explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3077: de Sitter

2025-04-18T19:27:42Z

172.68.205.135: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3077
| date = April 16, 2025
| title = de Sitter
| image = de_sitter_2x.png
| imagesize = 292x459px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Our anti-de Sitter club is small at the moment, but I've started corresponding with the conformal field theory people.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The explanation is too technical and hard for understand for normies.}}
An {{w|anti-de Sitter space}} (AdS) is a space which has constant negative (hyperbolic) spatial curvature, in which the sum of the internal angles of {{w|Triangle#Triangle in non-planar space|triangles}} is less than 180° and two parallel lines will diverge when extended. AdS is a theoretical space with strange curves and extra dimensions which is used in studying the space-time structure of the universe. This is in contrast to a {{w|de Sitter space}}, which has constant positive (elliptic) curvature, the sum of a triangle's angles is more than 180°, and lines that initially appear parallel will always meet; the surface of a sphere is an example of a two-dimensional de Sitter space. The caption "My house is an anti-de Sitter space" refers instead to being against the actual physicist {{w|Willem de Sitter}}, after whom both spatial geometries are named, because the speaker forbids de Sitter from entering their house.

The title text refers to {{w|conformal field theory}} (CFT), a set of rules for how tiny particles behave on boundaries. The ideas of CFT and AdS are closely linked: everything in an AdS has a parallel in CFT, a property which is usually called the {{w|AdS/CFT correspondence}}. The extra pun here is "{{wiktionary|correspondence}}" also meaning "mutual communication or discourse", typically communication by letter or email.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A large note is taped to a closed door, which has a doorknob with a keyhole on it. The note reads:]
:20th century Dutch physicist Willem de Sitter is '''''not''''' welcome here

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My house is an anti-de Sitter space.

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-11T23:24:32Z

172.68.205.135:

Shouldn't "Anachronym" be "Anachronism"? The listed items aren't archaic acronyms. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.83|162.158.63.83]] 17:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:No, "-nym" means name, so this is names that are outdated [[Special:Contributions/104.23.190.60|104.23.190.60]] 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he should be paying with paper money. He can easily pay by credit card ... using virtual debit card on his phone. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 17:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
: Paper money might not be made from paper anymore - at least, it isn't in NZ, where I live. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.130|172.69.0.130]] 17:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think “paper money” is about paper no longer being made from papyrus. US bank notes are printed on rag paper, which is indeed a kind of paper despite containing little or no wood pulp.--[[User:Seakingsoyuz|Seakingsoyuz]] ([[User talk:Seakingsoyuz|talk]]) 18:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:: I don't think 'paper money' should be designated as being made of paper here. Everyone knows that paper money doesn't feel or act like paper. It's incredibly hard to rip. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:The "card" in credit card seems to come from Latin and Greek for a piece of paper or papyrus. So a credit card, now made of plastic, metal, semiconductors, etc. might be considered an anachronym. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Adults who "enjoy" rubber ducks include programmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.27|172.71.95.27]] 18:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The word money came from words that meant coin. The word coin evidently came from wedge shaped. Not quite anachronym, though somewhat anachronism. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Surprised "lead pencil" didn't make the list [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.109|172.68.12.109]] 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Duck Tape is no longer made from ducks! [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"digital money" shouldn't be listed as what "paper money" is actually made out of. Nobody would say "I'm paying with paper money" if they are paying with some digital currency. The anachronism is "paper money" being actually made of linen or whatever hi-tech fibers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.211|172.70.254.211]] 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC) anonymous user
:Not even ''fibers''. Sheet-polymers (with loads of complex embedded and pressed-in features) are becoming the new go-to for banknotes, in a number of countries. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My wife suggests that this is much easier if you are tech shopping: Apple, Mouse, Spam, Phish, Cookies.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.225|162.158.78.225]] 20:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty

2024-11-05T17:02:12Z

172.68.205.135:

Emotional spirals are useless. I've been coping by pretending we're in scenario 1, it keeps me sane. If I'm wrong, I'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:And I have a friend whose strategy is baking. It's both therapeutic and delicious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:I see I don't know US geography well: which bridge you can jump from to leave it? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Most of them. Some of them may be 'caged in' for safety/anti-suicide/anti-DropThingsInThoseBelow purposes (or a {{w|covered bridge}}). Relatively few of the others will be ones that you would have no qualms about vaulting the railing, but (as well as it clearly being a witticism by Barmar) I think you could easily ''find'' a bridge that you could jump off. And the resulting falling part isn't at all the difficult bit. Landing safely (or, in extremis for those desperate enough, in a guaranteed immediately fatal manner) is more the challenge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.206|172.70.86.206]] 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that at preparing for the negative outcome regardless of which outcome is more likely (unless that outcome is *very* unlikely) is a healthy thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.141|172.71.147.141]] 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is my usual approach to things. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This comic appeared the day before the 2024 United States Presidential Election. At publication time, polls were strongly suggesting about a 50/50 odds that either major candidate would win. Recent news items included advice from mental-health professionals on how to deal with election-related anxiety. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.195|172.71.167.195]] 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely related. This should be in the text, not in the comments, frankly. The yanks are going nuts about the election right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.124.243|172.71.124.243]] 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Did the advice suggested narcotics? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal policy is to expect and prepare for the worst. That way I can be surprised when it doesn't happen, and not surprised when it does, rather than the other way around. I don't "do" emotions, so it's basically just planning and mumbling colloquialisms involving the digestive system... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.134.64|172.71.134.64]] 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:As someone who used to think this way, this is obstructively cynical, and downright ''sad''. I mean, in theory you should be pleasantly surprised by the good, and prepared for the bad, but in practice you just dismiss anything good and focus exclusively on the bad. As someone with experience in this type of thinking, it isn't healthy. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that it's mostly Democrats that are anxious, where Trump winning is the bad case. Not being an American I don't have much perspective. Are many Republicans likely to also be anxious, and if so, why? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.170|172.69.60.170]] 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure about "anxious", for Trump-supporting Rs (as opposed to Trump-opposing ones, who are both anxious and tremendously conflicted), but there's certainly a buzz of some emotion. That, if ''their'' expectations/hopes/desires are dashed, seem more likely to turn into more direct push-back than Ds would in their case. i.e. if Trump truly wins, there'll be turmoil as the legitimate government forcefully pushes against large subsets of the people, if Harris truly wins then small but determined fractions of the people will push back against the legitimate government. (If it's any way ambiguous, for long enough, which 'truth' indicates a win, it could easily be people vs. people for at least as long as the confusion lasts, with very little reason to believe that it'll be Harris supporters throwing the first stone, probably making Florida 2000 look like a "neat transition"). But this is just what it looks like at this moment. Within a day we ''might'' get to see whose words get eaten, or it could be at least a month of building tensions (due to the US system of elections, deliberately legislated to be so much more inefcicient than it needs to be, compared to various other Western nations). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:From what I've seen the ones in public-facing forums seem pretty indifferent. They do talk a lot about election fraud though. {{unsigned ip|172.70.34.117|22:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)}}

I like that the comic leaves "good" and "bad" open to interpretation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83|172.70.211.83]] 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:He doesn't want to start fights in the comments/discussion pages/replies! Good to see him appealing to no specific demographic in this one. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Considering that the "Harris for President" banner is still active, I'm not sure I agree with that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.4|172.68.22.4]] 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::yeah, for that reason i think it's more just so the comic can have further longevity, as this way it can be applied to any number of things with two outcomes, not just the current election [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.193|141.101.109.193]] 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well, so far so good ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3007:_Probabilistic_Uncertainty&oldid=355799 Further, with regards to N/A - the odds of "precisely" 50/50 are probabilistically zero]: Bear in mind that with the Electoral College system and the fact that only 7 US states are "likely in play," we are talking only hundreds or thousands of realistic possibilities. The odds of a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College are far more than 0. One possibility of a tie that is "on the radar" is if the Republicans take Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (which is very likely to go Democratic) and the Democrats take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If you consider just the 7 "in play" states but Arizona "flips" from Republican to Democratic, there are 3 combinations that yield a 269-269 tie. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.249|172.70.210.249]] 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
: If there's a 269-269 tie, that's basically going to be a Trump win due to how the contingent election process works. (For that matter the far more plausible 270-268 to Harris, which happens if she wins Nevada but not Pennsylvania, is likely going to result in Trump getting the presidency as well, but let's ignore that.) However, many analysts, when faced with numbers like Nate Silver's 50.015%, are going to round it to 50% or 50.0% in the public-facing reports, resulting in apparent exact 50/50 odds even if mathematically they actually favor one side slightly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.3|172.71.130.3]] 10:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::There's little point in being so precise, since the fraction is far less than the margin of error in the polling. Anything between 49% and 51% is essentially a toss-up. If the 51% is in your favor you can feel hopeful, but hardly confident. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re '''We contacted several researchers who are experts in emotional spirals to ask them, but none of them were in a state to speak with us''': Is it a stretch to think that the emotional-spiral experts were all "in Puerto Rico" (which is not a state), emotionally speaking? In the last week a supporter of one of the candidates insulted Puerto Rico and by extension, people of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican descent, causing an emotional uproar all over the inter-tubes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 01:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Created an account just to say this; don't get mad at me but in my opinion, both candidates are equally bad, which has led to a weird sense of calmness in me due to my belief that we'll be equally screwed no matter what, just in different ways. Tbh in my opinion both candidates are in between what their supporters think of them and what their opponents think of them. Please be civil if you reply, no ad hominem please. [[User:BurnV06|BurnV06]] ([[User talk:BurnV06|talk]]) 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, one of them is clearly worse than the other. How do you feel about LGBTQ+ rights? Abortion? Medicare? Teaching kids that racism and homophobia in schools is bad? Well, if Project 2025 is anything to go by, one side ''clearly'' is the unpreferable unless you're a white, Christian, rich, and male. This is not a "both sides" issue. One is clearly the worse option. And frankly, I wish centrists knew this. I can agree to disagree on some issues but I just cannot elect someone who wants to punish people for the egregious crime of, ''gasp'', not conforming to societal standard of gender and romance.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:"Equally bad" is highly subjective, Burn. More people would consider "a total disaster" vs "at least they're not a total disaster!" as a closer truth (whether their own personally-configured disastermeter comes in a Red or Blue casing), and consider balancing dead in the center of the fence to be the most inexplicable position to take. (Not to mention those like above, and also their antithesis opinions, who have a very definite good/bad opinion 9n the pair.)
:Not that I'd support being mad at you, as the problem with politics today is ''too much'' extreme polarization (we need more moderate voices, rather than wedging open an ever wider void between both limits of opinion). But there's just no realistic middle-ground to gather support around, and what middle-ground there is might also be moving one way or another (depending upon who you ask), so I'm afraid that the strictly neutral "as bad as each other" types are just guaranteed to be setting themselves up to be disappointed. In the 'best' case scenario, disappointed that things aint turning out to be as bad as feared, but I'm not sure that's reassuringly likely enough to comfort you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well said, and I think it's important to mention that the reason there isn't any moderates is that the moderates ''just don't care anymore''. At least online, complete political apathy is a position I've seen a lot of people take ("Why are they constantly slamming politics into my face, I just don't care"). Unfortunately, these kinds of people are also the moderates, people who aren't particularly one side or the other. This leads to a political landscape where you have 2 extremes, and a bunch of people in the middle who couldn't care less because of said extremes. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.31.24|172.71.31.24]] 15:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's funny that so many Democrats are genuinely terrified of the results and spend their days anxiously refreshing 538, whereas Republicans are filled with optimism and already know that the democrats have run the weakest candidate since Dukakis. Ah well, maybe in four years you'll actually get to vote for who leads your ticket instead of having them be appointed by the party elites directly without a vote. ;) {{unsigned ip|172.71.22.120|07:35, 5 November 2024}}
:Given the indirect democracy system the US has, there's a number of problems with who gets to be President. And if Harris is weaker than H. Clinton, but it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting, does that mean that Trump's win was therefore less legitimate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

User:CalibansCreations

2024-10-26T23:53:45Z

172.68.205.135: Undo revision 354705 by 172.68.210.14 (talk)

{{Infobox character
| image = BlackHat_head.png
| imagesize = 42px
| caption = :)
| first_appearance = inside your home
}}
still a wip lol

==The Barnstar Award==
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|100px]]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | <div style="font-family: Cormorant Garamond"> For your help in reverting vandalism on my talk page, [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']], I hereby award thee a Barnstar. Feel free to display it on your user page. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 21:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC) 
</noinclude>

User talk:CalibansCreations

2024-10-26T23:53:26Z

172.68.205.135: Undo revision 354703 by 172.68.210.14 (talk)

Please chat with me below.
----

== 1946?? Yes, at one point. ==

The change made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Car_wash&diff=prev&oldid=1212096331&diffonly=1 here] marks the point where the valid header/anchor of "1946" was removed. These things happen, especially cross-wiki. Just so you know (I was intruigued myself, so did a couple of minutes digging). Nice catch, though! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 10:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:oh, my first talk page message, thx. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 11:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

==Politics intrudes==
randall still supports zionist harris... :'( [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
: Do you really think Trump would be better? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 09:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::i mean, both of them suck tbh [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 09:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::so whats your alternative suggestion? Voting/Endorsing for a third party and then get trump into office? Great strategy --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::that ain't how it works. if we all vote for the third party, the third party will win. simple as that. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 11:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::''Which'' third-party? Vermine Supreme? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.206|172.70.90.206]] 12:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Who exactly is "we all"?
:::::Nobody outside of your little internet bubble is voting third-party, because doing so without mass coordination is just throwing your vote away (meanwhile MAGA are all fully coordinated in voting for Trump).
:::::The risk of a Trump second term is bad enough even with everyone who is anti-Trump voting for Harris, and you think the average person over the age of 20 is going to risk that even further by voting for a third party?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.106|172.69.195.106]] 12:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
: I think you err if you think that "supports Israel against attackers" totally equates to "supports Israel's uncompromising attacks on others". And "Zionist" is such a loaded term, with {{w|Zionist antisemitism|various complications}}, with Kamala being no more this than is her primary opponent.
: Being consistently critical of one candidate by using a single word (e.g.. "fascist", for the other one) does not bode well for your appreciation of the many subtleties that make up anyone other than a cartoon hero/villain. Not that even the reality of the State Of Israel is simple (there are plenty of its citizen residents who decry their government's actions since/before last October, are they ''anti-''Zionist?), and even that is just a single relatively small mess in the much bigger mess that is the wider morass of foreign (and domestic) policy. By picking just one dogwhistle term (arguably in a very incorrect context) isn't helping whatever argument you're trying to make. All I get from this conversation is that you hate every candidate with any chance of winning (and most of those without, based upon their stated positions), without knowing what you are for. Employment? Social safety-nets? Smaller goverment? ''Better'' (define 'better'!) government? Who would you prefer to 'deal with' the issue of Ukraine, Taiwan, North Korea or countless other worldside issues out there?
: You also elsewhere announced yourself as a Brit (as am I), so you don't have a vote and precious little actual influence. Even if you or I had any useful analysis to say about this issue, it seems that most people are already polarised in opinion and you or I (or, indeed, Randall) can do little but be performative about our current views. It is unlikely we could swing even one notable vote, although we might just push some of the partially polarised fully over (whichever way) into their pre-chosen preferences, excited or annoyed by such a single-issue outburst that they find themself vehemently agreeing or disagreeing with. (As a Brit, I'm frankly embarrassed by those who put up "this house is supporting the LibDem/Labour/Tory/SNP/whoever candidate" signs in their windows. I'd put up OMRLP ones, maybe, but I've never been able to vote that way, anyway, so can certainly say that I've actually never voted for them. Even if they sometimes seem the better choice.)
: Furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with this comic (US geography, yes, US politics, no). I would heavily advise you to take this whole section out and place it all somewhere else. Perhaps your User Talk: area, so that you can wear your heartfelt antizionist (and perhaps no more) opinions on your sleeve without distracting from more relevent discussion, such as "Why is Idaho unlabeled" or "Why does everyone mississremember Mississippi's postostostal code?" [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.206|172.70.90.206]] 12:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Postscript: *I* have moved this. <-that IP
:Quick question, CalibansCreations. Are you the same IP troll who said that Randall supports Zionism? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 15:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::yes, I only wanted an account so I could change the skin of this website when viewing it [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 15:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

== Name ==

Hey CalibansCreations, thanks for reverting my talk page. My name’s Victoria, as shown on the edit leaderboard. The “Charlie Spring” name was just a pseudonym back then. :) [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, pleasure to meet you Victoria! You can just call me Caliban or Cal. (That's my own pseudonym.) [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

==Barnstar==
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|100px]]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | <div style="font-family: Cormorant Garamond"> For your help in reverting vandalism on my talk page, [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']], I hereby award thee a Barnstar. Feel free to display it on your user page. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 21:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC) 
</noinclude>
:oh wow tysm --[[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:ConscriptGlossary

2024-10-26T23:52:05Z

172.68.205.135: Undo revision 354700 by 172.68.210.15 (talk)

== Suggestions been made to block C___G___ accounts! ==
Hi. I'm an admin here and there has been a request to [[User_talk:Kynde#Blocking_ColorfulGalaxy|block ColorfulGalaxy]] and other accounts that are of the form C___G___ like yours, because you all seem to interact and maybe use each others accounts or being one guy with multiple accounts. Specifically [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:ColorfulGalaxy&oldid=320641 the dead links] on [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxys]] page (that has at the moment been removed, hence link to old version) was an offence point. Seems you have ben trying to use this wiki for a project called neology, which does not belong here. Please stop what ever you are doing, and remove any thing related to this or I will be forced to ban all of these accounts. If you stop and begin editing only relevant stuff I will not ban you! Best regads --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The neography project has already been moved. It's been moved several times in fact. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 12:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

== Li Jiayi ==

You added a trivia section in [[461: Google Maps]] about Li Jiayi. I’ve never heard of this person, could you please drop a link to wherever you found this so that I can add the Chinese characters? I have Chinese keyboards on my device. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|100px]]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | <div style="font-family: Cormorant Garamond"> For your help in reverting vandalism on my talk pages, [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]], I hereby award thee a Barnstar. Feel free to display it on your user page. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 21:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC) 
</noinclude>

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T17:46:20Z

172.68.205.135: /* Explanation */

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

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

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses the 1742 {{w|Celsius}} scale for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}} (or the related {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}}), which uses the 1724 {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale. The other widely used temperature scale is the 1848 {{w|Kelvin}} scale, which uses the same degrees as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius (which, along with degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually made in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale, also known as "centigrade", was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742 and revised in 1745, a year after his death. 0°C represents the freezing point of water and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of kelvin. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same degrees as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.)
<center>Celsius = kelvin – 273.15</center>
<center>kelvin = Celsius + 273.15</center>
While kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive to laypersons.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead originally setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution.
<center>Celsius = (Fahrenheit – 32) × 5/9</center>
<center>Fahrenheit = Celsius × 9/5 + 32</center>
Although those reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity in Anglophone countries, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially used only in Randall's home country (the U.S., and its territories), the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia and Palau.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making.
<center>Celsius = Réaumur / 0.8</center>
<center>Réaumur = Celsius × 0.8</center>
The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it originally used the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<center>Celsius = (Rømer – 7.5) × 40/21</center>
<center>Rømer = Celsius × 21/40 + 7.5</center>
The Rømer scale is considered the predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, because Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to reduce the necessity for fractions.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°Ra] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more universal zero point.
<center>Celsius = (Rankine – 491.67) × 5/9</center>
<center>Rankine = (Celsius + 273.15) × 9/5</center>
Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition. So, as a linear appproximation:
<center>Celsius = Newton × 100/33</center>
<center>Newton = Celsius × 33/100</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{Actual citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inconsistent.
<center>Celsius = (Wedgwood + 8) × 100/1.3</center>
<center>Wedgwood = (Celsius × 1.3/100) – 8</center>
The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold.
<center>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius – 22) / 100) × 8</center>
This range from +4 to –4 is humorously used as its rating, implying –100% cursedness. Technically this makes it the least cursed of all the listed scales, but the idea of negative cursedness (or cursedness itself) would be Randall's invention. There is no standard modern abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] will be negative in this implementation. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined (see [[2295: Garbage Math]]) and may be interpreted in a number of counter-intuitive ways.
<center>Celsius = 100 – real_Celsius</center>
<center>real_Celsius = 100 – Celsius</center>
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a {{w|Millimetre of mercury|column of mercury}} at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was changed, to more or less the form already described above, after his death in 1745. Delisle's scale was never reversed.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100:
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 273.15 )</center>
There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [''sic''] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || Randall has not stated the cursedness of his new scale || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50.0; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.0</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8</center>

Due to high temperature records increasing almost every year{{Actual citation needed|...above calculations quote a 1913 temperature as our record high! Something is wrong with this statement and/or that reference point.}} (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange core {{w|human body temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|hot coffee}} temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22 °C || 0 °C || 100 °C || 37 °C || 2.5 °C || –18 °C || 39 °C || 77 °C
|-
| Kelvin || 295 K || 273 K || 373 K || 310 K || 276 K || 255 K || 312 K || 350 K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72 °F || 32 °F || 212 °F || 98.6 °F || 36.5 °F || 0 °F || 102 °F || 171 °F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6 °Ré || 0 °Ré || 80 °Ré || 29.6 °Ré || 2 °Ré || –14.4 °Ré || 31.2 °Ré || 61.6 °Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1 °Rø || 7.5 °Rø || 60 °Rø || 26.9 °Rø || 8.8 °Rø || –2 °Rø || 28 °Rø || 47.9 °Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531 °Ra || 492 °Ra || 672 °Ra || 558 °Ra || 496 °Ra || 459 °Ra || 562 °Ra || 630 °Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.3 °N || 0 °N || 33 °N || 12.2 °N || 0.8 °N || –5.9 °N || 12.9 °N || 25.4 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.70 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –1.76 || 6.24 || 1.20 || –1.56 || –3.20 || 1.36 || 4.40
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0 || 100 || 40.7 || 2.9 || –21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X scale || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

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

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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T21:39:43Z

172.68.205.135:

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Furthermore, should it be 0°R or just 0R (no °)? I've been told that Kelvin doesn't use degrees because it's an absolute scale, so a) is this true and b) should it apply to Rankine? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.211.54|172.71.211.54]] 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Kelvin is rather strange, for reasons never totally explained. It's "the Kelvin scale", but the unit is "kelvin" and I never got on with the official absence of the ° symbol by the "K". I was always taught to ''say'' "degrees kelvin" (for temperatures) and "kelvin degrees" (for a change/range of temperature) in order to not cause confusion and technical misunderstandings (''perhaps'' easier to contextualise when down in writing?) but no accounting for taste, or possibly official laziness.
::On the basis that Rankine is not kelvin (whatever the reason for how kelvin is what it is), I would use the degrees, as I would any other absolute scale (whether it be an adjusted form of °Rø or °Ré or whatever else might be invented), because kelvin is just inexplicably (to me, and to others) ''the'' exception to absolutely every other reasonably equivalent contemporary measure, including capitalisation. YMMV! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.2|172.70.162.2]] 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::0ºRa, not 0ºR. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.157|172.70.206.157]] 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Can be either. Perhaps best to use °Ra (in ambiguous context) to avoid ''possible'' confusion with °Ré and °Rø, but probably less important when both those two are also listed alongside (except for wondering what, if anything, is a typo, bad handwriting or other error). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.12|172.69.194.12]] 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It's easy if you think about it like "meter". You usually say "meters" not "the meter scale" although both are correct. Scientists and engineers who use them daily call them "kelvins", not "kelvin" unless following a number. You wouldn't say "We need to measure this room in meter." Someone keeps reverting me on this, and they're wrong, but I don't care much anymore. I'll probably fix it next month or something. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::"Americans typically measure temperatures in Fahrenheits, whilst Europeans use Celsiusses..." hmm, no, that doesn't sound right at all. (Celciuses? No, wait. Celcii! Masculine Plural Singular changed to the Plural, if I've got my Latin declensions right. But still doesn't sound right. Maybe I also need to use "Fahrenheit''en''"..? Wait, wasn't he born Polish, so that means...)
:::::Seriously, I think that if you talk of "measured in [the scale of] Celsius" you should probably talk of "... in [the scale of] Kelvin" (using the capital for the scale). According to the {{w|Kelvin#Orthography|orthography}}, you'd be right to specify "50 kelvins" (c.f. "50 degrees [whatever non-Kelvin measure]" ''or'' "50 [whatever non-Kelvin measure] degrees" for a range), but talking ''about'' the scale would definitely call for a simple "Kelvin". [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC) (PS., I'd also say "metre(s)", but then I'm British... which might also colour (or 'color') my personal grammatical sensibilities. But oh what fun you lot seem to have had with this whole issue!)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 59
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::How about Tnew=0.1694×degC+46.25; degC=(Tnew-46.25)/0.1694, where 0 is absolute zero and 50 is room temperature? (Freezing point of water: 46.25; Boiling point of water: 63.19) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.248|162.158.186.248]] 05:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:I would absolutely pull the trigger on an additional column if I didn't think it would further screw up what are most probably extremely cursed mobile portrait renderings of the table. How about a Trivia section? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature in 2023 was 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Re: water/ice point 'random number', I think it's more that it wasn't considered "special", such that "On my scale, that will be zero" (or whatever choice of handily round number, including zero, some scale-setters allocated to the BP of water).
:After all the other messing about ("my zero will be that of brine!", etc), obviously then the ~0°C equivalent would ''have'' a number, and ''perhaps'' there would then be a slight change to make it a ''whole'' (or easy-fraction) number for convenience's sake, but (before the concept of binary computers) there's not much special about landing on the number 32, for what is actually a temperature that is quite significant to the human experience, and less so with 7-''and-a-half''.
:Maybe landing on 90°F (at one time) for body temperature (and 180 F° ''between'' MP and BP) was considered useful as the analogue to angular-degrees where 90 (and 180) indeed features significantly, but I don't think there'd have been too much fuss if the value would have turned out to be 60(/120), also with plenty of handy factors to divide by, 70(/140), without so much, or whatever number(s) happened to depict one realistic real-world measurement that (overall) has no reason to have a factor-based relationship with various quite separate phenomenon measurements.
:''And'' it went through several {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|'corrective' iterations}} so that even its handy relationship with 'about 100°F' can be said to be an incidental accident, at best, unless we do something like Randall's °X scale and actively triple-tie the central value of the slope(s) to be exactly something useful by using the "currently accepted mean human body temperature (given various complicated caveats)".
:It's pretty much all random, in the same way that only because of anthropocentric choices of 'standard' time and distance measurements is the speed of light 'pretty much' 3×10⁸ m/s (a handily round value that works well enough for most purposes, even after back-standardising its component SI measurements to make "actually, precisely 299792458" the ''proper'' answer, and [https://conversion.org/speed/speed-of-light/furlong-per-fortnight it could be far worse...]). Avagadro's number never had it so good (6.022(+change)×1023...? ...where's the handily mnemonic value in that?), and Pi (in this universe's system of fundemental mathematics) clearly never ever had a chance! And, on {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|at least one occasion}}, such happenstance numeric roundedness in its exactitude (29''',000''' ft) was considered actually quite awkward... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.90|172.70.91.90]] 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::My understanding is that the brine thing was an ad-hoc justification when the scale was presented to the Royal Society. It may have seemed less cursed. But yes, there's a BIG reason for using 32 or 64, halving a distance is trivial and as an instument maker, Fahrenheit would have found that attractive. Mind you, I'm getting this from the Straight Dope, so I could be a dope getting it straight. https://www.straightdope.com/21344240/did-cecil-err-in-explaining-the-significance-of-zero-fahrenheit [[Special:Contributions/162.158.10.189|162.158.10.189]] 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then, regarding {{diff|353895|this edit}} (and the original IP-led one(s) that even made huge and revert-necessary changes), was it ''really'' intended to get rid of whole paragraphs such as "Randall also fails to specify what happens with temperatures[...]" that had nothing to do with the numeric adjustments? When I see that, I see mistakes (especially in light of the "clobber" that happened, where typos reappeared and other things became unexplained/worse-explained once more). — Basically, if your edit summary is nust about updating baseline data, and the resulting maths, I don't expect (maybe good, maybe bad) edits to unrelated bits. Or I may (and have) presumed accidental (or deliberate?) carelessness that I'd rather not try to go back to first principles to re-re-check for the editor concerned. That is all. At least try to justify enough of your edit in its own way, even if it means diving in several times to get enough space to summarise your whole "why" to each tweak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.104|172.68.186.104]] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I have re-removed the removals piecemeal with individual edit summaries for clarity. Many of them involved detailed obscure technical misunderstandings, such as whether the Vostok and Death Valley measurements were surface temperatures (the WMO says they are, and there are the WMO's photos of the observation stations in the linked references now) which combined with the incorrect yearly average global mean temperature, added five paragraphs unnecessarily. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.152|172.68.23.152]] 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Definitely some points made (some incorrect, "ne er" was ''obviously'' more just a basic typo of "never", not my attempt to use "ne'er" for no good reason, and my attempt to fix that and some other bits ran into a set of Edit Conflicts ...hope I caught all the remaining ones when I finally could try again on the settled-down page) and I've blended answers to your objections in while giving back what useful nuances (from a number of past editors, only a couple of bits even having had my own hand primarilly behind them as they were) really needn't have been removed. I dispute the terms of your objections (as summarised) behind {{diff|353937|some changes}}, but have rephrased based upon what I ''think'' you mean, giving you should prefer and wouldn't feel the need to be as randomly censorious about. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.173|172.69.195.173]] 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Figure 1 in https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature does not seem like a random walk to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.118|172.69.33.118]] 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Added the "Random Walk" because, ignoring long-term trends, year-on-year the measured average is going to blip up and down for all kinds of reasons (physical and measuring issues, both), so it will be lower than expected or higher than expected compared to the smoother track it actually takes on a rolling average. I think one of the versions I replaced had partial suggestion that the average was effectively constant (in °C, not just °X), and while records adjusted every now and then (or every year!), it all just rather settled down at the °X midpoint. Which it doesn't. (And also that it's ''possible'' that Average and Minimum change such that the projected Absolute Zero ''doesn't'' move so much, one year, although mostly the fulcrum will be closer to 0°X rather than 0K.)
::::But I've yet to see what's been changed (maybe improved) since I was last looking at it. Maybe this is an out-of-date explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.202|172.70.90.202]] 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

When I originally designed my unit conversion app I almost made a unit up that was based on the ideal gas law and one mass pound of said gas in a one cubic foot container. It seemed more quixotic than anything else so I didn't pull the trigger on it. Maybe I should have.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.33|172.70.111.33]] 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is x based off of elon musk changing twitter to X? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.50|172.71.254.50]] 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Too many things were already "X" (X marks the spot, Planet X, The X-Men, Xmas...), I see no need to presume that Elon has successfully claimed ownership of one entire letter of the alphabet due to a car-crash business deal and a self-obsessive personality. To paraphrase Freud, "sometimes an X is just an X", and with no references at all to anything Twitter-like I don't see any other intent than just as a traditional placeholder character. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.209|172.70.90.209]] 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== Division by zero ==

I saw this in an edit summary: "10/0 is not ∞, it's also an error, not NaN according to the IEEE. It's closer to {+∞, -∞} than NaN but it's still neither because you can't make limits work"

Actually, IEEE floating point 10/0 can be an error, +∞, or NaN depending on the rounding mode. This is one of the reasons why mathemeticians don't appreciate the IEEE as much as they might. Division by zero is strictly undefined because of the problems with limits alluded to in the summary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdg1yn1SgE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.66|108.162.245.66]] 03:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:"When considering division by zero through limits, assigning {+∞, -∞} as potential results is insufficient because limits require consistency and well-defined behavior. In the case of dividing a number by values approaching zero, the results differ depending on whether zero is approached from the positive or negative direction. As a divisor approaches zero from the positive side, the quotient grows towards +∞, and from the negative side, it tends towards -∞. Since limits must converge to a single value for consistency, this disparity leads to an undefined result. Moreover, in many mathematical contexts, infinity is not a number but rather a concept describing unbounded growth, meaning operations involving infinity, like addition or multiplication, are not well-defined in the same way as with finite numbers. This inconsistency in approaching zero prevents {+∞, -∞} from being an adequate solution set for division by zero. Defining division by zero as infinity would create contradictions in both arithmetic and algebraic contexts, as it disrupts fundamental properties like continuity and field structures in mathematics. Hence, division by zero remains undefined to preserve mathematical rigor and coherence."
:[Chat Gippity 4o] [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::https://imgflip.com/i/7yd7gz [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.131|172.71.150.131]] 09:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Trivia section table values? ==

Someone please double-check the Trivia section temperatures. I am not convinced they are entirely correct or consistent. I'm least sure about the Galen row. And Wedgwood obviously needs more digits of precision. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.28|162.158.41.28]] 13:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:LGTM. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-23T21:47:54Z

172.68.205.135: /* Explanation */ clarify

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

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

Since the invention of the thermometer, a number of different temperature scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements, as it is part of the {{w|metric system}} that has been widely adopted for official uses. A small number of countries (namely Liberia, the USA and its three associated free states in the Pacific) retain the US customary (or 'imperial') system, which uses the ''slightly'' older {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale (°F was initially defined in 1724, the general current form of °C was created in 1743). The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|Kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit regularly, scientific measurements are typically done in Celsius and/or Kelvin.

The strip proceeds to compare these scales, and a number of others, on a scaled of "cursed"-ness. The joke is highlighting how strange and generally difficult to use many older proposed systems were. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees (though some, such as Rankine, are still sometimes used in legacy applications).

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water Freezes
! scope="col" | Water Boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. This (along with Kelvin) is considered the least cursed temperature system (at least from those where the ranking values make any sense), likely due to Randall's background. Notably it is still considered a 2/10, implying an inherent degree of cursedness for all systems.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} that intends to use the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is offset by 273.15, in order to set the zero point at absolute zero (by way of using the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}, as of 2019). This is very practical for the math of thermodynamics, but unintuitive for non-expert users. Kelvin and Celsius are, by far, the most common units used in scientific measurements and calculations. Their utility and inherent logic is likely what makes them the least "cursed".
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit is officially used in several countries across the globe, and unofficially in several others. It was derived in an era where factors of 360 were more popular in science than powers of ten, so water freezing and water boiling were calibrated to be 180° apart. In addition, Daniel Fahrenheit believed that pure water freezing was not worthy of the 0° benchmark and resolved to set 0° to the coldest possible temperature he could create: the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine. While modern scholars find these benchmarks arbitrary and outdated, it gained usage, primarily in Anglophone countries, likely due to the scale being considered intuitively useful for some common functions (the range roughly matches the typical span of weather conditions, for various ranges of climate, and the 100 point is quite near normal human body temperature, even though 90 was initially presumed to be this). While it was largely displaced by the Celsius scale, the US (Randall's home country) continues to typically use it. It is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labelling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724. Much like Fahrenheit, it uses the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Ole Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5. The scale is also the last common ancestor of Celsius and Fahrenheit, as Reuamur was inspired by it, and Celsius by Reamur, and Fahrenheit specifically wanted a Rømer scale with more steps to avoid using decimals.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero || 6/10 || As the chart mentions, Rankine is to Fahrenheit what Kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute scale rather than a relative one. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required.
For unclear reasons, Randall uses "0°F" to describe absolute zero on the Rankine scale, when the actual measurement would be written as 0°R. Both reference points are also rounded to one decimal place (from .67 to .7).

Randall has shown disdain for this scale before, like in [[2292: Thermometer]]. This is slightly odd, given that it makes ''more'' logical sense than Fahrenheit, as its zero point is somewhere logical rather than being arbitrarily defined.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. Randall has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood (''without the e'').
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || {{w|Galen}}, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/–4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpreted as –100% cursedness, though it's not clear what negative cursedness would mean. Of course it is not actually clear what "cursedness" means, so maybe that is not an issue.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures (an indefinite range of them) will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. This might be interpreted as "infinitely cursed", or else just {{w|NaN|Not a Number}}.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This direction 'survives' in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures.

The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e. the cursedness could be understood as 50/50 (or 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
|-
| °X ([[Randall]]'s new temperature scale as defined in the title text) || 42.9 || 151.4 || Title text: "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [sic] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || N/A (but likely very high)|| The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.4°C (57.2°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{cot|Derivation}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and Boiling Points

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, the freezing point is 42.9 °X.

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, the boiling point is 151.4 °X.

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
Since average and high temperature records are being broken frequently due to {{w|climate change}}, this scale is defined as being re-calibrated annually.
|}

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

:Temperature Scales

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

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

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:2999: Bad Map Projection: The United Stralia

2024-10-17T09:18:06Z

172.68.205.135: Sure, the middle east was nuked and womens rights erased, but for a while my "Genocide ~~Joe~~ Harris" memes got a lot of likes on TikTok

He forgot the Idaho abbreviation. [[User:Danger Kitty|Danger Kitty]] ([[User talk:Danger Kitty|talk]])
hello[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.64|172.68.54.64]] 19:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:: And Mississippi has stolen Michigan's abbreviation! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.240|172.70.206.240]] 23:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

5 likes and I will make this a reality [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 20:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably this is because I'm more familiar with the map of Australia than of the US, but Melbourne seems to have moved quite a bit to the east and is now presumably in Gippsland? Oddly that's the most jarring change for me... [[User:Zoid42|Zoid42]] ([[User talk:Zoid42|talk]]) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:: Yep. {{w|Melbourne Florida}}. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.10|172.70.47.10]] 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

An eight-legged gator with fangs the size of your arm, six eyes, and the ability to spin webs is truly a horrifying thought. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:: At that point most of the NT would become to dangerous for people to live. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 23:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If find it weird how tasmania is florida, as while they are in the same place, they are the least alike 2 places you could think of. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 22:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:: Agreed. If cartoons and television have taught me anything, one is home to a bunch of snarling, slobbering, ravenous beasts, moving across the landscape as whirlwinds of wanton destruction. And the other is Tasmania. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.130|172.64.238.130]] 04:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Part of the joke is that the contiguous 48 States plus DC have nearly the same area as Australia, though the US has a larger total area. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.166|141.101.109.166]] 01:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As an Australian citizen, this map hurts my soul. This is amazingly painful and I kinda love it. [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 01:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:: I apparently now live in Adelaide/Louisiana (or New Orleans/South Australia). [[User:FourW|FourW]] ([[User talk:FourW|talk]]) 06:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)FourW

Environmentalists will be upset with Randal for finally finishing the {{w|Cross Florida Barge Canal}}. And just in time for the centennial!--[[User:The Mess|The Mess]] ([[User talk:The Mess|talk]]) 07:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

randall still supports zionist harris... :'( [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:: Do you really think Trump would be better? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 09:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

2000: xkcd Phone 2000

2024-10-15T12:39:17Z

172.68.205.135:

{{comic
| number = 2000
| date = May 30, 2018
| title = xkcd Phone 2000
| image = xkcd_phone_2000.png
| titletext = Our retina display features hundreds of pixels per inch in the central fovea region.
}}

==Explanation==
This is the seventh entry in the ongoing [[:Category:xkcd Phones|xkcd Phone series]], and once again, the comic plays with many standard tech buzzwords, and horribly misuses all of them, to create a phone that sounds impressive but self-evidently isn't to even the most ignorant customer. The previous comic in the series [[1889: xkcd Phone 6]] was released 8 and a half months before this one, and the next comic [[2377: xkcd Phone 12]] was released two years and five months later.

This time, a nonconsecutive version number is used to match the 2000th xkcd comic number. The tagline for the phone says that the marketing team hopes that 2000 still sounds like a futuristic number. It was common for a time to have futuristic science-fiction take place on or around the year 2000 (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Knight Rider 2000, Death Race 2000, Space: 1999), and many devices marketed in the late 20th century had a "2000" as part of their product name in order to sound futuristic. However, since the year 2000 is decades ago, this is no longer the case. The number 2000 also represents the fact that this is the 2000th xkcd comic. The nonsensical trademarking of xkcd Phone slogans has become even more pronounced: as well as the inapplicable-as-ever copyright symbol, the slogan is listed three times as a {{w|registered trademark}} and twice as an unregistered one – and the second of those trademark signs is itself trademarked.

From the top, going clockwise:

; Dockless

: It was common practice for older standard cellphones (i.e. non-smartphones) to use a docking station for charging. "Dockless" could be a catchy marketing term for wireless charging, or it could simply mean wired charging without a dock.

; Silent

: Most mobile phones have a "Silent" mode in which all ringing and vibration is muted, so the user can receive messages and missed-call notifications in a place that requires silence. This xkcd Phone feature may be a "Silent" mode button, but perhaps the phone is silent all the time and unable to produce sound at all. While most people these days use their smartphones for functions that do not require sound, a completely silent phone would not fit the traditional definition of a "phone". This feature is labelled at the location where a headphone socket would traditionally be, although some recent phones have discarded the traditional headphone jack in place of wireless headphones.

; Quad camera takes four copies of every picture

: Recent phones have added up to three rear-facing cameras, offering different fields of view, monochrome cameras for low light, and a wider base for emulating depth of field effects. This phone's cameras might take four ''identical'' pictures simultaneously, which would use up storage space at 4 times the rate of a standard camera while providing no advantage.

; Front-facing camera obscura

: A {{w|camera obscura}} is a dark room or box with a small hole allowing light to enter. The size of the hole causes light travelling in straight lines to project a dim inverted image on the back of the room or box; the concept is the predecessor to a modern camera, which uses a lens to allow more light to enter. A camera obscura is not strictly speaking a camera as in an image capture device (although there are pin-hole cameras which use the same mechanism). Actual phones have front-facing conventional cameras, allowing selfies, video calling, etc. A pinhole camera is unsuitable for use as a mobile phone camera due to its limited light capture, unless a tripod was used images would be noisy or blury unless used in very bright circumstances.

; 3D facial contour analysis shows a realistic preview of your death mask

: Recent computational photography effects implemented on mobile phones support facial analysis, allowing for artificial relighting or the creation of avatars. However, since a {{w|death mask}} is created to look just like the deceased's face, all cameras provide this "feature" automatically.

; Sponsored pixels

: Presumably this means that parts of the screen (pixels) can be bought in a sponsoring deal. If enough pixels are sold, your screen would be rendered unusable. It is common for advertisers to buy part of the screen real-estate on a service web site (in fact, {{w|The Million Dollar Homepage}} hosted nothing but a 1000x1000 pixel grid of advertisements), and "images" the size of individual pixels can be used to track site access without being intrusive to the user. For the xkcd Phone 2000, it appears that advertisers have access to part of the screen (worryingly, right in the middle). Slightly less intrusive approaches have been used in bookstores selling customized versions of the Kindle, for example, and it is common for cell phone networks to insist on network-specific software to be installed on a phone.

; Front and rear pop-out grips

: There are accessories that stick to the rear of a phone and can be "popped out", offering a grip, a stand, or somewhere to store headphone cables. Integrating such a feature into the phone design is novel, although some phones have incorporated kick stands. Pop-out grips are normally placed on the back of the phone to make it easier to hold with one hand. Having a second grip to the front of the phone does nothing except block part of the screen. There could be a small screen on the top of the grip since the grip is shown to contain "Sponsored Pixels".

; Humidity-controlled crisper

: A crisper is a drawer in a refrigerator meant to control the humidity to keep vegetables from drying out and getting limp. A smartphone would have no need for a crisper{{Citation needed}}.

; Antikythera mechanism

: The {{w|antikythera mechanism}} is an ancient Greek clockwork device for predicting astronomical positions. It is one of the earliest known analogue computers. While impressive for its time, by now it is obsolete by millennia.{{Actual citation needed}}

; New York Times partnership<nowiki>:</nowiki> all photos taken with camera app are captioned in real time by reporter Maggie Haberman

: Modern phones can use machine learning techniques (usually in the cloud) to identify and tag camera content - this makes it possible to search, for example, for photos containing a particular person or subject without requiring user input. Cellphone photos are often used in contributions to social media with some form of user-provided caption. This phone appears to combine the two, using {{w|Maggie Haberman}} to provide automatic captions for photos taken by the phone's owner (although whether this is explicitly for social media use or internal to the phone is unclear).

; Spit valve

: A water key, or "spit valve," is a feature on most brass and some woodwind instruments used to empty the instrument of condensation caused by the musician's breath (and not, as is commonly thought, saliva). Of course, one wouldn't think condensation would form on the inside of a smartphone{{Citation needed}}.

; Standard USB connector

: The phone has a USB A port, but a "standard" USB connector, according to the USB standard, would be a USB B port as a phone typically acts as the "slave" device, rather than the "host" as a USB A port would imply. However, in recent updates to the USB standard, bicommunication between 2 A ports is supported.

; Coin purse-style squeeze access

: Presumably, the casing is flexible in this region, and when squeezed at the sides (a bad idea, considering the next design item) reveals the USB A port and spit valve.

; Hollow-ground

: A {{w|Grind#Typical_grinds|hollow grind}} is a type of knife (or similar sharp tool) edge noted for sharpness and general fragility, often seen in razors. This seems to imply that the phone is exceedingly smooth, which would make it difficult to hold{{Citation needed}}. This is a far more reasonable feature to apply to the included knife than the entire case.

; Absorbent

: Many modern phones are designed to be waterproof, to avoid accidents and allow use in the rain. It's also common to have some form of oleophobic coating on the screen to reduce smearing as fingers are used on the touchscreen. This phone seems to have the reverse feature and be explicitly designed to absorb things (presumably liquids--perhaps that's why it needs a spit valve). "Absorbent" is more commonly a property touted by the packaging of paper towels.

; Keyboard supports dynamic typing

: {{w|Type_system#Dynamic_type_checking_and_runtime_type_information|Dynamic typing}} is a computer programming concept and has nothing to do with typing on a keyboard.

; Backflow preventer

: A {{w|backflow prevention device}} is a mechanism that avoids the possibility of liquid (usually water) traveling in the opposite direction from the normal intent if the expected pressure is inverted. Since there is not normally any liquid flowing through a phone (unless in this case relating to the spit valve), this would not normally be a useful feature. However, some smart phones do contain pressure measuring devices such as barometers (which can also be used in some cases to detect the phone being squeezed), so maybe this phone is intended to be resilient to such conditions.

; Swiss Army partnership<nowiki>:</nowiki> folding knife (unlocks only if Switzerland is invaded)

: A {{w|Swiss Army knife}} is a folding knife, traditionally with many secondary "blades" for multiple uses such as can openers and files. Usually it is a generic term for that style of knife, but the knife in this phone surprisingly really has a connection with the army of {{w|Switzerland}}. Switzerland is known for remaining neutral (and not being invaded) in both of the World Wars of the 20th century despite war raging across surrounding countries, suggesting that it is unlikely that the knife would ever be unlocked. While such a feature on a phone (or phone case) may be useful, it is likely to be a safety concern, and a threat to convenience when security checkpoints such as airports start confiscating the phone when they notice it conceals a knife blade. What's more, a phone does not provide the ideal grip for a knife blade - especially if force is to be applied to it. This may also reference the Swiss military practice of soldiers keeping military rifles in their private homes but only being given ammunition in the event the army is mobilized.

; 100% BPA-free PCB construction

: {{w|Bisphenol A}} (BPA) is a chemical used in plastics such as waterbottles. Recent studies show that BPA can leach estrogen-like compounds into liquids, so BPA-free water bottles have become popular. PCB probably refers to a {{w|printed circuit board}}, which is made of resin-bonded fiberglass, not plastic, and which contains the electrical components that control most modern electronic devices such as phones. It may also refer to {{w|Polychlorinated biphenyl}} (PCBs), a category of persistent organic pollutants which are not used very much anymore; it would be far worse than BPA for anyone concerned with the issue.

; AMOLCD display (7-segment)

: {{w|AMOLED}} is a display technology often used in cell phones, providing thin and emissive displays. {{w|Liquid-crystal_display|LCD}} is another display technology used in phones and works by blocking light from a separate backlight. A {{w|Seven-segment_display|7-segment display}} is a device made of seven independently controlled segments (usually either LCD or LED) which can be used to display a single digit. As such, the technology is common in traditional digital watches. In contrast most phone displays are made of a uniform high-resolution pixel grid that allows arbitrary content, like random images, to be displayed, although some very old (pre-smart) cellphones and land lines did use this technology in displaying a phone number, like the {{w|Motorola Fone|MotoFone F3}}. The technology cannot represent the entire alphabet without modification (one method is to put X's on both the top and bottom squares), so it is inappropriate for displaying plain text, let alone graphics and images.

; Runs on battery for the first 6 hours, then uses gasoline

: A nod to the increased popularity of gas-electric hybrid vehicles. This would be a fantastic breakthrough for fuel cells. There have been many attempts to create a highly portable fuel cell that can be used to power phones. Although having to use gasoline instead of a USB cord would likely cause more problems for the average consumer, like the phone blowing up, a fuel cell does have some notable advantages over a standard lithium-ion battery. When comparing a fuel cell to a battery of equal size the fuel cell will be capable of powering an object for far longer than the battery. This includes lithium-ion batteries which are commonly used for powering phones and are typically the majority of its mass. This would mean one could shrink the size of the battery substantially yet still be able to provide the same amount of power. The smaller battery can be kept as is in order to reduce the weight of the phone or can free up space for more features to be installed into the phone. This might simply be the first xkcd phone that mentions that it does this. Provides a possible explanation to how the manufacturer of the phone is capable of fitting so many unusual features into the phone to begin with. Another advantage of a fuel cell powered phone is that it is independent from a working power grid (useful for disaster situations where thousands of people would no longer be capable of staying in contact with others or people who are stranded and alone) and there is no need for a bulky generator to convert the gasoline into electricity first. This is not the first time Randall has talked about this before, with much of the information here coming from what-if #128: {{what if|128|Zippo Phone}}.

; Sharpie® dual stylus (dry-erase + permanent)

: {{w|Sharpie (marker)|Sharpie}} is a brand most associated with a line of permanent fine-tip markers. While a stylus is generally a pen-like object that doesn't create markings, but instead allows finer input on a touch screen, "Dry-Erase + Permanent" implies that these are in fact markers. These would allow the user to write on the screen, but as this wouldn't allow any form on input to the phone, it would only serve as a very expensive pseudo-whiteboard. Even if they were actually styluses, having two would be of little use. Note that permanent was previously spelled "permenant", incorrectly. This was later corrected; See [[#Trivia]]

; Mouse cursor

: A feature of BlackBerry smartphones using mice has gone out of favor due to the popularity of touch screens, which are lighter and more convenient. However, Android devices, at least, still support Bluetooth HID access, and on most devices, it is possible to pair the device with a mouse (and keyboard) and access the screen through a mouse pointer. These peripherals may also be attached with {{w|USB On-The-Go}}. This can be particularly useful if the device is exporting its display to a large external screen - and {{w|Samsung_DeX|some manufacturers}} have provided tethering systems based around pairing a phone with a mouse.

The title text refers to {{w|Retina Display}}, a term used to describe Apple products with higher pixel densities. The xkcd Phone marketing team would be unable to use the term due to Apple's having registered it as a trademark, as it would likely be trademark infringement. Additionally, the {{w|Fovea centralis|central fovea region}} is a portion of your eye's retina containing the most densely packed photosensitive neurons (confusing the biological retina with the electronics display of the same name). {{w|Foveated rendering}} is a genuine computer graphics technique intended to increase performance by rendering with higher quality to the regions of the display where the user is looking, and lower quality at the edges of vision; it is expected to be useful for virtual reality (one of the uses for cell phones) as a way to deal with the required high pixel densities while managing power consumption. There are displays with variable density, in specialist uses, but such a feature is not practical in a phone because the whole area of the display is typically useful and needs to provide high resolution (as the user's eye moves across it). Also, hundreds of pixels per inch is not considered a very high resolution, as a full-HD smartphone [https://www.lifewire.com/how-many-pixels-in-an-inch-4125185 has 440.58 pixels per inch].

==Transcript==
:[The comic depicts a smartphone showing many uncommon features. The front view shows a mouse cursor and a circle in the middle. The side view reveals the circle as something like an old photo lens from 1900 extending far above the surface and four large buttons (camera lenses) at the rear. The third view is from the top and just mentions a "hollow ground." The bottom view looks like as it was opened by a can opener and shows a big USB connector and on the right a small black connection.]
:Dockless
:Silent
:Quad camera takes four copies of every picture
:Front-facing camera obscura
:3D facial contour analysis shows you a realistic preview of your death mask
:Sponsored pixels
:Front and rear pop-out grips
:Humidity-controlled crisper
:Antikythera mechanism
:New York Times partnership: all photos taken with camera app are captioned in real time by reporter Maggie Haberman
:Spit valve
:Standard USB connector
:Coin purse-style squeeze access
:Hollow-ground
:Absorbent
:Keyboard supports dynamic typing
:Backflow preventer
:Swiss Army partnership: folding knife (unlocks only if Switzerland is invaded)
:100% BPA-free PCB construction
:AMOLCD display (7-segment)
:Runs on battery for the first 6 hours, then uses gasoline
:Sharpie® dual stylus (dry-erase + permanent)
:Mouse cursor

:Introducing
:'''<big>The xkcd Phone 2000</big>'''
:We're still hoping this sounds like a futuristic number®®™®©™®

==Trivia==
The stylus was previously called 'permenant'. This was later corrected, to permanent. You can still see the original image [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/b/b4/20180531174214%21xkcd_phone_2000.png here]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:xkcd Phones]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|xkcd Phones]]

123: Centrifugal Force

2024-09-19T13:06:33Z

172.68.205.135: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 123
| date = July 3, 2006
| title = Centrifugal Force
| image = centrifugal force.png
| titletext = You spin me right round baby, right round, in a manner depriving me of an inertial reference frame. Baby.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Black Hat]] has strapped {{w|James Bond}} to a centrifuge and claims that the {{w|Centrifugal force|centrifugal}} force will be lethal. Bond objects that there is no such thing, but just {{w|Centripetal force|centripetal}} force. The notion of centrifugal force is a common one, as we experience it whenever we turn. Teachers will initially teach Newtonian mechanics in an inertial frame, and in inertial frames, the centrifugal force is zero. Instead, a body that moves in a circle does so because of a centripetal force (acting towards the center of the rotation). This is a reasonable (and correct) view, but it is a subtle point that many students find hard to grasp, as it seems to contradict their personal experience of centrifugal forces. For the sake of exposition, teachers may claim that "There is no such thing as centrifugal force." This, however, is also a misconception, which is addressed in the explanation below:
;Observers' point of view (Black Hat, us, etc.)
:James Bond is moving in a circle, and is therefore accelerating. The force keeping him there is an inward force of contact against the centrifuge, a centripetal force. Via Newton's {{w|Newton's laws of motion#Newton's third law|third law}}, since the centrifuge is pushing Bond inward, Bond is pushing the centrifuge outward. The centrifuge's material is strong enough not to break under this force, however.
;James Bond's point of view
:In James Bond's frame of reference, Bond is at rest. He is kept there by two forces: the above-mentioned inward force of contact against the centrifuge, and an ''outward centrifugal force''. He feels both forces.

As mentioned in the explanation, as the centrifuge rotates faster, the forces needed to keep him in motion get larger, so the force he feels gets larger. This will eventually kill him. The conclusion will be the same regardless of which frame of reference is chosen.

Teachers of mechanics are well aware of this; however, in introductory expositions, these ideas are often not taught. In theoretical mechanics, one describes the positions and velocities of the particles in a model relative to a frame of reference. This means that a time is chosen to be time 0, and positions are chosen to be (0,0,0), (1,0,0), (0,1,0), and (0,0,1). With these chosen, the position and time of any particle in the system can be described. It is an axiom of Newtonian Mechanics that there exist "Inertial Frames." In an inertial frame, a particle will remain at rest or at a constant speed unless acted on by an external force, and Newton's second law takes a simple form: F = ma. The surface of the Earth approximates an inertial frame. In a non-inertial frame, such as one rotating with a giant centrifuge, or moving with an accelerating vehicle, a particle will accelerate, relative to the frame. Newton's second law, when formed in such a frame, is much more complicated, as it has terms for the linear acceleration of the frame, the angular acceleration of the frame, the centrifugal force, and the {{w|Coriolis force}}. These extra terms are sometimes called "fictitious forces," as they result from the choice of the frame of reference. The mathematics required to describe problems in a non-inertial frame is more sophisticated, and all problems may be solved using an inertial frame. Thus is reasonable that teachers at school level "{{w|lie to children}}" and teach the mechanics in inertial frames.

James Bond was almost killed by a centrifuge in {{w|Moonraker (film)|Moonraker}}. The final statement by Black Hat is that said by {{w|Auric Goldfinger}} in {{w|Goldfinger (film)|Goldfinger}} in response to James Bond's question "Do you expect me to talk?"

The title text is inspired by {{w|Dead or Alive (band)|Dead or Alive's}} famous song from 1985, "{{w|You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)|You Spin Me Round}}."

Randall feels very strongly that the centrifugal force is a real thing. He links to this comic in the first footnote of his ''[[what if? (blog)|what if?]]'' article [https://what-if.xkcd.com/92/ One-Second Day] and the 6th footnote of [https://what-if.xkcd.com/157/ Earth-Moon Fire Pole], stating that it is a real thing, and that he will go so far as to strap arguers to a centrifuge that he or someone he knows apparently owns. He also cites it in [[852: Local g]]

As can also be seen in the [https://twitter.com/bohacekp/status/531500491180875776/photo/1 footnote on page 132] in his ''[[What If? (book)|What If?]]'' book, he will even fight you about it. From the book: 
"Furthermore, if you're on the equator, you're being flung outward by a centrifugal force1."
 "1Yes, centrifugal. I will fight you."
 (The article itself is about what happens if you lose all your DNA, so it has not much to do with this "real" force... The sentence is just stating that the actual weight loss from losing all your DNA is similar to the weight loss you would experience by moving from the poles to the equator due to this force.)

Black Hat is featured as a Bond villain once again in [[2747: Presents for Biologists]].

==Transcript==
:[James Bond, drawn as Cueball, is strapped to a giant wheel suspended from the ceiling. Black Hat is standing next to two levers.]
:Black hat: How do you like my centrifuge, Mister Bond? When I throw this lever, you will feel centrifugal force crush every bone in your body.
:[Same scene, but a closer shot.]
:Bond: You mean centripetal force. There's no such thing as centrifugal force.
:Black hat: A laughable claim, Mister Bond, perpetuated by overzealous teachers of science. Simply construct Newton's laws in a rotating system and you will see a centrifugal force term appear as plain as day.
:[Closer shot, only Bond's head is visible.]
:Bond: Come now, do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while strapped to a centrifuge?
:Black hat: No, Mister Bond. I expect you to die.

==Trivia==
* This used to be one of the [[Footer comics|footer comics]] featured in the bottom segment of [https://xkcd.com xkcd.com].
* This comic used to be [https://web.archive.org/web/20211215063004/https://store.xkcd.com/products/signed-prints available as a signed print] in the xkcd store before it was [[Store|shut down]].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Footer comics]] 
[[Category:Comics with xkcd store products]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Songs]]

Talk:2962: President Venn Diagram

2024-09-13T13:07:39Z

172.68.205.135:

<noinclude>{{notice|This site is intended to explain the technical details and inspirations (perhaps humorous) behind the comics. This particular page is for Discussion/Talk about the particular comic in question, which ''will'' involve some personal overviews and meta-discussion. But it is not the ideal place to reproduce the wi(l)der issue of public opinion, which the actual political process will eventually establish, and many other public forums and outlets exist in which you can convey your own current leanings/observations on the whole election-related happenings. Please be <s>sensible</s> ''typically geeky in your wit'', and try to keep all the ideological heat and partisan arguments out of this as much as possible.|image=warning!!.png|}}</noinclude>

Another really timely comic. Biden just dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris yesterday. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Forget Biden, Hillary and Obama. This is the endorsement that counts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.199|172.68.23.199]] 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose no one is allowed to say that the upper right circle is mislabeled. It was supposed to say incompetent, dishonest and despicable. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.25|162.158.90.25]] 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:You're allowed to say it, but then we're allowed to suggest (with rather more emperical proof) that her presumptive opponent better fits your rewording. How about we all just don't try to re-run the old arguments (or pre-run the upcoming election) in that sort of tone, eh?
:(To be clear, Randall has made positive comments to his favoured candidate, rather than stooping to arbitrarily attacking their opponent. If you can't at least be as positive in your own convictions then it's really not going to help your cause.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.6|172.69.195.6]] 04:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::First, Harris has more than one opponent, not just within her own party, but in the general election to follow if she’s nominated. Second, the many good qualities of my favo[u]red candidate are irrelevant to this comic, so I didn’t mention ''her''. Third, I didn’t start this political discussion; Randall did, by making a refutable claim in his comic. Lastly, there’s nothing arbitrary about a resident of California pointing out [https://truthout.org/articles/kamala-harris-has-a-distinguished-career-of-serving-injustice/ facts about the former attorney general of California] that people in other states, such as Massachusetts, might be completely ignorant of. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 05:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Ugh, those abuses from the supposed party of police accountability. Politics in this country are so performative. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.75|108.162.216.75]] 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
: You could say it, but then the box which says 'Kamala Harris' is mislabeled and 'Donald Trump' should be placed in the box above the middle one. [[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 07:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::Also by saying the first circle is mislabeled you also say Randall is all those things. And if you feel that way, then remember you are free to NOT read his comics... I'm always on Randall's side in politics it seems, but I'm from another country, so I wont vote for any presidential candidates even if Randall was on the ballot ;-) I won't say more here now... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Note the difference between “upper right” and “upper left.” [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.198|172.70.207.198]] 21:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well Kamala, you had a good run. Randall has the touch of death when it comes to picking political candidates. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.39|162.158.154.39]] 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:You mean that no candidate endorsed by XKCD has ever won? ;) https://xkcd.com/2383/ [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Randall was smart enough to not make a comic endorsing Joe *before* he got elected like he did with Hilldawg and (now) Kamala.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 11:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
: Not so; Randall endorsed [https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/ Obama in 2008]. [[User:-insert valid name here-|-insert valid name here-]] ([[User talk:-insert valid name here-|talk]]) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::So, the criterion could be adjusted either way. "No woman endorsed by XKCD has won" and "No white person endorsed by XKCD has won" are both true, but the first prevents a Harris win, while the second does not. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.192|172.68.174.192]] 01:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe Randall secretly wants Kamala to lose and is doing 5D chess. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.130.122|172.69.130.122]] 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Randall angling for VP? [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 02:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Randall would be good president. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Meh, he seems to at least not be good at public speaking. And from what he says about himself, he would be distracted way too easily. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:I, as an Epsilon Eridani native, think he would be a spectacular president, but his research priorities would swiftly result in [https://www.space.com/universe-end-false-vacuum-decay false vacuum decay], so please, for the sake of the universe, please do not elect him. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.218|172.70.214.218]] 20:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:: Is this a reference to some particular sci fi story, or do you coincidentally have the same favorite star name I do?

The layout of this Venn diagram reminds me of https://xkcd.com/112/ {{unsigned ip|162.158.166.234|03:04, 23 July 2024}}

I think I would probably swap the two. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.23|162.158.174.23]] 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be very interested in which non-Politicians Randall would put into the top middle section. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:People eligible to be president who would make a good president but aren't politicians? I would be much more interested in who he would list in the right middle section, that is, people who would make good presidents and love Venn diagrams, but are ineligible. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.133|172.69.6.133]] 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess Munroe has no issues with questions about ongoing U.S. backed genocides shrugged off with "shrimp and grits!"? {{unsigned|Markifi|05:39, 23 July 2024}}

What really strikes me is that the USA have a (de facto) 2-Party system and still go so much into personal attacks and endorsements, etc. which in my mind could be the decision-making bit between 2 similiar parties in a multi-party system, or 2 equally sympathic parties to me. But in my mind a 2-party system should at least have the upside of actually discussing policy, and voters deciding based on that... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If Randall was in charge he could stop supplying weapons to Israel probably [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.63|172.69.195.63]] 10:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:Randall sempai- we are targeted too. {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.52|15:37, 23 July 2024}}

Re: the mouseover text: "[[1062:_Budget_News|I am more of a deficit sugar glider]]" ought to be in the running. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.157|172.69.58.157]] 12:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

personally I'd put most candidates either the top left [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.24|172.69.58.24]] 17:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Neat. A Euler diagram (and no, Venn cannot just have this one). {{unsigned ip|172.71.158.226|18:18, 23 July 2024}}
:Quite! Venn called his diagrams "{{w|Euler diagram|Euler circles}}." [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.137|172.71.151.137]] 22:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the 'eligible' topic is related to a campaign against Harris saying she isn't eligible because she's not american enough. This (fake) news was reposted in France by french Trump's fans. {{unsigned ip|172.69.225.223|20:36, 23 July 2024}}
:No, the topic of Constitutional eligibility, it is more nuanced than each said is represented to state it. Kamala Harris was undisputedly (I believe) born in the US. This makes her a native-born citizen. The Constitution calls for a natural-born citizen but doesn't define that. From writings at the time (I don't remember which) natural-born means born to two citizen parents. Apparently, neither of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth, so once again (as with Obama, Ted Cruz, others) there are fair questions by thinking people. [[User:ProfDigory|ProfDigory]] ([[User talk:ProfDigory|talk]]) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

_sigh_ I was about to come in here and suggest that we don't do the obvious political battle here but then I realized I'd be up all night because someone was WRONG on the internet [[386: Duty Calls]]! [[User:Tomb|Tomb]] ([[User talk:Tomb|talk]]) 21:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I, too, have rather strong political opinions that absolutely nobody here cares about. But I also wanted to extend a heartfelt thank-you to the person who put the cautionary banner to not make the main article into a debate platform. I hope its presence becomes a staple of articles on all forthcoming controversial comics, as we commence our quadrennial plunge into the bubbling muck of American election season. -MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.59|172.68.34.59]] 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to include a link to the actual United States Constitution in regard to the Presidential eligibility section? In other words, I'm wondering if it would be preferable to link directly to a primary source of information as opposed to a tertiary source like Wikipedia? Either way, I have a [https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-1-clause-5 link to the document on the Congress.gov website] for those who may want to have a read. [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have a longer version of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWR2uTfrh-k&ab_channel=GOPWarRoom ? I want to see the diagram props! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.19|172.71.147.19]] 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:"So many memes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XOjRsJiBTF0&ab_channel=FoxNews [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.129|172.70.214.129]] 22:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:I see you are a netizen of exquisite taste. Might I suggest https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=kamala+venn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.29|108.162.245.29]] 22:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::Oh my God, infinite anonymous clipping! https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5125621/user-clip-venn-diagram [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.3|172.71.150.3]] 23:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5125622/user-clip-circle-venn-diagram A fourth Eulerian circle emerges!] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 23:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been decided. As per the [https://x.com/yashar/status/1815476912355205212 edict of the National Republican Senatorial Committee,] the problems with Kamala Harris are: (1) Her laugh is weird. And, (2) she loves Venn diagrams. Let the games begin! We shall [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI_lxFv203I&ab_channel=SaturdayNightLive focus on the two issues Americans do care about: swine flue and fracking.] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.200|172.68.23.200]] 22:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:For anyone who didn't click on the link provided above, "habit of laughing at inappropriate moments" (NOT "laugh is weird") and "loves Venn diagrams" were two bullet points out of seventeen, both of them listed under the final section labeled "Weird" after many more obviously concerning policy positions. So, this discussion entry is yet another example of dishonest misrepresentation from the Left. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.61|172.68.34.61]] 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::And dishonest misrepresentation is definitely not something that you get from the Right, right?</sarcasm> "Crime Of The Century", I ''don't'' think...
::This is why I instantly and instinctively thought it a bad idea for Randall to make his opinion known, in this comic. Not because I have reason to diagree with his (singular boiled-down to minimal description) assessment, but because everyone not ''totally'' on the same hymnsheet is likely to start complaining that only ''their'' boiled-down assessment (usually an objection) has any veracity... And sparks an ideogical tit-for-tat with far more heat than light. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a really sad comic. Harris is a top cop and a corrupt one. America deserves better than either party is offering, and the supposed party of police accountability should not be running Harris. It's sad that Randall is telling himself otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.91|172.70.178.91]] 13:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:I was not aware that Harris was ever in the police, herself, and cannot find any reference to it in a quick search. I know she advocated police bodycams, which only corrupt cops need to properly fear/avoid using, though obviously one can always be corrupt "in your spare time", or if you're not a uniformed officer/just sat at a desk. Anyway, you have an opinion, and feel free to make your own webcomic if you have better names, wish to add other names and/or want to change the basis upon which Harris's name is judged. It might well be that (of all likely candidates, as well as the unlikely one that is "me") Randall honestly sees Kamala as (one of) the better individual(s) for the role. If everyone agreed, there'd be no need to ask everybody and try to distil the resulting popularity contest into a close-fought result that maybe half the country won't like (but who ''would'' like a result that the other half(ish) of the country wouldn't like), give or take various statistical anomalies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.103|172.70.85.103]] 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:: RE: [https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-call-Kamala-Harris-a-cop Why do people call Kamala Harris a cop?] - Top answer: "Because she was a prosecutor, both for San Francisco and as Attorney General of California. Many people conflate cops and prosecutors as they work closely. Harris had a reputation as a tough prosecutor, but also refused to seek the death penalty against the killer of a San Francisco police officer, and started a rehabilitation program that let some offenders clear their records. So her record was mixed." {{unsigned ip|172.68.3.2|15:23, 26 July 2024}}
::: Right. That's an odd definition of a cop. You could almost call a fireman a cop (or a cop a fireman), or a donut-store owner.
::::Top cop is just a colloquiallism to describe a DA, since they're the one that has to rubber stamp every police accusation, and they're typically the main impediment to charging police officers with the crimes they commit. Kamala has a very bad record in that regard. Prosecuting people for minor drug offenses she herself was guilty of, like Marijuana possession. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.217|172.70.131.217]] 22:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::: And opinions about the efficacy of the Death Penalty varies (it stops reoffending, as well as any possible full exoneration in the event of a miscarriage of justice; the jury (figuratively and otherwise) is out whether it prevents further crimes by other people, especially those who are already subject to the pressures of 'street justice' with nonjudicial killing a constant threat anyway). Rehabilitation of ''receptive and truly repentent'' criminals is also surely better than letting everyone rot, regardless; or, if/when released, giving them no hope but to be more prolific criminals; and perhaps even relying upon being housed and fed by the penal system again as the only option, so caused more upset to force the courts' hands.
::: It's not really a mixed record, but a mixable interpretation. And "hang 'em all" people will have different perspectives from the "always be forgiving of mistakes" crowd, with the ideal 'truth' likely being somewhere between, and reality always going to err in both directions. So you can disagree about specific judgements and decisions, but be careful of either lauding or lambasting a wider policy shift. Hard cases make bad laws, and bad laws make individual cases hard to deal with.
::: Imagine that you're Glynn Simmons, or Sandra Hemme, or one of those eventually exonerated only ''after'' their exocutions (not necessarily all nice people, but doubts or actual disprooving facts about their parts in any particular Capital crime, or the social goalposts shifted away from discriminatory and heavy-handed policies, is a not an unusual event).
::: All I'm saying is that there's going to be nuance. And every person will have "mixed" approval ratings, even per a given individual's own personal assessment if they know enough to get at least a 2D viewpoint, and ideally at least 3D. And I don't know how anyone without an extreme view on the world would equate a general policy of enhanced rehabilitation with corruptness (when corruption can equally involve framing and improperly prosecuting innocent people, whilst letting the truly irredeemable go free). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you call a diagram with more than three circles? I feel we should add ones for "Held ANY public office prior to Presidential bid.", "Served ANY employer, other than one's self, prior to Presidential bid.", "Pledges to abide by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.", and "Pledges to abide by the results of the Presidential election of the United States." It will be easy, as Randal can just copy and paste existing name. [[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]]) 01:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:Well, you couldn't do "four circles" as a Venn Diagram (only as an Euler), at least not in 2D strictly-euclidean (and non-wrapping) space. But there is an ellipse-based version that would work for you, as well as even more arbitrary-shaped zoning or just going up a dimension and making it four spherical bubbles in 3D space.
:As to your categories: Randall would probably fit in the intersection of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th supercategories (can't rule out he has fit the first, as I don't know what else he's done apart from his NASA stuff and I'm not sure what the definition of "public office" would extend to, anyway (even "elected official" could cover being voted into some position of note in his university's Physics/D&D/Film-Appreciation/Morris-Dancing Society, if he indeed participated in any of that kind of thing at the time).
:And I reckon that almost all the usual politicians you could name could fit into ''at least'' those same three, plus the first if they've actually done any legwork to rise up the ranks to actually get to touch President-worthy status.
:Anyone who doesn't occupy the last two is probably bad at the "would be a good President" of the comic, though given the arguments about how to best interpret the Constitution (even within actual SCOTUS rulings on such issues) then you're likely to get subjective arguments from Candidate A's supporters that Candidate B won't do that as well as from Candidate B's supporters that Candidate A won't do that (to their respective preference). Naming no names, but fairly obvious cases should come to mind. It's possibly that (for a given state of opinion) you could even put any given into your #3 but not in the #4, or vice-versa (but "would be a good President" then depends upon which of these interpretatins you value and which of them you're willing to let slide), rather than the more obvious "both or neiher" dichotomy. Perspective is the key. And the US has many (and polarised) perspectives, unfortunately. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.227|172.69.43.227]] 11:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I need explained to me is why [https://xkcd.com/112/ Vanilla Ice] is not in the upper left circle. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.102|172.70.85.102]] 13:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

== yo I'm back ==

why is Randall chill with genocide

we gotta hold him accountable

who is with me

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.245|172.69.43.245]] 07:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:He isn't, get over yourself. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.139|172.69.79.139]] 08:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::then explain why he is backing a genocide supporter [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

2973: Ferris Wheels

2024-08-16T20:44:01Z

172.68.205.135: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2973
| date = August 16, 2024
| title = Ferris Wheels
| image = ferris_wheels_2x.png
| imagesize = 624x280px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They left the belt drive in place but switched which wheel was powered, so people could choose between a regular ride, a long ride, and a REALLY long ride.
}}

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

This comic depicts an attempted to connect three {{w|Ferris wheel}}s using a belt drive. By connecting at different circumferences, the relative motion is geared up or down. If the belt that passes around the circumference of one wheel is connected around the hub of another, the latter will rotate (significantly) faster. In this case, that second wheel's circumference is in turn connected to a third wheel's hub for an even greater rotational velocity. Ferris wheels are not intended to be connected in this way.{{Citation needed}}

The caption suggests that the person who did this was fired for this ill-advised modification, which apparently used a normal and sedately-turning ride to create two increasingly violent versions of the ride where the passengers (in their gondalas) are flung around to various (possibly {{w|G-force#Human tolerance|quite hazardous}}) degrees.

The title text tells us that the belt was not removed, but instead they made the 'most extreme' wheel the powered one. Now it would be geared ''down'', at each step, making for a possibly rather pleasant few minutes upon the right-hand wheel, as might normally be expected, but rendering the experiences of the riders of the other two rides far ''too'' slow and seemingly interminable.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Three Ferris wheels are shown side by side, with some people stood on the ground for scale.]
:[Each of the first two wheels have a belt connecting their circumference to the axel of the respective one to the right.]
:["Agitrons" indicate that the middle wheel is turning notably faster than the left wheel, with the gondalas seen to be rocking significantly at all points round the wheel.]
:[The spokes of the right wheel are completely replaced by "motion lines", indicating that the the right wheel is turning the fastest of all. All its gondalas are hanging outwards against centripetal force, interspersed with their own motion lines.]

:[Caption below the picture:] The county fair fired me for adding a belt drive to the Ferris wheels.{{comic discussion}}