explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2164: Glacier

2019-06-18T20:41:31Z

172.68.132.149: Um?

{{comic
| number = 2164
| date = June 17, 2019
| title = Glacier
| image = glacier.png
| titletext = The Norwegian adaptation of The Sword in the Stone takes things in a weird direction.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Explanation needs to be expanded. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A {{w|glacier}} is a wall of dense ice. Though glaciers tend to appear still, they are actually slowly moving, at a rate of around 25 cm (10 in) per day.

[[Beret Guy]] and another person wearing a knit cap (possibly the knit cap girl from [[1350: Lorenz]]) are facing a glacier more than twice their height. The person wearing a knit cap remarks that glaciers are amazing, mentioning the fact that though we can't see it, the ice is slowly advancing. After considering this, Beret Guy leaves, before returning with two {{w|sabre (fencing)|sabres}} and a hairdryer. He uses the hairdryer to melt a part of the glacier, which he then attaches a saber to. After he attaches the saber to the glacier, he then takes a defensive position. The joke in this comic is a pun on the word "advancing". In the original context, the glacier is "advancing" or moving forward slowly. However, Beret Guy uses the fencing term {{w|Glossary of fencing|"advance"}}, which is a basic forward movement.

The title text refers to {{w|Excalibur|The Sword in the Stone}}, a famous sword in the legends of King Arthur, and the fact that 1% of mainland {{w|Norway}} is covered with glaciers (but 60% of the {{w|Svalbard}} archipelago, also a part of Norway). It may also refer to {{w|Trollpikken}}, a rock formation in Norway that resembles a sword-like object. Or it may refer to the {{w|Sverd_i_fjell|Swords in Rock}} sculpture.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A person wearing a knit cap and Beret Guy are standing to the left of a glacier.]
:Knit cap person: Glaciers are so neat. You can't see it, but this ice is slowly advancing.

:[Zoom in on Beret Guy, who has his hand to his mouth, thinking.]

:[Zoomed in, Beret Guy exits to the left of the panel.]

:[Beret Guy enters the panel from the left, carrying two fencing sabres.]

:[Beret Guy uses a blow dryer to attach one of the sabres to the glacier.]
:''Whirrrr''
:[Beret Guy is holding the blow dryer and looks at the sabre that is attached to the glacier.]

:[Beret Guy stands in a defensive position with sabre in hand, ready to defend against the "advancing" glacier.]

==Trivia==
The author of ''The Sword in the Stone'', T. H. White, was mentioned two comics ago in [[2162: Literary Opinions]].

[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2160: Ken Burns Theory

2019-06-09T01:52:25Z

172.68.132.149: reply

Is the joke in this comic that Ken Burns made documentary films about real events, meaning all of his mini-series truly were a part of a common universe - our own universe? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone put in a summary of the Pixar theory from the Mental Floss article? It's the kind of thing that Randall is trying to reference. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.215|108.162.246.215]] 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
:Ehh, The Pixar theory is a famous example, but there are a lot more, like the snow globe theory, I don't think a single one needs to be summarized here to get the point [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.69|162.158.74.69]] 01:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC) sam

Is it weird that I found this funnier before I understood that Ken Burns was a documentary filmmaker? For some reason I thought that Burns was an actor and that cueball was trying to explain how his character could be the same person in some weird pseudohistorical fictional universe.
:OMG same here! I thought Ken Burns was an actor I wasn't terribly familiar with (outside of having heard his name), and these were fictional movies based on elements of real life that he's acted in... Somehow it's less funny that Burns is a documentary maker and Cueball is just trying to create a fictional link that's actually really already there, LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
:Uh, yes. You're both weird! ;-) [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 04:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

All the movies by M. Night Shyamalan ''are'' in the same universe though, right?
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.244|172.68.211.244]] 16:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
:[https://news.avclub.com/theory-split-takes-place-in-the-same-universe-as-the-s-1827628970 Maybe?] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.149|172.68.132.149]] 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2160: Ken Burns Theory

2019-06-09T01:50:16Z

172.68.132.149: fix indent

2159: Comments

2019-06-07T19:56:23Z

172.68.132.149: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2159
| date = June 5, 2019
| title = Comments
| image = comments.png
| titletext = NPR encourages you to add comments to their stories using the page inspector in your browser's developer tools. Note: Your comments are visible only to you, and will be lost when you refresh the page.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic represents a news article that bemoans how sometimes lazy journalists will, instead of taking time to research the genuine public opinion on a certain issue, simply cherry pick comments as evidence to support their thesis. The irony is that the article is likely basing its own narrative of outrage among Internet users on random comments as well. For example, an [https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1129773341894688769 anonymous Twitter account from Northern Ireland with 159 followers] gets used as [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/biden-2020-millennials.html an example in the first paragraph of a NY Times article] about how U.S. Millennials think.

The commenters create the narrative here, by pointing out how easy it is for commenters to push a point of view, and how little editorial control or fact checking there is in such a process. The final commenter reveals that the article itself is cherry picking from a handful of random comments to support its arbitrary narrative of internet outrage, proving the real joke.

The link in one of the comments is to [[1019: First Post]], which also refers to manipulating comments to change public opinion of a topic. It specifically mentions «creating an impression of peer consensus», a line which is near-quoted in the first comment included in this comic.

Another comment mentions a {{w|NPR|National Public Radio}} ("NPR") decision to remove comments from their website in 2016 [https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2016/08/17/489516952/npr-website-to-get-rid-of-comments?t=1559838474662] because they represented only a tiny fraction of their readers. The statement released by NPR suggested they had decided to use social media channels to engage readers instead of using an on-site commenting system.

The last of the comments may be from the user "Mary" who, in the NPR article, was explicitly cited to have said that the comments have been too violent. But it is unclear how this is possible given that this article claims to have been published after the comments having been turned off.

The title text refers to the ability to edit webpages using in-browser tools, like "Inspect Element." However, such changes are temporary and only on the machine used for viewing the web site; anyone else loading the page will not see them, and refreshing the page causes the changes to be replaced with the real content. This would mean that no other users would be able to see the comments, and news sources could not use them to influence public opinion.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Single panel comic depicting a screenshot of an Internet article, showing the article title, lines of wavy characters representing the article text, and several comments from readers of the article with their profile pictures.]

:Backlash: Internet users are ''outraged'' over news stories using a handful of random comments to support arbitrary narratives!

:[Close-up of Megan:]
::I can't believe how easy it is to create an impression of peer consensus.

:[Close-up of Hairy:]
::This dynamic is so easily manipulated and it freaks me out. <u>xkcd.com/1019</u>

:[Full picture of Hairbun:]
::Everytime I share something and a friend responds "Haha, did you see the top comments..." it just reminds me how influential these things are in shaping the impressions of even relatively internet-savvy readers.

:[Close-up of Cueball on a black background:]
::NPR got rid of comments in 2016 when they realized they all came from a handful of visitors posting hundreds of times a month.

:[Full picture of two guys, Cueball and Hairy:]
::Eventually social norms will adapt to this stuff, but it needs to hurry up.

:[Close-up of Ponytail:]
::I have nine followers and created my account last month; how am I being quoted in this news article??

==Trivia==
One of the comments to the article references an earlier xkcd comic [[1019:_First_Post|1019: First Post]], which compares the cost of buying election ads on news sites versus paying college student to wait for news articles and submit the first comments to every news article.

{{comic discussion}}

1981: Rickrolling Anniversary

2019-05-11T00:14:29Z

172.68.132.149: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1981
| date = April 16, 2018
| title = Rickrolling Anniversary
| image = rickrolling_anniversary.png
| titletext = Want to feel old? The 'want to feel old?' factoid meme dates back to around 2011, closer to the Bush/Kerry election than to today.
}}

==Explanation==

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Cueball] tells [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Megan] that by the release of this comic in April 2018 it is the 10th anniversary of the peak of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ rickrolling], and she is amazed that this has been so long ago. She then expresses a half-hearted happy anniversary wish, though it's not clear whether the anniversary she is congratulating is the phenomena itself having reached 10 years, or if she and Cueball met 10 years ago, coinciding with the height of the popularity of rickrolling, and this is reminding her to wish him a happy anniversary. After a beat panel Cueball concludes that ''We've known each other for so long'', which would be an appropriate response either way, with the additional joke of "[https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?t=59 We've known each other for so long]", being the first line of the second verse of the song "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Never Gonna Give You Up]" the hit song by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Rick Astley] on which rickrolling is based.

The first reference to rickrolling in XKCD was in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ 351: Trolling] from 2007, where Astley himself was Rickrolled by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Black Hat]. Black Hat then later uses Astley to show his girlfriend [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Danish] how Rick rolls in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ 524: Party], a New Year party from the end of 2008.

Rickrolling had first started in 2007, but reached a peak in about April 2008 when, as an April Fool's day prank, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ YouTube] linked all its featured videos to ''Never Gonna Give You Up'', and the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ New York Mets] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ were Rickrolled] by a public vote to choose a song for the 8th innings sing-song. This coincided with a sharp [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ peak in searches] for "Rick Astley" and related terms.

The title text refers to another ''old'' xkcd meme of giving snippets of information to the reader [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ that make them feel old]. Although comics such as [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ 218: Nintendo Surgeon] in 2007 refer to facts that could make you feel old, the first comic directly build around factoids to make one feel old in xkcd was [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ 891: Movie Ages] in April 2011. This was 7 years before the time of publishing. The [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ United States presidential election, 2004] was in November 2004, 6½ years before that comic, making the title text statement that the beginning of this meme is closer to that election that today. This is the way most of these make you feel old comics are built.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are walking.]
:Cueball: This month marks ten years since the peak of the Rickrolling phenomenon.

:[In a frame-less panel they keep walking.]
:Megan: Seriously?
:Megan: Wow. Happy anniversary, I guess.

:[They keep walking silently, beat panel.]

:[And they walk on.]
:Cueball: We've known each other for so long.
:Megan: We really have.

==Trivia==
*This comic is a return to the recurring theme of [[:Category:Rickrolling|Rickrolling]], which was most famous around 2008 and 2009 - also at xkcd.
*Interestingly enough the last time rickrolling was referenced in xkcd was [[1757: November 2016]], another comic centered around making people feel old.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Rickrolling]]
[[Category:Comics to make one feel old]]
[[Category:Recursion]]

2148: Cubesat Launch

2019-05-11T00:01:28Z

172.68.132.149: /* Explanation */ +Additionally, this is not the first comic to discuss CubeSats; they were also mentioned in 1866: Russell's Teapot and in 1992: SafetySat.

{{comic
| number = 2148
| date = May 10, 2019
| title = Cubesat Launch
| image = cubesat_launch.png
| titletext = Luckily, the damages were partly offset by the prize money we got from accidentally winning the nearby water skiing championship tournament.
}}

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

A {{w|CubeSat}} (aka U-class spacecraft) is a miniature artificial-satellite with cubic dimensions of 10 cm × 10 cm × 11.35 cm (~ 4 in × 4 in × 4.5 in), and masses of about 1.33 kg (2.9 lbs) per unit. CubeSats are put into orbit from the International Space Station, or launched as secondary payloads. As of January 2019, at least 900 CubeSats have successively achieved orbit, and at least 80 have been destroyed in launch failures. They typically function as Earth observation satellites, amateur radio emitters as well as testing prototype small-satellite technology.

The comic begins with [[Megan]] telling [[Cueball]] that being officially part of a CubeSat launch is very expensive, but she has an idea for a much cheaper alternative: use a fishing line on a drone to attach to a rocket just before launch, with the cubesat attached to the other end of the fishing line so it gets pulled into space.

In reality, this plan would fail for multiple reasons.

# Security would presumably prevent the drone from reaching the rocket.
# The unshielded CubeSat would likely be destroyed by aerodynamic forces.
# The drone would not be able to attach itself to the rocket in a way that would remain secure.
# The fishing line would not hold - either the rocket exhaust would sever it, or the force from the cubesat, gravity, and the acceleration of the rocket, would become more than its tensile strength could withstand.
# Precise weight is an EXTREMELY important number during launch. The extra weight of the drone, the fishing line, the air drag from the drone, and the cubesat all would combine to put more downward force on the rocket. This unexpected extra weight would not have been calculated during fueling of the rocket and the rocket would run out of propellant before achieving the planned orbit.

Upon realizing her plan, Cueball immediately responds with "uh-oh", indicating his concern, but Megan assures him that it will be fine, before piloting the drone towards the rocket. She successfully connects the drone to the rocket, and the rocket lifts off.

Whatever her plan was, it goes wrong almost immediately. The unexpected force on the rocket from the side causes it to tilt and go off course (implied that it's not due to the comparatively small force of the cubesat, but because Cueball is standing on the fishing line). Perhaps if the rocket's control software employed {{w|adaptive control}} techniques, it could have maintained control in the presence of this unexpected force. Megan and Cueball get tangled in the fishing line and are carried away. It is implied that the rocket crashes not long after. In reality, the unplanned attitude change of the rocket would likely activate the automatic termination sequence or result in manual activation of the destruction protocol.

Megan and Cueball miraculously survive and are brought to an investigative board to explain their actions. Megan attempts to defend herself using flawed logic: something was bound to go wrong sooner or later, so it's not her fault that she was the cause. This logic does not account for the fact that this particular rocket's chance to crash was greatly increased by the drone attempting to connect to it.

The title text describes that the supposedly huge damages they caused were partly covered by the earnings from a water skiing championship, which Cueball and Megan presumably won by being dragged across the water by the rocket.

Additionally, this is not the first comic to discuss CubeSats; they were also mentioned in [[1866: Russell's Teapot]] and in [[1992: SafetySat]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan and Cueball talking. Megan is holding a cube attached to a drone by string.]
:Megan: A spot on a cubesat launch costs a lot, but you can get a drone and a spool of fishing line for cheap.
:Cueball: Uh oh.

:[A wide shot of Megan flying the drone.]
:Megan: No no, watch. This is gonna go great.

:[Wide shot of a rocket launch with drone and string approaching from the right.]

:[Drone attached to rocket.]
:Off-panel: Perfect!

:[Vapor cloud at bottom of rocket.]
:Foom

:[Rocket taking off, tilting in the direction of the string.]
:Off-panel: Should it be tilting already?
:Off-panel: Hey, move your leg.

:[Megan and Cueball struggling in tangle of string whilst holding cube.]
:Megan: Ugh, let go, I can get-
:Cueball: -No, lift your other arm-

:[Three small panels of rocket tilting increasingly to the right and down as if pulled by the string.]

:[Megan and Cueball flying through the air, attached to the string. Two onlookers flee.]
:Aaaaaa

:[A disheveled looking Megan and Cueball both with plaster casts on their arms stand before four members of an interview panel at a table labeled 'Launch accident investigation board'].
:Megan: Listen. Space exploration is never going to be completely safe.
{{comic discussion}}

2148: Cubesat Launch

2019-05-10T17:05:56Z

172.68.132.149: /* Explanation */

Talk:2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-05-02T07:02:00Z

172.68.132.149: Sorry/thanks

Many more chemists have job related deaths than gets recorded. It sometimes takes years for the effects of on the job actions to show up. For example, washing your hands in benzene was common practice in the 1960's in Chemistry departments across the US. The result decades later was bone barrow cancer.

"In most modern societies, age-related diseases are by far the most common cause of death for both gerontologists and other people."
^ Can someone change this? In most modern societies, smoking kills significantly more people than old age.

Oncology, the study of cancer, should probably be in the diagram, probably not far behind gerontology. What's the name for the study of traffic accidents? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know, but what about cardiology (heart disease)? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.144|172.68.59.144]] 19:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:Technically, noone dies by old age itself. Most people die because of infection, injury or organ failure. Those deaths are often attributed to age because with age, immune system gets worse in fighting infection, regeneration gets slower and organs get weariness issues. I would argue that the profession most likely being related to your death is medical profession in general. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:: You could say the either Medicine, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics kill 100% of people.

Reminds me of this comic: [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]. And also [[1904: Research Risks]]. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 23:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

There’s an important distinction between being killed ‘while’ studying something and being ‘killed by’ what you’re studying, and the current explanation has many examples of the former that do not belong here. Absentmindedly walking in front of a bus while thinking about mathematics does not constitute being killed by mathematics. A marine biologist killed by something biological in the water (such as bacteria, snails, or sharks) was killed by what he was studying, but one who was killed by drowning due to currents or by non-biological pollution was not. Someone who studies the aging process will eventually succumb to the aging process (regardless what the immediate cause of death is), unless he dies of something else first, like a doctor in his thirties catching something fatal from a geriatric patient, thereby not being killed by what he was studying. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.240|172.68.143.240]] 03:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
:Areed. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 03:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Mathematics absolutely killed Galois. Without the distraction of Galois theory, he could have focused on how to duel effectively, or at least gotten a good night's sleep beforehand. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.23|108.162.242.23]] 09:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This might seem like a poor reason to avoid gerontology but actually it's hard to study it for long before you end up with creeping existential dread [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.58|162.158.75.58]] 22:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a fine point whether there is any difference between Mathematics, as such, and doing mathematics. So, uniquely among the topics listed, death from actually doing mathematics (such as wandering into traffic the while) should count. Mathematics itself was consuming your brain, preventing vigilance.

Astronomy: https://www.quantamagazine.org/did-supernovas-kill-off-the-monster-shark-megalodon-20190115/ Magnetars are far more terrifying than supernovas.

Isn't everything really just applied mathematics (and wasn't there an XKCD comic on that a while back)? Chemical reactions, physics, economics, etc. -- all math in motion. So, broadly speaking, shouldn't mathematics be rather far to the right, up there with the study of aging/old age?
:Applying mathematics and studying mathematics are not the same thing. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
:The comic you think of was probably: [[435: Purity]]. Everything is applied physics is the pun, but mathematics is more pure, but has nothing to do with the real world, as stated in the title text... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the comic is about the probability that the thing you're studying will kill you, not that it will kill you because you're studying it. I think that's an important distinction that might be confusing readers, loosely related to a previous comment about being killed "while" you're studying something. As an example, gerontologists would not be killed by old age because their studying it, but they are likely to die from old age just because that's how many people die, even if they're no longer studying it due to retirement. The comic is more about what kills you and less about how it kills you. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
:Volcanologists are probably a lot more likely to be killed by volcanos than non-volcanologists are. --[[User:EmuSam|EmuSam]] 5:33, 29 April 2019

The title text puts me in mind of the quotation, variously attributed to Talleyrand or to Metternich.
On hearing of the death of a Turkish ambassador, Talleyrand is supposed to have said: "I wonder what he meant by that?" More commonly, the quote is attributed to Metternich, the Austrian diplomat, upon Talleyrand's death in 1838. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/jan/01/jd-salinger Happy birthday Salinger by Xan Brooks ][[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.48|162.158.106.48]] 18:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As requested by the explanation note, I measured the distances of the fields along the horizontal line of the chart. I used the unaltered original image from the page at the time of the edit. If anyone can put the data into a more pleasing form, you are welcome to do so. The measurements are +/- 1-2 pixels, due to there rarely being a pixel in the exact center of the dots marking the field placings. (Was the 666px overall measurement deliberate?) [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Risk relative to the general population does not figure in; otherwise gerontology would not be way out to the right.

Previously when doing such comics like in [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] the item from the title text was not in the graph because it would be so far to one side than all the others would end up on top of each other... Could he mean the same by epidemiologist... I mean sure old age kills some people, but as said above, no one is actually diagnosed as dying from old age anymore. Cancer, heart attack, etc. Also many will die in accidents and from diseases that may not be related to age. So maybe epidemiologists are much more likely to die from their study than even those studying Gerontology... And that is why they have not been included on the line as it would have moved Gerontology so close to all the others as to not make any distinction... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
:I actually thought about this detail too. I think the epidemiologist is in the title text instead of the chart because it's not about what they study killing them, but is instead about them becoming the very thing they study: a statistic! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried to add some data for various causes of death. Many of these causes are very hard to track, since they have many indirect effects. The numbers also depend a lot on how you classify things. (e.g., should marine biology strictly refer to deaths caused by ocean life, or should it include fresh water as well, and should it include deaths caused by the ocean environment - which marine biologists also study.)
I tried to use data from as few sources as possible so that they are roughly comparable.
Given the numbers I have been able to find so far, the positions of several of the items is puzzling. Vulcanology in particular. While volcanos are dramatic, and on occasion they have large impact, in general they don't seem to cause near as many deaths as chemicals or crime, or even weather. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.48|162.158.106.48]] 18:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Can the incomplete notice be removed? It looks pretty complete and the notice only mentions "please add percentages." They are already in the transcript, which I think is more than enough. I'd argue even that including pixel counts there is too much distraction and does not add much value. [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it, but I think it's a little silly to say 'nearby supernovas' & 'distant magnetars' could kill us. For one thing, I think it's fairly well established & a safe bet that there flat out aren't any of those in range to affect us. Regardless, implying magnetars are dangerous at greater ranges, especially by starquakes, is incorrect. Magnetars are formed in supernovae, which release way more energy than starquakes. A large core collapse supernova that forms a black hole, which focuses its radiation into a beamed hypernova doesn't involve a magnetar at all & it's vastly more powerful at much longer ranges.