explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2117: Differentiation and Integration

2024-08-07T01:47:54Z

172.68.23.73: /* Integration */ comma

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

==Explanation==
This comic illustrates the old saying [https://mathoverflow.net/q/66377 "Differentiation is mechanics, integration is art."] It does so by providing a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For any 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑘⋅𝑥𝑎, it follows that 𝑓 '(𝑥) = 𝑘⋅𝑎⋅𝑥𝑎−1.

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

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

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

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

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

The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified. The catch is, there exists no algorithm for determining what functions they might possibly be, so this approach quickly devolves into a guessing game - this has been the topic of an earlier comic, [[1201: Integration by Parts]].

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

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

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

Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. <math> \frac{d^n}{da^n}f(a) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i} \oint_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{\left(z-a\right)^{n+1}}\, dz.</math> It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero.

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

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

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

Mathematica is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is to install and use Mathematica to do the integration for you. Here is a description about the [https://web.archive.org/web/20180727184709/http://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/IntegralsThatCanAndCannotBeDone.html intricacies of integration and how Mathematica handles those]. (It would be quicker to try [https://www.wolframalpha.com Wolfram Alpha] instead of installing Mathematica, which uses the same backend for mathematical calculations.)

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

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

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

Stokes' theorem is a statement about the integration of differential forms on manifolds. <math>\int_{\partial \Omega}\omega=\int_\Omega d\omega\,.</math> It is invoked in science and engineering during control volume analysis (that is, to track the rate of change of a quantity within a control volume, it suffices to track the fluxes in and out of the control volume boundary), but is rarely used directly (and even when it is used directly, the functions that are most frequently used in science and engineering are well-behaved, like sinusoids and polynomials).

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

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

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

Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation x2 d2y/dx2 + x dy/dx + (x2 - n2) y = 0, where n is the order of the Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.

'''Phone calls to mathematicians'''

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

'''Burn the evidence'''

This phrase parodies a common trope in detective fiction, where characters burn notes, receipts, passports, etc. to maintain secrecy. This may refer to the burning of one's work to avoid the shame of being associated with such a badly failed attempt to solve the given integration problem. Moreover, such a poor attempt at integration could be viewed as a 'crime against mathematics', with the working of the problem being criminal 'evidence' that must be destroyed to avoid exposure as the culprit. Alternatively, it could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so the negative consequences of a prosecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.

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

Symbolic integration is the basic process of finding an antiderivative function (defined with symbols), as opposed to numerically integrating a function. The title text is a pun that defines the term not as integration that works with symbols, but rather as integration as a symbolic act, as if it were a component of a ritual. A symbolic act in a ritual is an act meant to evoke something else, such as burning a wooden figurine of a person to represent one’s hatred of that person. Alternatively, the reference could be seen as a joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because Randall can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.

==Transcript==
:[Two flow charts are shown.]

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

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

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

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

2967: Matter

2024-08-03T03:24:44Z

172.68.23.73: /* Explanation */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2967
| date = August 2, 2024
| title = Matter
| image = matter_2x.png
| imagesize = 234x341px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = He was the first person to land a 900, which is especially impressive because pulling off a half-integer spin requires obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOOFY FRONTSIDE WIKI GRIND TO SECRET PHYSICS DEMO TAPE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In {{w|skateboarding}}, the term 'goofy' means to use the {{w|Footedness#Goofy_stance|opposite stance}} of the 'standard-footed' one where one pushes with right foot. This comic takes this as an apparent analogy of {{w|antimatter}} in elementary physics, which exhibits the opposite charge to normal matter will mutually destroy 'normal' matter (releasing energy relative to the original mass). This appears to be the kind of explanation that one gets when {{w|Tony Hawk}}, an ex-professional skateboarder of great renown[https://www.mobygames.com/game/3567/tony-hawks-pro-skater/], is teaching.

This metaphor also indirectly raises the problem of {{w|Baryon asymmetry}}, in which ordinary matter appears to be much more common than antimatter, unlike most{{citation needed}} distributions of handedness, chemical {{w|chirality}}, or the {{w|skewness}} of {{w|Multimodal_distribution|bimodal statistics}} describing asymmetries in nature (called {{w|homochirality}}, e.g., organ shape and centering, or plants favoring one branch over the other at a fork) and in artificial methods, while 'goofy-footed' skaters are about common as 'regular-footed'.

The use of Tony Hawk in the comic is most likely a play on {{w|Stephen Hawking}}, a famous astrophysicist and professor at the University of Cambridge before his death in 2018. The Feynman diagram showing a spontaneously generated particle-antiparticle pair where the antiparticle falls into a black hole is a (flawed) analogy from Hawking's book ''A Brief History of Time'' for explaining {{w|Hawking Radiation}}. This would seem to account for the aforementioned Baryon asymmetry. Whether black holes result in information being removed from the universe is also an unsolved problem in physics. As Tony Hawk does not have a degree in physics{{citation needed}}, teaching popular but inaccurate versions is a likely pitfall of his professorship.

The title text talks of a {{w|900 (skateboarding)|skateboarding trick}} which involves two and a half rotations, or (eponymously) nine hundred degrees (2.5 × 360° = 900°). {{w|Spin (physics)|'Spin'}} is a quality of subatomic particles, named for the concept of {{w|angular momentum}} as it applies to elementary and quantum physics, and the understanding of {{w|Fermi–Dirac statistics}} requires that the particles involved exhibit spin numbers that all have a half-spin on top of any given whole number, much as with the 2½-rotations (albeit at a vastly different scale and only loosely considered even the same) of the trick that Tony Hawk could have performed.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Tony Hawk (drawn with short hair) gesturing at a narrow whiteboard on which illegible things are marked, what may be a Feynman diagram with one of the particle/antiparticle pair going into a circle (possibly representing a black hole, and thus depicting the popularized(incorrect) analogy for {{w|Hawking radiation}}), and at the bottom, a 2x3 table of values.]
:Tony Hawk: In the standard model, regular matter will annihilate if it comes in contact with oppositely-charged ''goofy'' matter.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Tony Hawk becomes a physics professor

{{comic discussion}}

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

2967: Matter

2024-08-03T03:23:54Z

172.68.23.73: /* Explanation */ Homochirality

{{comic
| number = 2967
| date = August 2, 2024
| title = Matter
| image = matter_2x.png
| imagesize = 234x341px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = He was the first person to land a 900, which is especially impressive because pulling off a half-integer spin requires obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOOFY FRONTSIDE WIKI GRIND TO SECRET PHYSICS DEMO TAPE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In {{w|skateboarding}}, the term 'goofy' means to use the {{w|Footedness#Goofy_stance|opposite stance}} of the 'standard-footed' one where one pushes with right foot. This comic takes this as an apparent analogy of {{w|antimatter}} in elementary physics, which exhibits the opposite charge to normal matter will mutually destroy 'normal' matter (releasing energy relative to the original mass). This appears to be the kind of explanation that one gets when {{w|Tony Hawk}}, an ex-professional skateboarder of great renown[https://www.mobygames.com/game/3567/tony-hawks-pro-skater/], is teaching.

This metaphor also indirectly raises the problem of {{w|Baryon asymmetry}}, in which ordinary matter appears to be much more common than antimatter, unlike most{{citation needed}} distributions of handedness, chemical {{w|chirality}}, or the {{w|skewness}} of {{w|Multimodal_distribution|bimodal statistics}} describing asymmetries in nature (called {{w|homochirality}}, e.g., organ shape and centering, or plants favoring one branch over the other at a fork) and in artificial methods, while 'goofy-footed' skaters are about equally-common as 'regular-footed'.

The use of Tony Hawk in the comic is most likely a play on {{w|Stephen Hawking}}, a famous astrophysicist and professor at the University of Cambridge before his death in 2018. The Feynman diagram showing a spontaneously generated particle-antiparticle pair where the antiparticle falls into a black hole is a (flawed) analogy from Hawking's book ''A Brief History of Time'' for explaining {{w|Hawking Radiation}}. This would seem to account for the aforementioned Baryon asymmetry. Whether black holes result in information being removed from the universe is also an unsolved problem in physics. As Tony Hawk does not have a degree in physics{{citation needed}}, teaching popular but inaccurate versions is a likely pitfall of his professorship.

The title text talks of a {{w|900 (skateboarding)|skateboarding trick}} which involves two and a half rotations, or (eponymously) nine hundred degrees (2.5 × 360° = 900°). {{w|Spin (physics)|'Spin'}} is a quality of subatomic particles, named for the concept of {{w|angular momentum}} as it applies to elementary and quantum physics, and the understanding of {{w|Fermi–Dirac statistics}} requires that the particles involved exhibit spin numbers that all have a half-spin on top of any given whole number, much as with the 2½-rotations (albeit at a vastly different scale and only loosely considered even the same) of the trick that Tony Hawk could have performed.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Tony Hawk (drawn with short hair) gesturing at a narrow whiteboard on which illegible things are marked, what may be a Feynman diagram with one of the particle/antiparticle pair going into a circle (possibly representing a black hole, and thus depicting the popularized(incorrect) analogy for {{w|Hawking radiation}}), and at the bottom, a 2x3 table of values.]
:Tony Hawk: In the standard model, regular matter will annihilate if it comes in contact with oppositely-charged ''goofy'' matter.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Tony Hawk becomes a physics professor

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:2951: Bad Map Projection: Exterior Kansas

2024-06-28T01:24:34Z

172.68.23.73: /* Actual azimuthal projection centered at Kansas' antipode */ reply

Seems weird that it's just the contiguous US, with "hints" about what lies within. I hope Randall will release another version with the rest of the world included.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.61|162.158.158.61]] 03:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Would the center be both poles ''and'' Kansas's antipode? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.27.150|172.68.27.150]] 03:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Including Hawaii would have been the cherry on the cake. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.174|198.41.242.174]] 05:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

: As the center of the map corresponds to Kansas' antipode (Kerguelen in the Indian Ocean https://www.geodatos.net/en/antipodes/united-states/kansas-city), Hawaii isn't really "near the center", but rather to the right of the center (in the direction of the "Pacific Ocean" tag). --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.100|162.158.86.100]] 05:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:: Admittedly, I guessed where they would be. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.139|172.71.174.139]] 06:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the middle part is meant to be seen as 'water', just 'out of scope'. [[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 07:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, this is similar to a map like https://suncatcherstudio.com/uploads/patterns/us-maps/pdf-png/usa-map-states-names-color-010101.png In that map, Canada and Mexico aren't "rendered as water", they're not rendered at all, and neither are the oceans. I'm going to edit that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.73|162.158.78.73]] 13:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

== How would the rest of the world look? ==

Currently the center is all water. If I understand correctly the rest of the world could be added, but how would it look? For example, would Europe and Asia cover a good part of the water or would they be tiny specs in the middle (almost making this a world map already)
:My impression (without measuring/replicating) is that this is mathematically (or whatever) a gnomonic projection (which can only show half the world, anyway, even on a sheet stretching up to infinity) radially inverted. As such quite a lot of features that aren't shown ('beyond/within' the 'coastline'/borders) couldn't be, anyway, as more than half the world away. Map-centre would be the compressed singularity of the Great Circle exactly 90° off the 'centre of Kansas' that itself now exists at infinite-radius-every-angle far off the page.
:Though it could just be stereographic with any negatively positioned projection origin. Instead of -1, for gnomonic, with a -2 radii origin you would get the whole surface (at infinity!) in ways that whatever you do to radially invert (probably the direct reciprocal) and otherwise scale (clearly choosing the additional 'zoom level' factor that neatly brings the Kansas border more or less into frame) to compress all offshore/over-border territories into the 'oceanic' centre. Or it could just be a useful rescale of a -2r projection ''of'' the Kansas-antipode, such that all borders of Kansas are pulled into frame.
:(Regarding Hawaii, if quick googling is right about Hawaii being 3,600km from Kansas(-centre?), then that puts it at various preskewed factors towards the 'hemispherical horizon' of ~10,000km or the antipodal point at ~20,000km, before then being further squashed by the particular coordinate conversion system in use. If it's a near-side orthographic projection and, say approaching +1 radii up from the surface-tangent, then it could perhaps be 'over the horizon' in the direct projection and thus 'beyond the singularity' of the inverted-radius version.)
:I'd have to mess with some map data, to be sure the existing features fit either idea of projection (or find the actual one (ab)used), but this'd probably be what I'd do, straight off the bat. And then I could apply it to extraterratorial features, also. I've got some of the necessary data and mungable code handily sitting on a machine that I am ''unhandily'' not going to next use until at least the weekend, and reimplimenting it on this tablet would mean starting from first principles again/testing/etc... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 09:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

: Check out the Wikipedia article "Azimuthal equidistant projection" and scroll to "Sample azimuthal equidistant projection maps". There is an inverse example, that puts California at the center of a world map. Now imagine everything else in the "great sea" of Randall's map, using a similar projection. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.32|172.71.99.32]] 13:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

: Yay! A task for a geography teacher (i.e. me, and I'm a big fan of Randall's work with maps), and I just happen to have the right bookmarks for this kind of thing in my browser. So here's a little toy to play around with: [https://www.worldmapgenerator.com/en/wizard/step/centering/?config=eyJpZCI6IkNVU1RPTV9XSVpBUkQiLCJsYXllcklkcyI6WyJDTElQX1BBVEgiLCJCQUNLR1JPVU5EIiwiU1BIRVJFIiwiR1JBVElDVUxFUyIsIkxBTkQiLCJPQ0VBTiJdLCJwcm9qZWN0aW9uSWQiOiJBWklNVVRIQUxfRVFVSURJU1RBTlQiLCJyZW5kZXJpbmdBZGFwdGVySWQiOiJDQU5WQVMiLCJtYXBUaGVtZUlkIjoiREVGQVVMVCIsImNlbnRlciI6WzAsMF0sInJvdGF0aW9uIjpbLTgxLDQwLDBdLCJ6b29tIjowLjksIndpemFyZFN0ZXBQcm9ncmVzc0lkeCI6MywidmVyc2lvbiI6IjEuMC4wIn0%3D] I hope my settings got preserved in the link as they should, else whoever added all those letters and numbers clearly has something to answer for! If the link works as it should it'll show you what a map of the whole wide world would look like in an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection with Kansas on the exterior. That is, I first used this Antipodes Map [https://www.antipodesmap.com] to locate the point opposite to Lebanon, Kansas at 39°48'35"S, 81°26'39.8"E , which is quite literally in the middle of the Indian Ocean, near the islands of Saint Paul and Nouvelle Amsterdam (which, incidentally, belong to France and are mainly known for being as far away from anything as you can possibly get on this planet*) and then set the centre of the worldmapgenerator.com map approximately there. It's not a very precise tool, but it'll do - it's precise enough for me to use in lessons anyway. Surprisingly, you actually get a more or less usable map for much of the world (if you're not too fussy or trying to navigate with it or anything), ''except only'' for North and Middle America. :D [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt|talk]]) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:: * At least, you can say that if you happen to land there, you're really not in Kansas any more. ;) [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt|talk]]) 16:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::Oh, I really like map stuff, but: "This site uses cookies to improve the results of our bakery. With your acceptance we can add more honey, sugar and flour to improve the website. [Accept]". Only "[Accept]", no other options (even long-winded 'deselect "things ''we'' suggest are important" options that I might disagree with'). I really don't like that. And then it also offers to install an App, apparently... Oh, website builders, just because I'm currently on a mobile device, it doesn't mean I'm eager to "app everything"; entirely the opposite, perhaps! Yeah, I know script/cookie blockers or specialist browsers exist to avoid these things, but... Anyway, nice to see a geography teacher taking it seriously, even if I've got my own conflicting issues in picking up on what you've found. (Behind/before the popup stuff, it truly looked interesting. Don't know if there's a legit way to get a screenshot of it. Don't break any Ts&Cs in doing so!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.164|141.101.98.164]] 17:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::: The joke is that worldmapgenerator doesn't store ANY cookies. Meanwhile the site you are posting from stores 63 kB of browser data just visiting the homepage. [[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: Hmm, I get the "This site uses cookies to improve the results of our bakery." too. If they don't use cookies, then they shouldn't have that.
:::: I am actually on a desktop system, I can probably go in there and remove the "don't do anything until the Accept is clicked" popover ''without clicking on the popover'', and even check out what it tries to store, or doesn't... I'm not even overly paranoid about these things, but I agree with above poster that it's bad form. ''Especially'' if it's a joke (no reason to suppose it is).
:::: Yeah, I'll accept Cookies if essential, but often they aren't, so it's not even a very good joke to make. Maybe they do just do everything in URL-encoded/GET data. It's my own prefered method, to make fully transparent GET data on websites I use (barring anything that needs to be POST-submitted), and if I ever use cookies it's a single own-site-only cookie for session control, not the mass of "Legitimate Use" (as if!) items.
:::: Have you ever gone and looked in the list? (Assuming the "Do you accept cookies" doesn't do a "Yes, accept all"/"No, reject all (inessential)" and gives you the 'option' to painstakingly turn off half a dozen "default cookie sets".) It's frightening how many 'interested parties' are potentially getting info (dozens to hundreds, at a time). And, realistically, I'm not sure I even believe that by selecting 'off' on that kind of dialogue that I'm actually not being Cookified just as much as if I accidentally clicked on the prominent "Accept All".
:::: Sorry, the above comment just resonates with me, too. Decided I had to vent a bit. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 23:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:: Thanks for the wonderful link. I suggest we include an image from this in the article. Your settings were preserved nicely. Given how little of north America is visible, I suspect that Randal must have used an even more extreme azimuthal protection than the equidistant one to shrink the center. [[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 21:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

==Adding an image?==
Is it possible to add an image to the description? I'm looking at the Wikipedia article "Azimuthal equidistant projection" and the "external Antarctica" map is relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.32|172.71.99.32]] 13:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:You could use a variation on <code><nowiki>[[File:Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg|300px]]</nowiki></code> maybe. Add align/wrap options, as necessary, and use a size that seems to work. Remember to try it with Preview, before you're submitting it for real, lets you fine-tune to your liking without spamming the edit-history. Doesn't need (explicit) uploading to the wiki, this way. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97|172.69.194.97]] 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Now [https://xkcd.com/1335/] be mentioned? Same type of projection. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.90|162.158.159.90]] 20:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

== Actual azimuthal projection centered at Kansas' antipode ==

It turns out that, this being the internet, there's an actual tool for generating azimuthal projections ([https://ns6t.net/azimuth/]). For the curious minds out there, here's what the exterior Kansas would look like as an actual azimuthal projection: [https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i87r5524u952cam4dbtdx/Kansas-Azimuthal.pdf?rlkey=h5f3qp8esotyk50uaurht8gj4&st=drjzszjk&dl=0]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.178|172.69.90.178]] 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:[https://i.ibb.co/W33xmKC/Screenshot-2024-06-27-3-17-30-PM.png Here's one where the conformal lines are still latitude and longitude], from https://maps.ontarget.cc/azmap/en.html which releases it as CC-BY-SA if someone wants to upload it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.73|172.68.23.73]] 01:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2948: Electric vs Gas

2024-06-20T13:40:13Z

172.68.23.73:

Now I'm not a fan of gas engines, but that argument is in bad faith. Gas engines have one ''very big'' advantage over electrics: Energy density, and by extension, range. Batteries can't come close to the energy density of hydrocarbons, despite the latters' overall lower efficiency. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

:I think that's one of the main arguments for hybrid systems. Using a gas engine to charge an electric motor, and then using the electric motor to actually power the appliance, enables significant efficiency gains. If anything, combining the technologies enables even greater ''usable'' energy density from hydrocarbons. Hybrid electric vehicles for example are extremely efficient. [[User:Eunakria|Eunakria]] ([[User talk:Eunakria|talk]]) 17:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Energy density, and the ability to move large amounts of stored energy from one place to another quickly and easily (aka pump gas, vs charge or swap a battery), from a thermal and maintenance perspective. (Which is not entirely unrelated to energy density.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.39.54|172.70.39.54]] 18:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Swapping batteries (and slowly charging the batteries in the swap station) could offer comparable "charge" times to gasoline refuelling times, while also being better for battery lifespan, but would require industry coordination and standardisation re: battery packs and install location that, sadly, simply does not exist. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.212|172.70.42.212]] 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Plug-in hybrids have been superior since 1904, but the incremental capital cost is still an issue while oil is under $100/bbl. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.129|172.71.150.129]] 19:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: Except of course that this isn't quite as simple as this. A Honda Civic (one the most popular US petrol cars) will go about 400 miles on a full tank, about the same as a Dodge Ram. Also about the same as a Tesla Model S. There's a pretty good reason this isn't a coincidence - people don't want more much more range, and a bigger tank is more weight. A Chevy Silverado full tank will go about 500miles. If you really want range, you need to look at a hybrid car. As the comic points out, the torque on a standard otto cycle engine is poor, but that cycle is deliberately designed to give more torque. Hybrids use an Atkinson cycle which is far more energy efficient, but could not provide enough torque - so you use the electric to do that. A Prius has a range in excess of 630 miles, more than any popular petrol car. So if you want range, you still want an electric engine, just store the energy in hydrocarbons. For similar reasons, diesel trains use the diesel to run generators which then power the electric motors on the wheels, and have done for decades. {{unsigned ip|172.70.162.186|20:47, 19 June 2024}}
:: Which brings us back to energy density: The Honda Civic has a similar range to the Tesla – at 10% the weight for its fuel (vs. the Tesla's battery), and one-third the volume. The comparison gets even worse for long-haul cargo, but that might be beyond the topic of this conversation. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 13:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On the other other hand, in a lot of cases an electric motor is just a gas engine with extra steps due to the current state of the power grid. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.232|172.68.174.232]] 17:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not here in Washington State it isn't. Most of our electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: AFAIK, no new dams are being built, and I reckon that the probability is vanishingly small that any new dam that is mooted will survive the inevitable storms of protest and get built. The trend, rather, and the political pressure, salmon fans, is to remove dams (e.g. those on the Elwha River). The existing dams are aging, their impoundment volumes are dwindling due to sedimentation, and the water for those impoundments is increasingly bespoke and is, in at least some cases, declining in volume due to climate perturbations. The population, and its energy use, is increasing. As of 2022, [https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA#tabs-1 I read], WA was a net exporter of electricity. I would not be taking that status for granted. A few years ago, a study was published, finding that, in states where the electricity grid was dependent on fossil-fuel-fired plants, electric cars had a greater carbon footprint than gasoline/petrol cars - and this was before the major gains in gasoline fuel efficiency contributed by advances in computer tech (2007 Honda Civic hybrid gets the same city mileage, ca. 35 mpg, as a 2021 Honda Civic petrol engine, in my hands). I do not know what current assessments say about this. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.129|172.71.150.129]] 04:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

:I'd say an electric motor powered by a hydrocarbon grid still usually makes better use of gas than a typical gas engine. Gas engines that don't always run at full throttle (as in, a gas engine in an appliance) have dramatically worse efficiency than electric motors that don't always run at full throttle. It depends ''very'' heavily on use case, though; always take measurements and run the numbers before coming to a specific conclusion. Science would be nothing without empirical data. [[User:Eunakria|Eunakria]] ([[User talk:Eunakria|talk]]) 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Should this have [[:Category:Climate change]]? I can’t decide. [[User:Usb-rave|Usb-rave]] ([[User talk:Usb-rave|talk]]) 17:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, it's better with it for people looking though the category later on, they will want to see it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.10|162.158.186.10]] 19:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, with this argument the thing gas engines have going for them over EVs is the refueling time and availability. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.175|172.69.59.175]] 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:That's fair. It would be nice if electric cars had been more focused-on ten years ago than the trend (trend? craze? idea? whatever.) starting now. I refuse to buy a Tesla, though. Elon is never getting my money. I'm waiting for an electric Volvo. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's really remarkable how uninformed and unintelligent this comic is, to the point where I now doubt the veracity of his entire What If? series. {{unsigned ip|172.70.114.62|19:13, 19 June 2024}}
:To be fair, there’s sort of an agenda here, while I don’t believe there’s one in ''What If?'' I can’t independently verify the accuracy of ''What If?'', of course, but there is that. [[User:Usb-rave|Usb-rave]] ([[User talk:Usb-rave|talk]]) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:I'd like to know more about the "uninformed and unintelligent" assessment. Given that not all of Randall's characters copy his ''exact thinking''. I don't think he'd espouse much of what he has Black Hat say/do. And clearly many of his Cueballs, even being often accepted as Author Avatars, can be clearly being dumber than Randall (who is 'writing them as dumb') is. What we have is parody. And maybe you just don't see the parody in the way intended (or understood by others). Perhaps you have a completely different mindset, or are just inclined to be anti-Randall> (Even in things he's actually right about...) I don't know where the mismatch may be here, but if you're seriously thinking that there remains not one useful take-away from anything Randall has ever said, just from the ''possibility'' that his cartoon characters don't completely mesh with what you perceive as a correct worldview, then this needs looking at from a different perspective than just reassessing the whole ''What If?'' corpus. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24|162.158.74.24]] 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: The tagline for the xkcd comic does include the word "sarcasm", which should warn against over-serious or over-literal interpretations. Not infrequently, I find, xkcd ventures into the realm of the sarcastic, the opinionated, even the polemic (cf. the Hilary Clinton campaign ads), and this one states a clear opinion in favor of electric cars ... with which one is free to debate (as here, exhaustively), or disagree. All of which brings the cartoonist to the attention of the world, and thereby supports him in his chosen line of work, which, in the current state of cartooning as a profession, is no small accomplishment. As for the opinion, consider the following question: "I have a four-mile commute to work. Which is the most eco-friendly option? The electric car? The hybrid? The gas/petrol car?" Answer: the foot car. Walking the four miles is the only minimum-carbon solution under all circumstances ... except perhaps ones that allow the questioner to keep deir job. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.4|108.162.245.4]] 05:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh... OK. I had poor signal so this one took a while to load, and I only saw the "Gas vs. Electric" title. I thought it was going to be about kitchen stoves - ones that burn ''actual'' "gas", vs. electrical heating elements. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 19:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually experienced the "cons" of a less limited degree of power and not being noisy at all, today. Someone in an electric vehicle (could have been a Tesla) pulled out of a sideroad, accelerating at what seemed like a reckless rate (it was advantageous to do so, but a petrol-powered vehicle that might have taken a bit longer to switch up the gears would still have been up to speed soon enough to not get into contention with any other vehicles). And with barely more than a whine, and perhaps a bit of road-noise that might have included at one point a bit of grit-splattering. I was watching this, and knew they were pulling out of the junction (and knew for certain, moreover, that there was no traffic coming up or down the road, nor anybody crossing the road anywhere in my rather long sight). Had there been someone ''actually'' about to cross the road (within the next 50 yards or so), however, it would have been entirely possible that they would have been caught be surprise by this near-silent and suddenly fast-moving vehicle. If it was a Tesla, then maybe its inbuilt forward 'radar'/whatever would have helped bring the vehicle to a stop, or at least slow it down/stop if from speeding up enough, before any actual accident might have happened... but this is theoretical, as it just happened not to happen anything like this on this occasion... But it could have. And the paradigm for crossing the road that I learnt several decades ago of "Stop, Look, Listen, Think" has probably now started to lose out on the "Listen" bit, and possibly degraded even the "Look" and "Think" until we start to retrain ourselves to anticipate vehicles whipping around random corners that are far more silent-and-deadly then what we've all become used to. Ok, so this is not necessarily the total fault of the electric vehicles (or even the drivers, but they must have ''some'' hand in the matter), but in changing the dynamics and situational awarenesses of road traffic so much it ''might'' be considered a relatable problem. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24|162.158.74.24]] 23:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: I drove an electric motorcycle for a while, which put me quite exposed and aware of safety and my driving environment. The concerns about EVs being too quiet don't come across as grounded in reality. Modern ICE vehicles typically have minimal engine noise already. There are really two cases: out on the road, where half the people (exaggerating) have their earbuds in, and any engine noise is swamped by tire noise anyway. No difference between ICE and electric here. Then in a parking lot, where tire noise is not significant, and maybe pedestrians could get extra auditory cues about the vehicles around them from ICE engine noise. In that context, I personally would flip open my visor and make eye contact with pedestrians. It would be nice if drivers of full-sized cars and trucks, no matter their power source, would do more of that. Driving while inattentive is unambiguously bad. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.204|172.69.23.204]] 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
: Rolling noise becomes more than enough for safe audibility by about 30 km/h (below which speed collisions are relatively less dangerous anyways, though most urban streets really should have a speed limit of 20 km/h for numerous reasons including safety), and actually dominates engine noise by about 55 km/h. ICEs are loud enough to have like a dozen deleterious health effects even while idling, though the noise of a bicycle, if sufficiently constant, is enough to reach the WHO threshold. In short, electric cars only need to make additional noise below about 30 km/h for safety, and even then only 55dBA, quieter than typical speech, and even then only if there's already a lot of noise polution to drown them out. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.33|162.158.146.33]] 07:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::Although really what they mostly need is drivers who look where they're going, and don't assume that people will just get out of their way when they hear them coming.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 08:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::: Which is best accomplished using narrower streets, bollards, and other traffic easing mechanisms that make people want to slow down and pay attention rather than putting up a lower speed limit sign and just expecting people to obey it. That goes double in the US where most speed limits are assigned by looking at the speeds people are actually driving in good conditions and setting it where 10% of people woulld be speeding (and then rounded to the nearest 5 mph), meaning the sign is literally irrelevant to almost everyone. Oh, also, we desperately need to stop combining streets, which are destinations, with roads, which are thoroughfares, into "stroads" that fail at being both; that's an actual majority of your traffic easing taken care of basically in one step. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.234|162.158.146.234]] 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the current explanation is missing the forest for the trees. My impression was that White Hat was parroting a ChatGPT-style response -- noncommittal and logically incoherent. (In fact, I missed the logical non sequitur the first time I read the strip. The style just screamed to me ChatGPT, though.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 00:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This comic was posted yesterday and I'm already seeing people typing essays. I'm scared. (also electric rules gas drools nyehh) [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 13:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
: Not too shabby a result from a stick-figure drawing posted on the Internet. Jealous? As for 'electric', nice to see your unqualified support for [https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara slave labor in the Congo] and elsewhere. Get a horse! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.73|172.68.23.73]] 13:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

2941: Cell Organelles

2024-06-04T17:37:39Z

172.68.23.73: /* Explanation */ fix link

{{comic
| number = 2941
| date = June 3, 2024
| title = Cell Organelles
| image = cell_organelles_2x.png
| imagesize = 563x451px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's believed that Golgi was originally an independent organism who was eventually absorbed into our cells, where he began work on his Apparatus.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOLGI ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts a {{w|Cell (biology)|biological cell}} diagram with a mix of real and fictional {{w|organelle}}s, blending accurate {{w|Cell biology|cell biology}} terms with misplaced or absurd labels. While it includes actual cell components like the nucleus, mitochondria, and Golgi apparatus, it also includes unrelated concepts from various fields such as geology, engineering, software, and pop culture. Labels like "evil endoplasmic reticulum" and "sticky endoplasmic reticulum" make fun of scientific terms. The comic plays on the complexity and diversity of cell structures by mixing in unrelated and humorous terms, highlighting the often confusing and intricate nature of scientific diagrams with clever wordplay and cross-disciplinary jokes.

The title text adds a humorous fictional backstory to the {{w|Golgi apparatus}}, an essential cell organelle involved in processing and packaging proteins. It playfully suggests that {{w|Camillo Golgi}}, the scientist who discovered the Golgi apparatus, was originally an independent organism. This organism was supposedly absorbed into our cells, where it then started working on what is now known as the Golgi apparatus. The joke is a satirical take on {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic theory}}, which posits that certain organelles within {{w|Eukaryote|eukaryotic}} cells, like {{w|mitochondria}} and {{w|chloroplasts}}, originated from independent symbiotic {{w|Prokaryote|prokaryotic organisms}} that were absorbed by a host {{w|germ cell}}. Golgi appears to be depicted in the comic as a tiny alien being.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Label
! Meaning
! Real?
! Cell organelle?
! Explanation
|-
| {{w|Smooth endoplasmic reticulum}}
| A network of tubular membranes within the cytoplasm of the cell, involved in the transport of materials.
| Yes
| Yes
| A standard term for the smooth (i.e., not ribosome-covered) portion of the endoplasmic reticulum.
|-
| {{w|Lithosphere}}
| The rigid outer part of the earth, consisting of the crust and upper mantle.
| Yes
| No
| Term from geology; part of the Earth's crust. Both labeled diagrams of cells and of the layers of the Earth are commonly found in science textbooks.
|-
| {{w|O-ring}}
| A mechanical gasket in the shape of a torus; used to seal connections.
| Yes
| No
| Engineering term. Both the o-ring and pith are drawn connected to the inner cell membrane. Made famous in pop culture for being the cause of the {{w|Space Shuttle Challenger disaster}}.
|-
| {{w|Pith}}
| The central tissue in plants, used for nutrient transport.
| Yes
| No
| Botanical term. Both the pith and o-ring are drawn connected to the inner cell membrane.
|-
| {{w|Cell nucleus|Nucleus}}
| The central and most important part of an object, forming the basis for its activity and growth.
| Yes
| Yes
| The cell nucleus is an actual cell organelle which houses {{w|DNA}}.
|-
| {{w|Nucleolus}}
| A small dense spherical structure in the nucleus of a cell during {{w|interphase}}.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, involved in {{w|ribosome}} production.
|-
| Nucleoloulous
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| A humorous continuation of the terms "nucleus" and "nucleolus."
|-
| {{w|Nucleon}}s
| Protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom.
| Yes
| No
| While cells contain nucleons, the depicted circles are far larger than actual nucleons.
|-
| Drain plug
| A stopper for a drain.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| A plumbing term, which could refer to a {{w|porosome}}. Even small, temporary damage to the integrity of the {{w|cell membrane}} puts the cell at immediate and great risk of death.
|-
| Evil endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| A humorous twist on the different types of actual {{w|endoplasmic reticulum|endoplasmic reticula}}, implying a malevolent version.
|-
| {{w|Hypoallergenic}} filling
| Materials that cause relatively fewer allergic reactions.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| Consumer product term, used e.g. for pillows and mattresses. If the {{w|cytoplasm}} doesn't cause allergic reactions within the cell, it is hypoallergenic.
|-
| Weak spot
| A vulnerable point.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| {{w|Cell membrane}} surfaces do indeed vary in strength, often due to the presence of organelles such as {{w|ion channel pore}}s or {{w|porosome}}s, both of which can be leveraged by viruses to enter cells.
|-
| {{w|Mitochondria}}
| Organelles that generate energy for the cell.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelles. Mitochondria are widely known as the "powerhouse of the cell," a phrase originally coined in 1957 by biologist {{w|Philip Siekevitz}}[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/powerhouse-of-the-cell/] which came to prominence online in the mid-2010s.{{acn}}
|-
| {{w|Midichlorians}}
| Fictional microorganisms in the {{w|Star Wars}} universe, which confer Force sensitivity and thereby {{w|Jedi}} associated powers.
| No
| Fictional
| It's unclear whether {{w|George Lucas}} intended for "midi-chlorians" to be {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic organelles}} or internal {{w|Symbiosis|symbionts}}.
|-
| {{w|Chloroplast}}s if you're lucky
| Organelles in plant cells responsible for {{w|photosynthesis}}.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelles, only found in plant cells. The phrase "if you're lucky" could mean that an animal would be lucky to be able to photosynthesize, gaining energy from sunlight, or it could mean chloroplasts are one less dangerous than the possible alternatives.
|-
| Human skin
| The outer covering of the human body.
| Yes
| No
| Skin cells aren't normally inside other cells, but dead skin cell fragments can be inside {{w|phagocyte}}s. The label, however, is drawn connected to the outer {{w|cell membrane}} or the {{w|extracellular matrix}}.
|-
| {{w|Carbonation}}
| {{w|Carbon dioxide}} dissolved in a liquid.
| Yes
| No
| Carbonation causes soda pop and similar liquids to bubble, fizz, foam, and {{w|effervesce}}. The little dots depicted in the comic look something like carbonation bubbles.
|-
| Golgi
| {{w|Camillo Golgi}} (1843–1926) was an Italian biologist and {{w|pathologist}} who discovered the Golgi apparatus; known also for his works on the central nervous system.
| Yes
| No
| The real Golgi was not and is not a tiny alien being who merged with our cells, as the comic and title text imply.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| {{w|Golgi apparatus}}
| A complex of {{w|vesicles}} and folded membranes involved in secretion and intracellular transport.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, which takes {{w|polypeptide}} chains from the rough endoplasmic reticulum via transport vesicles and processes them into their protein structure before sending them (again via vesicles) to their destination such as an organelle or outside of the cell.
|-
| {{w|Norton AntiVirus}}
| A software product designed to protect computers from malware.
| Yes
| No
| Computer viruses and biological viruses are completely different, and systems designed to counter one generally don't work for the other.{{Citation needed}} Many cell types do have antiviral mechanisms, notably the {{w|CRISPR}} (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) DNA sequences in prokaryotes, which resist viral (bacteriophage) infection. However, the cell shown is not prokaryotic, since it contains a nucleus.
|-
| Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term, although parts of the reticula have sticky pockets.[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1156152/full]
| No
| No
| Another humorous twist on the actual types of endoplasmic reticula.
|-
| {{w|Pleiades}}
| A cluster of stars in the constellation Taurus.
| Yes
| No
| Even a single star is far too big to fit in a cell.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| Natural flavor
| Flavoring derived from natural sources.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| A common ingredient on labels, usually meaning any substance to add flavor, aroma, or both, other than synthetic chemicals which are referred to as artificial flavors.
|-
| {{w|Cellophane}}
| A thin, transparent sheet made of regenerated {{w|cellulose}}.
| Yes
| No
| A type of packaging material. A {{w|cell wall}} is indeed made of cellulose, though not in the form of cellophane. Also, this drawing looks more like an animal cell, which unlike plants and fungi, do not usually have a cell wall.
|-
| {{w|Rough endoplasmic reticulum}}
| Endoplasmic reticulum with {{w|ribosomes}} attached, involved in protein synthesis.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle. "Rough" refers to the presence of ribosomes covering its membrane, which translate {{w|messenger RNA}} into polypeptide chains. Normally the endoplasmic reticulum would wrap around the cell nucleus.
|-
| {{w|Ventricle}}
| A chamber of the heart that pumps blood out.
| Yes
| No
| Ventricles are actually part of the body, and they are composed of many cells. Possibly a pun on {{w|vesicle}} (or {{w|vacuole}}), a small membrane-enclosed vessel, such as the transport vesicles that carry polypeptides from the rough endoplasmic reticulum to the Golgi apparatus for processing.
|-
| {{w|Mantle}} 
| The layer of the earth between the crust and the core.
| Yes
| No
| Misplaced geological term with many other meanings.
|-
| {{w|Slime}}
| A moist, soft, and slippery substance, or a {{w|Slime_(toy)|goopy substance sold as a toy}}.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| Could refer to the texture and appearance of {{w|cytoplasm}}, but not specific to cells.
|-
| {{w|Vitreous humour}}
| The clear gel that fills the space between the lens and the retina in the eyeball.
| Yes
| No
| The vitreous humor is in eyes, not cells.
|-
| {{w|Seed}}s
| Plant embryos used for reproduction.
| Yes
| No
| Seeds are multicellular, and sometimes contain small proportions of non-cellular tissue. Cells are found in seeds, not the other way around.
|}

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

Cell Organelles

[A cell is shown with the following structures and areas labeled, counter-clockwise from upper left:]

* Smooth endoplasmic reticulum
* Lithosphere
* O-Ring
* Pith
* Nucleus
* Nucleolus
* Nucleoloulous
* Nucleons
* Drain plug
* Evil endoplasmic reticulum
* Hypoallergenic filling
* Weak spot
* Mitochondria
* Midichlorians
* Chloroplasts if you're lucky
* Human skin
* Carbonation
* Golgi
* Golgi apparatus
* Norton AntiVirus
* Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
* Pleiades
* Natural flavor
* Cellophane
* Rough endoplasmic reticulum

[These labels are inside the cell:]

* Ventricle
* Mantle
* Slime
* Vitreous humour
* Seeds

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Biology]]

2941: Cell Organelles

2024-06-04T09:26:48Z

172.68.23.73: /* Explanation */ not sure if this is meaningful

{{comic
| number = 2941
| date = June 3, 2024
| title = Cell Organelles
| image = cell_organelles_2x.png
| imagesize = 563x451px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's believed that Golgi was originally an independent organism who was eventually absorbed into our cells, where he began work on his Apparatus.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOLGI ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts a {{w|Cell (biology)|biological cell}} diagram with a mix of real and fictional {{w|organelle}}s, blending accurate {{w|Cell biology|cell biology}} terms with misplaced or absurd labels. While it includes actual cell components like the nucleus, mitochondria, and Golgi apparatus, it also includes unrelated concepts from various fields such as geology, engineering, software, and pop culture. Labels like "evil endoplasmic reticulum" and "sticky endoplasmic reticulum" make fun of scientific terms. The comic plays on the complexity and diversity of cell structures by mixing in unrelated and humorous terms, highlighting the often confusing and intricate nature of scientific diagrams with clever wordplay and cross-disciplinary jokes.

The title text adds a humorous fictional backstory to the {{w|Golgi apparatus}}, an essential cell organelle involved in processing and packaging proteins. It playfully suggests that {{w|Camillo Golgi}}, the scientist who discovered the Golgi apparatus, was originally an independent organism. This organism was supposedly absorbed into our cells, where it then started working on what is now known as the Golgi apparatus. The joke is a satirical take on {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic theory}}, which posits that certain organelles within {{w|Eukaryote|eukaryotic}} cells, like {{w|mitochondria}} and {{w|chloroplasts}}, originated from independent symbiotic {{w|Prokaryote|prokaryotic organisms}} that were absorbed by a host {{w|germ cell}}. Golgi appears to be depicted in the comic as a tiny alien being.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Label
! Meaning
! Real?
! Cell organelle?
! Explanation
|-
| {{w|Carbonation}}
| {{w|Carbon dioxide}} dissolved in a liquid.
| Yes
| No
| Carbonation causes soda pop and similar liquids to bubble, fizz, foam, and {{w|effervesce}}.
|-
| {{w|Cellophane}}
| A thin, transparent sheet made of regenerated {{w|cellulose}}.
| Yes
| No
| A type of packaging material. Cellulose is only found in plant cells, while the cell shown appears to be an animal cell because it lacks a {{w|cell wall}}.
|-
| {{w|Chloroplast}}s if you're lucky
| Organelles in plant cells responsible for photosynthesis.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelles, only found in plant cells. The phrase "if you're lucky" could suggest that they might be less dangerous than other misplaced plant organelles, or that the animal cell is lucky to be able to photosynthesize.
|-
| Drain plug
| A stopper for a drain.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| A plumbing term, which could refer to a {{w|porosome}}. Even small, temporary damage to the integrity of the {{w|cell membrane}} puts the cell at immediate and great risk of death.
|-
| Evil endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| A humorous twist on the different types of actual {{w|endoplasmic reticulum|endoplasmic reticula}}, implying a malevolent version.
|-
| Golgi
| {{w|Camillo Golgi}} (1843–1926) was an Italian biologist and {{w|pathologist}} who discovered the Golgi apparatus; known also for his works on the central nervous system.
| Yes
| No
| The real Golgi was not and is not a tiny alien being who merged with our cells, as the comic and title text imply.{{cn}}
|-
| {{w|Golgi apparatus}}
| A complex of {{w|vesicles}} and folded membranes involved in secretion and intracellular transport.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, which takes {{w|polypeptide}} chains from the rough endoplasmic reticulum (carried via transport vesicle) and processes them into their ultimate protein structure before sending them (via vesicles) to their destination (such as an organelle or outside of the cell).
|-
| Human skin
| The outer covering of the human body.
| Yes
| No
| Skin cells aren't normally inside other cells, but dead skin cell fragments can be inside {{w|phagocyte}}s. The label, however, is drawn connected to the outer {{w|cell membrane}} or the {{w|extracellular matrix}}.
|-
| {{w|Hypoallergenic}} filling
| Materials that cause relatively fewer allergic reactions.
| Yes
| No
| Consumer product term.
|-
| {{w|Lithosphere}}
| The rigid outer part of the earth, consisting of the crust and upper mantle.
| Yes
| No
| Term from geology; part of the Earth's crust.
|-
| {{w|Mantle}} 
| The layer of the earth between the crust and the core.
| Yes
| No
| Misplaced geological term with many other meanings.
|-
| {{w|Midichlorians}}
| Fictional microorganisms in the {{w|Star Wars}} universe, which confer Force sensitivity and thereby {{w|Jedi}} associated powers.
| No
| Fictional
| It's unclear whether {{w|George Lucas}} intended for "midi-chlorians" to be {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic organelles}} or internal {{w|Symbiosis|symbionts}}.
|-
| {{w|Mitochondria}}
| Organelles that generate energy for the cell.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelles, widely known as the "powerhouse of the cell."
|-
| Natural flavor
| Flavoring derived from natural sources.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| A common ingredient on labels, usually meaning any substance to add flavor, aroma, or both, other than synthetic chemicals which are referred to as artificial flavors.
|-
| {{w|Norton AntiVirus}}
| A software product designed to protect computers from malware.
| Yes
| No
| Computer viruses and biological viruses are completely different, and systems designed to counter one generally don't work for the other. Many cell types do have antiviral mechanisms, notably the {{w|CRISPR}} (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) DNA sequences in prokaryotes, which resist viral (bacteriophage) infection. However, the cell shown is not prokaryotic, since it contains a nucleus.
|-
| {{w|Nucleolus}}
| A small dense spherical structure in the nucleus of a cell during {{w|interphase}}.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, involved in {{w|ribosome}} production.
|-
| Nucleoloulous
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| A humorous continuation of the terms "nucleus" and "nucleolus."
|-
| {{w|Cell nucleus|Nucleus}}
| The central and most important part of an object, forming the basis for its activity and growth.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle which houses genetic material.
|-
| {{w|Nucleon}}s
| Protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom.
| Yes
| No
| The depicted circles are far too big to be actual nucleons.
|-
| {{w|O-ring}}
| A mechanical gasket in the shape of a torus; used to seal connections.
| Yes
| No
| Engineering term. Both the o-ring and pith are drawn connected to the inner cell membrane.
|-
| {{w|Pith}}
| The central tissue in plants, used for nutrient transport.
| Yes
| No
| Botanical term. See immediately above.
|-
| {{w|Pleiades}}
| A cluster of stars in the constellation Taurus.
| Yes
| No
| Even a single star is far too big to fit in a cell.{{cn}}
|-
| {{w|Rough endoplasmic reticulum}}
| Endoplasmic reticulum with {{w|ribosomes}} attached, involved in protein synthesis.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle. "Rough" refers to the presence of ribosomes covering its membrane, which translate {{w|messenger RNA}} into polypeptide chains. Normally the endoplasmic reticulum would wrap around the cell nucleus.
|-
| {{w|Seed}}s
| Plant embryos used for reproduction.
| Yes
| No
| Seeds are multicellular, and sometimes contain small proportions of non-cellular tissue.
|-
| {{w|Slime}}
| A moist, soft, and slippery substance.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| Could refer to the texture and appearance of {{w|cytoplasm}}, but not specific to cells.
|-
| {{w|Smooth endoplasmic reticulum}}
| A network of tubular membranes within the cytoplasm of the cell, involved in the transport of materials.
| Yes
| Yes
| A standard term for the smooth (i.e., not ribosome-covered) portion of the endoplasmic reticulum.
|-
| Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term, although parts of the reticula have sticky pockets.[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1156152/full]
| No
| No
| Another humorous twist on the actual types of endoplasmic reticula.
|-
| {{w|Ventricle}}
| A chamber of the heart that pumps blood out.
| Yes
| No
| Ventricles are actually part of the body, and they are composed of many cells. Possibly a pun on {{w|vesicle}} (or {{w|vacuole}}), a small membrane-enclosed vessel, such as the transport vesicles that carry polypeptides from the rough endoplasmic reticulum to the Golgi apparatus for processing.
|-
| {{w|Vitreous humour}}
| The clear gel that fills the space between the lens and the retina in the eyeball.
| Yes
| No
| The vitreous humor is in eyes, not cells.
|-
| Weak spot
| A vulnerable point.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| {{w|Cell membrane}} surfaces do indeed vary in strength, often due to the presence of organelles such as {{w|ion channel pore}}s or {{w|porosome}}s, both of which can be leveraged by viruses to enter cells.
|}

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

Cell Organelles

[A cell is shown with the following structures and areas labeled, counter-clockwise from upper left:]

* Smooth endoplasmic reticulum
* Lithosphere
* O-Ring
* Pith
* Nucleus
* Nucleolus
* Nucleoloulous
* Nucleons
* Drain plug
* Evil endoplasmic reticulum
* Hypoallergenic filling
* Weak spot
* Mitochondria
* Midichlorians
* Chloroplasts if you're lucky
* Human skin
* Carbonation
* Golgi
* Golgi apparatus
* Norton AntiVirus
* Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
* Pleiades
* Natural flavor
* Cellophane
* Rough endoplasmic reticulum

[These labels are inside the cell:]

* Ventricle
* Mantle
* Slime
* Vitreous humour
* Seeds

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Biology]]

2941: Cell Organelles

2024-06-03T22:16:35Z

172.68.23.73: /* Explanation */ more correct

{{comic
| number = 2941
| date = June 3, 2024
| title = Cell Organelles
| image = cell_organelles_2x.png
| imagesize = 563x451px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's believed that Golgi was originally an independent organism who was eventually absorbed into our cells, where he began work on his Apparatus.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOLGI ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts a cell diagram with a mix of real and fictional organelles, blending accurate biological terms with misplaced or absurd labels. While it includes actual cell components like the nucleus, mitochondria, and Golgi apparatus, it also inserts unrelated concepts from various fields such as geology, engineering, software, and pop culture. Terms like "evil endoplasmic reticulum" and "sticky endoplasmic reticulum" add a whimsical twist to familiar scientific terms. The comic plays on the complexity and diversity of cell structures by mixing in unrelated and humorous terms, highlighting the often confusing and intricate nature of scientific diagrams with clever wordplay and cross-disciplinary jokes.

The title text adds a humorous and fictional backstory to the Golgi apparatus, an essential cell organelle involved in processing and packaging proteins. It playfully suggests that Camillo Golgi, the scientist who discovered the Golgi apparatus, was originally an independent organism. This organism was supposedly absorbed into our cells, where it then started working on what is now known as the Golgi apparatus. The joke is a satirical take on {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic theory}}, which posits that certain organelles within eukaryotic cells, like mitochondria and chloroplasts, originated from independent symbiotic prokaryotic organisms that were absorbed by a host cell. Golgi appears to be depicted in the comic as a tiny alien being.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Label
! Meaning
! Real?
! Cell organelle?
! Explanation
|-
| {{w|Carbonation}}
| Carbon dioxide dissolved in a liquid.
| Yes
| No
| The process that causes soda and similar things to bubble.
|-
| {{w|Cellophane}}
| A thin, transparent sheet made of regenerated cellulose.
| Yes
| No
| A type of packaging material.
|-
| {{w|Chloroplast}}s if you're lucky
| Organelles in plant cells responsible for photosynthesis.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelles, only found in plant cells. However, these shouldn't be found in animal cells like the one depicted. The phrase "if you're lucky" humorously suggests that these could be something much more dangerous than misplaced plant organelles.
|-
| Drain plug
| A stopper for a drain.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| Plumbing term. Could refer to a {{w|porosome}}.
|-
| Evil endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| A humorous twist on the different types of actual {{w|endoplasmic reticulum}}, implying a malevolent version.
|-
| Golgi
| {{w|Camillo Golgi}} (1843–1926) was an Italian biologist and pathologist known for his works on the central nervous system, for whom the Golgi apparatus is named.
| Yes
| No
| The real Golgi isn't/wasn't a tiny alien being who merged with our cells as the depiction and title text implies.
|-
| {{w|Golgi apparatus}}
| A complex of vesicles and folded membranes involved in secretion and intracellular transport.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle.
|-
| Human skin
| The outer covering of the human body.
| Yes
| No
| Skin cells aren't normally inside cells{{cn}}.
|-
| {{w|Hypoallergenic}} filling
| Materials that do not cause allergic reactions.
| Yes
| No
| Consumer product term.
|-
| {{w|Lithosphere}}
| The rigid outer part of the earth, consisting of the crust and upper mantle.
| Yes
| No
| Term from geology, It is part of the Earth's crust.
|-
| {{w|Mantle}} 
| The layer of the earth between the crust and the core.
| Yes
| No
| Misplaced geological term. Many other meanings.
|-
| {{w|Midichlorians}}
| Fictional microorganisms in the {{w|Star Wars}} universe, which confer Force sensitivity.
| Yes
| Fictional
| Unclear whether {{w|George Lucas}} intended for "midi-chlorians" to be {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic organelles}} or internal {{w|Symbiosis|symbionts}}.
|-
| {{w|Mitochondria}}
| Organelles that generate energy for the cell.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelles, known as the "powerhouse of the cell."
|-
| Natural flavor
| Flavoring derived from natural sources.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| A common ingredient on labels. Is used as an euphenism for many things.
|-
| {{w|Norton AntiVirus}}
| A software product designed to protect computers from malware.
| Yes
| No
| Computer viruses and biological viruses are completely different, and systems designed to counter one generally don't work for the other.
|-
| {{w|Nucleolus}}
| A small dense spherical structure in the nucleus of a cell during interphase.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, involved in ribosome production.
|-
| Nucleoloulous
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| A humorous continuation of the terms "nucleus" and "nucleolus."
|-
| {{w|Cell nucleus|Nucleus}}
| The central and most important part of an object, forming the basis for its activity and growth.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle which houses genetic material.
|-
| {{w|Nucleon}}s
| Protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom.
| Yes
| No
| The depicted circles are far too big to be actual nucleons.
|-
| {{w|O-ring}}
| A mechanical gasket in the shape of a torus; used to seal connections.
| Yes
| No
| Engineering term.
|-
| {{w|Pith}}
| The central tissue in plants, used for nutrient transport.
| Yes
| No
| Botanical term.
|-
| {{w|Pleiades}}
| A cluster of stars in the constellation Taurus.
| Yes
| No
| A cluster of stars is far too big to fit in a cell.
|-
| {{w|Rough endoplasmic reticulum}}
| Endoplasmic reticulum with ribosomes attached, involved in protein synthesis.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle.
|-
| {{w|Seed}}s
| Plant embryos used for reproduction.
| Yes
| No
| Seeds are used for other things in animals, but they are not generally found in cells.
|-
| {{w|Slime}}
| A moist, soft, and slippery substance.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| Could refer to the texture and appearance of {{w|cytoplasm}}, but not specific to cells.
|-
| {{w|Smooth endoplasmic reticulum}}
| A network of tubular membranes within the cytoplasm of the cell, involved in the transport of materials.
| Yes
| Yes
| Just a standard term for the smooth variant of the endoplasmic reticulum.
|-
| Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| Another humorous twist on the actual types of endoplasmic reticulum.
|-
| {{w|Ventricle}}
| A chamber of the heart that pumps blood out.
| Yes
| No
| Ventricles are actually part of the body, and they are composed of many cells.
|-
| {{w|Vitreous humour}}
| The clear gel that fills the space between the lens and the retina in the eyeball.
| Yes
| No
| The vitreous humor is in eyes, not cells.
|-
| Weak spot
| A vulnerable point.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| Cell membrane surfaces do indeed vary in strength, often due to the presence of organelles such as {{w|ion channel pore}}s or {{w|porosome}} ducts.
|}

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

Cell Organelles

[A cell is shown with the following structures and areas labeled, counter-clockwise from upper left then down the middle (with the last five labels being inside the cell):]

* Smooth endoplasmic reticulum
* Lithosphere
* O-Ring
* Pith
* Nucleus
* Nucleolus
* Nucleoloulous
* Nucleons
* Drain plug
* Evil endoplasmic reticulum
* Hypoallergenic filling
* Weak spot
* Mitochondria
* Midichlorians
* Chloroplasts if you're lucky
* Human skin
* Carbonation
* Golgi
* Golgi apparatus
* Norton AntiVirus
* Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
* Pleiades
* Natural flavor
* Cellophane
* Rough endoplasmic reticulum
* Ventricle
* Mantle
* Slime
* Vitreous humour
* Seeds

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Biology]]