explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3045: AlphaMove

2025-02-11T01:01:24Z

172.68.23.136:

Ask Tom Murphy VII to get on this [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.103|141.101.99.103]] 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This has actually been done and tested against other strange algorithms:
https://youtu.be/DpXy041BIlA?t=729

I have attempted to run the proposed bot against itself — if I haven't made any errors, here are the resulting games:

Rounding down:
1. e4 e6 2. f3 f5 3. e5 g5 4. d4 d5 5. exd6 g4 6. d7+ Kf7 7. dxc8=N Ke8 8. fxg4 h6 9. gxf5 Kd7 10. g4 h5 11. fxe6+ Ke8 12. g5 Na6 13. h3 Nc5 14. h4 Ne7 15. Kd2 Ne4+ 16. Ke1 Nf5 17. g6 Nf6 18. g7 Ng3 19. gxf8=N Nge4 20. Ke2 Ng4 21. Kf3 Ngf2 22. Ke2 Nh3 23. Ke3 Nhf2 24. Nb6 Nh3 25. Na4 Nhf2 26. Nac3 Nxc3 27. Kxf2 Nxd1+ 28. Kf3 Qc8 29. c4 Ne3 30. Ke4 Nf5 31. Kd3 Ng3 32. e7 Nxh1 33. Kc2 Qb8 34. d5 Kxe7 35. d6+ Kf6 36. dxc7 Nf2 37. c8=R Ng4 38. Kd2 Nh2 39. Ke3 Ng4+ 40. Kd4 Nh2 41. Kd5 Nxf1 42. Nc3 Nh2 43. Nce2 Ng4 44. Nd4 Nh6 45. Nd7+ Kf7 46. Ndf3 Qd6+ 47. Ke4 Qd2 48. Nf8 Qd5+ 49. Ke3 Qd2+ 50. Ke4 Qd5+ 51. Ke3 Qd2+ 52. Ke4

Rounding up:
1. f3 f5 2. e4 f4 3. d4 e6 4. e5 g6 5. g3 fxg3 6. c3 g2 7. d5 gxf1=Q+ 8. Kxf1 exd5 9. Ke2 d6 10. Kd3 g5 11. Kd2 dxe5 12. Ke2 d4 13. Kd3 dxc3+ 14. Ke3 e4 15. Ne2 exf3 16. Ng1 f2 17. Nxc3 fxg1=N 18. Qc2 Kd7 19. Ne2 h6 20. Qa4+ Ke6 21. Qb3+ Ke7 22. Qb4+ Ke8 23. Qb5+ Kf7 24. Qa6 Kg7 25. Qa4 Kg6 26. Qb3 Kg7 27. Qb4 Kh7 28. Qb5 Kg7 29. Qa6 Nc6 30. Nxg1 Na5 31. Qb6 Kh7 32. Qb3 Kg6 33. Qb4 Kg7 34. Qb6 Kh7 35. Qb3 Kg6 36. Qb4 Kg7 37. Qb6

Rounding down code:
const { Chess } = require("chess.js");

const chess = new Chess();
while (!chess.isGameOver()) {
const moves = chess.moves();
moves.sort((a, b) => b.localeCompare(a));
const move = moves[Math.floor(moves.length / 2)];
chess.move(move);
}
console.log(chess.pgn());

To round up, swap the a and b in the sort function.

Both games end in a threefold repetition draw. The game with rounding down does, in fact, have 6 knights in it, so I believe he did code this to see what would happen.

[[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] ([[User talk:Ohpointfive|talk]]) 22:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate on the Tom VII point - this is the YouTube video that possibly inspired the comic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.179|141.101.98.179]] 22:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
:Specifically, it's the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA&t=1483 Arithmetic Player at 24:43] set to ½. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately for white, it's mate in 1 with Bb4# [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.124|162.158.90.124]] 23:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if white makes a different move, its still forced mate in one. RIP XKCD Bot. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 00:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Well, for most options. Queen to a4 puts Black in check, forestalling an immediate move to mate White; capturing the knight de-threatens enough squares around the king that Black can't check next turn without leaving an escape route. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.28|172.70.176.28]] 17:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

<s>Although it wouldn't change the outcome much (either by changing black's move or white's general options), I'm currently not understanding why Kd4 isn't on the list of options at this point in time. So long since I played serious(ish) chess, and the only reason I could think of is that it's probibited by some strict ortbodox game rule recognising the ''potential'' moving of the knight out of the way (in the next white move-cycle). But I'd have treated that later option as forbidden, as a revealing-mate. But, as I said, it's been a while, so maybe I'm just blind to something like a sweeping bishop-range that disbars this (much as the near knight, bishop and pawn disbars four out of the five moves).</s> ...darn, it's just clicked. That's the AlphaMoved white-knight's destination (before that, the black queen was entirely covering that square, and double-teaming one of the adjacent black-knight covered squares), I'd been thinking that was the piece's origin (with the empty highlighted square as its destination) until I'd finally read the highlighted movelist item properly and deciphered it as Knight To King Two (done), not the (intention of) Knight To King's Bishop One. So ignore the above. Although, just to note, for the Black Queen to have even achieved that position would probably have required at least ''one'' normally-sacrificial exposure to the deadly white Q/B/R pieces guarding the obvious entry, give or take the algorithmic development of their (and the "gateway pawns"') current positions. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.104|141.101.99.104]] 02:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Follow-up... As far as the black queen is concerned, I suppose she could have done d6, (x?)g3 then f2, in-between the other black and white moves made, largely safe from the white 'defence'. Or to d4 then f2, if white Queen's Pawn was shielding still. (Appears to have been taken, but it would have been bold to have done that with the queen, for a normally immediate pawn-queen exhange!) A bolder/more opportunistic set of moves than I would have tried, either. Even (unknowingly) against AlphaMove, I'd have been wary of the unconventionally developing white disposition actually being an idiot-trap (and I'm really not that far off being an idiot, insofar as chess). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.162|172.70.162.162]] 02:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The explanation gives both O-O and 0-0 as notations for castling and then explains why 0-0 can never occur, even though O-O can be sorted pretty centrally. So, which is the correct notation? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.250.91|172.71.250.91]] 09:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:According to the [https://ia802908.us.archive.org/26/items/pgn-standard-1994-03-12/PGN_standard_1994-03-12.txt pgn spec], section 8.2.3.3: they are capital Os and not zeros [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 15:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we're looking at a retrograde puzzle. [[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] is onto something here, with the six knights on the board a strong indicator. The question is, of course, where is the joke? White plays Alphamove all along and must have started with e4 (rounding down) or f3 (rounding up). Both are consistent with the end position. So from my point of view, the joke is
* either that the "stronger engine" is not a strong engine at all but maybe the same algorithm, rounding up instead of down
* or that black doesn't win this position (in real chess, White is of course toast) because its algorithm is even worse
@Ohpointfive, could you run the two versions against each other? --[[User:Pganon|Pganon]] ([[User talk:Pganon|talk]]) 15:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I created a playable version of this game in like 10 minutes using ChatGPT ;)

https://enn-nafnlaus.github.io/AlphaMove/alphamove.html

Git page here:

https://github.com/enn-nafnlaus/AlphaMove

-- [[User:Rei|Rei]] 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I checked, castling and en passant both work. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.25|172.68.245.25]] 19:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pganon certainly:
White rounding down vs. black rounding up:
1. e4 f5 2. f3 f4 3. d4 e6 4. e5 g6 5. d5 exd5 6. g3 fxg3 7. c4 g2 8. h3 gxf1=Q+ 9. Kd2 Kf7 10. Kc3 Ke8 11. Kc2 Kf7 12. Kb3 Ke8 13. Kc2 Kf7 14. Kb3 Ke8 15. Kc2
White rounding up vs. black rounding down:
1. f3 e6 2. e4 f5 3. e5 g5 4. d4 d5 5. f4 gxf4 6. h3 h5 7. h4 Kd7 8. Kd2 Kc6 9. Kd3 Kb6 10. Ke2 Kb5 11. Ke1+ Kb4 12. Ke2 Kb5 13. Ke1+ Kb4 14. Ke2 Kb5

The first game is quite exciting, with black at one point having a chance at checkmate in one, but alas too many available pawn moves drives the winning move Qxc4# far past the center of the list. The second game is much less exciting.

[[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] ([[User talk:Ohpointfive|talk]]) 21:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a question: What is the quickest way to checkmate AlphaMove? Here's the quickest that I have found so far:
# f3 d5
# e4 d5xe4
# f4 e5
# g3 Bg4
# d4 Qxd4
# f5 e3
# f6 Qxd1#
Thus, we have mate in seven. This might be good to mention outside the comments section as a demonstration tha AlphaGo is not very good (not to mention failing to attack black's queen with a less valuable piece), but a quicker checkmate might be possible, in which case we should mention that instead.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.159|172.70.207.159]] 11:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

: Checkmating Alphamove is easy. Getting checkmated *by* Alphamove is challenging. You basically have to forget everything you know about normal chess. -- [[User:Rei|Rei]] ([[User talk:Rei|talk]]) 14:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Fastest mate against Alphamove playing Black 3 moves (natural max), White 5 moves (exhaustive search), selfmate 9 moves - problem composers and mathematicians solve that in a jiffy. See here: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/46651/fastest-win-against-xkcds-alphamove [[Special:Contributions/172.70.248.29|172.70.248.29]] 09:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

One possible move, Kd2, is missing! /[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.164|141.101.76.164]] 17:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
:That can't be done. The Knight isn't between d2 and the Q@f2 at the point that the moves are being compiled. The Ne2 hasn't happened yet (we now see it, as having moved there, ''as a result'' of Ne2 being selected from the list, so ''next'' turn the King could move there, assuming the game isn't lost (or black decides to do something ''else'' which prevents it, for some strange reason). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.25|162.158.74.25]] 18:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I [https://lichess.org/analysis/r1b1k2r/1pp1nppp/8/p1b1p3/2PnpP1P/2K5/PP3q2/RNBQ1BNR_w_kq_-_0_1?color=white put the position before White's move into Lichess] and it says it's mate in 12 for Black.

On a related note, I'm also wondering how they got to the comic position in the first place. Anyone want to try constructing a proof game? [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot of the explanation is based on a round-up version of AlphaMove. It should round down for even lists like the title text says. The [https://enn-nafnlaus.github.io/AlphaMove/alphamove.html example implementation] is wrong too. The first move should be e4, not f3. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.55|162.158.187.55]] 07:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If there ever was an explanation that needed to be broken up into three paragraphs and a Detail section, this is it. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.30|172.71.142.30]] 17:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not mentioned what happens when there is a tie for the middle move (for an even number of possible moves). Is it then chosen "at random"? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.102|162.158.155.102]] 19:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
:The title text discusses it, so presumably that's the principle we should consider at play. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.6.110|162.158.6.110]] 21:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Why is there still a pawn on a2? It would seem that a3 would be the first move, followed by a4. {{unsigned ip|172.69.135.191|23:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)}}
: a3 would be the first ''in the list'' for the compilation of first move (then a4, then [b-h] x [2-3], then four "N"-moves. The middle of the list would therefore (depending upon round-up or round-down) "e4" or "f3". Assuming e4, the next white move list is going to be seven pawns that can move to self.3 or self.4, one that can move to self.5, with some B-moves between b4 and c3, a K-move, five N-moves and a number of Q-moves. pawn on a2 just doesn't get a look-in, move-wise, at least not until after a lot of moves (possibly designed by the opponent ''specifically' to remove moves from anything that isn't pawn-move from a2 to a3 or a4. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.252|162.158.33.252]] 15:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

What does this mean? The current explanation includes a paragraph starting with "The actual middle of the list might vary away from the usual alphabetic median if the moves (and the pieces removed by the opponent) are heavily biased to a particular subset of player-pieces." I can't make head or tail of this, but maybe that's just 'cause I'm dumb. Why would the middle of the list be different from the median? It should be re-worded to be clearer, or perhaps removed. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 22:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
: As an example, when the King is in check, there are far fewer legal moves, but they might include (or be limited to) interposing with a bishop, so that a bishop actually does get moved. That differs from the _usual_ median, even though the median function is still being used. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 06:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
: Several ways of reading "alphabetic median", one is that, in a-z, the m/n point is the median, or divide between the two halves. But of course not all letters are used (a-h as no-prefix pawn-destinations, B, K, N, Q, R as non-pawn prefices to destinations, a capturing pawn-move will start with x (of a-h and ''then'' an x, if needing disambiguationg, and then there's O-O and O-O-O). That's already overbalanced, so that 'g' is the 'middle' of the first-letters (unweighted by whatever actual opportunities, or lack of them, there are).
: But, in any given board position, the lower-case letters tend to be pawns with (initially) two possible moves, generally just one move, ''maybe'' up to four (a first-move pawn given 1/2-step forward options ''and'' given two different options to capture away from its current file, where near-neighbour pawns require the disambiguation to be used) A queen can (where not restrained, until (possible capturing whilst) hitting the edge-of-board) have 28 moves (seven positions front/back, seven left/right, similar on the two diagonals). Rooks and Bishops might have 14 move-to positions. The kNight might have up to 8 'landing spots'. Initially, apart from the kNight with two moves, they of course have no opportunity to do anything. As the game develops, though, whatever you prior preconceived 'median' might be, in the alphabetically-sorted list, the gaining (by gaining opportunity to move) eand losing (by a piece being capture) adjusts the move-state's 'middle' of all valid-moves up and down the alphabet. Probably never as far as an unambiguous pawn-capture, or a first-file pawn move (or disambiguated capture from that positions), but it'll change a lot.
: How to concisely explain this, I don't know. Especially as I'm just running off the various possibilities off the top of my head, and might have forgotten some of the 'algebraic' notation's subtleties. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.252|162.158.33.252]] 15:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of suckerpinch's "Elo World" video, where he made a whole bunch of similarly single-minded chess engines and ranked them against each other. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA - If I recall correctly there was an alphabet-based one but it picked the first result rather than the middle result. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.136|172.68.23.136]] 01:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3043: Muons

2025-01-28T03:42:16Z

172.68.23.136: response

Article needs improvement by somebody with a clear understanding of special relativity, and somebody with a clear understanding of muons.
Are there actually two classes of muons or is it a joke? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.81|172.68.55.81]] 22:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:No, not two classes; [https://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/8.13/Muons/muons.pdf see Figure 5 on p. 3 here]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.243|172.70.206.243]] 01:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::It sounds possibly like the article and comic together are saying that the muons we measure on earth are those that were going so fast that their time and distance are stretched so that they do not decay before reaching us. That non-relativistic muons decayed in the upper atmosphere. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.84|162.158.63.84]] 03:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::Correct, even if their velocities are not bimodal, you can absolutely divide them into to classes based on whether they decay before reaching the surface. I am pretty sure that's what's intended here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.136|172.68.23.136]] 03:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Fed the comic image into two AIs: Gemini and Claude. These are their explanations; please tell me which is better:

Gemini:

:This xkcd comic (#2885) is a humorous take on the concept of time dilation from Einstein's theory of special relativity, specifically as it applies to muons.

:Here's a breakdown:

:The Setup: The comic explains that muons, subatomic particles created in the upper atmosphere, have very short lifespans. Normally, they would decay before reaching the Earth's surface. However, because they travel at speeds close to the speed of light, time dilation occurs.

:Time Dilation: According to special relativity, time passes slower for objects moving at high speeds relative to a stationary observer. This means that from our perspective on Earth, the muons' internal clocks tick slower, allowing them to travel further before decaying.

:The Joke: The comic takes this scientific concept and applies it to pronunciation. The presenter is shown drawing out the word "muons" ("MUUUUUUOOOONS") to emphasize the elongated time experienced by the fast-moving particles.

:The Punchline: The caption "PHYSICS TIP: REMEMBER TO ADJUST YOUR PRONUNCIATIONS TO ACCOUNT FOR TIME DILATION" is the punchline. It's a humorous exaggeration, suggesting that we should literally pronounce words differently depending on the relative speed of the objects they describe.

:In essence, the comic is a clever play on words that combines a complex physics concept with a mundane everyday activity (pronunciation). It highlights the counterintuitive nature of special relativity in a lighthearted way.

:Here's why this might be tricky to explain on explainxkcd:

:It's concise: The joke is very compact and doesn't require a lot of background information beyond a basic understanding of time dilation.
:It's visual: The drawn-out "MUUUUUUOOOONS" is crucial to the humor, and it's difficult to fully capture that in a purely textual explanation.
:It's somewhat self-explanatory: The comic itself does a good job of setting up the joke and delivering the punchline.

Dunno why it thinks this is comic 2885.

Claude:

:The comic is explaining how muons (subatomic particles) created in the upper atmosphere are able to reach Earth's surface despite their short half-lives.
:The humor comes from the way "muons" is written with stretched-out letters ("MUUUUUOOOOONS"), which is a play on time dilation in special relativity.
:Time dilation is a real physics phenomenon where time moves slower for objects moving at very high speeds relative to a stationary observer. This is why fast-moving muons can survive longer than their normal half-life would suggest - from their perspective, due to time dilation, less time has passed.
:The comic suggests, as a "physics tip," that you should stretch out your pronunciation of words to account for time dilation - as if the word itself experiences the same relativistic effects as the particle it describes.

:It's a particularly nerdy physics joke because it combines accurate physics (muons really do reach the surface due to time dilation) with a playful misapplication of the concept to human speech. The stick figure appears to be teaching or presenting this concept, complete with what looks like equations on a board, making it feel like a legitimate physics lesson with a humorous twist.
:This is characteristic of xkcd's style of humor, which often combines accurate scientific concepts with absurdist interpretations.

{{unsigned|AK24Ammit}}

:Claude's is better, by far. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.215.54|172.70.215.54]] 01:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

3033: Origami Black Hole

2025-01-03T19:35:42Z

172.68.23.136:

{{comic
| number = 3033
| date = January 3, 2025
| title = Origami Black Hole
| image = origami_black_hole_2x.png
| imagesize = 272x480px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = You may notice the first half of these instructions are similar to the instructions for a working nuclear fusion device. After the first few dozen steps, be sure to press down firmly and fold quickly to overcome fusion pressure.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an ORIGAMI FUSION REACTOR TRYING DESPERATELY TO BE A BLACK HOLE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic shows what at first appears to be an actual page of origami directions, like [https://origami.me/crane/ this one] or [https://origami.guide/origami-animals/origami-rabbits/origami-sleeping-rabbit/ this one], except labeled "How to fold a real origami black hole". However, it quickly devolves into nothing other than repeating folds in half. This wouldn't really create a black hole,{{citation needed}} but it would get very difficult, nearly impossible, long before the 190 folds in half that the instructions require.

This comic is likely a reference to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius Schwarzschild radius] of a piece of paper. The Schwarzchild radius is a characteristic of every object that depends on the object's mass. If an object is compressed into the volume of a sphere with its characteristic Schwarzschild radius, then that object will become a black hole. (More specifically, a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric Schwarzschild black hole].) For a piece of origami paper weighing between 1 and 2 grams, this radius would be roughly 10^(-30) meters. As such, if a piece of paper were folded sufficiently many times so as to fit within its own Schwarzschild radius, it would become a black hole. However, this would require compressing the paper into a flat sheet at every step, otherwise the paper would have a thickness greatly exceeding its Schwarzschild radius.
==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

1680: Black Hole

2025-01-03T18:52:20Z

172.68.23.136:

{{comic
| number = 1680
| date = May 13, 2016
| title = Black Hole
| image = black_hole.png
| titletext = It also brings all the boys, and everything else, to the yard.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] is curious as to why [[Black Hat]] has a miniature {{w|black hole}} on his table; Black Hat responds that it "really brings the room together", making a pun on both the black hole aesthetically completing the look of the room as well as it literally "bringing the room together" through its gravitational pull. Evidently the black hole is massive enough to bring the room together optically into visible {{w|Einstein ring}}s by {{w|gravitational lensing}}.

The title text makes a cultural reference to a well-known song lyric from the 2003 song "{{w|Milkshake (song)|Milkshake}}" by {{w|Kelis}}, where the singer brags of her milkshake being so popular that it "brings all the boys to the yard" (what "milkshake" is a metaphor for has never been specified). But in this case, since {{w|gravity}} does not discriminate between which things it pulls,{{Citation needed}} it brings "the boys, and everything else" to Black Hat's yard - and unlike with the milkshake, not by choice. If it wasn't for the house walls (which somehow resist collapsing into the black hole), they wouldn't remain in the yard but would come into the room with the black hole, and then into the black hole itself.

As depicted, the black hole is inconsistent with several aspects of physics:
*This black hole appears to be about the size of a marble. A marble size is approximately Earth's {{w|Schwarzschild radius}}, suggesting this black hole to have Earth-like mass. (Since Cueball and Black Hat are able to stand upright, it suggests the gravitational pull is a fraction of Earth's, making the black hole's mass also a fraction of Earth's. The black hole may appear visibly larger due to having a visible accretion disc.) See link below.
*A large (and {{w|Earth|massive}}) black hole would bring the room together, in less time than Cueball could converse with Black Hat. The gravitational acceleration of an Earth mass black hole would be of the order of 1013 m/s^2, and the tidal forces (the difference between the gravity at two points) only an order of magnitude less than that. Cueball and Black Hat would be {{w|spaghettification|spaghettified}} and fall towards the Black hole in a few nanoseconds. For an observer at a safe distance from the room, {{w|time dilation}} would appear to prolong the duration that the room's contents formed a messy {{w|accretion disc}} slightly larger than the black hole. (See link below)
*A black hole with the mass of the Empire State Building would have gravitational acceleration of much less than 0.01 m/s^2, and consequently insignificant tidal forces. However, unlike the scenario in "Neutron Bullet", it would emit {{w|Hawking radiation}} powerful enough to tear the room apart.
*An uncharged black hole would fall through the coffee table and burrow to Earth's core. Again depending on the mass. If it was an Earth mass black hole Earth would move "up" to the black hole as much as the black hole would move "down" into Earth. See link below
*See [http://www.kickassfacts.com/what-if-a-black-hole-the-size-of-a-coin-suddenly-appears-on-earth/ What if a black hole the size of a coin suddenly appears on earth] for some explanation along the lines of the problems mentioned above.
**See this animation of the answer to that question here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nHBGFKLHZQ Kurzgesagt's video].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing near a coffee table as Black Hat approaches. They are presumably in Black Hat's living room. The coffee table has a miniature black hole on top of it, resting on a small pedestal.]
:Cueball: Why do you have a miniature black hole on your coffee table?
:Black Hat: It really brings the room together.

==Trivia==
*The phrase that something "brings the room together" is also a famous line in the cult film {{w|The Big Lebowski}}, where the anti-hero, the Dude, laments the theft of a rug that "really brought the room together".
*[[Randall]] describes a similar scenario in the "Neutron Bullet" chapter of the ''[[What If? (book)|What If?]]'' book, and a black hole of similar dimensions in the ''[[what if? (blog)|what if?]]'' article ''{{what if|129|Black Hole Moon}}''.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]

3029: Sun Avoidance

2024-12-27T22:31:55Z

172.68.23.136: /* Trivia */ truncation

{{comic
| number = 3029
| date = December 25, 2024
| title = Sun Avoidance
| image = sun_avoidance_2x.png
| imagesize = 311x403px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = C'mon, ESA Solar Orbiter team, just give the Parker probe a LITTLE nudge at aphelion. Crash it into the sun. Fulfill the dream of Icarus. It is your destiny.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SANTA BOT FLYING TOO CLOSE TO THE SUN (SKILL ISSUE). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic humorously ranks space missions based on their ability to "avoid" the Sun, presenting it as a "Sun Avoidance Skill Leaderboard." Most space missions remain relatively far from the Sun, with distances in the tens of millions of kilometers. However, the {{w|Parker Solar Probe}} is listed at the bottom of the leaderboard because it has come significantly closer to the Sun than any other spacecraft, at just 6.17 million kilometers. The joke lies in framing this incredible scientific achievement as a "failure" in avoiding the Sun.

The missions listed include notable solar and planetary exploration spacecraft like {{w|Mariner 10}}, {{w|Helios 1}}, {{w|BepiColombo}}, {{w|MESSENGER}}, and {{w|Solar Orbiter}}. These missions, designed to study the Sun or its surroundings, are ranked by their closest approaches to the Sun. The comic highlights the vast difference between the Parker Solar Probe and all other missions, emphasizing its unprecedented proximity to the Sun as part of its mission to study the solar corona and solar wind.

The inclusion of "All Other Expeditions in Human History" at the top of the leaderboard adds to the humor by lumping together all non-Sun-focused missions, which obviously maintain much greater distances from the Sun. The comic concludes with a sarcastic congratulation to the Parker Solar Probe for its "worst job avoiding the Sun," humorously subverting the intention and achievement of the mission.

The title text further expands on the joke by mockingly framing the Parker Solar Probe's proximity to the Sun as a skill-based failure. It suggests that its operators have demonstrated the "worst Sun avoidance skill" ever. This playful jab contrasts with the reality that the Parker Solar Probe's engineers and scientists intentionally designed the spacecraft to approach the Sun closer than ever before, enduring extreme heat and radiation to gather groundbreaking scientific data.

The caption text references the Greek legend of {{w|Icarus}}, whose father crafted artificial wings so the two of them could fly out of the open-topped prison they were in. Icarus, despite his father's warnings, flew too high which, according to the myth, got him appreciably closer to the Sun where it was much hotter, hot enough to destroy Icarus's wings, which caused him to plummet from a very high altitude to his death. (As humanity has learned since then, the upper reaches of Earth's atmosphere are cold, not hot, and the distance from Earth's surface to the upper reaches of its atmosphere is only a tiny fraction of the total distance from the Earth to the Sun.) The caption text urges the operators of another satellite to use their satellite to alter the Parker Solar Probe's orbit to send it into the Sun, which would by definition lower the Parker Solar Probe's distance from the Sun to zero. Unfortunately, the Parker Solar Probe was only designed to get close to the Sun, not into it, and would be destroyed soon after entering the Sun if not before. Being destroyed would prevent the Parker Solar Probe from transmitting any further data, terminating its mission. Its operators would probably object to this.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
:[A table is shown with three columns, all with underlined headers. Above these there is a header for the entire table.]
:Sun Avoidance Skill Leaderboard
:Rank Mission Sun Nearest Miss

:[The top of the table is not filled out regularly. It starts with giving the first number in the first column. But then instead of text in the next two columns there is a pair of large square brackets that covers about four lines with text in between that do not align with the table lines. In the first column beneath the first number along the bracket to the right there are three vertical, three horizontal and three vertical ellipses to indicate that the large bracket covers more than just the 4 first lines. At the bottom of the bracket the first visible digit of a larger number is shown. It is clearly cut of so the first number is partly outside the left frame edge. After the bracket ends, the next seven lines are normal tekst in all three columns. The numbers continues to increase from the first at the bottom of the bracket, but as for that number the first columns number is always cut partly off across the first visible digit to the left. The first digit can be read though, and in one of the middle lines, one more significant digit is partly visible at the front of the number due to non-proportional spacing, this new number itself being cut off instead of the now fully visible digit partly visible in the other rows]
:1.
:⋮
:…     [All other expeditions in human history]
:⋮
:4303857.
:4303858.    Mariner-10    69.0 million km
:4303859.    Helios 1    46.4 million km
:4303860.    BepiColombo    45.8 million km
:24303861.  Messenger    45.3 million km
:4303862.    Solar Orbiter    43.8 million km
:4303863.    Helios 2    43.3 million km
:4303864.    Parker    6.17 million km

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Congratulations to the Parker Solar Probe for setting a new record for "Worst Job Avoiding the Sun."

==Trivia==
*This comic was released on Christmas Day of 2024, but makes no reference to Christmas.
**This year marks the first time in xkcd's 20 year history (of releasing comics around Christmas), that there have been no [[:Category:Christmas|Christmas comics]] released during those days.
**Also all nine times before this year, when a release day fell on Christmas Day, that comic has always been about Christmas.
*If [[Randall]] found the accomplishments of the Parker Solar Probe more interesting than Christmas itself that might explain why this comic was released on Christmas Day instead.
**It is not the first space exploration accomplishment mentioned during Christmas, however, in the previous case [[2559: December 25th Launch]] from 2021, the comic was give seasonal spin. 
===Truncation===
The **truncated left margin** in the comic adds a layer of visual humor to the leaderboard by making the already exaggerated ranking numbers appear even more absurdly large and unimportant compared to the featured missions. Specifically:

1. **Purposeful Truncation**: The missing digits imply that the numbers are so astronomically large that they can't even fit within the frame. This exaggerates the idea that there are countless other missions ("all other expeditions in human history") that have done a better job at "avoiding the Sun" simply because they weren't designed to approach it.

2. **Visual Priority**: By cutting off the left digits, the comic focuses the viewer's attention on the names and proximity of the missions listed in the table rather than the excessive rankings. It emphasizes that the rankings themselves are a joke rather than meaningful metrics.

3. **Scale of Contrast**: The truncated margin contrasts dramatically with the precise, small rankings of the actual missions like "Mariner-10" and "Helios 1." This makes the Parker Solar Probe’s "failure" to avoid the Sun stand out even more by comparison.

4. **Subtle Ridicule**: The truncation ridicules the idea of "rankings" in this context, as the numbers are effectively meaningless when stretched to such a ludicrous extent. The Parker Solar Probe's achievement, which is scientifically groundbreaking, is humorously undermined by being placed at the very bottom of this exaggerated scale.

In essence, the truncation reinforces the comic’s humor by visualizing the absurdity of ranking missions based on "Sun avoidance," while simultaneously directing focus to the notable achievements of the listed missions. It's a clever graphical tool to emphasize the joke.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Space probes]]

Talk:3028: D&D Roll

2024-12-27T01:14:44Z

172.68.23.136:

Dice comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.181|172.69.22.181]] 04:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And in a pinch, d4s can be used as caltrops. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.210|172.71.147.210]] 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to bet good money that every D&D comic that features the game's name inside the title will either [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests#RSS_Feed_Broken|break the RSS Feed]] or [[User:TheusafBOT]]. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Ah, that's why we never got a good explanation about the one with the D&D players dialling in over AT&T to roleplay S&M sessions while eating M&Ms and drinking A&W. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.4|172.70.90.4]] 13:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Is this the same issue that causes the page title to be rendered as "D Roll"? [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 08:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Probably? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If the D20 is large enough (>30 cm?) and its full volume is made of a heavy metal or alloy, like iron, steel or gold, one can just use it as a "blunt weapon" (that is, the weight is used against the enemy). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.39.208|172.70.39.208]] 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:30cm would be way ''too'' heavy to use as a blunt weapon. A 30cm d20 made of iron would weigh some 107 kilograms, and a golden one would be almost 270. Though I have thought for a while that a cube with a handle plugged into one corner would be a cool and effective shape for a mace head. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.135|172.68.23.135]] 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Second XKCD on D&D in a few months... I think some cartoonish picked up a new hobby recently. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 18:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Should have used the d65536. [[User:DL Draco Rex|DL Draco Rex]] ([[User talk:DL Draco Rex|talk]]) 19:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone added the "chide the player for being presumptious" idea, which I corrected/added to a little (wondering if it should go into the Background section, to not clog up the basic Explanation). But just to note that 'local rules' that we always used to use were to allow 'presumptive' rolls to be made, to speed up gameplay. If the DM/GM/whoever needed more/different/other rolls to be made, they could ask for them (or, sometimes, just ask for them anyway, I think, to maintain the 'mysteries of the game' — "You enter an apparently empty room, roll 6D6... nothing happens! And now a D4... still nothing happens!"). Though with two caveats: No rolling ''then'' deciding the action to declare for it (e.g.: rolled high, tried stupidly damaging move; rolled lower, suggested an easier dodge) and even 'wasted' dice could then be used by the GM/DM (on a whim) if they rolled either extreme of critical. This led to the occasional 'speculative' rolling (without obvious purpose) that ''might'' lead to tripping over some discarded minor-artifact ''or'' a light-sleeping enemy, etc, just to mix things up a bit. Though it's all down to the one running the game, and you never really know if they're even 'accurately' interpreting the valid roles you do know about, if they're good enough story-tellers with a decent sense of how to make a mission not seem like it's quite so much on-the-rails as they planned it to be all along... I suspect that there are as many opinions about this as there are editors here, however. If not more, given that many of us have acted under multiple different playing situations, and perhaps even from both sides of the Dice Screen. (I'm not even sure I've ever played raw, vanilla D&D, for example, and couldn't even tell you which Edition I've most played. Plus all the other things like Star Wars (only ever the original D6 version), Babylon 5 and others for which I'm not even sure of their canon-base.) So, yeah, interpret the comic in any one of several ways! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.238|172.70.85.238]] 16:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

3028: D&D Roll

2024-12-26T22:11:32Z

172.68.23.136: /* Background */

{{comic
| number = 3028
| date = December 23, 2024
| title = D&D Roll
| image = dnd_roll_2x.png
| imagesize = 312x313px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Under some circumstances, if you throw a D8 and then a D12 at an enemy, thanks to the D8's greater pointiness you actually have to roll a D12 and D8 respectively to determine damage.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a D20 FORGED IN THE CAVES OF A BOT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a scene from a tabletop roleplaying game, probably {{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}. In [[3015: D&D Combinatorics]], the same people, [[Cueball]], [[Megan]], [[Ponytail]], [[White Hat]] and [[Knit Cap]], are seated playing D&D in the same seats, where Cueball seems to represent [[Randall]].

Here Cueball announces "I roll D20... 18," referring to rolling a 20-sided die and getting the relatively high score of 18, presumably while in a fight with a {{w|kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)|kobold}} (a small reptilian humanoid creature in D&D.) The {{w|gamemaster|Dungeon Master}}, Ponytail, responds that the kobold is unaffected, but humorously suggests using a sword instead, pointing out the absurdity of trying to defeat an enemy by rolling dice at them. (Ponytail was also the gamemaster in the previous D&D comic).

Cueball made the mistake of assuming that Ponytail would understand which of his weapons or other {{w|melee}} attacks he intended to use, but she had no way of knowing that, so she decided to gently tease him about the omission. This is a common mistake, and being gently made fun of is a common result. The player will usually be allowed to state the specific attack intended and roll again.{{cn}}

Alternately, DMs may take umbrage at a player's presumption to roll dice for actions before being asked to, and this could be interpreted as a chiding. Sometimes rolls are not necessary in cases where success is automatic (the kobold is effectively helpless) or impossible (the kobold is magically immune to physical attacks), although it should be the DM's own choice whether to still test for a meaningful critical [https://rpgmuseum.fandom.com/wiki/Critical_failure failure] or [https://rpgmuseum.fandom.com/wiki/Critical_hit success], despite it being an apparently foregone conclusion of either kind. There are also other circumstances where the required dice is(/are) different ''in this instance'' from that which the player may assume. From a practical perspective, if the performed rolling of the dice is not required (or correctly composed) for the DM's purposes, they can choose to ignore it and/or ask for some other roll(s) to be made. It mayvthen be the player that might be most upset by having rolled a 'good' roll that has been 'wasted', on the principle that they would have liked it to have it happen later, when it actually mattered, despite this being statistically irrelevant, assuming that the DM doesn't keep any such details mysteriously hidden.

However, the possibility exists that the players' characters have actual dice, such as those which were role-played as being produced in [[244: Tabletop Roleplaying]]. The title text suggests that if you literally threw dice as weapons, an eight-sided die (D8) would do more damage than a twelve-sided die (D12) because of its {{w|Dice#Common variations|pointier shape}}, so ironically, you might need to roll the D12 to determine the D8's damage and vice versa, in "some circumstances."

===Background===
When attacking an enemy in D&D, regardless of the weapon used, the attack starts with a d20 roll to see if it lands a solid hit. If a sufficiently high (or in the earliest editions, sufficiently low) number is rolled, the attack hits, and then further dice (chosen depending on the weapon's form and any magic it might possess) are rolled to determine damage. Before any dice can be rolled at all, however, the player must declare which enemy they are attacking and what with. This is trivial if the attacking character always uses the same weapon and is facing a single enemy, but becomes an important question if the fight is more complex. Consider a case where there are two kobolds present, one wearing plate armor while the other has only a loincloth on (the armor requiring a better d20 roll to defeat), and the player carries both a greatsword (dealing heavy general damage) and the magical "Icepick of Instant Kobold Death" (normally ignored but in this case very useful) and also has magic item that can shoot a destructive [https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scorchingRay.htm ''Scorching Ray'']. There are also certain weapons that deal subpar damage on a typical attack, but trigger a powerful extra effect on a very good roll such as 18, making it even more important to specify which weapon one is using before making the roll.

By D&D 5.0 rules, a stone hurled from a sling does [https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#simpleWeapons 1d4 bludgeoning damage]. A sling bullet typically weighs [https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/equipment.htm#tableAdventuringGear 3/40 pound (1.2 oz, 35 g)], a plausible weight for a normal-sized die made of a moderately dense material. Presumably, an object of similar weight that's thrown "by hand" rather than with a sling would do less damage, though a heavier object might do similar damage (albeit with less range). The D&D 3.5 spell [https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicStone.htm ''Magic Stone''] enhances ordinary small stones so they do 1d6+1 damage when hurled, or 2d6+2 when striking undead creatures. So depending on the setup, a D&D character throwing a die at an enemy could theoretically cause considerable harm, but would normally be much better served with an intentionally crafted weapon.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, Megan, Ponytail, White Hat, and Knit Cap are sitting around a table in a tabletop gaming session. Both Cueball and Knit Cap are sitting in office chairs at the ends of the table, with Cueball leaning forward and holding his hand above the table and Knit Cap leaning back on her arm. Behind the table, Megan sits to the left of Ponytail and White Hat to the right. They are both looking at Ponytail, while Ponytail is looking at Cueball. Objects such as dice, miniatures, a map, and papers are on the table.]
:Cueball: I roll D20... 18.
:Ponytail: The kobold is unaffected.
:Ponytail: Honestly, I don't know why you thought dice would help. You should probably try a sword or something instead.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Knit Cap]]
[[Category:Games]]

3028: D&D Roll

2024-12-26T21:27:02Z

172.68.23.136: /* Background */ corrected to explain that all weapon attacks start with a d20

{{comic
| number = 3028
| date = December 23, 2024
| title = D&D Roll
| image = dnd_roll_2x.png
| imagesize = 312x313px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Under some circumstances, if you throw a D8 and then a D12 at an enemy, thanks to the D8's greater pointiness you actually have to roll a D12 and D8 respectively to determine damage.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a D20 FORGED IN THE CAVES OF A BOT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a scene from a tabletop roleplaying game, probably {{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}. In [[3015: D&D Combinatorics]], the same people, [[Cueball]], [[Megan]], [[Ponytail]], [[White Hat]] and [[Knit Cap]], are seated playing D&D in the same seats, where Cueball seems to represent [[Randall]].

Here Cueball announces "I roll D20... 18," referring to rolling a 20-sided die and getting the relatively high score of 18, presumably while in a fight with a {{w|kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)|kobold}} (a small reptilian humanoid creature in D&D.) The {{w|gamemaster|Dungeon Master}}, Ponytail, responds that the kobold is unaffected, but humorously suggests using a sword instead, pointing out the absurdity of trying to defeat an enemy by rolling dice at them. (Ponytail was also the gamemaster in the previous D&D comic).

Cueball made the mistake of assuming that Ponytail would understand which of his weapons or other {{w|melee}} attacks he intended to use, but she had no way of knowing that, so she decided to gently tease him about the omission. This is a common mistake, and being gently made fun of is a common result. The player will usually be allowed to state the specific attack intended and roll again.{{cn}}

Alternately, DMs may take umbrage at a player's presumption to roll dice for actions before being asked to, and this could be interpreted as a chiding. Sometimes rolls are not necessary in cases where success is automatic (the kobold is effectively helpless) or impossible (the kobold is magically immune to physical attacks), although it should be the DM's own choice whether to still test for a meaningful critical [https://rpgmuseum.fandom.com/wiki/Critical_failure failure] or [https://rpgmuseum.fandom.com/wiki/Critical_hit success], despite it being an apparently foregone conclusion of either kind. There are also other circumstances where the required dice is(/are) different ''in this instance'' from that which the player may assume. From a practical perspective, if the performed rolling of the dice is not required (or correctly composed) for the DM's purposes, they can choose to ignore it and/or ask for some other roll(s) to be made. It mayvthen be the player that might be most upset by having rolled a 'good' roll that has been 'wasted', on the principle that they would have liked it to have it happen later, when it actually mattered, despite this being statistically irrelevant, assuming that the DM doesn't keep any such details mysteriously hidden.

However, the possibility exists that the players' characters have actual dice, such as those which were role-played as being produced in [[244: Tabletop Roleplaying]]. The title text suggests that if you literally threw dice as weapons, an eight-sided die (D8) would do more damage than a twelve-sided die (D12) because of its {{w|Dice#Common variations|pointier shape}}, so ironically, you might need to roll the D12 to determine the D8's damage and vice versa, in "some circumstances."

===Background===
When attacking an enemy in D&D, regardless of the weapon used the attack starts with a d20 roll to see if the attack connects. If a sufficiently high (or in the earliest editions, sufficiently low) number is rolled, the attack hits, and then further dice (chosen depending on the weapon's form and any magic it might possess) are rolled to determine damage. Before any dice can be rolled at all, however, the player must specify which enemy they are attacking and what with. This is trivial if a character who always uses the same weapon is facing a single enemy, but becomes an important question if the fight is more complex. Consider a case where there are two kobolds present and one is wearing plate armor while the other has only a loincloth on (the armor would require a higher d20 roll to defeat), and the player carries both a greatsword (dealing heavy general damage) and the magical "Icepick of Instant Kobold Death" (normally ignored but in this case very useful) and also has magic item that can shoot a powerful ''scorching ray''. Depending on the edition, other distinctions might exist as well; in D&D 3.5, a few specific weapons such as rapiers would deal a highly damaging critical hit on a roll of 18, while others would deal only their normal damage.

By D&D 5.0 rules, a stone hurled from a sling does [https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#simpleWeapons 1d4 bludgeoning damage]. A sling bullet typically weighs [https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/equipment.htm#tableAdventuringGear 3/40 pound (1.2 oz, 35 g)], a plausible weight for a normal-sized die made of a moderately dense material. Presumably, an object of similar weight that's thrown "by hand" rather than with a sling would do less damage, though a heavier object might do similar damage (albeit with less range). The D&D 3.5 spell [https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicStone.htm ''Magic Stone''] enhances ordinary small stones so they do 1d6+1 damage when hurled, or 2d6+2 when striking undead creatures. So depending on the setup, a D&D character throwing a die at an enemy could theoretically cause considerable harm, but would normally be much better served with an intentionally crafted weapon.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, Megan, Ponytail, White Hat, and Knit Cap are sitting around a table in a tabletop gaming session. Both Cueball and Knit Cap are sitting in office chairs at the ends of the table, with Cueball leaning forward and holding his hand above the table and Knit Cap leaning back on her arm. Behind the table, Megan sits to the left of Ponytail and White Hat to the right. They are both looking at Ponytail, while Ponytail is looking at Cueball. Objects such as dice, miniatures, a map, and papers are on the table.]
:Cueball: I roll D20... 18.
:Ponytail: The kobold is unaffected.
:Ponytail: Honestly, I don't know why you thought dice would help. You should probably try a sword or something instead.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Knit Cap]]
[[Category:Games]]

Talk:3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty

2024-11-06T04:46:12Z

172.68.23.136: r

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
::Fair enough, but the point still stands that this is explicitly ''not''a both sides issue. Even taking Project 2025 out of account, one side is clearly worse.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.44|172.68.71.44]] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:"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)
::Being tired of politics is one thing (blame the years-long election season for that) but it's objectively incorrect to characterise both sides as "extreme". The democrats ''are'' the moderates. In most of the Western world outside of North America the Democrats would even be considered right-wing.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.193|172.70.46.193]] 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not to be a “Discord mod” here, but the entire idea of the 50-50 portion of the comic alluding to the election today is just a theory. Y’all are reading in wayyyyyyy too deep. The comic isn’t even directly saying if one candidate is better (although the Header text is supporting Harris). The discussion is supposed to be for discussing the comic and how to improve it, not clash over ideological differences. Maybe instead of arguing about who’s the better candidate, we can finish up the comic explanation, which is extremely bare bones? TL;DR: break it up, people. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:19, 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)
::Do I really have to remind you that election results are not the same thing as poll results? In 2016, [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 28.6% chance vs Clinton's 71.4% chance.] Most polls were even more egregiously in favor of Clinton. Yet Trump won. Now in 2024, you say "it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting" - somehow pretending the PREDICTIONS of right now are in any way comparable to the ACTUAL RESULTS of 2016. Yet polls get "shy Tories" and pranksters and all kinds of complicating factors (even assuming the pollsters are being honest - which is not something you should EVER "simply assume"). Polls are a little bit better than astrology in terms of actual predictive power. So comparing "polls now" to "actual election then" is completely wrongheaded. You have to compare predictions to predictions. And the predictions of 2016 were "the odds are MASSIVELY in Clinton's favor" - yet now they are running a WEAKER candidate and rate her has having even LESS probability of winning than Clinton did. Don't worry, though, I'm sure they figured out some way to solve all the problems with their 2016 process, and are now 100% trustworthy again! /s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.127|172.68.3.127]] 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::Whatever direction we're going with the rest of the arguments, don't lead us down the route of misanalysing (say) 28.6% vs. 71.4% as meaning anything other than that's the predicted chance (by a necessarily incomplete process) of the process coming out one way or another (even by just one vote that swings just one EC contribution). It doesn't mean that the popular vote will split by that proportion or the EC votes will split that way, it is just an assessment of how much the (each slightly biased) coins will fall either majority heads or majority tails. But we only see the one end result (itself a fudge of a fudge of many possibly imperfect opinions) and try to read the entrails all while hearing "but the predictions were 29/71, and it was much closer than that, so obviously those stats guys were wrong".
:::Do try not to fall for such statistical fallacies. The polling will be refined for all the things that it can be refined for (accounting for the kinds of people who do vote but don't answer to pollsters, or don't vote even though they say they will, etc) and should come with error bars which can be very telling but rarely get mentioned in 'executive summaries' that get selectively quoted by the headlines of organisations with less integrity and more of their own message to try to promulgate.
:::But looking across many polls, you can see even the 'headline figure' end predictions, shorn of the most obviously optomistic/pesimistic extremes, smeared from several percentage points one way to a similar the other. If the result is within one, two or three swingstates'-worth of ECs, it'll still vindicate most of the polling opinions. Though doesn't mean you can guarantee the reverse. Anyway, not long now until the process stops being fed by votes and starts being fully chewed on by those who produce the 'answer' to this year's big question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of some of my coding theory class, where the absolute worst bit error rate is 50%. Less than 50% and you can repeat the data to detect and correct the errors to some vastly low probability of an incorrect result, and more than 50% and you can invert the signal which flips it to less than 50%, then do the same. At exactly 50% you're essentially getting random noise, and there's nothing you can do about that (but allow allows a one-time pad encryption to be unbreakable if done correctly). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.13|172.71.214.13]] 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There's been talk about pollsters potentially herding because of just how tight the race allegedly is across all of the swing states (which should be more inclined D/R relative to each other, not all exactly even). I think Nate Silver made a tweet about the odds that the odds are so close. Could that be related to this comic, indirectly? {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.61|20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}

What's with the section talking about strategies to manage expectations? It reads like it came straight out of ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.155|172.71.102.155]] 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:It probably is, considering I asked ChatGPT to analyze the comic yesterday to see if it could catch the joke about emotional spiral experts and got a very similar response. Shall we remove it? —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::The wikilinks show that wherever it came from originally, an editor reviewed and marked it up, so I would lean towards keep. It's not bad advice, although I'm not a psychologist or therapist. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.136|172.68.23.136]] 04:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps as expected, this has gone outdated pretty quickly. [https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/will-trump-win-the-2024-election Manifold] and [https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024 Polymarket] are now both trading above 90% for Trump as of this comment. —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)