted down by the majority) than that it gives an equal fair chance to anybody. I would cut away the absolute outliers and reduce the weight of the most abundant group - this gives just the area between the two lines. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 23:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Has somebody measured or calculated (by assuming normal distribution) the areas? It seems that the upper area is way smaller than the lower one, but both having the same 'height' in the middle. Is the 52.7% graphically correct? I tried half of the height at 0: .398942 and integrated, then I get 52,6% for the white area and 47,4% for the gray area. On the y-axis it seems that the three visible ticks are .1, .2, .3, then the gray area would be a bit broader than .2 and centered at .1. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 23:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Got [[356:_Nerd_Sniping|Nerd Sniped]] by the number "52.7%", but failed on an analytic solution and settled for a quick and dirty numerical integration instead, which suggested that the exact number might be somewhere between .5268 and .5269, so I think I'm not far from the truth. As I see it, the shaded area is vertically centered around the vertical midpoint, with a relative vertical width chosen such that the shaded area is exactly 50% of the total area under the curve. Just as usual, only with vertical instead of horizontal binning, which of course is the twist that makes this graph puzzling, funny, and completely useless for meaningful interpretation.
The label "52.7%" is not an addition to the Midpoint label but instead gives the width of the vertical bin, as a percentage of the vertical height of the curve. I read the tics on the vertical axis to indicate just quarters of the curve maximum, which is consistent with my understanding of "Midpoint".
Oh, and you are certainly right in that the marginal distributions at the top and the bottom are asymmetric, as is the gaussian when viewed sideways. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.64|172.68.110.64]] 23:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-03-01T10:23:31Z

172.68.110.100:

{{comic
| number = 2117
| date = February 27, 2019
| title = Differentiation and Integration
| image = differentiation_and_integration.png
| titletext = "Symbolic integration" is when you theatrically go through the motions of finding integrals, but the actual result you get doesn't matter because it's purely symbolic.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BESSEL FUNCTION? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic provides a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.

{{w|Derivative|Differentiation}} and {{w|Antiderivative|Integration}} are two major components of {{w|calculus}}. As many Calculus 2 students are painfully aware, integration is much more complicated than the differentiation it undoes.

However, Randall dramatically overstates this point here. After the first step of integration, Randall assumes that any integration can not be solved so simply, and then dives into a step named "????", suggesting that it is unknowable how to proceed. The rest of the flowchart is (we can assume deliberately) even harder to follow, and does not reach a conclusion. This is in contrast to the simple, straightforward flowchart for differentiation. The fact that the arrows in the bottom of the integration part leads to nowhere indicates that "Phone calls to mathematicians", "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" are not final steps in the difficult journey. The flowchart could be extended by Randall to God-know-where extents.

It should be noted that Randall slightly undermines his point by providing four different methods, and an "etc", and a "No"-branch for attempting differentiation with no guidelines for selecting between them.

===Differentiation===
'''{{w|Chain rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(g(x)))=f'(g(x))*g'(x)</math>.

'''{{w|Power Rule}}'''

For any <math> f(x)=x^a </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=a*x^{a-1} </math>.

'''{{w|Quotient rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)g(x)-f(x)g'(x)}{(g(x))^2}</math> if <math>g(x)\ne 0</math>.

'''{{w|Product rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(x)*g(x))=f'(x)*g(x)+f(x)*g'(x)</math>.

===Integration===
'''{{w|Integration by parts}}'''

The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Integration by substitution|Substitution}}'''

The "chain rule" run backwards. Since <math> d(f(u)) = (df(u))du</math>, it follows that <math>f(u) = \int df(u) du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>f, u</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int df(u) du</math> your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy's Formula}}'''

Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero.

'''{{w|Partial_fraction_decomposition#Application_to_symbolic_integration|Partial Fractions}}'''

Partial fractions is a technique for breaking up a function that comprises one polynomial divided by another into a sum of functions comprising constants over the factors of the original denominator, which can easily be integrated into logarithms.

'''Install {{w|Mathematica}}'''

Mathematica is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is to install and use Mathematica to do the integration for you. Here is a description about the [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/IntegralsThatCanAndCannotBeDone.html intricacies of integration and how Mathematica handles those] (It would be quicker to try [https://www.wolframalpha.com Wolfram Alpha] instead of installing Mathematica, which uses the same backend for mathematical calculations.)

'''{{w|Riemann integral|Riemann Integration}}'''

The Riemann integral is a definition of definite integration. <math>\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} f(t_i) \left(x_{i+1}-x_i\right).</math> Elementary textbooks on calculus sometimes present finding a definite integral as a process of approximating an area by strips of equal width and then taking the limit as the strips become narrower. Riemann integration removes the requirement that the strips have equal width, and so is a more flexible definition. However there are still many functions for which the Riemann integral doesn't converge, and consideration of these functions leads to the {{w|Lebesgue Integral}}. Riemann integration is not a method of calculus appropriate for finding the anti-derivative of an elementary function.

'''{{w|Stokes' Theorem}}'''

Stokes' theorem is a statement about the integration of differential forms on manifolds. <math>\int_{\partial \Omega}\omega=\int_\Omega d\omega\,.</math> If you're in this deep, there's a good chance that you're just randomly applying any analytical technique you can think of at this point.

'''{{w|Risch Algorithm}}'''

The Risch algorithm is a notoriously complex procedure that, given a certain class of symbolic integrand, either finds a symbolic integral or proves that no elementary integral exists. (Technically it is only a semi-algorithm, and cannot produce an answer unless it can determine if a certain symbolic expression is {{w|Constant problem|equal to 0}} or not.) Many computer algebra systems have chosen to implement only the simpler Risch-Norman algorithm, which does not come with the same guarantee. A series of extensions to the Risch algorithm extend the class of allowable functions to include (at least) the error function and the logarithmic integral. A human would have to be pretty desperate to attempt this (presumably) by hand.

'''{{w|Bessel function}}'''

Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation <math> x^2 \frac{dy^2}{dx^2}+x \frac{dy}{dx}+(x^2-n^2)*y=0</math>, where n is the order of Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.

'''{{w|Symbolic integration}}'''

Symbolic algebra is the basic process of finding an antiderivative, as opposed to numerically integrating a function. Randall plays off the joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because he can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.

'''Phone calls to mathematicians'''

This step would indicate that the flowchart user, desperate from failed attempts to solve the problem, contacts some more skilled mathematicians by phone, and presumably asks them for help. The connected steps of "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" may suggest the possibility that this interaction might not play out very well and could even get the caller in trouble.
Specialists and renowned experts being bothered - not to their amusement - by strangers, often at highly inconvenient times or locations, is a common comedic trope, also previously utilized by xkcd (for example in [[163: Donald Knuth]]).

'''Burn the evidence'''

This phrase parodies a common trope in detective fiction, where characters burn notes, receipts, passports, etc. to maintain secrecy. This may refer to the burning of one's work to avoid the shame of being associated w/ such a badly failed attempt to solve the given integration problem.

Alternatively, this could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so that the negative consequences of a persecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Two flow charts are shown.]

:[The first flow chart has four steps in simple order, one with multiple recommendations.]
:DIFFERENTIATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Chain Rule
::Power Rule
::Quotient Rule
::Product Rule
::Etc.
:Done?
::Yes
::No
:Done!

[The second flow chart begins like the first, then descends into chaos.]
:INTEGRATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Integration by Parts
::Substitution
:Done?
:Haha, Nope!

:[Chaos, Roughly from left to right, top to bottom, direction arrows not included.]
::Cauchy's Formula
::????
::???!?
::???
::???
::?
::Partial Fractions
::??
::?
::Install Mathematica
::?
::Riemann Integration
::Stokes' Theorem
::???
::?
::Risch Algorithm
::???
::[Sad face.]
::?????
::???
::What the heck is a Bessel Function??
::Phone calls to mathematicians
::Oh No
::Burn the Evidence
::[More arrows pointing out of the image to suggest more steps.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Analysis]]

2113: Physics Suppression

2019-02-19T10:39:32Z

172.68.110.100:

{{comic
| number = 2113
| date = February 18, 2019
| title = Physics Suppression
| image = physics_suppression.png
| titletext = If physics had a mafia, I'm pretty sure the BICEP2 mess would have ended in bloodshed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by the Physics Mafia. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[White Hat]] is mad at physicists in general and directs his fury at [[Megan]], a physicist. He has a theory and blames physicists for suppressing it. He believes that no one takes it seriously because his theory would disrupt the standard model in physics. He believes they do this because his theory would be inconvenient to accept, causing them to have to change their current models.

Megan is not taking him seriously and instead states that she did not know that physicists had a Mafia that was able to suppress anyone from publishing annoying results. She continues that if such a group were there to do so, then why were they not there to stop the people who published results about dark energy?

She acknowledges that the "dark energy people" were awarded a {{w|Nobel Prize}} (in {{w|List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics#Laureates|2011}}), but she's still mad at them for the "trouble" this new concept caused for other physicists, including her.

{{w|Dark energy}} is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Even though "dark energy" is a direct consequence of {{w|Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein's}} "{{w|cosmological constant}}" in the field equations of {{w|general relativity}}, its actual discovery was still seen as a surprise within the physics community. Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder"{{Citation needed}}, but the concept was revived after the observation that cosmic expansion was accelerating. In the comic, Megan says that if scientists were able to suppress inconvenient ideas, dark energy would likely have been such a case.

It should be noted that White Hat doesn't state that he actually has some results, but just a theory that contradicts known physics. The reason the "dark energy people" got a Nobel Prize is that the experiments and measurements show that they were onto something real. It seems like White Hat currently only has a model, and not data, to back his theory up which is probably why his theory is being ignored (which he decides to interpret as "suppression").

The title text mentions {{w|BICEP2}} (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization, 2nd generation) which was part of a series of instruments used to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). On 17 March 2014, it was announced, to much fanfare, that BICEP2 had detected B-modes from gravitational waves in the early universe (called primordial gravitational waves). A few years later, this announcement had to be backtracked as it was found that most, if not all, of the reported signal was actually due to interstellar dust within the Milky Way.{{Citation needed}} The word BICEP2 is a word play with the biceps brachii, a large arm muscle, indicative of physical strength.

The title text notes that if there had been a physics mafia, then those results would have ended in bloodshed due to the controversy they caused.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, with his hands balled into fist and held up above him, is talking with Megan.]
:White Hat: You physicists are suppressing my theory because it's inconvenient for your models!
:Megan: Wait, we have a mafia that can suppress annoying results?
:Megan: ''Why didn't they do something about the dark energy people?!''
:Megan: We gave them a Nobel prize but I'm still mad at them!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

2100: Models of the Atom

2019-01-28T10:20:10Z

172.68.110.100:

{{comic
| number = 2100
| date = January 18, 2019
| title = Models of the Atom
| image = models_of_the_atom.png
| titletext = J.J. Thompson won a Nobel Prize for his work in electricity in gases, but was unfairly passed over for his "An atom is plum pudding, and plum pudding is MADE of atoms! Duuuuude." theory.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a COMPLAINING EQUATION. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic humorously describes the changing view of what an {{w|atom}} is. This has happened so much it seems that we never really knew what we are looking at, and there have been many competing theories aside from the mainstream ones we are taught in school. He lists major depictions in the history of our understanding of an atom, and adds a few humorous ones in to poke fun at how diverse, contentious, and in retrospect often foolhardy, this history has been.

;Small hard ball model
The first model shown, in 1810, is said to be a "small hard ball model." Around this time, {{w|John Dalton}} published his textbook ''A New System of Chemical Philosophy'' which linked existing ideas of atomic theory and chemical reactivity to produce a combined {{w|Law of multiple proportions}} which proposed that each chemical element is comprised of a single unique type of atom, and introduced the concept of {{w|Molecular mass|molecular weight}}. Dalton's theories form the basis of what is known today as {{w|stoichiometry}}, which underpins chemical reactivity. As atoms were considered at this time to be the smallest possible division of matter the scientific community thought of them as "hard round balls" of different sizes; thus the name described here. The "small hard ball" model is still commonly used when teaching and discussing chemical molecules which do not require the level of detail provided by more advanced models, with atoms represented as small, hard, round balls connected by sticks representing chemical bonds.

;Plum pudding model
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the study of these "atom" things faced a crisis: where would the newly discovered "{{w|electron}}s" go? In 1904, physicist {{w|J. J. Thomson}}, who discovered electrons, had an idea: maybe the electrons were small point charges moving around in a big mass of positive charge. This was the "{{w|plum pudding model}}", the second model on the comic, called this because people imagined the positively charged mass as a "{{w|Christmas pudding|plum pudding}}". (The title text references Thomson as well, along with the humorous observation that plum puddings themselves are made of atoms.) The problem with this approach is that same charges generally repel, resulting in the more mobile or unbalanced charges forming a surface shell around the others, attempting to escape, rather than being content to being randomly distributed among them.

;Tiny bird model
There were many competing ideas in the formative years of what-are-atoms-made-of-ology, [[Randall]] makes up a 1907 "tiny bird model."

;Rutherford model
Ultimately, the tentative winner in the battle was the model of Thomson's student {{w|Ernest Rutherford}}, who discovered from electrostatic scattering experiments that the positive charge seemed to be concentrated in the center of the atom, and proposed his {{w|Rutherford model}}, or "planetary model", in 1911, where electrons orbit a very concentrated positive charge. This model has often been compared to the orbit of the planets around the sun, with the electrostatic attraction of the electrons and protons shaping the orbits, rather than gravity. This is the fourth model in the comic.

;Bohr model
The Rutherford model could not explain the discrete spectral lines in absorption and emission spectra. It also did not explain why electrons did not spiral in to the nucleus. {{w|Niels Bohr}} patched the model up by proposing that electrons could only exist in distinct "energy levels" at discrete distances from the nucleus. The 1913 "{{w|Bohr model}}", the fifth model shown here, was part of beginning quantum mechanics. Physics behaves differently at the small scale of atoms than the large scales we are more familiar with.

;Nunchuck model
Randall facetiously suggests a "{{w|Nunchaku|nunchuck}} model", the sixth model shown, of a packet of protons swinging a packet of electrons around. One can imagine a handle filled with electrons bonded by the strong nuclear force to a chain made of neutrons, bonded again by the strong nuclear force to a handle made of protons. The heavier protonic handle acts loosely as an orbital center as the electron-filled opposite handle swings wildly around it, attempting to resolve its electrostatic attraction within the restraints of its chain.

;Chadwick model
The next refinement was in the structure of the nucleus. Note that at this time, nobody thought of splitting up the nucleus into {{w|proton}}s and {{w|neutron}}s. But pretty soon people noticed that protons and neutrons existed; {{w|James Chadwick}}, who discovered the neutron, figured that the atom had a nucleus of neutrons and protons, along with a bunch of electrons orbiting around it in a Bohrish manner. This is what the layman today often thinks of as an atom, and is the seventh model shown here.

;538 Model
The eighth model shown is a made up "538 model," in 2008. {{w|FiveThirtyEight|538}} is a statistical analysis website that gained fame in 2008 for predicting every race but 2 correctly in the {{w|2008 United States presidential election|US presidential election}} and predicting every state and Obama's win in the 2012 election. Unlike most other media and polling institutes it saw a rather high probability of 29% for Trump to win the 2016 election by summing up the uncertainties in all the battle states. It has since been known for making mathematical models for everything; the model jokingly suggests that 538 has modeled and presumably made predictions about the atom. The {{w|pie chart}} shows the statistical composition of neutrons, protons and electrons, 38%, 31%, and 31% respectively. This could either be the average of a massive body with several isotopes or represent gallium-69, the most abundant {{w|Isotopes of gallium|isotope of gallium}}, with 31 protons, 31 electrons and 38 neutrons. FiveThirtyEight has previously been mentioned in several xkcd comics, including in [[477: Typewriter]], [[500: Election]], [[635: Locke and Demosthenes]], [[1130: Poll Watching]], [[1779: 2017]], and [[2002: LeBron James and Stephen Curry]]. It's appropriate to list the 538 model as a precursor to the quantum model, as it is a step towards considering the likelihood of different quantities of subatomic particles to be in different volumes of space, rather than considering them as strictly kinematic particles. The comic moves this development into 2008 in support of this joke, when it was actually made much earlier.

;Quantum model
But is the Chadwick model what scientists endorse today? No!
{{w|Maxwell's equations|The theory of electromagnetism}} says that accelerated charges, like the electrons circling, would lose energy emitted as electromagnetic waves and would quickly orbit into the nucleus. Bohr only postulated that this would not happen, but his model could not explain why. Another problem{{Citation needed}} is that atoms, even the hydrogen atom are not flat - which they would be, if a single electron orbited in a circular or elliptical trajectory (the circular motion of charge results in a magnetic moment; Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach {{w|Stern–Gerlach experiment|showed}} that independent from the direction of the measurement the angular momentum - for certain elements - always has the maximum positive or negative value, i.e. not only the radius, but also the angular momentum is quantized - and never zero. You cannot 'look at' the atom from above and 'see' the orbital circle. It always 'seems', as if you 'looked' from the side and would measure the full magnetic dipole. Stern and Gerlach actually saw the spin of an electron of the silver atom instead of the angular momentum, which is according to quantum mechanics 0).
Today (i.e. actually since 1926, 29 years after the discovery of the electron) physicists subscribe to a quantum model, which is the ninth model shown here. Instead of electrons with definite location and momentum (~speed), the parts of the atom are described by probability fields of possible locations and momentums. The changes in momentum probability normally cancel each other out, so there is no electromagnetic radiation. This is very abstract, and in the last model, the model is postulated to get so abstract that it is just a "small hard ball surrounded by math" model, the last model shown. This then is remarkably similar to the model we started out from, the "small hard ball model" (without the math).

;“Small hard ball surrounded by math” model
The picture for the "small ball surrounded by math" depicts a circle with several numbers around it. While the numbers seem to symbolize the "surrounding math" in a general sense, some of them suggest constants used in actual mathematical equations or other numbers related to the quantum model. The shapes and densities of the atomic orbitals are calculated with the {{w|Schrödinger equation}}, which is complex and difficult to solve. Or with string theory, which does not make it easier. For this reason atoms are generally precisely considered in only very simple simulations, and the details of interactions of many atoms at large scales that form our daily lives are incredibly hard to precisely understand and predict on an atomic level. It comes down to "these roundish things we call atoms are moving around in these approximate ways obeying this complex equation with too many numbers involved in most situations to accurately model, so let's use a different, empirically derived formula that describes the behavior of the system in general."

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Number !! Explanation
|-
| 18 || Maximum number of electrons in the third (M) {{w|electron shell}}
|-
| 0.1 || 1/10th, a simple decimal
|-
| π || The {{w|Pi|number pi}} ratio of circumference of a circle to half its diameter. Pi is present in many physics equations, often as its double value (2π); also in the definition of the {{w|Planck_constant#Value|reduced Planck constant}} present in quantum-mechanical equations.
|-
| 173 || Possibly a typo (could be 137) referring to the fine structure constant which value is approximately 1/137
|-
| √2 || An irrational constant, the square root of two, which comes up frequently
|-
| 4i || A simple complex number; i is considered the square root of -1 (4i is the square root of -16)
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[One large panel with a caption centered on top and ten small drawings in two rows. Each drawing has a description below it.]

:'''Models of the Atom'''
:over time

:[A somewhat imperfectly drawn circle.]
:1810 Small hard ball model

:[A rounded-corners trapezoid inside which there are four small plus signs and four small circles with minus signs inside them.]
:1904 Plum pudding model

:[A bigger circle, with four birds on the surface and music notes above.]
:1907 Tiny bird model

:[A small circle with dots circling around it, drawn with paths.]
:1911 Rutherford model

:[A circle with a plus sign with three circles around it, each with a dot.]
:1913 Bohr model

:[A nunchuck swinging, with the left stick filled with circles with plus signs and the right stick filled with circles with minus signs.]
:1928 Nunchuck model

:[A nucleus with three circles around it, each with a dot.]
:1932 Chadwick model

:[A pie chart, where a part of it has a circle, a part of it has a circle with a minus sign and a part of it has a circle with a plus sign.]
:2008 538 model

:[A small circle with clover-like orbitals around it and surrounded by two outer partly dashed circles.]
:Today Quantum model

:[A circle surrounded with numbers.]
:Numbers: 18, 0.1, π, 173, √2, 4i
:Future "Small hard ball surrounded by math" model

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] 
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]

2100: Models of the Atom

2019-01-23T16:43:50Z

172.68.110.100:

{{comic
| number = 2100
| date = January 18, 2019
| title = Models of the Atom
| image = models_of_the_atom.png
| titletext = J.J. Thompson won a Nobel Prize for his work in electricity in gases, but was unfairly passed over for his "An atom is plum pudding, and plum pudding is MADE of atoms! Duuuuude." theory.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a COMPLAINING EQUATION. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic humorously describes the changing view of what an {{w|atom}} is. This has happened so much it seems that we never really knew what we are looking at, and there have been many competing theories aside from the mainstream ones we are taught in school. He lists major depictions in the history of our understanding of an atom, and adds a few humorous ones in to poke fun at how diverse, contentious, and in retrospect often foolhardy, this history has been.

;Small hard ball model
The first model shown, in 1810, is said to be a "small hard ball model." Around this time, {{w|John Dalton}} published his textbook ''A New System of Chemical Philosophy'' which linked existing ideas of atomic theory and chemical reactivity to produce a combined {{w|Law of multiple proportions}} which proposed that each chemical element is comprised of a single unique type of atom, and introduced the concept of {{w|Molecular mass|molecular weight}}. Dalton's theories form the basis of what is known today as {{w|stoichiometry}}, which underpins chemical reactivity. As atoms were considered at this time to be the smallest possible division of matter the scientific community thought of them as "hard round balls" of different sizes; thus the name described here. The "small hard ball" model is still commonly used when teaching and discussing chemical molecules which do not require the level of detail provided by more advanced models, with atoms represented as small, hard, round balls connected by sticks representing chemical bonds.

;Plum pudding model
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the study of these "atom" things faced a crisis: where would the newly discovered "{{w|electron}}s" go? In 1904, physicist {{w|J. J. Thomson}}, who discovered electrons, had an idea: maybe the electrons were small point charges moving around in a big mass of positive charge. This was the "{{w|plum pudding model}}", the second model on the comic, called this because people imagined the positively charged mass as a "{{w|Christmas pudding|plum pudding}}". (The title text references Thomson as well, along with the humorous observation that plum puddings themselves are made of atoms.) The problem with this approach is that same charges generally repel, resulting in the more mobile or unbalanced charges forming a surface shell around the others, attempting to escape, rather than being content to being randomly distributed among them.

;Tiny bird model
There were many competing ideas in the formative years of what-are-atoms-made-of-ology, [[Randall]] makes up a 1907 "tiny bird model."

;Rutherford model
Ultimately, the tentative winner in the battle was the model of Thomson's student {{w|Ernest Rutherford}}, who discovered from electrostatic scattering experiments that the positive charge seemed to be concentrated in the center of the atom, and proposed his {{w|Rutherford model}}, or "planetary model", in 1911, where electrons orbit a very concentrated positive charge. This model has often been compared to the orbit of the planets around the sun, with the electrostatic attraction of the electrons and protons shaping the orbits, rather than gravity. This is the fourth model in the comic.

;Bohr model
The Rutherford model could not explain the discrete spectral lines in absorption and emission spectra. It also did not explain why electrons did not spiral in to the nucleus. {{w|Niels Bohr}} patched the model up by proposing that electrons could only exist in distinct "energy levels" at discrete distances from the nucleus. The 1913 "{{w|Bohr model}}", the fifth model shown here, was part of beginning quantum mechanics. Physics behaves differently at the small scale of atoms than the large scales we are more familiar with.

;Nunchuck model
Randall facetiously suggests a "{{w|Nunchaku|nunchuck}} model", the sixth model shown, of a packet of protons swinging a packet of electrons around. One can imagine a handle filled with electrons bonded by the strong nuclear force to a chain made of neutrons, bonded again by the strong nuclear force to a handle made of protons. The heavier protonic handle acts loosely as an orbital center as the electron-filled opposite handle swings wildly around it, attempting to resolve its electrostatic attraction within the restraints of its chain.

;Chadwick model
The next refinement was in the structure of the nucleus. Note that at this time, nobody thought of splitting up the nucleus into {{w|proton}}s and {{w|neutron}}s. But pretty soon people noticed that protons and neutrons existed; {{w|James Chadwick}}, who discovered the neutron, figured that the atom had a nucleus of neutrons and protons, along with a bunch of electrons orbiting around it in a Bohrish manner. This is what the layman today often thinks of as an atom, and is the seventh model shown here.

;538 Model
The eighth model shown is a made up "538 model," in 2008. {{w|FiveThirtyEight|538}} is a statistical analysis website that gained fame in 2008 for predicting every race but 2 correctly in the {{w|2008 United States presidential election|US presidential election}} and predicting every state and Obama's win in the 2012 election. Unlike most other media and polling institutes it saw a rather high probability of 29% for Trump to win the 2016 election by summing up the uncertainties in all the battle states. It has since been known for making mathematical models for everything; the model jokingly suggests that 538 has modeled and presumably made predictions about the atom. The {{w|pie chart}} shows the statistical composition of neutrons, protons and electrons, 38%, 31%, and 31% respectively. This could either be the average of a massive body with several isotopes or represent gallium-69, the most abundant {{w|Isotopes of gallium|isotope of gallium}}, with 31 protons, 31 electrons and 38 neutrons. FiveThirtyEight has previously been mentioned in several xkcd comics, including in [[477: Typewriter]], [[500: Election]], [[635: Locke and Demosthenes]], [[1130: Poll Watching]], [[1779: 2017]], and [[2002: LeBron James and Stephen Curry]]. It's appropriate to list the 538 model as a precursor to the quantum model, as it is a step towards considering the likelihood of different quantities of subatomic particles to be in different volumes of space, rather than considering them as strictly kinematic particles. The comic moves this development into 2008 in support of this joke, when it was actually made much earlier.

;Quantum model
But is the Chadwick model what scientists endorse today? No!
{{w|Maxwell's equations|The theory of electromagnetism}} says that accelerated charges, like the electrons circling, would lose energy emitted as electromagnetic waves and would quickly orbit into the nucleus. Bohr only postulated that this would not happen, but his model could not explain why. Another problem{{Citation needed}} is that atoms, even the hydrogen atom are not flat - which they would be, if a single electron orbited in a circular or elliptical trajectory (the circular motion of charge results in a magnetic moment; Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach {{w|Stern–Gerlach experiment|showed}} that independent from the direction of the measurement the angular momentum always has the maximum positive or negative value, i.e. not only the radius, but also the angular momentum is quantized - and never zero. You cannot 'look at' the atom from above and 'see' the orbital circle. It always 'seems', as if you 'looked' from the side and would measure the full magnetic dipole).
Today (i.e. actually since 1926, 29 years after the discovery of the electron) physicists subscribe to a quantum model, which is the ninth model shown here. Instead of electrons with definite location and momentum (~speed), the parts of the atom are described by probability fields of possible locations and momentums. The changes in momentum probability normally cancel each other out, so there is no electromagnetic radiation. This is very abstract, and in the last model, the model is postulated to get so abstract that it is just a "small hard ball surrounded by math" model, the last model shown. This then is remarkably similar to the model we started out from, the "small hard ball model" (without the math).

;“Small hard ball surrounded by math” model
The picture for the "small ball surrounded by math" depicts a circle with several numbers around it. While the numbers seem to symbolize the "surrounding math" in a general sense, some of them suggest constants used in actual mathematical equations or other numbers related to the quantum model. The shapes and densities of the atomic orbitals are calculated with the {{w|Schrödinger equation}}, which is complex and difficult to solve. Or with string theory, which does not make it easier. For this reason atoms are generally precisely considered in only very simple simulations, and the details of interactions of many atoms at large scales that form our daily lives are incredibly hard to precisely understand and predict on an atomic level. It comes down to "these roundish things we call atoms are moving around in these approximate ways obeying this complex equation with too many numbers involved in most situations to accurately model, so let's use a different, empirically derived formula that describes the behavior of the system in general."

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Number !! Explanation
|-
| 18 || Maximum number of electrons in the third (M) {{w|electron shell}}
|-
| 0.1 || 1/10th, a simple decimal
|-
| π || The {{w|Pi|number pi}} ratio of circumference of a circle to half its diameter. Pi is present in many physics equations, often as its double value (2π); also in the definition of the {{w|Planck_constant#Value|reduced Planck constant}} present in quantum-mechanical equations.
|-
| 173 || Possibly a typo (could be 137) referring to the fine structure constant which value is approximately 1/137
|-
| √2 || An irrational constant, the square root of two, which comes up frequently
|-
| 4i || A simple complex number; i is considered the square root of -1 (4i is the square root of -16)
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[One large panel with a caption centered on top and ten small drawings in two rows. Each drawing has a description below it.]

:'''Models of the Atom'''
:over time

:[A somewhat imperfectly drawn circle.]
:1810 Small hard ball model

:[A rounded-corners trapezoid inside which there are four small plus signs and four small circles with minus signs inside them.]
:1904 Plum pudding model

:[A bigger circle, with four birds on the surface and music notes above.]
:1907 Tiny bird model

:[A small circle with dots circling around it, drawn with paths.]
:1911 Rutherford model

:[A circle with a plus sign with three circles around it, each with a dot.]
:1913 Bohr model

:[A nunchuck swinging, with the left stick filled with circles with plus signs and the right stick filled with circles with minus signs.]
:1928 Nunchuck model

:[A nucleus with three circles around it, each with a dot.]
:1932 Chadwick model

:[A pie chart, where a part of it has a circle, a part of it has a circle with a minus sign and a part of it has a circle with a plus sign.]
:2008 538 model

:[A small circle with clover-like orbitals around it and surrounded by two outer partly dashed circles.]
:Today Quantum model

:[A circle surrounded with numbers.]
:Numbers: 18, 0.1, π, 173, √2, 4i
:Future "Small hard ball surrounded by math" model

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] 
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]

2014: JWST Delays

2018-07-03T12:21:19Z

172.68.110.100:

{{comic
| number = 2014
| date = July 2, 2018
| title = JWST Delays
| image = jwst_delays.png
| titletext = Since delays should get less likely closer to the launch, most astronomers in 2018 believed the expansion of the schedule was slowing, but by early 2020 new measurements indicated that it was actually accelerating.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DELAYED TELESCOPE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The {{w|James Webb Space Telescope}} (JWST) is a {{w|space telescope}} that was created to be the successor of the {{w|Hubble Space Telescope}}.

The telescope has been in development since 1996, but has been plagued by numerous delays and cost overruns. As of July 2, 2018, the JWST is scheduled to launch on March 30, 2021.

This comic portrays the launch delays and the new predicted launch years and the times at which those predictions were made. There have been so many delays in this project that you can plot a line of best fit with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy. Randall says optimistically that the line’s slope is less than one (there is less than one year of ''new'' delay per year of elapsed time), implying, of course, that if events continue without further intervention, it will eventually be built, with a predicted date of late 2026.

The title text compares the famous research over the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe universe’s accelerating expansion] to the apparently ever-delaying schedule and observes that the delay per time does not decrease, although the date gets nearer (which should help to schedule the launch date, as research and unknown parameters are replaced with engineering and exact predictions and measurements).

The Wikipedia article linked above includes a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Cost_and_schedule_issues table] which provides the data points for the chart:

{| class=wikitable
! width=35 | Year !! Planned launch !! Time left (years)
|-
| 1997 || 2007 || 10
|-
| 1998 || 2007 || 9
|-
| 1999 || 2007 to 2008 || 8-9
|-
| 2000 || 2009 || 9
|-
| 2002 || 2010 || 8
|-
| 2003 || 2011 || 8
|-
| 2005 || 2013 || 8
|-
| 2006 || 2014 || 8
|-
| 2008 || 2014 || 6
|-
| 2010 || 2015 to 2016 || 5-6
|-
| 2011 || 2018 || 7
|-
| 2013 || 2018 || 5
|-
| 2017 || 2019 || 2
|-
|2018 || 2020 || 2
|-
|2018 || 2021 || 3
|}

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

{{comic discussion}}

2014: JWST Delays

2018-07-03T12:19:37Z

172.68.110.100: There are no allusions to as many delay points that they full an universe in the title text

{{comic
| number = 2014
| date = July 2, 2018
| title = JWST Delays
| image = jwst_delays.png
| titletext = Since delays should get less likely closer to the launch, most astronomers in 2018 believed the expansion of the schedule was slowing, but by early 2020 new measurements indicated that it was actually accelerating.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DELAYED TELESCOPE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The {{w|James Webb Space Telescope}} (JWST) is a {{w|space telescope}} that was created to be the successor of the {{w|Hubble Space Telescope}}.

The telescope has been in development since 1996, but has been plagued by numerous delays and cost overruns. As of July 2, 2018, the JWST is scheduled to launch on March 30, 2021.

This comic portrays the launch delays and the new predicted launch years and the times at which those predictions were made. There have been so many delays in this project that you can plot a line of best fit with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy. Randall says optimistically that the line’s slope is less than one (there is less than one year of ''new'' delay per year of elapsed time), implying, of course, that if events continue without further intervention, it will eventually be built, with a predicted date of late 2026.

The title text compares the research over the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe universe’s accelerating expansion] to the apparently ever-delaying schedule and observes that the delay per time does not decrease, although the date gets nearer (which should help to schedule the launch date, as research and unknown parameters are replaced with engineering and exact predictions and measurements).

The Wikipedia article linked above includes a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Cost_and_schedule_issues table] which provides the data points for the chart:

{| class=wikitable
! width=35 | Year !! Planned launch !! Time left (years)
|-
| 1997 || 2007 || 10
|-
| 1998 || 2007 || 9
|-
| 1999 || 2007 to 2008 || 8-9
|-
| 2000 || 2009 || 9
|-
| 2002 || 2010 || 8
|-
| 2003 || 2011 || 8
|-
| 2005 || 2013 || 8
|-
| 2006 || 2014 || 8
|-
| 2008 || 2014 || 6
|-
| 2010 || 2015 to 2016 || 5-6
|-
| 2011 || 2018 || 7
|-
| 2013 || 2018 || 5
|-
| 2017 || 2019 || 2
|-
|2018 || 2020 || 2
|-
|2018 || 2021 || 3
|}

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

{{comic discussion}}

1989: IMHO

2018-05-08T10:18:46Z

172.68.110.100: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1989
| date = May 4, 2018
| title = IMHO
| image = imho.png
| titletext = "Ugh, TMI." "Yeah, that's some tantalizing meat info."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Needs to be expanded. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The conversation begins with a reference to the controversy between whether IMHO stands for "in my '''honest''' opinion" or "in my '''humble''' opinion". Some older Internet users, including Cueball, use the H to mean "humble", which Cueball references as being the norm in the 1990s. However, many younger Internet users, including, apparently, Ponytail, use it to mean "honest", which became the norm after another SMS abbreviation, TBH (to be honest) became popular c. 2011 [https://trends.google.de/trends/explore?date=all&q=tbh,imho]. However, the joke veers into absurdity with Ponytail sharing her unusual opinions on other Internet controversies, including:

*Believing the G in {{w|GIF}} (Graphics Interchange Format) is silent, so she pronounces it "if", as opposed to the two main camps claiming it should be either a soft G (as in "giantess") or a hard G (as in "graphics").
*Believing that the S in SMDH (shaking my damn head) stands for "swallowing".
*Believing that the G in OMG (Oh, my God or Oh, my Goodness) stands for either "giantess" or "genitals."
*Believing a viral picture of {{w|the_dress|a dress}} that usually appears black and blue to some people and white and gold to others is actually black and white. Though the dress may also appear blue and brown to some people, virtually no individual perceives the dress as black and white. The dress was previously mentioned in [[1492: Dress Color]].
*Believing that the database language {{w|SQL}} (Structured Query Language) is pronounced "squill" as opposed to the two main camps claiming it should be "sequel" (two syllables) or sounding out the initials S-Q-L ("ess cue ell"; three syllables).
*Using {{w|tab_key|tabs}} after {{w|Full_stop|periods}}, instead of the two main opposing camps of using either one or two {{w|Sentence spacing|spaces}}. Before the 20th Century, it was common typographical practice to use an em-space (or other similar wide-space) between sentences. In the 1930s, common practice was to use smaller inter-sentence spacing, and by the 1950s, inter-sentence spaces were the same size as inter-word spaces. Although modern style guides all insist on single-spacing between sentences, many people prefer to include two spaces, possibly out of habit from typewriter usage (which commonly used two spaces to mimic the 19th century typographic standards). (See also: [[1285: Third Way]].) Tabs vs. Spaces also refer to the programmers' debate on how to {{w|Indentation_(typesetting)#Indentation_in_programming|indent}} code correctly.

In the last panel, Cueball exclaims "OMG" (meaning "Oh, my God") to which Megan replies "Yeah, mine too", taking the meaning as "Oh, my genitals" from the 5th panel. This leads to the title text "TMI" (too much information). The pun on periods (typographical and menstruation) might also explain the reaction.

In the title text, another incorrect belief Ponytail has is believing TMI to be "tantalizing meat info," as opposed to too much information. (Remarkably, this makes sense in the context of Megan's comment about her genitals.)

The comic also obliquely references the mistaken opinion that Website polling is an accurate measure of anything; selection bias (among many other problems) renders them almost useless for measuring the general population.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, Megan, and Ponytail stand together, talking.]
:Cueball: I thought the "H" in "IMHO" was "humble," but Buzzfeed ran a poll and "honest" won.
:Megan: That can't be true. Their readers are messing with us.

:[Cueball and Megan look at Ponytail.]
:Ponytail: Are you sure? I always used it to mean "honest."
:Megan: ...What?!

:[Close up of Cueball holding a phone. A box with usage of "IMHO" and "TBH" from Google Trends shows "TBH" suddenly rising in 2011, with a second spike in 2014.]
:Cueball: It was definitely "humble" in the 1990s.
:Cueball: Maybe people who picked it up after the rise of "TBH" in 2011 interpreted it as "honest" and used it that way.

:[Cueball, Megan, and Ponytail as before.]
:Megan: I can't get over this. What other wrong opinions do you have?
:Megan: The "G" in "G-I-F"?
:Ponytail: Silent.

:[Close up of Ponytail, with Megan talking from offscreen.]
:Megan: The "S" in "SMDH"?
:Ponytail: "Swallowing."
:Megan: The "G" in "OMG"?
:Ponytail: "Giantess" or "genitals."

:[Cueball, Megan, and Ponytail as before.]
:Megan: The Dress?
:Ponytail: Black and white.
:Megan: Is the database language "sequel" or "ess cue ell"?
:Ponytail: I've always said "squill."

:Cueball: Okay, the big one: how many spaces after a period?
:Ponytail: None; I use tabs.
:Cueball: OMG.
:Megan: Yeah, mine too.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

Talk:1989: IMHO

2018-05-08T10:17:20Z

172.68.110.100:

I mean, the dress is b&w if you have one of the forms of colorblindness. Although, what colors ''is'' it? [[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 16:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
: The gold/black part is 61522F hex and the white/blue part is 8190B2 hex. So it's brown and blue. [[User:Grabadora304|Grabadora304]] ([[User talk:Grabadora304|talk]]) 16:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
::So that explains the colors represented by the photo; what about the colors of the dress itself? I'd guess black & gold, based purely upon the discussions I've heard. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:::The dress was blue with black lace. And I've added the fact that Randall had made a comic because of the dress ([[1492: Dress Color]]). [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently adding transcript. [[User:Chbs|Chbs]] ([[User talk:Chbs|talk]]) 16:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:Did top row. Feel free to format it differently. [[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 16:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
::''Screams in edit conflicts.'' [[User:Chbs|Chbs]] ([[User talk:Chbs|talk]]) 16:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:::Okay, I've normalized the formatting to what seems to be the standard: uniform indent with ":".[[User:Chbs|Chbs]] ([[User talk:Chbs|talk]]) 16:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:::: What about using tabs? ;D
::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK In normal (British) usage the phrase is "In my humble opinion" and I have heard it said, when someone prefaces their contribution with IMHO it is rarely humble but is definitely an opinion. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 16:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:The weirdos reading/using it as "honest" _might_ have a problem with the relatively common "IMNSHO." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.41|172.68.58.41]] 14:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No lie, I had a manager who used to refer to the database language as Squeal. As in a high-pitched animal sound. We had an in-house database tool called PiggySQL. [[User:Thaledison|Thaledison]] ([[User talk:Thaledison|talk]]) 17:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:I've always preferred that pronunciation too. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Dammit. Now my brain will always translate "OMG" to "oh, my genitals".[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.167|172.68.58.167]] 17:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Pat
:Actually I will keep this in mind. If someone OMGs me in a "discussion" on the web my response will be: Just scratch... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.10|172.68.51.10]] 18:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
::+1 And I didn't even know what "tbh" means, but then Im probably getting old. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.100|172.68.110.100]] 10:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The single space convention became the standard [[wikipedia:History_of_sentence_spacing#Movement_to_single_sentence_spacing|waaay before HTML]]. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 18:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:Standard, but less readable. For printed documents (especially stories with a lot of lengthy paragraphs) I'd still strongly recommend using double spaces because it's easier for the reader to discern sentence breaks. Incidentally, I had points deducted from English papers lacking that extra space as late as 1998.
:(By the way, that link you gave is broken:
:"Trouble Encountered ~ can't fetch document")
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:: If you print documents with monospace font, using just single space is NOT the main reason it's hard to read. You should use proportional font and tool actually designed to handle printing, which include having better option than using two spaces. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
:Using extra-wide space between sentences (not necessarily two spaces) goes back to the earliest days of printing, long before the invention of typewriters.     As a matter of fact, the practice of double-spacing sentences with typewriters got started by trying to mimic the printing practices of the time.     It was only in the mid-20th century (with the 1949 edition of the Chicago Manual of Style) that the recommendation became "one space", in 1969 when they stopped mentioning the earlier customs, and in the 21st century where they explicitly prohibit any alternative.     There's a [https://web.archive.org/web/20171207185025/http://www.heracliteanriver.com/?p=324 great article about this] that explains the history in great detail.     (Sadly, that blog no longer exists, but the Wayback Machine has preserved the content).     [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 15:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Tabs vs Spaces might also be a reference to the programmer's war on how to indent code correctly. [[User:Ruffy314|Ruffy314]] ([[User talk:Ruffy314|talk]]) 19:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:Agreed. I prefer " " (U+2003, A.K.A. &emsp;)
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
:: Did you ever manage to RUN some of those programs? :) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm reading too much in this, but there is a popular product called "cramp tabs" for use during and right after a period [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]])

I hate to be that guy, but I pronounce Giantess and Gift the same way.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 11:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

== SQL Pronunciation ==

For Microsoft's ''SQL Server'', "SQL" should be pronounced "sequel" because it's Microsoft's product, and that's how they pronounce it. I notice young I.T. people tend to try to make abbreviations into pronounceable words (acronyms) rather than go letter-by-letter (initialisms). Many older I.T. people I've met prefer initialism pronunciation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.10|172.68.150.10]] 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The term "SQL" existed long before Microsoft started playing; they do not get to change the pronunciation. I do not think that it is necessarily young IT people who prefer pronouncable words. "SCSI" being pronounced "scuzzy" has a long tradition. For myself, I usually say "S-Q-L" but have also used "squeal". I am 57. Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.220|108.162.216.220]] 01:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
:I'm aware SQL existed long before Microsoft got into the act. It started as SEQUEL for "Structured English Query Language". Nor did I intend to say that Microsoft dictated the pronunciation for all SQL. In the first sentence, I was only referring to their product. I use "sequel" for Microsoft's product, but mostly "ess-kew-el" for others. For some reason, my remarks as typed came out shorter than as thought. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.76|172.68.150.76]] 14:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible the last panel is punning on menstruation?

ANOTHER one where talking about a debate invents the debate for me! For decades GIF was pronounced "jif" by literally everyone since they were invented, until Big Bang Theory taught me some people (including them) pronounce it wrong. Then SQL, which everyone I've ever met - including in SQL class - pronounced it as S.Q.L., by letters (my favourite was when I learned of this debate, someone saying they used another word with the letters in the right places that was odd, I think "Squeal", which I resolved to use myself, but forgot since it never comes up for me). Now IMHO? This comic is literally the first I hear of this. Another one with a clear answer and no reason for debate: It's an acronym applied to an ages old phrase, which predates all this texting / internet stuff. The saying is "In My Humble Opinion", therefore so is the acronym. That's it. Mixing it up with TBH doesn't make it correct, just like "Should of / would of" isn't correct, nor is "for all intensive purposes", or "ect", or many, many others.

== Typing Spaces ==
As for the spaces-after-period thing, I was taught 2 in several typing courses, but quickly dropped it to one as a waste of space (I don't mean I think there's a limit to how many times we can use the space bar, I mean to keep things compact, LOL!) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I, too, was taught to type two spaces after a full stop. I think it had something to do with the font most typewriters used. On a web page, the HTML processor seems to remove extra spaces. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.76|172.68.150.76]] 14:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
:Yes, HTML collapses all whitespace.    Runs of whitespace characters (spaces, tabs, newlines) are all collapsed and rendered as a single space.    But there are workarounds.    One of the easiest is to use non-breaking-space characters (<TT>&nbsp;</TT>), which are not collapsed.    You can see the effect of using them in this comment.    [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 13:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

464: RBA

2017-08-22T16:06:51Z

172.68.110.100: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 464
| date = August 18, 2008
| title = RBA
| image = rba.png
| titletext = This is a story all about how I started drinking.
}}

==Explanation==
A [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bel%20Air Bel-Air] is an internet meme where a poster on a message board starts a post on a serious topic, but partway through the post switches to repeating the lyrics to the opening theme song of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air", a 1990s sitcom starring Will Smith (previously known in his rapping career as the "Fresh Prince") as a street-smart teenager from West Philadelphia who has been sent to live with his affluent and stuffy Aunt and Uncle in Bel Air, Los Angeles by his mother as a consequence of a single altercation with a couple of no-good guys who were making trouble in his previous neighbourhood.

[[Megan]] in the comic reverses the traditional arrangement by starting the conversation with a recitation of the lyrics to said theme song, and then switching partway through to a very serious discussion of the status of their relationship culminating in a break up.

The lyrics go like this:

:Now this is the story all about how
:My life got flipped, turned upside down
:And I'd like to take a minute just sit right there
:I'll tell you how I became ''the prince of a town called Bel-air''

The title ''RBA'' is an initialism for ''Reverse Bel-Air''.

The title text is a play with the usual meaning of someone becoming an alcoholic (in this case because of the breakup), but in this case refers to the actual fact that Cueball had just started drinking (a glass of water) when Megan started talking to him.

==Transcript==
:[Megan walks up to Cueball pouring himself a drink.]
:Megan: Now, this is a story all about how

:Megan: My life got flipped turned upside down

:Megan: And I'd like to take a minute
:Megan: Just sit right there

:Megan: I'll tell you how I became uncertain about our relationship. I think you just like having a girlfriend, it doesn't matter who.
:Megan: I think we should break up.

:The reverse Bel-Air only works once, so make it something unforgettable.
:[Cut to dropped glass, drink spilled on ground.]
:Cueball: ...wait, seriously?
:Megan: Yeah.

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

Talk:1873: Email Reply

2017-08-08T00:17:41Z

172.68.110.100:

This is me! :) Though I tend to alternate between overly apologetic replies to just deleting anything older than two years. [[User:RoyT|RoyT]] ([[User talk:RoyT|talk]]) 14:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably doesn't belong in the comic explanation, but this from the "Reply All" podcast needs to be here: https://emaildebtforgiveness.me/[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 15:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this a reprise of an earlier comic? I know I've seen kxcd cover this topic before....[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.70|172.68.150.70]] 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
: - Yes, I see it now, https://www.xkcd.com/1783/ 'Emails' {{unsigned ip|172.68.150.70}}

;Possible joke?
So, I don't know if Randall did this on purpose, or if it was just my computer, but I could not access the comic in the morning. Maybe he did this on purpose, since the comic is about being late to respond to emails?[[User:Dretler|Dretler]] ([[User talk:Dretler|talk]]) 19:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
:The comic was released between 14:30 and 14:32 UTC today. Unless you are living in Alaska this shouldn't be ''morning''. Most comics are released at these times; sometimes even later. Only a few comics were available a 00:00 Randall home time (04:00 UTC). --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

;Possible joke?
In form the message bears a resemblance to Eminem's response to Stan in the song "Stan" - it could easily be coincidence, as it's also a fairly standard format for a late response. {{unsigned ip|141.101.107.174}}

;Play on comic id's?
As was mentioned earlier https://www.xkcd.com/1783/ also is about email so is it by design or coincidence that 1783 and 1873 are about emails? [[User:Roo|Roo]] ([[User talk:Roo|talk]])

;Typical LinkedIn Email:
<pre>
[LinkedIn Logo]

[Name] would like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond?

[Photo][Name]
[Job Title] at [Company]

Confirm you know [Name]

You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe
This email was sent to [your email address].
If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.

© 2017 LinkedIn Corporation, 1000 West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085. LinkedIn and the LinkedIn logo are registered trademarks of LinkedIn.
</pre>
This email is repeated with reminders and is probably sent automatically by scanning email address books or even past emails.

Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.100|172.68.110.100]] 00:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1873: Email Reply

2017-08-08T00:17:03Z

172.68.110.100:

This is me! :) Though I tend to alternate between overly apologetic replies to just deleting anything older than two years. [[User:RoyT|RoyT]] ([[User talk:RoyT|talk]]) 14:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably doesn't belong in the comic explanation, but this from the "Reply All" podcast needs to be here: https://emaildebtforgiveness.me/[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 15:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this a reprise of an earlier comic? I know I've seen kxcd cover this topic before....[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.70|172.68.150.70]] 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
: - Yes, I see it now, https://www.xkcd.com/1783/ 'Emails' {{unsigned ip|172.68.150.70}}

;Possible joke?
So, I don't know if Randall did this on purpose, or if it was just my computer, but I could not access the comic in the morning. Maybe he did this on purpose, since the comic is about being late to respond to emails?[[User:Dretler|Dretler]] ([[User talk:Dretler|talk]]) 19:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
:The comic was released between 14:30 and 14:32 UTC today. Unless you are living in Alaska this shouldn't be ''morning''. Most comics are released at these times; sometimes even later. Only a few comics were available a 00:00 Randall home time (04:00 UTC). --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

;Possible joke?
In form the message bears a resemblance to Eminem's response to Stan in the song "Stan" - it could easily be coincidence, as it's also a fairly standard format for a late response. {{unsigned ip|141.101.107.174}}

;Play on comic id's?
As was mentioned earlier https://www.xkcd.com/1783/ also is about email so is it by design or coincidence that 1783 and 1873 are about emails? [[User:Roo|Roo]] ([[User talk:Roo|talk]])

Typical LinkedIn Email:
<pre>
[LinkedIn Logo]

[Name] would like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond?

[Photo][Name]
[Job Title] at [Company]

Confirm you know [Name]

You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe
This email was sent to [your email address].
If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.

© 2017 LinkedIn Corporation, 1000 West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085. LinkedIn and the LinkedIn logo are registered trademarks of LinkedIn.
</pre>
This email is repeated with reminders and is probably sent automatically by scanning email address books or even past emails.

Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.100|172.68.110.100]] 00:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

1863: Screenshots

2017-07-15T05:01:39Z

172.68.110.100:

{{comic
| number = 1863
| date = July 14, 2017
| title = Screenshots
| image = screenshots.png
| titletext = For the final exam, you take a screenshot showing off all the work you've done in the class, and it has to survive being uploaded, thumbnailed, and re-screenshotted through a chain of social media sites.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Let's add a detailed bullet list explaining every point on the syllabus.}}

The comic shows a syllabus of an introductory course on {{w|Screenshot|screenshots}}. Screenshots have become a common way of spreading and sharing content on social media like Tumblr and Twitter, particularly excerpts of text such as seen in the cartoon. This in turn has developed into a common language with unwritten rules; the comic imagines a world where such rules have become codified into best practices, able to be taught in classes.

The image on the left shows an image of screenshots of text, along with what seems like annotations describing various ratios and dos and don'ts about making such screenshots. The right side shows the main points of the course, touching on topics that are relevant for making and publishing screenshots. Some of these guidelines are violated on a regular basis by people sharing screenshots on the internet, leading to impaired readability and the degradation of digital quality (see [[1683: Digital Data]]).

The punchline of the comic describes a high attendance in the course (presumably many people are interested in how to take high-quality screenshots), however the digital textbook only sold one copy, implying that the only attendee that bought the book was adept enough to distribute screenshots of the textbook content to the others, because of the information gathered from the class itself. In essence, the writer of the textbook has taught its students how to pirate his material, effectively putting himself out of a job.

Detailed explanation of the headings on the right:

{| class=wikitable
! Heading
! Explanation

|-
| Highlighting: What & How much?
| This refers to highlighting text of particular interest in screenshots, as depicted on the left.

|-
| Aspect ratios
| Again, depicted on the left. If a screenshot is too wide, it might be difficult to read, and/or it will not fit into thumbnails and social networking feeds. This leads to the screenshot being scaled down too much to be readable (see bottom left). An {{w|aspect ratio}} that is too tall would have similar effects, so in general it is better to stick to near-square aspect ratios (see bottom right of the left section). Some users change the ascpect ratio when scaling with a very ugly result (see e.g. [[1187: Aspect Ratio]]).

|-
| Cropping: Pre- and Post-
| This refers to {{w|cropping}} the image, that is cutting away the irrelevant or unnecessary parts, leaving just the content one needs to communicate.

|-
| Whitespace
| This section presumably deals with how to handle large blocks that lack content (or {{w|White space (visual arts)|whitespace}}, though not necessarily white).

|-
| Screenshots vs Links
| For the most part it is recommended that one links to the original content, rather than publishing a screenshot of said content. In some situations it is advisable to opt for using screenshots, such as trying to catch attention on social media, or if the content in question has been removed from the original source, and one still wants to communicate the fact that it was published there.

|-
| Catching the right GIF frame
| {{w|GIFs}} are short looping animations on the internet. They often employ a low {{w|frame rate}}, so that one might notice a funny or interesting frame during playback. The naive approach is to press the 'Print Screen' button with careful timing, but in this manner it can be very challenging to capture the desired frame of any GIF that plays at a speed of greater than 5 frames per second. Presumably, the course introduces its students to special tools to get the job done, such as [https://ezgif.com/speed the EZgif website] or the [http://www.xtreme-lab.net/7gif/en/index.html downloadable 7GIF app].
|-
| Snapchat and trust
| {{w|Snapchat}} is a popular social networking application for mobile devices primarily used for sharing images and short videos. One of the main selling points is the transience of content posted. The idea is that as soon as one opens an image or video, a timer starts, and once it has expired the content is no longer accessible on the device. This has led to people sending sensitive content to their friends, thinking that they wouldn't be able to cause much harm, as the content is non-permanent. An obvious flaw in this model is the capability of modern mobile devices to take screenshots (usually available from shortcut keys), and thus permanently save the images to the phones memory. Saving embarrassing images of ones friends, that they themselves meant as a transient joke is a serious breach of trust, hence the heading.

|-
| Embarrassing background tabs
| A common error when publishing screenshots is not checking thoroughly enough, and leaving content visible, that might be embarrassing. One such example is {{w|browser tab}}, which might feature content that the creator of the screenshot does not want others to see, such as a page about a sensitive disease one may have (e.g. {{w|AIDS}}) or {{w|pornography}}. Since tabs are small and disconnected from the main content, it is easy to miss such occurrences, which lead to situations such as [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/10/lawmaker-mistakenly-hands-out-document-with-porn-references.html this one], where a politician handed out a document with background tabs to pornography websites.

|-
| Spellcheck's red underlines
| {{w|Spell checkers}} are designed to notify the writer of a document of spelling and grammatical mistakes in the text. This is usually done through the editor marking text it thinks is incorrect with an underline (usually red, but other colors may indicate different kinds of mistakes). Sometimes these mistakes are not relevant to the writer, such as when editing {{w|source code}} or using a spellchecker that is set to another language. Even if the corrections are relevant however, one would not want the ugly red underlines on a screenshot. This section presumably deals with this problem.

|-
| Security: Beware of URL tokens
| {{w|Query string|URL tokens}} are pieces of code embedded in the {{w|URL}} of a website. If implemented well, these help identify a particular document or search query, and do not carry any sensitive security information. Insecure web-apps however may encode authentication information (such as {{w|Session_ID|session IDs}}, or even worse: usernames and passwords) in the URL, leading to a massive security risk on the part of someone whose screen might be visible to others. Screenshots allow anyone to easily read off these parameters, and possibly successfully impersonate the creator of the screenshot on a website. This is especially hard to notice to less technically inclined users, who might not know that, say a session id (a seemingly random jumble of characters), might be used to impersonate them.

|-
| Redacting personal info
| Somewhat related to the previous point: Screenshots might include personal information, such as indications of institutions one might work for, e-mail addresses and alike, that one might not want to share with the world. This section presumably deals with ways of obscuring such information on screenshots.

|-
| Useful browser modes
| Using the {{w|Privacy mode|private browsing mode}} offered by most browsers helps with the previous point of keeping your personal information out of the screenshots because websites see you as logged out. Another helpful mode is the full screen browsing mode (usually F11) that will maximize the content to cover the whole screen, keeping the browser UI chrome out of the screenshots. This also helps with privacy, as it will keep the bookmarks on your browser toolbar from being visible, as well as your username if you're logged in Chrome, without having to crop the screenshots manually. Counterpointing with the final bullet on spotting fakes, the inspect element browser mode allows you to live edit the HTML source of the webpage, allowing you to create more convincing fakes if that is your goal.

|-
| Tradeoffs: PNG vs JPG
| {{w|Portable Network Graphics|PNG}} and {{w|JPG}} are file formats with different {{w|image compression|image compression algorithms}}. JPG is widely used for encoding photographs, as it compresses real-world images to a fraction of their normal size without losing much quality. On artificial images with lots of sharp changes in contrast (such as text) however, JPG produces visible {{w|compression artifacts}} due to its {{w|lossy compression}}. For these PNG is usually used, as it compresses large blocks of a single color, and repeating patterns efficiently, and due to it having a lossless option is able to encode text without artifacts, improving readability. PNG is usually superior for screenshots, as these are artificial images, but if the screenshot is of an actual photo (or a frame of a GIF or movie), JPG might yield lower file sizes at comparable quality. This tradeoff is presumably discussed under the heading.
JPG images also have an attached {{w|EXIF}} data file, not present in PNG images, which may contain information about the device that the screenshot was taken on (especially "with", e.g. a camera) and thus be a potential privacy risk in some cases. However, EXIF metadata is not used with JPEG 2000.

|-
| Watermark ethics
| Many users and websites add {{w|watermarks}} to their original content (or even worse: their screenshots) to indicate where it came from. As depicted in [[1683: Digital Data]] this can lead to degradation of quality as watermarks are stacked on top of each other. It is generally considered okay to put a single unobtrusive watermark on ones own original work, anything other than that would be considered unethical.

|-
| Spotting fakes
| It is relatively easy to fake a screenshot in an image editing program such as {{w|GIMP}} or just editing the page source, making it seem like another organization or person is the original source of the content, possibly damaging their reputation. Some of these techniques are easily detectable by looking at the images {{w|metadata}} or correlating the contents of the screenshot with other sources.

|}

The title text once again refers to the continual re-screenshotting of data as seen in [[1683: Digital Data]], where the final examination consists of the students taking a screenshot good enough that it is still recognizable (and hopefully readable) after being re-compressed, re-screenshotted and re-uploaded to various social networking sites, deteriorating its quality. This is quite a difficult task, considering the student only has control over the first screenshot, and subsequent screenshots could degrade the quality to any level. Hopefully the professor is aware of this and plans to perform the test under controlled conditions, as well as grade on a curve.

Previously screenshots were explored by Randall in [[1373: Screenshot]] and [[1815: Flag]]. This comic is one of a small set of comics with the same or almost the same title as another comic (only plural form of word screenshot being difference).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:<big>Intro to Screenshots</big>

:[The left side of the panel shows three images. The largest image is a screenshot of text with the middle section highlighted and margins and top and bottom rows marked with red lines and arrows. The two smaller images below are cropped versions of the screenshot in the first image: the left image has an incorrect "squashed" aspect ratio and a red X on it, while the right image has a correct aspect ratio and a green check mark.]

:[The right side of the panel:]

::Syllabus
:*Highlighting: What & how much
:*Aspect ratios
:*Cropping: Pre- and post-
:*Whitespace
:*Screenshots vs links
:*Catching the right GIF frame
:*Snapchat and trust
:*Embarrassing backround tabs
:*Spellcheck's red outlines
:*Security: Beware URL tokens
:*Redacting personal info
:*Useful browser modes
:*Tradeoffs: PNG vs JPG
:*Watermark ethics
:*Spotting fakes

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My class on screenshots was a big hit, although for some reason I only ever sold one copy of the digital textbook.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics sharing name|Screenshot02]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

1862: Particle Properties

2017-07-14T08:12:00Z

172.68.110.100:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randall is incorrect in stating "Quarks only", since {{w|gluon}}s (the particle that carries the color force) are themselves colored. However, the colors of gluons are much more complicated, with a total of eight distinct superpositions of every possible color-anticolor pair. The fact that gluons are subject to the force they mediate also means that the strong force has a defined radius of effect, unlike the electromagnetic force, whose gauge bosons (the photon) are uncharged.

This is the last entry currently used to describe particles by particle physicists.
|-
| Mood
| 5 emojis on a number line ranging from angry to joyful
| Particles are not considered to have mood, even in the allegorical way they have color or flavor, but Randall implies that there is a quantized 5 point scale (from "angry" to "ecstatic") which would have some effect on the properties of the particle. This would be more appropriate for measuring customer satisfaction. Charts such as this are also sometimes used in medicine to indicate levels of pain, and in some psychiatric treatments as a quick way to track changes in the patient's condition.

In grammar, {{w|Grammatical particles|particles}} are a nebulous class of words, usually defined by a lack of declension or conjugation (such as prepositions in English). Some languages use particles instead of or in addition to "standard" declension/conjugation, much like auxiliary verbs are used in English. These particles may well carry "{{w|Grammatical mood|mood}}" as an attribute, as well as tense and aspect.
|-
| Alignment
| 3x3 grid with varying shades (columns Good-Evil, rows Lawful-Chaotic)
| A reference to the tabletop RPG ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}'', where characters have an {{w|Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|alignment}} that is either Good, Neutral, or Evil (describing whether they have a propensity to help or harm others) and either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic (describing how much they care about organizations, social norms, and the status quo). Common examples of these alignments include Darth Vader (Lawful Evil), Superman (Lawful Good), Robin Hood (Chaotic Good), and the Joker (Chaotic Evil). This may be a reference to the now defunct names of the two heaviest known quarks ("truth" and "beauty").
|-
| Hit points
| [0,∞)
| Games (videogames, board games, CCGs, RPGs, etc.) often have values for players and other entities that represent {{w|Health (video game)|health}} (also called hit points or HP). Generally there is not necessarily a limit on this value, but it does not often go below 0 as the zero value is considered "dead" (or some equivalent).
|-
| Rating
| 5-star scale
| The five-star rating system is often used to rate films, TV shows, restaurants, and hotels. Randall has previously criticized this system in [[937: TornadoGuard]] and [[1098: Star Ratings]].
|-
| String type
| Bytestring-Charstring
| In computer science this denotes what type of data is stored subsequent set of elements or a {{w|String_(computing)|string}}. This is likely a pun on {{w|String_(physics)|string}} types that appear in {{w|string theory}} and particle physics, and may also be a reference to {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, in which the difference between a byte string and a (Unicode) character string is a cause of difficulties for some programmers.
|-
| Batting average
| [0,100] in %
| In {{w|baseball}}, a player's {{w|batting average}} is calculated by dividing their hits by their at-bats. Instead of using the percent sign (%), it is usually presented as a number between 0 and 1 (inclusive) expressed as three decimal places with no leading zero: [.000, 1.000]. It is pronounced as though it is multiplied by 1,000: A batter with a batting average of .342 (which is very good) is said to be "batting three forty-two." A perfect batting average (unattainable except in very small samples) gives rise to the expression "batting a thousand." The 0-100 scale would be a better match for the batting average statistic in {{w|cricket}}, although percents would still not be used.
|-
| Proof
| [0,200]
| This refers to {{w|alcohol proof}}, which is the measure of the amount of ethanol in a beverage by volume. In the United States, 100% proof correspond to 50% alcohol, so the proof of a beverage is two times the percentage of ethanol, so the maximum value is 200.
|-
| Heat
| No jalapeño icons - 3 jalapeño icons, increasing
| Spicy dishes are sometimes measured by the intensity of the spicy flavor, usually ranging from values like "mild" to "hot". The gray jalapeño likely represents negligible or no spicy taste in the food. However, as an objective scale it is largely meaningless, since there is no reliable consistency in how these ratings are applied - what may be considered a 3-chilli dish in one establishment may only be a 1-chilli dish in another. The scale being unlimited may be a reference to the practice of some restaurants where a fourth or fifth chilli may be added to exaggerate the heat of their dishes.
|-
| Street value
| [0,∞) in $
| The value of an illegal good or a legal/controlled good when bought or sold by illegal means usually by or to the end user.
|-
| Entropy
| ''This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.''
| The term "entropy", which {{w|History of entropy|began}} as a {{w|Entropy (classical thermodynamics)|thermodynamic measure}}, has since been adopted {{w|Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory|by analogy}} into {{w|Entropy (disambiguation)|multiple seemingly unrelated domains}}. The table doesn't seem to know what domain it is in, but (possibly in a desperate attempt to hide this) deems it safe to assume the unknown domain uses the term "entropy" for ''something''! Entropy is often described as a measure of disorder or chaos so this may be another reference to the D&d alignment axis above.
|}

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

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon. Is table alone the best solution?}}
:<big>Particle Properties in Physics</big>
{| class=wikitable
! Property
! Type/scale
|-
| Electric charge
| [Scale with -1, 0 and +1 labeled and markings dividing the units in thirds. The endpoints are both dots.]
|-
| Mass
| [Scale with 0, 1kg and 2kg labeled and markings dividing the units into thirds. The endpoints are a dot on the zero end and an arrow on the other end.]
|-
| Spin number
| [Scale with -1, -½, 0, ½ and 1 labeled and no additional markings. The endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]
|-
| Flavor
| (Misc. quantum numbers)
|-
| Color charge
| [Coordinate system of three axes labeled R, G and B clockwise from the 10 o'clock position. Endpoints are arrow-dots on all ends, with black dots for the labeled ends and white dots for the unlabeled ends.] (Quarks only)
|-
| Mood
| [Scale labeled with 5 emoticons, from angry to happy, and markings dividing the units in thirds. Endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]
|-
| Alignment
| [3x3 grid with varying shades] Good-Evil, Lawful-Chaotic
|-
| Hit points
| [Scale starting from 0, markings but no labels other than zero. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Rating
| [Star rating of 3.5/5 stars]
|-
| String type
| Bytestring-Charstring
|-
| Batting average
| [Scale from 0% to 100%. Endpoints are dot at 0% end and arrow-dot at 100% end.]
|-
| Proof
| [Scale from 0 to 200. Endpoints are dot at 0 end and arrow-dot at 200 end.]
|-
| Heat
| [Scale labeled with pepper icons, from 0 (a grayed-out pepper) to 3. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Street value
| [Scale with $0, $100 and $200 labeled. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Entropy
| (This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.)
|}

{{comic discussion}}

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

1862: Particle Properties

2017-07-14T08:06:21Z

172.68.110.100:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randall is incorrect in stating "Quarks only", since {{w|gluon}}s (the particle that carries the color force) are themselves colored. However, the colors of gluons are much more complicated, with a total of eight distinct superpositions of every possible color-anticolor pair. The fact that gluons are subject to the force they mediate also means that the strong force has a defined radius of effect, unlike the electromagnetic force, whose gauge bosons (the photon) are uncharged.

This is the last entry currently used to describe particles by particle physicists.
|-
| Mood
| 5 emojis on a number line ranging from angry to joyful
| Particles are not considered to have mood, even in the allegorical way they have color or flavor, but Randall implies that there is a quantized 5 point scale (from "angry" to "ecstatic") which would have some effect on the properties of the particle. This would be more appropriate for measuring customer satisfaction. Charts such as this are also sometimes used in medicine to indicate levels of pain, and in some psychiatric treatments as a quick way to track changes in the patient's condition.

In grammar, {{w|Grammatical particles|particles}} are a nebulous class of words, usually defined by a lack of declension or conjugation (such as prepositions in English). Some languages use particles instead of or in addition to "standard" declension/conjugation, much like auxiliary verbs are used in English. These particles may well carry "{{w|Grammatical mood|mood}}" as an attribute, as well as tense and aspect.
|-
| Alignment
| 3x3 grid with varying shades (columns Good-Evil, rows Lawful-Chaotic)
| A reference to the tabletop RPG ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}'', where characters have an {{w|Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|alignment}} that is either Good, Neutral, or Evil (describing whether they have a propensity to help or harm others) and either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic (describing how much they care about organizations, social norms, and the status quo). Common examples of these alignments include Darth Vader (Lawful Evil), Superman (Lawful Good), Robin Hood (Chaotic Good), and the Joker (Chaotic Evil). This may be a reference to the now defunct names of the two heaviest known quarks ("truth" and "beauty").
|-
| Hit points
| [0,∞)
| Games (videogames, board games, CCGs, RPGs, etc.) often have values for players and other entities that represent {{w|Health (video game)|health}} (also called hit points or HP). Generally there is not necessarily a limit on this value, but it does not often go below 0 as the zero value is considered "dead" (or some equivalent).
|-
| Rating
| 5-star scale
| The five-star rating system is often used to rate films, TV shows, restaurants, and hotels. Randall has previously criticized this system in [[937: TornadoGuard]] and [[1098: Star Ratings]].
|-
| String type
| Bytestring-Charstring
| In computer science this denotes what type of data is stored subsequent set of elements or a {{w|String_(computing)|string}}. This is likely a pun on {{w|String_(physics)|string}} types that appear in {{w|string theory}} and particle physics, and may also be a reference to {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, in which the difference between a byte string and a (Unicode) character string is a cause of difficulties for some programmers.
|-
| Batting average
| [0,100] in %
| In {{w|baseball}}, a player's {{w|batting average}} is calculated by dividing their hits by their at-bats. Instead of using the percent sign (%), it is usually presented as a number between 0 and 1 (inclusive) expressed as three decimal places with no leading zero: [.000, 1.000]. It is pronounced as though it is multiplied by 1,000: A batter with a batting average of .342 (which is very good) is said to be "batting three forty-two." A perfect batting average (unattainable except in very small samples) gives rise to the expression "batting a thousand." The 0-100 scale would be a better match for the batting average statistic in {{w|cricket}}, although percents would still not be used.
|-
| Proof
| [0,200]
| This refers to {{w|alcohol proof}}, which is the measure of the amount of ethanol in a beverage by volume. In the United States, 100% proof correspond to 50% alcohol, so the proof of a beverage is two times the percentage of ethanol, so the maximum value is 200.
|-
| Heat
| No jalapeño icons - 3 jalapeño icons, increasing
| Spicy dishes are sometimes measured by the intensity of the spicy flavor, usually ranging from values like "mild" to "hot". The gray jalapeño likely represents negligible or no spicy taste in the food. However, as an objective scale it is largely meaningless, since there is no reliable consistency in how these ratings are applied - what may be considered a 3-chilli dish in one establishment may only be a 1-chilli dish in another. The scale being unlimited may be a reference to the practice of some restaurants where a fourth or fifth chilli may be added to exaggerate the heat of their dishes.
|-
| Street value
| [0,∞) in $
| The value of an illegal good or a legal/controlled good when bought or sold by illegal means usually by or to the end user.
|-
| Entropy
| ''This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.''
| The term "entropy", which {{w|History of entropy|began}} as a {{w|Entropy (classical thermodynamics)|thermodynamic measure}}, has since been adopted {{w|Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory|by analogy}} into {{w|Entropy (disambiguation)|multiple seemingly unrelated domains}}. The table doesn't seem to know what domain it is in, but (possibly in a desperate attempt to hide this) deems it safe to assume the unknown domain uses the term "entropy" for ''something''! Entropy is often described as a measure of disorder or chaos so this may be another reference to the D&d alignment axis above.
|}

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

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon. Is table alone the best solution?}}
:<big>Particle Properties in Physics</big>
{| class=wikitable
! Property
! Type/scale
|-
| Electric charge
| [Scale with -1, 0 and +1 labeled and markings dividing the units in thirds. The endpoints are both dots.]
|-
| Mass
| [Scale with 0, 1kg and 2kg labeled and markings dividing the units into thirds. The endpoints are a dot on the zero end and an arrow on the other end.]
|-
| Spin number
| [Scale with -1, -½, 0, ½ and 1 labeled and no additional markings. The endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]
|-
| Flavor
| (Misc. quantum numbers)
|-
| Color charge
| [Coordinate system of three axes labeled R, G and B clockwise from the 10 o'clock position. Endpoints are arrow-dots on all ends, with black dots for the labeled ends and white dots for the unlabeled ends.] (Quarks only)
|-
| Mood
| [Scale labeled with 5 emoticons, from angry to happy, and markings dividing the units in thirds. Endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]
|-
| Alignment
| [3x3 grid with varying shades] Good-Evil, Lawful-Chaotic
|-
| Hit points
| [Scale starting from 0, markings but no labels other than zero. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Rating
| [Star rating of 3.5/5 stars]
|-
| String type
| Bytestring-Charstring
|-
| Batting average
| [Scale from 0% to 100%. Endpoints are dot at 0% end and arrow-dot at 100% end.]
|-
| Proof
| [Scale from 0 to 200. Endpoints are dot at 0 end and arrow-dot at 200 end.]
|-
| Heat
| [Scale labeled with pepper icons, from 0 (a grayed-out pepper) to 3. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Street value
| [Scale with $0, $100 and $200 labeled. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Entropy
| (This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.)
|}

{{comic discussion}}

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

1862: Particle Properties

2017-07-14T08:03:42Z

172.68.110.100:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randall is incorrect in stating "Quarks only", since {{w|gluon}}s (the particle that carries the color force) are themselves colored. However, the colors of gluons are much more complicated, with a total of eight distinct superpositions of every possible color-anticolor pair. The fact that gluons are subject to the force they mediate also means that the strong force has a defined radius of effect, unlike the electromagnetic force, whose gauge bosons (the photon) are uncharged.

This is the last entry currently used to describe particles by particle physicists.
|-
| Mood
| 5 emojis on a number line ranging from angry to joyful
| Particles are not considered to have mood, even in the allegorical way they have color or flavor, but Randall implies that there is a quantized 5 point scale (from "angry" to "ecstatic") which would have some effect on the properties of the particle. This would be more appropriate for measuring customer satisfaction. Charts such as this are also sometimes used in medicine to indicate levels of pain, and in some psychiatric treatments as a quick way to track changes in the patient's condition.

In grammar, {{w|Grammatical particles|particles}} are a nebulous class of words, usually defined by a lack of declension or conjugation (such as prepositions in English). Some languages use particles instead of or in addition to "standard" declension/conjugation, much like auxiliary verbs are used in English. These particles may well carry "{{w|Grammatical mood|mood}}" as an attribute, as well as tense and aspect.
|-
| Alignment
| 3x3 grid with varying shades (columns Good-Evil, rows Lawful-Chaotic)
| A reference to the tabletop RPG ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}'', where characters have an {{w|Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|alignment}} that is either Good, Neutral, or Evil (describing whether they have a propensity to help or harm others) and either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic (describing how much they care about organizations, social norms, and the status quo). Common examples of these alignments include Darth Vader (Lawful Evil), Superman (Lawful Good), Robin Hood (Chaotic Good), and the Joker (Chaotic Evil). This may be a reference to the now defunct names of the two heaviest known quarks ("truth" and "beauty").
|-
| Hit points
| [0,∞)
| Games (videogames, board games, CCGs, RPGs, etc.) often have values for players and other entities that represent {{w|Health (video game)|health}} (also called hit points or HP). Generally there is not necessarily a limit on this value, but it does not often go below 0 as the zero value is considered "dead" (or some equivalent).
|-
| Rating
| 5-star scale
| The five-star rating system is often used to rate films, TV shows, restaurants, and hotels. Randall has previously criticized this system in [[937: TornadoGuard]] and [[1098: Star Ratings]].
|-
| String type
| Bytestring-Charstring
| In computer science this denotes what type of data is stored subsequent set of elements or a {{w|String_(computing)|string}}. This is likely a pun on {{w|String_(physics)|string}} types that appear in {{w|string theory}} and particle physics, and may also be a reference to {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, in which the difference between a byte string and a (Unicode) character string is a cause of difficulties for some programmers.
|-
| Batting average
| [0,100] in %
| In {{w|baseball}}, a player's {{w|batting average}} is calculated by dividing their hits by their at-bats. Instead of using the percent sign (%), it is usually presented as a number between 0 and 1 (inclusive) expressed as three decimal places with no leading zero: [.000, 1.000]. It is pronounced as though it is multiplied by 1,000: A batter with a batting average of .342 (which is very good) is said to be "batting three forty-two." A perfect batting average (unattainable except in very small samples) gives rise to the expression "batting a thousand." The 0-100 scale would be a better match for the batting average statistic in {{w|cricket}}, although percents would still not be used.
|-
| Proof
| [0,200]
| This refers to {{w|alcohol proof}}, which is the measure of the amount of ethanol in a beverage by volume. In the United States, 100% proof correspond to 50% alcohol, so the proof of a beverage is two times the percentage of ethanol, so the maximum value is 200.
|-
| Heat
| No jalapeño icons - 3 jalapeño icons, increasing
| Spicy dishes are sometimes measured by the intensity of the spicy flavor, usually ranging from values like "mild" to "hot". The gray jalapeño likely represents negligible or no spicy taste in the food. However, as an objective scale it is largely meaningless, since there is no reliable consistency in how these ratings are applied - what may be considered a 3-chilli dish in one establishment may only be a 1-chilli dish in another. The scale being unlimited may be a reference to the practice of some restaurants where a fourth or fifth chilli may be added to exaggerate the heat of their dishes.
|-
| Street value
| [0,∞) in $
| The value of an illegal good or a legal/controlled good when bought or sold by illegal means.
|-
| Entropy
| ''This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.''
| The term "entropy", which {{w|History of entropy|began}} as a {{w|Entropy (classical thermodynamics)|thermodynamic measure}}, has since been adopted {{w|Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory|by analogy}} into {{w|Entropy (disambiguation)|multiple seemingly unrelated domains}}. The table doesn't seem to know what domain it is in, but (possibly in a desperate attempt to hide this) deems it safe to assume the unknown domain uses the term "entropy" for ''something''! Entropy is often described as a measure of disorder or chaos so this may be another reference to the D&d alignment axis above.
|}

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

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon. Is table alone the best solution?}}
:<big>Particle Properties in Physics</big>
{| class=wikitable
! Property
! Type/scale
|-
| Electric charge
| [Scale with -1, 0 and +1 labeled and markings dividing the units in thirds. The endpoints are both dots.]
|-
| Mass
| [Scale with 0, 1kg and 2kg labeled and markings dividing the units into thirds. The endpoints are a dot on the zero end and an arrow on the other end.]
|-
| Spin number
| [Scale with -1, -½, 0, ½ and 1 labeled and no additional markings. The endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]
|-
| Flavor
| (Misc. quantum numbers)
|-
| Color charge
| [Coordinate system of three axes labeled R, G and B clockwise from the 10 o'clock position. Endpoints are arrow-dots on all ends, with black dots for the labeled ends and white dots for the unlabeled ends.] (Quarks only)
|-
| Mood
| [Scale labeled with 5 emoticons, from angry to happy, and markings dividing the units in thirds. Endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]
|-
| Alignment
| [3x3 grid with varying shades] Good-Evil, Lawful-Chaotic
|-
| Hit points
| [Scale starting from 0, markings but no labels other than zero. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Rating
| [Star rating of 3.5/5 stars]
|-
| String type
| Bytestring-Charstring
|-
| Batting average
| [Scale from 0% to 100%. Endpoints are dot at 0% end and arrow-dot at 100% end.]
|-
| Proof
| [Scale from 0 to 200. Endpoints are dot at 0 end and arrow-dot at 200 end.]
|-
| Heat
| [Scale labeled with pepper icons, from 0 (a grayed-out pepper) to 3. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Street value
| [Scale with $0, $100 and $200 labeled. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]
|-
| Entropy
| (This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.)
|}

{{comic discussion}}

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

1855: Telephoto

2017-06-28T14:25:11Z

172.68.110.100:

{{comic
| number = 1855
| date = June 26, 2017
| title = Telephoto
| image = telephoto.png
| titletext = I was banned from the airliners.net photography forum by concerned moderators after the end of my lens started brushing against planes as they flew by.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Telephoto lens}}es are special {{w|camera lens|lenses for cameras}} that have a longer {{w|focal length}} than standard lenses, which allows the photographer to zoom in on an object. Alternatively one could add "{{w|teleconverter|converters}}" and "{{w|extension tube|extenders}}" to an existing lens to get a greater focal length for the cost of reduced brightness. The joke is that [[Cueball]] did not want to spend the money on buying a new telephoto lens or real converters, and instead achieved the same effect by moving his cheap camera (a standard {{w|webcam}}, in this case) close enough to the subject to obviate the need for zoom.

There are many problems with this. First, the end result is completely impractical to carry around; as shown in the comic, Cueball has to set up two tripods just to support the weight of his hulking behemoth of a camera. Second, if you're an animal photographer like Cueball, you need to be able to see the animal as close up as possible in order to get a good picture; a lens with lots of magnification power accomplishes just that without alerting the animal to the photographer's presence, but Cueball's camera would surely scare off any birds he tried to photograph (except in fanciful proof-of-concept diagrams like this comic).

Perhaps most damning of all, though, is the fact that Cueball's idea involves installing a webcam at the far end to be able to photograph anything. Webcams are not designed to capture high-resolution images, so the resulting image will be of considerably lower quality compared to professional photographers' works, although it could be better than a standard camera setup taking account of the huge achievable zoom levels. But more importantly, the presence of the webcam renders the functionality of the extenders (and the base camera itself!) completely redundant, cementing this idea as a total waste of money and effort. The same could be achieved by mounting the webcam on a long stick; an extraordinary long {{w|Selfie stick|selfie stick}} will achieve nearly the same effect, for considerably less cost and set-up than Cueball's behemoth.

The title text continues this by saying he was banned from the {{w|Airliners.net}} [http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=7 photography forum] because his new modified lens was so long that it started brushing against planes as they flew by. If Cueball's gargantuan lens is being set up on or near runways or is so long that it potentially damages planes in-flight, then being banned from an online forum should be the least of his worries.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands behind a huge telephoto lens which rests on two tripods, one at the left in front of Cueball, and an other larger one in the middle. The lens is more than five times longer than Cueball is high. In front of the lens is a tree with a bird on top close to the lens. The bird is labeled "Subject". Inside the telephoto lens at the location of the objective lens a small device is shown and labeled "Webcam". From that device a small cable runs through the entire telephoto lens to the eyepiece, where an other device labeled "Camera" is shown.]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Telephoto tip: If you add enough converters and extenders, you don't actually need a fancy lens.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]