explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3072: Stargazing 4

2025-04-05T09:02:50Z

172.68.54.34: Fix pronoun in last sentence

{{comic
| number = 3072
| date = April 4, 2025
| title = Stargazing 4
| image = stargazing_4_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x386px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = We haven't actually seen a star fall in since we invented telescopes, but I have a list of ones I'm really hoping are next.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT DISTRACTED BY STARS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is part of the [[:Category:Stargazing|Stargazing]] series.
* '''First panel:''' Megan starts off the introduction saying that [[wikipedia:Yelp|Yelp]] reviews of the stargazing lesson regard her as not a qualified astronomer due to how simplistic her lessons are.
* '''Second panel:''' She states that there are over 20 stars in the sky and some of them are over the age of 100. While this is true, it is an extreme underestimation of their number and age, which respectively number in the thousands (for visible stars) and billions or millions of years.
* '''Third panel:''' She now states that there are more grains of sand in the Milky Way than grains of sand on Earth. Since the Earth's sand is a subset of all of the galaxy's sand, and there are more planets with sand other than Earth (such as Mars), there obviously is bound to be more grains of sand in the entirety of the Milky Way than on Earth. This is parodying the common saying that there are more stars in the Milky Way than grains of sand on Earth.
* '''Fourth panel:''' She finishes the lesson saying that there is a black hole in the center of our galaxy ([[wikipedia:Sagittarius A*|Sagittarius A*]]), and that stars sometimes fall in and get consumed by the black hole, also stating such events as "hilarious". When stars come too close to black holes, they experience a {{w|tidal disruption event}} (TDE), where a star is pulled apart by the black hole after exceeding its {{w|Roche limit}}. This creates streams of material that orbits the black hole and forms an accretion disk. She then proceeds saying that it's okay to laugh at the fate of the stars as their signals cannot escape the black hole due to its immense gravitational attraction, and so they cannot leave Yelp reviews on her lesson. However, as the Roche limit of a black hole is often greater than its Schwarzschild radius, reviews made just after the star begins spaghettification could still escape the black hole. {{actual citation needed}} Not only do stars not use any kind of human-made technology,{{citation needed}} but any information regarding the app Yelp has yet to reach any star near Sagittarius A*, and will only reach it in 27 thousand years.
* '''Title text''': She now claims that we haven't seen a star fall into a black hole since we invented telescopes. This is false as over a hundred TDEs have been discovered in a variety of wavelengths, including by the Hubble telescope. Megan also apparently has a list of stars she would want to see fall into black holes.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
First panel:
Everything is black, Megan is in front of three others, ponytail, black hat and cueball.
Megan: Welcome back to stargazing.
According to some ''incredible'' rude yelp reviews, I'm "not informative" and "can't possibly be an astronomer" and "just kind of say words as they occur to me."
I guess some losers just hate cool space facts.

Second panel:
Now the sky is white, the floor is black, Megan is pointing at the sky, while six other characters stand beside her.
Megan: Anyway, that dot is a "star."
There are over 20 stars in the sky, and some of them are more than 100 years old.

Third panel:
Everything is black again, only Megan is visible.
Megan: Our galaxy is huge.
You know the beach? The big wet sandbox?
Well, there are more grains of sand in the milky way than all earth's beaches combined.

Not visible character on the left, probably ponytail: Wow.
Not visible character on the right, probably black hat: ...Wait.

Fourth Planel:
Everything is black again, ponytail is left of Megan, black hat on the left and a fourth character on the right corner.
Megan: The galaxy has a black hole at the center.
Sometimes stars fall in, which is ''hilarious''.
Dont't worry, it's okay to laugh. The gravity prevents signals from escaping, so they can't leave yelp reviews.
Title Text: We haven't actually seen a star fall in since we invented telescopes, but I have a list of ones I'm really hoping are next.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Stargazing]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]

2230: Versus Bracket

2019-11-21T15:25:24Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2230
| date = November 18, 2019
| title = Versus Bracket
| image = versus_bracket.png
| titletext = Some works didn't make the cut; in "Ecks vs. Sever" vs. the passage of time, the latter seems to have won pretty decisively.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Edited by a TOURNAMENT MANAGER. Should include some discussion of the second round. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic shows a {{w|tournament bracket}} in which the initial matches represent works of fiction or non-fiction with "versus" (represented as ''versus'', ''vs.'', ''v'', etc) in their names (e.g. Batman is initially matched against Superman in reference to ''Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice''). The list includes 13 movies, 2 video games, and one television episode. The works referenced are:

---> *WARNING* Spoiler Alerts Below *WARNING* <---

* ''{{w|Kramer vs. Kramer}}'', a 1979 legal drama about a couple (the Kramers) divorcing. '''Winner: Kramer''' (Joanna Kramer wins custody of her son in court, but chooses not to take custody of him as he has mostly been raised by his father).
* ''{{w|Ford v Ferrari}}'', a 2019 film (released Nov 15, the weekend before this comic strip was released) about the two auto builders competing to win the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans race. '''Winner: Ford'''
* ''{{w|The People vs. Larry Flynt}}'', a 1996 documentary film about the life of Larry Flynt, creator of adult magazine ''Hustler''. Depicted in the film is the Supreme Court case ''Hustler Magazine v. Falwell'', which ''Hustler'' magazine (and Flynt) won. '''Winner: Larry Flynt'''
* ''{{w|Joe Versus the Volcano}}'', a 1990 romantic comedy about a man, Joe, who offers to throw himself into a volcano on behalf of superstitious natives. Joe survives when the volcano erupts and blows him into the ocean. '''Winner: Volcano'''
* ''{{w|King Kong vs. Godzilla}}'', a 1962 film pitting the two titular monsters against each other. There is a persistent myth that the Japanese and American cuts of the film have different winners but it is false. At the end of the film, only Kong swims away from an underwater battle. '''Winner: King Kong'''
* ''{{w|Freddy vs. Jason}}'', a 2003 slasher film combining the universes of ''A Nightmare on Elm Street'' and the ''Friday the 13th'' series. '''Winner: Jason''', although Freddy's severed head winks and laughs at the end of the movie.
* ''{{w|Dracula vs. Frankenstein}}'', a 1971 horror film. '''Winner: none''' (both monsters kill each other)
* ''{{w|Alien vs. Predator (film)|Alien vs. Predator}}'', a 2004 film in the shared universe of ''Alien'' and ''Predator'' series. The tagline for the film was "Whoever wins...we lose." '''Winner: Predator''', although an Alien chestburster does emerge from the Predator's chest at the end of the film.
* ''{{w|Marvel vs. Capcom}}'', a video game {{w|fighting game}} series combining the {{w|Marvel Universe}} and characters from {{w|Capcom}}. '''Winner: none''' (players can choose and achieve victory with characters from either franchise)
* ''{{w|Marge vs. the Monorail}}'', a 1993 episode of ''The Simpsons'', where Marge leads a campaign against a monorail project in Springfield. This is often considered one of the best ''Simpsons'' episodes of all time. '''Winner: Marge'''
* ''{{w|Justice League vs. Teen Titans}}'', a 2016 direct-to-video animated superhero film. The Justice League and Teen Titans are both superhero teams and usually are on the same side, but in this film, the Justice League are possessed by demons and forced to fight the Titans. The Teen Titans defeat Superman to free him from possession and turn the tide against the rest of the League and defeat the demons. '''Winner: Teen Titans'''
* ''{{w|Asterix Versus Caesar}}'', a 1985 animated film and a film adaptation of the {{w|Asterix}} comic book series. '''Winner: Asterix'''
* ''{{w|Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice}}'', a 2016 superhero film. '''Winner: Batman'''
* ''{{w|Scott Pilgrim vs. the World}}'', a 2010 film based on the ''Scott Pilgrim'' graphic novel. Scott Pilgrim does not fight against the entire world; rather, he fights Ramona Flowers's Seven Evil Exes so that he can be her boyfriend. '''Winner: Scott Pilgrim'''
* ''{{w|Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus}}'', a 2009 monster film. '''Winner: none''' (both monsters kill each other)
* ''{{w|Plants vs. Zombies}}'', a 2009 tower defense and strategy video game. The player commands an army of plants who defend their home against the zombie apocalypse. '''Winner: Plants''', assuming the player wins.

Assuming the tournament bracket reflects the results of each original work, the second round would result as follows:
{| class="wikitable"
| • '''Kramer''' vs. '''Ford''' - a newly-single mother against an automotive company.
| • '''Marge''' vs. '''___''' - an American housewife against any possible representative from a superhero comics continuity or a company known for its action games.
|-
| • '''Larry Flynt''' vs. '''Volcano''' - the creator of a magazine against a volcano.
| • '''Teen Titans''' vs. '''Asterix''' - a young superhero team against a Gaul warrior with a magic potion of super strength.
|-
| • '''King Kong ''' vs. '''Jason''' - a giant gorilla against an ambiguously-human serial killer.
| • '''Batman''' vs. '''Scott Pilgrim''' - a billionaire-turned-vigilante against an ambiguously superpowered teenager.
|-
| • '''Predator''' vs. '''___''' - the predator has no opponent, advances to the next round unopposed.
| • '''Plants''' vs. '''___''' - the plants have no opponent, advance to the next round unopposed.
|}

The title text refers to the 2002 action film ''{{w|Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever}}'', which is qualified to be in this tournament by virtue of having the word "vs." in its title, but as the film is regarded as one of the {{w|List of films considered the worst|worst movies ever made}}, it has been defeated in a pre-entry match vs. "the passage of time" - it is thus not considered worthy of entry in the tournament.

Tournament brackets is a [[:Category:Tournament bracket|recurring subject]] on xkcd, most recently used in [[2131: Emojidome]] and [[2037: Supreme Court Bracket]]. The latter is especially similar to this comic, considering that it also extends normal "versus" situations to a second round. The first bracket comic, [[1529: Bracket]], prompted people to create a series of polls to determine the end results, much like [[Randall]] later did himself with Emojidome. Randall even made [[xkcd_Header_text#2015-06-06_-_Other_news|a reference]] to one of those polls in the [[xkcd Header text]].

==Transcript==
:[A tournament bracket tree is shown with 16 participants each on the left and right side. From both sides toward the middle the brackets reduce to eight, then four, two, and one line where the latter join to a rectangle in the middle.]

:[Left side:]
:Kramer - Kramer
:Ford - Ferrari
:The People - Larry Flint
:Joe - The Volcano
:King Kong - Godzilla
:Freddy - Jason
:Dracula - Frankenstein
:Alien - Predator

:[Right side:]
:Marvel - Capcom
:Marge - The Monorail
:Justice League - Teen Titans
:Asterix - Caesar
:Batman - Superman
:Scott Pilgrim - The World
:Mega Shark - Giant Octopus
:Plants - Zombies

== Trivia ==
* The same Twitter account that covered a [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1529:_Bracket previous XKCD bracket] over three years ago, [https://twitter.com/xkcdbracket @xkcdbracket], is back to determine the winner of this one by public vote.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Tournament bracket]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

Talk:2231: The Time Before and After Land

2019-11-20T21:49:43Z

172.68.54.34: added signature

I believe that the "bees" are paired with words like "for" in the chart to draw similarities to the word "before"? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 21:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2231: The Time Before and After Land

2019-11-20T21:49:03Z

172.68.54.34: Added comment

2222: Terminator: Dark Fate

2019-11-12T18:30:07Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */ Tiny grammar -- I changed "had went" to "had gone"

{{comic
| number = 2222
| date = October 30, 2019
| title = Terminator: Dark Fate
| image = terminator_dark_fate.png
| titletext = I was sent here to stop the robot that was sent here to protect the human who was sent here to protect the human who was sent here to destroy the robot that was sent here to vacuum the floor.
}}
==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SKYNET ROOMBA. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[Cueball]] is on his way to see the new ''[[:Category:Terminator|Terminator]]'' movie; ''{{w|Terminator: Dark Fate}}'', when Cueball's future self comes back to stop him, trying to convince him that, as always, he will be disappointed by sequels. (This was, for instance, the main joke in the last part of [[566: Matrix Revisited]]).

Future Cueball, Cueball-2, almost succeeds in spite of good reviews and the fact that the original star {{w|Linda Hamilton}} is back after several movies without her. ''Terminator: Dark Fate'' actually negates any movie that came after the first two (''The Terminator'' and ''Terminator 2: Judgment Day''). That is what time travel can do and also what the rest of the comic's joke is about. Because then more future Cueballs arrive, from the different timelines created by the first, Cueball-2, traveling back (and then later time travelers create new timelines as they come along). The next, Cueball-3, complains that in his timeline he still wished he had gone to see it, making Cueball exclaim that they should all go see it together.

But from then on it explodes, as two Cueballs come at once, presumably a 'new' future version of the base Cueball along with a 'newer' version of Cueball-3 who has now travelled back in time twice... And finally five more come from the future, making a total of 10 Cueballs, only one from the present. The last five have more and more silly reasons to come back, with the final one just coming back to buy a ticket for the movie, before all the time travelers join each other and buy them all.

It is a common trope in science fiction to go into the past to stop events from ever happening as explored in the {{w|Terminator (franchise)|''Terminator'' series}}. This comic plays this trope to the extreme.

The ''Terminator'' film series is famous for this time travel trope. The initial 3 films feature a time traveling robot sent from the dystopian future to kill a particular human, with the future resistance in turn sending a protector to ensure the human's survival. However, the series has never been consistent on even the most broad rules of how time travel affects the timeline, with each movie exploring different possibilities. This is another point of spoof for the comic, featuring multiple recursive time loops until it becomes a jumbled mess. And the new movie only refers to the first two, ignoring any later movies.

The final pane also invokes the "killing Hitler" trope. {{w|Adolf Hitler}} was the leader of Nazi Germany during World War II, and it has been a common trope to "go back in time to kill Hitler" such as in [[1063: Kill Hitler]]. However, this Cueball is over 70 years too late to kill Hitler, as Hitler himself committed suicide in 1945, shortly before the end of WWII.

The title text is what is said by the next Cueball-11 (the 10th time-traveler), with each link in the chain relating to the Terminator movies. Except at the end where the initial "dangerous robot" turns out to being a robot send to vacuum the floor. Robotic vacuums, such as the {{w|Roomba}}, are a [[:Category:Roomba|recurring theme]] on xkcd.

The title text split up:
#A robot was sent to clean the floor.
#A human was sent to destroy the robot (this happens in ''{{w|The Terminator}}'')
#A human was sent to protect the previous human (in ''The Terminator'' a human was sent back to protect another human, though the protectee was not a time traveler)
#A robot was sent to protect the previous human (this happens in ''{{w|Terminator 2: Judgment Day}}'')
#Cueball-11 was sent to stop the previous robot
Thus Cueball-11 tries to stop the person that needs to destroy the Roomba by stopping his protector's protector.

This was the second time travel comic in less than a week, as the one two comics before this one, [[2220: Imagine Going Back in Time]], also had Cueball travel back to visit his past self.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking to the right. Another Cueball, Cueball-2, appears behind him in a bubble of energy that appears with a loud sound. The bubble floats in the air behind the walking Cueball, with Cueball-2 inside holding his arms out to the side and having his legs bend.]
:''Zap!''

:[Cueball-2 from the sphere is standing to the left of Cueball, pointing at him. Cueball has stopped and is looking back over his shoulder]
:Cueball-2: I've traveled back in time to stop you from seeing ''Terminator: Dark Fate''!

:[Cueball-2 is looking at Cueball who has turned around and holds his arm a bit out to the sides.]
:Cueball: But it looks so good! Reviews are actually decent! Mackenzie Davis! '''''Linda Hamilton is back!'''''

:[Cueball-2 is holding both arms up, hands held down as Cueball stands normally.]
:Cueball-2: I know, but you always think this, and you're always disappointed.
:Cueball: I ''guess''...

:[Zoom out as another Cueball, Cueball-3, appears to the left in a similar bubble of energy and noise as in the first panel, his arms are out to the sides and his legs are bent. Cueball-2 is holding a hand in front of his mouth, while Cueball throws his arms out to the side.]
:''Zap!''
:Cueball-3: Hi, I'm from the future where you didn't watch it and I realize I still kind of want to see it.
:Cueball: Let's go together!

:[Another bubble appears from the right of the three Cueballs, the one in the middle (Cueball-2) holding his arms out. This new bubble contains two Cueballs. The first, Cueball-4, throws up his arms over his head, while Cueball-5 has one arm out in front of him. Both have their legs bent.]
:Cueball-4: No! We're both of you from the future! We're here to stop you!

:[In a large panel five more individually energy bubbles with five Cueballs appear. Two of the bubbles float over the now five Cueballs on the ground. The other three are a bit lower and in a line to the right. Cueball-6 to 10 are in different poses, all with their legs bent, all the way to sitting on the knees in one case and most of them throw their arms out to the side. All look down at the five regardless of their bubble's position. Their text is alternating between being up and down, so the text goes over or below the other text, making it hard to decide which comes first. This may be intentional. But here they are in the order of Cueballs as they come from left to right:]
:Cueball-6: I'm here to stop '''''you!'''''
:Cueball-7: I'm here to stop the robot sent to stop you!
:Cueball-8: I'm here to protect you from...you? I lost track.
:Cueball-9: I'm here to kill Hitler. Did I get the right year?
:Cueball-10: I'm here to get tickets because in like 20 minutes you people buy them all.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hitler]]
[[Category:Terminator]]
[[Category:Time travel]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Roomba]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

2227: Transit of Mercury

2019-11-12T16:47:59Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */ Attempted to clarify the difference between an optical filter before image capture and digital filter after capture.

{{comic
| number = 2227
| date = November 11, 2019
| title = Transit of Mercury
| image = transit_of_mercury.png
| titletext = For some reason the water in my pool is green and there's a weird film on the surface #nofilter
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by MY TELESCOPE'S IMAGING SENSOR. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The {{w|hashtag}} #nofilter is used on photo sharing sites, especially Instagram, to humblebrag about having encountered situations so photogenic that no further image enhancement ("{{w|Photographic filter|filter}}") is required to prepare them for general advertisement.

In this comic, the hashtag is instead used to cap off an image about the predicament of the poster, where lacking proper filtering equipment has led to damage or decay of personal property.

The caption below the panel refers to the [https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/11/20958727/mercury-transit-sun-planet-nasa-astronomy the transit of the planet Mercury across the Sun] on November 11, 2019 (the date of the publication of this comic), which appeared from Earth as a small black dot moving against the background of the Sun. Viewing the transit requires a {{w|Astronomical filter|special lens filter}} to prevent the intense light from the Sun from burning out a telescope's imaging sensor. This kind of filter is slightly different from a photographic filter, especially in the context of Instagram, as image filters on Instagram are applied digitally after the image has been acquired, whereas a real astronomical filter is placed in front of a telescope (or elsewhere in the optical path) to absorb light before it reaches the sensor and is converted to digital data.

The title text refers to a different meaning of the word "filter"; it imagines a swimming pool growing {{w|Algae|green scum}} in the absence of a {{w|Swimming_pool_sanitation#Private_pool_filtration|water filter}}, as opposed to a photographic filter.

[[Randall]] has made comics about solar transits before, albeit about the transit of the International Space Station, in [[1828: ISS Solar Transit]] and [[1830: ISS Solar Transit 2]].

==Transcript==
:[Panel showing the sun partially obscured by clouds. The image is very bright and blown out, obscuring most of the surface detail of the sun. A small black dot, most likely Mercury, is visible in the upper-right part of the sun's image.]

:Caption below panel: This photo of the transit of Mercury fried my telescope's imaging sensor [Unhappy Smiley] #nofilter

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:2103: Midcontinent Rift System

2019-03-08T02:30:08Z

172.68.54.34: "Finish the job" is a common meme-ish political statement.

Needs an explanation of the rift system itself. What is it? When did it form? How did conservatives feel about it at the time?
(It’s definitely not a reference to Palladium Rifts, which would be a whole different thing!)
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

If Black Hat runs, I vote for him. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.35|141.101.104.35]] 15:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

:--If Black Hat runs, we all vote for him. Even if we don't vote...--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 00:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone else thought of all the new beach front property that would be created? Lex Luthor would be proud. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 15:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
:I have always thought the US ought to have a large shallow inland sea.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

“''It is unclear why would anyone vote for such a thing, but people directly affected (the Midwest) are likely to vote against Black Hat.''”
:In the interests of accuracy, it should be noted that 2016 showed that it being unclear why anyone would vote for a thing doesn’t stop them from doing so, eagerly. Even when they are are going to be directly affected very adversely. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.19|162.158.107.19]] 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually we ended up with a large shallow outlandish president instead. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.42|162.158.106.42]] 18:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason why people vote to abandon European Union in BRexit is obvious: they think that institutions of European Union would create laws, decisions etc which would hurt them even worse than BRexit. Now, you may not agree with this, but you can’t say it’s completely unfathomable. – [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an North American Midcontinent Rift as described at the start of the comic. See for example https://eos.org/features/new-insights-into-north-americas-midcontinent-rift or the Wikipedia page about it. Someone much more knowledgeable about geology than I am probably ought to update the explanation. [[User:D Gary Grady|D Gary Grady]] ([[User talk:D Gary Grady|talk]]) 02:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking the giant crowbar is just an illustration trick, and it would be likely done with explosives or something. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.131|108.162.212.131]] 12:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
:The crowbar would work, provided it was big enough and one had been able to resolve Archimedes' dilemma — Δώσε μου μια θέση να σταθώ, και θα μετακινήσω τη γη.[[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 09:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
::Hmm ... I guess you'd want your fulcrum and standing position to be affixed to the half of the earth that you want to stay put relative to you. You could probably find a fulcrum on the earth. You're likeliy in a space suit with a strong tether. You'd have to some how get the end of the crowbar deep inside the rock under the soil, or you'd just dig a trench. I'm suspecting it would have to be _really_ deep to actually split the continent and not just knock some huge rock chunks out like when blasting is done to reshape the landscape. You'd then have to travel far enough in outer space in order to move the rock with enough significance to produce the size of rift desired, and I don't expect things to get too much easier as the rock breaks because you are almost trying to shift entire tectonic plates. I'm thinking you'd run into major issues traveling far enough to push the crowbar, but this could be resolvable with machines. A remaining issue would be placing the crowbar deep enough to actually shift a plate. We've dug incredibly deep holes, but I'm not sure quite _that_ deep. The final issue is that a material would be needed that is strong enough to withstand the inner forces that would be required to shift an entire tectonic plate. The lever would have to be incredibly thick in order to withstand all the strain involved with the relatively-weak metals we have. At that point it would be so heavy and wide that countering its friction could be a monumental feat. I think that leverage is probably one tool for this job, but that other creative tools would need to be combined with it to actually succeed. I don't believe Archimedes! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.47|162.158.79.47]] 12:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

As a Cascadian Separatist, I'm all for this plan. Near as I can tell, the only thing the east coast does for the west coast is spend money. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Should mention that it's also known as the Keweenawan Rift, pronounced QAnon Rift.

Should mention that "finish the job" is a very campaign-like statement. Nathan B-A. 3/7/2019 9:35pm EST

1507: Metaball

2019-03-07T17:10:44Z

172.68.54.34: Corrected close paren

{{comic
| number = 1507
| date = April 3, 2015
| title = Metaball
| image = metaball.png
| titletext = Shoot, it landed in the golf course. Gonna be hard to get it down the--oh, never mind, it rolled onto the ice hazard. Face-off!
}}

==Explanation==
In the first two panels of this game [[Megan]] kicks a {{w|Ball (association football)|football}} (also known as a {{w|association football|soccer}} ball in some regions), but the surprise comes in the next panel when it turns out she tried to kick it into a {{w|basketball}} hoop where Cueball is either trying to catch, stop or dunk the ball. [[Hairbun]] is also reaching an arm up after the ball. But then [[Ponytail]] yells "'''''Out!'''''". When Megan asks Ponytail why the ball is out, Ponytail explains it is due to the ''{{w|infield fly rule}}'' that was invoked when the ball crossed into the {{w|baseball}} zone - a very complicated rule to understand for baseball outsiders.

They are playing a {{w|ball game}} that incorporates the rules of many {{w|List of ball games|games that use a ball}}. The rules seem to be based on the location of the {{w|ball}}. Ponytail is holding a map which divides the area into zones. Each time the ball enters a new zone, the rules change to become the rules of the ball game represented in that zone.

The name "Metaball" is the combination of the prefix "{{w|meta}}" and the word "{{w|ball}}". Not long before this comic there was another comic with "meta" in the title: [[1447: Meta-Analysis]]. The entire joke ''is meta'' in [[917: Hofstadter]].

Megan is out according to the rules of baseball, because the football that she initially kicked in the football zone in an attempt to score in the basketball hoop (in the basketball zone), clipped the corner of the baseball zone. And suddenly her high kick turned into a {{w|Batted ball|pop fly}} and Ponytail (presumably the referee (and creator/ruler) of this game) invoked the infield fly rule which forces the batter out. In this case that would be the kicker Megan as she is the last to have touched the ball.

In baseball the infield fly rule can be invoked by the {{w|umpire}} (i.e. the referee in baseball, Ponytail in this case), to prevent an {{w|infielder}} from intentionally dropping a fair ball when runners are on multiple bases, forcing the runners on base to advance and allowing the infielder's team to quickly perform a double or triple play by throwing the ball to where the runners are trying to get and performing force out on their base. The infield fly rule, once called out by the umpire, forces the batter to be out whether or not the infielder tries to get the batter out. While complicated, and difficult for outsider to understand, the rule has been in baseball for a long time and makes sense in context.

The title text continues the comic. After Megan is ruled out, even though Cueball misses the catch, the ball now enters the {{w|golf}} section of the field, meaning that the players would have to hit the ball into a golf hole to score. Given that the ball is much larger than a standard golf ball, this would prove difficult. However, before they get this far, the situation changes as the ball rolls into a separate section of the field called the ice hazard.

On a golf course a {{w|Hazard (golf)|hazard}} is either a {{w|Hazard_(golf)#Bunker|bunker}} (with sand) or a {{w|/Hazard_(golf)#Water_hazard|water hazard}}. If the latter type freezes over it could be called an ice hazard. However, in this Metaball game this section of the course is apparently used to play some form of {{w|ice hockey}}. And since the game has been held up when Megan was called out, they will now have to restart the game with a {{w|face-off}} (a skirmish between two players of opposing teams to restart the game). It can be argued that an ice hockey {{w|Hockey puck|puck}} can be considered a ball, since ice hockey has evolved from, and is a variation of, older stick-and-ball games. And since they play both baseball, basketball and golf with the association football, they could also continue playing ice hockey with this ball instead of a puck.

For the record there are several other versions of {{w|hockey}} that are played with a ball ({{w|ball hockey}} for instance) and at least one of these is played on ice (see {{w|broomball}}). In these games face-offs are also used. It seems likely that [[Randall]] has chosen some of the most popular sports of the US - and then used a soccer/football instead of an {{w|Football_(ball)#American_and_Canadian_football|American football}}.

Given the timing of this comic with {{w|NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship|the US collegiate basketball tournament}}, we may assume Randall is writing as a response to that. He has previously given an opinion on sports (see for instance [[904: Sports]], [[1107: Sports Cheat Sheet]] and [[1480: Super Bowl]]).

This concept is very similar to [http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1990/05/27 Calvinball] from the comic strip ''{{w|Calvin and Hobbes}}'' by American cartoonist {{w|Bill Watterson}}.

==Transcript==
:[Megan runs towards a bouncing soccer football.]

:[Megan kicks the soccer football upwards.]

:[Cueball leaps towards the ball as it falls towards a basketball hoop. Hairbun also stretches her arm up.]
:Ponytail (offscreen):'''''Out!'''''

:[Ponytail walks toward them consulting a piece of paper divided in sections:]
:[Megan (offscreen):] What do you ''mean'', out?!
:Ponytail: The ball clipped the corner of the baseball zone. Infield fly rule.
:[Megan (offscreen):] Aw, ''maaan''...

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Soccer]]
[[Category:Basketball]]
[[Category:Baseball]]
[[Category:Sport]]

2118: Normal Distribution

2019-03-04T16:23:04Z

172.68.54.34:

{{comic
| number = 2118
| date = March 1, 2019
| title = Normal Distribution
| image = normal_distribution.png
| titletext = It's the NORMAL distribution, not the TANGENT distribution.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by PEOPLE NEW ENOUGH TO STATISTICS TO NOT LEAVE IN ANNOYANCE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg|thumb|{{w|Normal distribution}}s and the intervals of the standard deviation are a topic commonly seen in introductory statistics. Randall's chart is similar, but his lines are perpendicular.]]
In statistics, a {{w|Probability distribution|distribution}} is a representation that can be understood in terms of how much of a sample is expected to fall into either discrete bins or between particular ranges of values. For example, if you wanted to represent an age distribution using bins of ten years (0-9, 10-19, etc.), you could produce a bar chart, one bar for each bin, where the height of each bar represents a count of the portion of the sample matching that bin. To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people (technically: a number N which tends to infinity), put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow (technically: bins whose size is O(1/sqrt(N))), and then divide each bin count by the total count so that the whole thing added up to 1. It is common to ask how much of the distribution lies between two vertical lines; that would correspond to asking what percent of people are expected to fall between two ages.

Many statistical samplings resemble a pattern called a "{{w|normal distribution}}". A theoretically perfect normal distribution would have an infinite sample size and infinitely small bins. That would produce a bar chart matching the shape of the curve in the comic.

The area between two vertical lines of the distribution represents the probability that the value is between the x-values of the lines, and the total area is 1. Randall finds the area between two ''horizontal'' lines instead, which is mathematically meaningless, because the y-axis of a probability distribution represents {{w|absolute magnitude|magnitude}} as a fraction of unity (although we do have half of the normal curve between the two lines). The items represented by the magnitude at any given horizontal position are indistinguishable, unordered, and interchangeable; the idea that one could be above another is meaningless, and the fact that two items happen to fall at the same position on the y-axis doesn't mean they have anything in common. So, the comic explores the humor of annoying people by deliberately misunderstanding their work.

An alternative explanation is that Randall has invented a new probability distribution, that we could call the ''tangent distribution'' (from the title text), the ''Munroe distribution'', or something of the sort. This distribution is defined as follows: consider the area between the curve in the comic and the horizontal axis, and consider a random point (X, Y) uniformly distributed in that region. Then X has the normal distribution and Y has the tangent distribution. Areas between vertical lines in the comic give probabilities about X, and areas between horizontal lines in the comic give probabilities about Y. So the comic gives a correct statement that the interval of Y values that is 52.682% of the range of Y centered at the midpoint of the range has probability 1/2. Great! Except this distribution has never been discussed before because it has no known application. Moreover, it makes no sense to talk about intervals centered at the midpoint of the range because the distribution of Y is not symmetric: the midpoint of the range is neither the mean, the median, nor the mode. So even if this distribution were interesting, the probability in the comic is not a good way to describe it! We do use such intervals for the normal distribution because the normal distribution is symmetric, and the center of symmetry is the mean, median, and mode.

The title text refers to the {{w|Normal (geometry)|normal line}}, which is perpendicular to the {{w|tangent}} line at a given point. Given a shape of interest, a normal line points perpendicularly away from it at a point, making a 90-degree angle with it in all directions, while a tangent line crosses a point on it and is exactly parallel to it at that point. The normal line is not at all related to the normal distribution, as the former is a geometry concept and the latter is probability/statistics one. Saying this to a statistician would only annoy the statistician further. This refers to the fact that the diagram attempts to divide the graph with horizontal lines when such a division would usually be done with perpendicular vertical lines.

And this is annoying to a probabilist or statistician not only because the terms ''normal'' and ''tangent'' are come from differential geometry and have no established meaning in probability theory. Even the word ''perpendicular'' has no established meaning in probability theory. Of course, the x and y coordinates in the comic are perpendicular (orthogonal) coordinates, but X and Y are not "perpendicular" or "orthogonal" random variables. Even if we give "perpendicular" or "orthogonal" a probabilistic meaning, and the most obvious such meaning is {{w|Independence (probability theory)|independent}} (which even uses a symbol related to the geometric symbol for perpendicularity), X and Y are not perpendicular in this sense.

So the more probability and statistics you know, the more annoying (ha, ha) this comic becomes. It is not just about confusing novices.

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

:[A bell curve of a normal distribution, with the area between two horizontal lines shaded.]

:[The center of the chart is marked between the two lines:]
:Midpoint

:[The distance between the lines is marked to the right of the midpoint, with the label:]
:52.7%

:[A label on the outside of the graph, describing the distance between the two lines:]
:"Remember, 50% of the distribution falls between these two lines!"

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How to annoy a statistician

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

2043: Boathouses and Houseboats

2018-09-07T17:10:56Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2043
| date = September 7, 2018
| title = Boathouses and Houseboats
| image = boathouses_and_houseboats.png
| titletext = The <x> that is held by <y> is also a <y><x>, so if you go to a food truck, the stuff you buy is truck food. A phone that's in your car is a carphone, and a car equipped with a phone is a phonecar. When you play a mobile racing game, you're in your phonecar using your carphone to drive a different phonecar. I'm still not sure about bananaphones.
}}

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

Randall is engaging in creative linguistics again.
This time he is humorously suggesting to use a consistent naming scheme for things holding other things, the same way we call a boat holding a house a houseboat.
He is extending this to all combinations boats, houses and cars.
This would, however, be somewhat impractical, as these names do not include why one thing is on an other, and are also sometimes ambiguous: a carcar can be a tow truck as much as a car carrier.

Additionally, he is somewhat inconsistent with this himself.
He proposes to call lifeboats "boatboat", which are boats held by other boats, as opposed to boats holding other boats, such as floating drydocks.

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

[Title:] Boathouses and Houseboats

[3x3 chart, axes labeled (this) held by (this)]

[Most entries have the common word in black, crossed out in red with the "new scheme" word in red.

[Car held by Car ] <s>Tow Truck</s> CarCar

[Car held by House] <s>Garage </s> CarHouse

[Car held by Boat ] <s>Car Ferry</s> CarBoat

[House held by Car ] <s>Mobile home</s> HouseCar

[House held by House] <s>Apartment</s> HouseHouse

[House held by Boat ] HouseBoat [green text]

[Boat held by Car ] <s>Boat Trailer</s> BoatCar

[Boat held by House] BoatHouse [green text]

[Boat held by Boat ] <s>Lifeboat</s> BoatBoat

[Caption below the chart:]
I really like the words for "boathouse" and "houseboat" and think we should apply that scheme more consistently.

==Trivia==
The first version of the comic image mixed up the order of what holds what. The second word holds the first but at the original the opposite was told as it can be seen here [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/3/38/20180907164439%21boathouses_and_houseboats.png here].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Language]]

2040: Sibling-in-Law

2018-08-31T15:47:55Z

172.68.54.34: Couldn't resist.

{{comic
| number = 2040
| date = August 31, 2018
| title = Sibling-in-Law
| image = sibling_in_law.png
| titletext = FYI, it turns out "...because I haven't figured out whether he would be my brother-in-law or not" does NOT qualify as a "reason why these two should not be wed."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT-in-law 6 times removed - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

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

{{comic discussion}}

370: Redwall

2018-08-27T23:57:35Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 370
| date = January 14, 2008
| title = Redwall
| image = redwall.png
| titletext = My Redwall/Jurassic Park crossover fanfic is almost complete!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic references {{w|Brian Jacques|Brian Jacques'}} series of books, ''{{w|Redwall}}'', which star sapient woodland animals in various high fantasy adventures.

The first panel shows the similarity between the story of Martin the Warrior (from the book ''{{w|Mossflower}}'') and {{w|Aragorn}} from ''{{w|The Lord of the Rings}}'' by {{w|J. R. R. Tolkien}}. The joke is that while Martin and Aragorn introduce themselves separately, they then go on to describe their particular story, which turns out to be exactly the same for both of them. Subsequently Martin jinxes Aragorn. {{w|Jinx (children's game)|Jinx}} is a common children's game, which is initiated by shouting "Jinx" after somebody speaks the same word or sentence at the same time as you. That person is then jinxed, with one form of the rules dictating that they are then not permitted to speak until unjinxed by some specific action (usually somebody saying their name), or more commonly someone would say “Jinx! You owe me a soda”, and then the other person would owe them a soda. For a similar children’s game, see [[392: Making Rules]].

In LOTR, orcs are unequivocally and without exception the bad guys, capable only of hate and violence (although to be fair, orcs are corrupted elves, so it is clear that they are not intrinsically bad.) Similarly, Redwall's rats, foxes, ferrets, ermine and weasels are mostly evil manipulators while mice, rabbits, squirrels, hedgehogs and badgers are always the good guys. On several occasions, characters explicitly state that "vermin stays vermin." This is the overarching rule, notwithstanding the rare exception (e.g. Grubbage from {{w|Triss}}. Conversely, one of the so-called "good species" have never become evil in this book series. It is somewhat extreme to call the simplistic distinctions in these books "racist undertones", being more an expression of the {{w|Nature versus nature|nature versus nurture}} debate, but at the very least they vaguely resemble the racist attitudes of Tolkien's 1950s America (kindly bear in mind that Tolkien was British.)

The second panel deals with the fact that ''Redwall'' mentions the name of {{w|Satan}} or {{w|The Devil}} 4 times while it never mentions {{w|God}} or {{w|Jesus}}--somewhat surprisingly, given that the book is set in an abbey and many of the inhabitants are religious brothers and sisters. [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] then points out that people who {{w|Religious debates over the Harry Potter series|protest against Harry Potter because of the series' witchcraft}}, should take note that Redwall explicitly mentions Satan although it has had little to no negative feedback from more conservative readers.

In the third panel, Randall comments on ''Redwall'''s often-used theme of critical messages being left in riddles throughout the Abbey for the occupants to find when they are in need. Randall suggests that he would use {{w|Public-key cryptography|public-key cryptography}} to encode the messages, instead of the elaborate riddles used in the books (some of which are ridiculously easy, which doesn't exactly make for good security when dealing with sensitive information).

In the title text Randall jokes that he is making a crossover {{w|Fan fiction|fan-fiction}} with ''Redwall'' and ''{{w|Jurassic Park}}''.

Redwall was also referenced in [[1688: Map Age Guide]] and [[1722: Debugging]].

==Transcript==
:Notes from reading Redwall books for the first time since childhood.

:Some of this feels familiar.
:Aragorn: Hi, I'm Aragorn.
:Martin: I'm Martin.
:Aragorn and Martin: I'm here to reforge my broken sword so I can lead an army against the tyrant threatening my people. I live in a world of moral absolutes and racist undertones.
:Martin: Jinx!

:It startled me when characters mentioned Satan.
:Redwall: "By Satan's whiskers..."
:Redwall mentions God/Jesus 0 times.
:Redwall mentions Satan/The Devil 4 times.
:(Harry Potter protesters, take note.)

:Even as a kid this bothered me: Why does everyone leave critical secret messages as simple riddles? It's silly to assume the intended recipient will be the only one to find and solve them. I would do things differently.
:Matthias: The inscription is a message from Martin!
:Brother Methuselah: What does it say?
:Matthias: Hang on, it's encrypted with my public key.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Bar chart]]
[[Category:LOTR]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

1947: Night Sky

2018-01-26T20:54:35Z

172.68.54.34: The safety has nothing to do with trolls rather people "yelling at them"

{{comic
| number = 1947
| date = January 26, 2018
| title = Night Sky
| image = night_sky.png
| titletext = There's a mountain lion nearby, but it didn't notice you because it's reading Facebook.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an OVERSIZED HOUSECAT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] are going out for a nighttime walk, to "{{w|Digital detox|unplug}}" and get away from technology, to ask the "big questions". However, they soon realize that they would have much preferred a walk ''with'' technology. Carrying a phone would help them with locating themselves using GPS and seeing where they are going using the phone flashlight, thus making them feel safer.

The title text claims that technology is so omnipresent that even the threatening mountain lion has a Facebook account and ready internet access.

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

[Cueball and Megan are walking under the night sky.]

Megan: The internet is so overwhelming for me these days. It feels like everyone I know is yelling all the time.

[Frame is zoomed out. Stars are visible]

Megan: That's why it's so nice to unplug. Leave the phones at home,go for a walk, and look up at the stars.

Megan: It helps you focus on what really matters.

[frame is normal again.]

Cueball: Like "Where the hell are we?"

Megan: And "Why did I leave my phone at home? It has my map and flashlight."

Cueball: "Are there mountain lions around here? Did you hear a twig break?"

Megan: Yeah, the big questions!

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1844: Voting Systems

2018-01-21T05:40:24Z

172.68.54.34:

Looks like 2 of us added explanations at the same time. Someone else want to consolidate them and produce a concise explanation?
~blackhat {{unsigned ip|162.158.69.75}}

I tried merging our explanations, so there is a small improvement, but there is still some duplicated information. Plus I'm not a native english speaker, so a consolidation by a third editor would be welcome. {{unsigned ip|141.101.69.165}}

Something I don't understand about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem: In the example given, the result of the election is obviously a 3-way tie, where each candidate got exactly equal support. Surely the Arrow Impossibility Theorem doesn't complain about voting system's inability to intuitively break an exact tie? {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.58}}

:I think there is another layer of explanation here. When Cueball is discussing this - he's talking about voting for which voting system is to be chosen. The choice is Approval versus Instant Runoff - but isn't Cueball arguing about using a Condorcet method to decide WHICH voting method to choose? This is emphasised by the mouse-over text which talks about him dynamically changing his choice of ultimate candidate based on the election system chosen - which is exactly the Condorset paradox, but when applied to the selection of which voting system you want rather than the choice of candidate. Again reinforced by the discussion of "Strong Arrows theorem" which at that same meta-voting level. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.39|162.158.69.39]] 15:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

: The "exact tie" only exists because ranked-choice ballots destroy any information about ''strength'' of preference. It likely wouldn't be an exact tie with a Score voting ballot, for instance. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 00:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally the idea behind Arrow's Theorem is that you would get different results if you did a vote where the choices were just A or B, B or C, C or A, thus no option wins head to head against the others (Condorset Paradox). An example I recently read was economic policy, and how the options being presented can cause policy to fluctuate wildly in a democracy as the outcome depends on the options compared. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.10|108.162.249.10]] 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:Neither Arrow's Theorem nor the joke makes any reference to Condorcet's paradox. Rather, the joke is that it shows an individual voter who apparently fails to satisfy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives independence of irrelevant alternatives]. This is one of the criteria in Arrow's theorem, and it is normally always regarded as being true of any individual's opinions, just not necessarily of the outcome of an election. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

:For reference: both instant run-off voting (IRV) and every concorcet method fail independence of irrelevant alternatives. Some (most?) condorcet systems satisfy all other criteria of Arrow's theorem, while IRV also fails monotonicity. Approval voting satisfies both, but it is outside the scope of Arrow's theorem as it is not a ranked voting system. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Arrow's impossibility theorem states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking." Arrow's theorem does not say that. Arrow's impossibility theorem says "When voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking that is complete, transitive, Pareto efficient, have universal domain, has no dictator, and independent of irrelevant alternatives." The conditions matter, and the non-dictatorship condition in particular is horrible misnamed.

"The theorem may be interpreted in a way suggesting that no matter what voting electoral system is implemented in a democracy, the resulting democratic choices are equally imperfect". No. Perfection is an absolute so things are either perfect or they are not. "Equally imperfect" is a tautology. If you are going to throw in "equally" some voting methods are manifestly closer to perfection than others, some voting methods satisfy all but one of Arrow's conditions, while others satisfy none of them.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.21|162.158.62.21]] 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

:: Quite true. Monotonicity is not desirable because it enables the kind of strategies which make Condorcet systems almost as unstable in practice as FPTP. Arrow's Theorem can be disposed of by the realization that nonmonotonicity is what makes IRV impervious to strategy. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.6.46|162.158.6.46]] 07:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

: Arrow's Theorem is based on a fundamentally flawed approach in the first place, which he realized later in life. Using ordered rankings to estimate utility is not a very good plan. Voting systems based around estimating utility directly (rated rather than ranked) are much better. It was based on economist dogma that utility can't be compared meaningfully between individuals, but interpersonal comparisons of preference are even less valid. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 00:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to the discussion, but interesting that Cueball has moved from being between a black hat and a black haired women in [[1842: Anti-Drone Eagles]] to being between a White Hat and a white haired woman, two comics later, where he starts speaking in both comics. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For deep (but simply explained) insight into voting systems, (and why the American first past the pole system sucks), see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLej2SlXPEd37YwwEY7mm0WyZ8cfB1TxXa playlist of youtube videos] by CGP Grey --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

: Unfortunately he repeats incorrect statements like "IRV eliminates the spoiler effect" and obviously hasn't done honest research on it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 00:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

===GOOMHR!===
Cueball almost perfectly matches my views on voting. I think Approval is far and away the best (due to ease of implementation and low chance of paradox). Condorcet & IRV use the same ballot design, but IRV is mathematically inferior, so I don't get why anyone likes it, other than bandwagon effects. The only situation where I'd support IRV is if it were the only viable option to replace FPTP, which is unfortunately the case in many places. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 22:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

:Frankie, the two established parties Democrats and Republicans both favor IRV over Condorcet precisely because of its mathematical biases. The 'deficiencies' of IRV tend to eliminate centrist moderates early in the process and leave the established parties in political power. IRV represents a slower change to the political status quo. [[User:Barrackar|Barrackar]] ([[User talk:Barrackar|talk]]) 07:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

:Addendum: after reading about recently-developed voting methods, I find that {{w|Majority judgement}} is excellent. I still approve of Approval, because it offers a lot of improvement for almost no cost, but if you're going to replace all the voting machines, {{w|Cardinal voting|rated is better than ranked}}. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The larger the democracy, the less a single vote matters, regardless of the voting system. I, for one, support a return to the system of democratic city-states with annual elections. If a sizeable focal minority don't agree with their government, they can just break off and declare their area a separate city-state. Of course, this could eventually create a loose alliance of house-states or even people-states each with their individual laws and foreign policy. --[[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe|(Arguments welcome)]] 02:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

:Obvious counter-argument: voluntarily replacing our existing structure of nations with city-states is so much '''less''' likely to happen than replacing FPTP, that it's really not worth discussing as a plausible option at this point in history. OTOH, if Trump starts WW3, all bets are off after the apocalypse. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 13:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this might be the first xkcd, in over 1,800 comics, that I understood literally nothing on my own. Wow. Except that this was something about voting, caught the word voting, LOL! I usually get at least a few things, and come here to fill in any gaps. Guess discussing these 4 things is particularly American, I've never heard of any of them (as a Canadian, and on an iPad where I can only see the title text here).! - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [Hey, someone replied in the middle of my comment block! LOL! Copying my "signature"/time stamp here in the hopes of making it complete again as two separate blocks] - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! These two comments are mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:The same with me. After reading the comic, explanation AND comments, I can't even find the joke, let alone understand it.[[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 03:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::The topic of voting systems is particularly relevant for Canadians under the current administration, because one of the major planks of their campaign platform was "ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system" (https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/). Some of us consider it one of the top two or three priorities for the current term actually! [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 04:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Ah, yes, I should have said "As a Quebecer". :) We don't have the luxury of voting our beliefs, we have to vote defensively to ensure we continue BEING Canadian. Any discussion of voting I hear is about THAT. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Also my comment! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::Actually I find the explanation worked for me, just that there's not much joke here. As I understand it, Arrow's Theorem means there's no clear Best System, that there's no agreement or something (sorry, I didn't re-read the explanation, so I'm working from my memory or reading 2-3 days ago, LOL!). This is saying anyone who knows enough about Arrow's Theorem to embrace it will automatically be a part of it, and magically likewise fail to agree with each other (which would take embracing the theory to a ridiculous level). - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC) So's this! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing I don't get: Why Condorcet can't be used on 3 or more candidates. I read a bit of the Wikipedia link about the Condorcet Paradox, okay, I see the POTENTIAL paradox, but it's not necessarily so. Sure it MAY be that 3 candidates get equal support in this way, but numerically this is so horribly unlikely I'm suprised it's not only being considered, but given such significant weight as to say it can't be used! As I understand it, using last year's election, it works like this: Trump, Hillary, and let's throw in Bernie Sanders as the third. As I'm understanding the explanation of the Condorcet Method, if a hypothetical election between Bernie and Trump would have Bernie winning (based on support? Sounds like no actual voting taking place), and a hypothetical election between Bernie and Hillary would also have Bernie winning, then Bernie is the winner. But that's 3 people, what doesn't work? And if Condorcet only works with 2 candidates, how is that not just a normal vote? The Paradox seems to say if exactly a third of voters rank Bernie over Hillary over Trump, one third says Hillary over Trump over Bernie, and the final third has Trump over Hillary over Bernie, then THAT'S the Condorcet Paradox. But that's SO specific, it's unlikely! - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC) My comment too! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
: I agree. Who cares about the Condorcet winner when there is the Smith set? [[User:Barrackar|Barrackar]] ([[User talk:Barrackar|talk]]) 07:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

''To the Canadian commenter:'' have you followed the elections of the Conservative party? It looks to me like a recent large-scale use of an "non-traditional" voting system. I've heard it criticised for its complexity, but no discussion on why it was chosen.
[http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-the-2017-conservative-leadership-vote-will-work/ Description here]
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.88|162.158.126.88]] 15:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC) anothercanadiancommenter
::Nope. In addition to being a Canadian I also live in Quebec. All my political involvement is about remaining Canadian, I know nothing beyond that, LOL! We don't have the luxury of voting our beliefs (other than that one), so It seems pointless to look any further. All we can do is hope that the strongest party against separation behaves. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Commenting a lot here, LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Barrackar, any voting system can be used on any number of candidates. However, there are a lot of voting system criteria, and no voting system will be able to satisfy all of them. Arrow's theorem implies that any system based on rankings will fail at least one of 3 important criteria, and one criteria that can never be satisfied by a ranking system is immunity from irrelevant choices (IIC). However, Approval Voting (or any general cardinal rating method) is not a ranking method, per se, and so it isn't necessarily subject to the constraints of Arrow's theorem. But choosing between different voting systems is, in itself, a form of choice, and the comic uses this to point out that the implicit ranking of systems leads to lack of immunity from irrelevant choices -- by introducing IRV, Cueball's choice changes from Approval to Condorcet (which fails IIC). Note that Approval does satisfy IIC and another important criterion, Participation (adding another vote for your favorite doesn't cause your favorite to lose), but it does fail the Majority Criterion (MC) -- it is possible that by Approving all your approved candidates, including your compromise, a candidate who is in fact preferred by a majority won't win, but will be beaten by a candidate who would lose to that candidate in a direct pairwise comparison. IRV does satisfy MC, but it fails Participation and Immunity from Irrelevant Choice, is not summable (you can't do counts in separate precincts and sum the results centrally -- you have to do a central count overall to decide which candidate to eliminate next), and its monotonicity failures can lead to unpredictably unstable results. Personally, I prefer a ratings-based method, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment Majority Judgment], which is effectively a special kind of median rating that is highly resistant to strategic manipulation. But MJ can still fail Participation, so I think it would benefit from being the first stage in a [http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/3-2-1_voting 3-2-1 voting] style approach -- use MJ with an A,B,C,D,E,F rating system, with A,B,C ratings approved and D,E,F disapproved, then take the top 3 MJ candidates as the 3-2-1 semi-finalists. Drop the least approved candidate from those 3 to get the top two semifinalists, and finally, choose the candidate who wins pairwise as the winner. There could be situations where MJ fails participation, but the participation loser would likely still be in the top three and would win both the "2" and final pairwise comparison. [[User:Araucaria|Araucaria]] ([[User talk:Araucaria|talk]]) 17:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the example provided in the description. In what election would Sanders, Clinton, and Trump be on the same ballot? [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 04:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::Sounds like you're talking about what I said. This is why I worded it "let's throw in Bernie Sanders as the third", I needed a third candidate to explain what I was talking about, and he's the only other presidential hopeful whose name I know off the top of my head. :) I don't know WHY Bernie can't be on the same ballot - I suspect he's the same party as either Hillary or Trump, so he was competing with one of them to be the party's candidate - but his early disappearance from things last year led me to grasp that he couldn't be. (I should probably point out once again that I'm Canadian, therefore not my shindig, plus I'm proudly very politically unaware. See above comments for why). - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:::If you want a specific 2016 candidate likely to be on the same ballot as Clinton and Trump and likely to beat either in a one-on-one contest, I recommend {{w|Evan McMullin}} (notably in Utah). - January First-of-May [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.46|172.68.10.46]] 10:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
::::It seems important to me to only use names I'm familiar with, from hearing them a lot. Thanks anyway. :) I suspect he's from Vermont, it and Northern New York are the parts of the States closest to where I live, to the point that the American network stations our TV providers use are from Burlington and Plattsburgh, so that might be why I hear about him a lot especially during election times. LOL! NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 04:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Also my comment! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::@NiceGuy1, sorry, no, I should have been more clear. This was in reference to an example in the explanation itself which I've since deleted. Clinton and Sanders were competing to be the Democratic candidate, and the winner, Clinton, then competed against Trump in the presidential contest. But I think the explanation works fine without any example. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 12:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Ah. I don't recall reading that, and as you say you deleted it now. Seeing as it's such an odd pairing that even _I_ as an outsider realize it's odd, I wonder if someone added that to the explanation inspired by my comment, LOL! (Which would mean it was part of the explanation between times I read it). And thanks for clarifying. I may not get to participate in American elections, but I think this might have been the third election where I got the impression that the general opinion was "Well, of course Sanders should be president", where he wasn't elected and I think didn't even win being the candidate. Hence my using him for my example. :) NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 04:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Another one of mine! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I had a discussion about "voting for a voting system" years ago on the election-methods mailing list. My proposal was to count the votes using *all* of the methods under consideration. Then, based on the premise that the best election method will choose the best election method, choose a method that chooses itself. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.52|108.162.237.52]] 05:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What does "people who study voting methods agree that FPTP voting is not ideal" mean anyway? Which "people"? What proportion of them? There could be 100 people, and 3 of them don't like this method, and this statement is still perfectly factual. It seems to imply that "there is a broad consensus", but it doesn't say that, and this exactly the kind of language people use to mislead other people by not stating things clearly. It could also be read as meaning that "all the people who study voting methods agree that this is a bad method", which is almost certainly not true. There are bound to be "people who study voting methods" who "agree" that it's just fine the way it is. When I read something like this, I think "someone with an agenda is trying to influence other people into agreeing with them by making it sound as if 'experts all say' [whatever they want you to believe]". [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 05:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

1113: Killed in Action

2018-01-18T21:59:39Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1113
| date = September 26, 2012
| title = Killed in Action
| image = killed in action.png
| titletext = We can't let this happen again. We need to build a secure TWO-day-before-retirement safe room.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic plays with the TV and film trope of [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retirony Retirony], in which a cop is killed in action only a short time before (often the day before) retirement, usually producing a sense of even greater tragedy in the timing of the death. The humor of this strip arises from the notion that, given so many policemen are killed the day before retirement, retiring cops could be sequestered in a secure facility on the day before their retirement to avoid retirony. Unfortunately this merely results in tragedy when a cop is killed the day before being sequestered.

The title text is a reference to the reactionary nature of security procedures often put in place in the aftermath of an incident, and how they typically fail to address the root cause of the problem. If the logic expressed in title text was followed repeatedly, eventually the number of days police officers spent in the secure room would encompass their entire career.
A certain similarity could be drawn between this an the US Army's problematic policy of only having combat troops serve for a single year in combat during the Vietnam war (unlike during WWII, when combat units were put into the front line and left there until the war was over, with losses being made up with a constant flow of individual replacements, which was even more problematic). Having troops only serve for a single year led to a far lower rate of troops "broken" from constant combat stress, but it also led to soldiers increasingly avoiding risk
once the halfway point of their year was passed and their time to go home got closer; not only that, but the stress of the last few months, knowing one was almost "home safe", yet forced into danger repeatedly could also psychologically damage men, It also created an incentive to just make it alive through the war, no matter what it took, unlike a situation where a soldier knows they are stuck there until the war is over; this can be a great incentive to fight harder, or at least to just give up any real hope that you'll live long enough to see the end anyway. They later revisited this "combat year" approach also, and tried yet another new idea.

See also the {{w|Unexpected hanging paradox|paradox of the "unexpected hanging"}}.

==Transcript==
:[An old lady, a woman and Cueball are standing in the background by a coffin. A policeman and the policewoman Ponytail are standing in the foreground.]
:Ponytail: Good cop. It's a real shame—
:Ponytail: He was just one day away from getting put in the locked, heavily guarded room where all cops stay for the last day before they retire.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

1786: Trash

2018-01-18T06:24:45Z

172.68.54.34: More likely that Black Hat's playing a joke and it's not really an interdimensional portal.

{{comic
| number = 1786
| date = January 16, 2017
| title = Trash
| image = trash.png
| titletext = Plus, time's all weird in there, so most of it probably broke down and decomposed hundreds of years ago. Which reminds me, I've been meaning to get in touch with Yucca Mountain to see if they're interested in a partnership.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Black Hat]] is, once again, thoroughly confusing [[Cueball]], (like for instance in [[908: The Cloud]] and others). This time, when inquired about a chute protruding from his wardrobe, Black Hat explains that it is a {{w|Chute_(gravity)#Building_chute|garbage chute}} into another dimension. Apparently these kinds of portals appear on about half of all the furniture that Black Hat buys, and he is kinda annoyed about it. (This sounds more like something [[Beret Guy]] would encounter, although he would for sure have reacted very differently than Black Hat). It would be interesting to know whether all the portals lead into the same alternative world/dimension, but it seems Black Hat is not interested in visiting these worlds, but is just annoyed about his broken furniture (of course, given Black Hat's personality, it may well be a practical joke meant to mess with Cueball's head, not an actual portal to another dimension).

Cueball quickly realizes this is a reference to ''{{w|The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe}}'', the second book in {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}} by {{w|C. S. Lewis}}. In the books the characters use different portals to get into {{w|Narnia}}. In the book children find the portal inside an old wardrobe, and they use it at least three times to travel into Narnia. Black Hat confirms his trash chute indeed leads to Narnia, and explains how this is a great time-saver for him, as he can easily get rid of his trash. The Narnia books are for children and Narnia is a magical world so Cueball is appalled to learn that Black Hat dumps his trash there.

A discussion of problems with this comic vs. Narnia chronology is discussed in the [[#Trivia|trivia section]].

The "huge cat" he refers to is {{w|Aslan}}, a Magical lion that represents God in Narnia. In his Lion form he sometimes walks around in Narnia and he watches over Narnia, but not all the time. It is revealed in the last book that he is also the guardian of the other worlds, where he has different names and take on different appearances, so he is actually a representation of God, but always a benevolent God.

Aslan, or any other large cat or inhabitants of such a different world, would probably be really upset that someone is throwing their trash there. He would probably try to stop this by any means necessary, even if that means coming up through a trash chute into another dimension. But, because lions are a type of cat (feline), apparently he can be repelled with an ordinary spray bottle. The joke is this is a technique used to tame small house cats; it would be unlikely to work on a lion, especially if the lion was a representation of a deity.

In the title text the fact that time passes much faster in Narnia than on Earth is mentioned. (Time does not pass at a constant rate compared to Earth time.) This could also be the case even if Black Hat's world would be a different one than Narnia. So everything that is actually pushed to the other side of the portal would be disposed of very efficiently as within just a few Earth minutes, the trash could completely decompose. This would then explain how Black Hat can keep pushing more stuff into the other world. Anything getting over the border will vanish before he comes with his next trash bag.

In the title text {{w|Yucca Mountain}} is mentioned. This is a reference to {{w|Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository}}, a proposed nuclear waste repository that has been abandoned at present time. Black Hat wants to contact those that wish to make such a repository and let them dispose of their radioactive waste through his "magical" portal, likely to make a profit for himself. If throwing trash into Narnia is terrible, what then about radioactive waste... Of course in Earth time it would then soon have decayed back to ground levels... This is thus another jab at all the worlds environmental problems, in relation to all the comics about [[:Category:Climate change|climate change]]! This comic could be a take on humans {{w|Marine_debris|dumping waste}} in the "endless" oceans, more specifically {{w|Ocean disposal of radioactive waste}}. This was done excessively in the past but is now banned since Earth's oceans are not endless.

The title text copies the idea behind the {{w|Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal}} comic from
[http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3513 October 15 2014]. The button at the bottom of the comic shows a sad {{w|Mr. Tumnus}}, a {{w|faun}} {{w|Lucy Pevensie|Lucy}} meets on her first visit to Narnia, rather than an angry Aslan as in this comic.

The portal through the wardrobe to Narnia was previously featured in [[665: Prudence]], [[969: Delta-P]] and [[821: Five-Minute Comics: Part 3]]. In the latter, the different passage of time was also mentioned.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball looking at garbage chute attached to wardrobe. A Black Hat answers him from off panel.]
:Cueball: What's this thing on your wardrobe?
:Black Hat (off-panel): Garbage chute.

:[In a frame-less panel Cueball has turned away from the wardrobe (now off-panel) and he walks towards Black Hat.]
:Cueball: Into a wardrobe?
:Black hat: There's some sort of portal to a magical land in there. Half the furniture I get has them-it's kinda a pain.

:[Cueball stops walking closer to Black Hat.]
:Cueball: You dump your trash in ''Narnia''?
:Black Hat: Yeah, it's a real time-saver.
:Black Hat: There's a huge cat in there, but I have a spray bottle I use when he tries to come up through the chute.

==Trivia==
*If one cares about the rules of the Narnia continuity...
**If the portal travels to Narnia specifically, this comic would have to be set during the books (that is to say, during the 1940's) because in the last book Narnia ceases to exist.
**Note however in the continuity of the books, Narnia is not the only alternate world -- three of them are explored in ''The Magician's Nephew'' -- just the most famous to popular culture.
***This other world could still also have Aslan, as implied in the books.
*The wardrobe in the first book only worked sometimes, and after the first book it could never be used again. Had this been such a wardrobe then it would just fill with trash, so this could not be that wardrobe.
**Even if it was always open, it doesn't actually suck anything in; Black Hat would have to push the trash over or it would just pile up on his side of the wardrobe, defeating the purpose of the trash chute.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Time]]

1783: Emails

2018-01-18T06:07:48Z

172.68.54.34: So if you don't check you email in batches, you don't qualify as a "PRODUCTIVE member of the world"? What if you are a farmer, or a factory worker? What if you're an artisan who gets 10 emails a week? What if you live in Africa?

{{comic
| number = 1783
| date = January 9, 2017
| title = Emails
| image = emails.png
| titletext = Hey Rob, sorry it took me a while to get back to you! Sure, I'd love to see WALL-E opening weekend! Are you still doing that, or...?
}}

==Explanation==
In this rather late [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]] (January 9th), [[Megan]] asks [[Cueball]] if he has any {{w|New Year's resolution}}s. New Year's is, to many people, a time for thinking about the year and coming up with resolutions to improve themselves. These kind of resolutions {{w|New_Year's_resolution#Success_rate|hardly ever work}}.

Cueball replies that he has one resolution. It's to finish reading and replying to his backlog of emails from 2008, 9 years prior to this comic. He obviously does not read his email when they arrive in his inbox, and he now vows to at least get those e-mails from 9 years ago read.

As he further states in the caption below, he now (finally) begins to doubt his method for replying to e-mails, since his backlog now approaches 10 years. Some would probably say he should have found this out when his backlog approached 10 days, or at least when it reached a month.

A common technique for some more productive or efficient users of email is to batch reply to email instead of replying to each one individually as they come. The principle is that setting aside specific times to reply instead of always being "on call" gives the messages the attention they deserve while avoiding the urge to constantly check your email when you should be doing important work. Such a technique could be to check and answer all your emails once a day, or once a week, for instance and allocating a specific amount of time like one hour every day to do so. It is unlikely that somebody would wait years to start the task of checking emails, so obviously the time reserved per unit of time is way too short, if even existing. This would create a backlog of emails, that could soon be so large it would take years to catch up to the e-mail you just got right now.

Another technique for efficient people is ''not'' to answer certain e-mails; if a subject really is important, the sender will send a reminder a few days later. (If he does not, the sender can be presumed to have solved the problem himself, saving lots of time on the receiver's side. Of course then you have to check your e-mails to realize if someone has sent a reminder.) Cueball has possibly used this technique on a friend's request, but became remorseful after nine years.

The title text is a reply to an email in which [[Rob]] wished to see the movie ''{{w|WALL-E}}'', a film that came out in 2008, with Cueball during its opening weekend. However, the opening weekend is now far in the past, and yet Cueball doesn't realize it and trails off with "are you still doing that, or...?" Mentioning the release of a popular movie and then making it clear that it will soon be ten years ago that the movie came out, feels a lot like a hidden [[:Category:Comics to make one feel old|Comic to make one feel old]], but it may be stretching it to include this directly in that category. But it is a technique often used by [[Randall]], quite clearly in most of that category, for instance [[891: Movie Ages]].

A real (and useful{{Citation needed}}) New Year's resolution would involve trying to answer his emails as they arrive (instead of spending any more time on years old emails), which would have avoided the mess he's currently in, and will stop it from getting worse in the future.

In this comic Cueball may represent [[Randall]]. He receives so many e-mail due to the xkcd comic that he may have a hard time going through them all. Then there is his [[what if?]] email, and possibly many more. Hopefully he has a separate e-mail for friends that wish to send him a request for going to the opening of new recent movie. On the [http://www.xkcd.com/about/ about page] on xkcd he does write the following for one of the e-mails he cites as contact:
:press @ xkcd.com -- Press questions, etc (may take a long time to get to me).

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball are walking along.]
:Megan: Did you have any New Year's Resolutions?
:Cueball: Gonna finally finish dealing with those emails from 2008.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:As my email backlog approaches 10 years, I'm starting to have doubts about my approach.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:New Year]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Rob]] 
[[Category:Email]]

Talk:1783: Emails

2018-01-18T06:01:43Z

172.68.54.34:

Added the starting point of the explanation. Please add onto my work. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(BTW, Rob, if the offer's still on the table, I'll go with you to WALL-E if Cueball's not around. 😉 ) --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, another Time Ghost! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.10|162.158.222.10]] 13:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to point out: for a long time (since [[276: Fixed Width]]) there has been a little side debate of "should a single cueball be referred to as Rob?" (and should a single ponytail be referred to as Joanne). The title text of [[1783: Emails]] I think officially confirms that we should not. [[User:Yosho27|Yosho27]] ([[User talk:Yosho27|talk]]) 14:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
:You mean [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals#Merge Cueball & Rob|this?]] [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
::Yes that discussion is also relevant but the Joanne part must have been discussed elsewhere... Completely agree though that there is no doubt that any generic character does not only go by one name. Only the three with hats are clearly meant to have specific traits. But even White Hat can appear very different from comic to comic. leaving only Black Hat and Beret Guy to (mainly) stay true to their general behavior. Randall uses names when he find that would be most useful in a given comic. Apart from Megan and Rob, he has hardly used any name more than a few times. And in this comic it is clear that Cueball is not Rob. On the other hand there is no reason to believe this Rob is the same as [[Rob]] from the early cartons. But still relevant that he used this name again after so long without it being used. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

this story is surely related to: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/606:_Cutting_Edge [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.35|108.162.250.35]] 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

;Email bankruptcy
This is related to Email bankruptcy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_bankruptcy ) --[[User:ElfQrin|ElfQrin]] ([[User talk:ElfQrin|talk]]) 07:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the emphasized "''productive'' people" bit because I find it somewhat insulting. A person doesn't have to set aside special times for reading/replying to emails in order to qualify as a "''productive'' person". A farmer or factory worker "produces" plenty, and for office workers, they can work inefficiently and still get things done. This implication that only well-organized people who manage their time well count as "''productive'' people" (especially with that emphasis-added; without that it would just be a fact: productive people [often] use this technique", not "''productive'' people check their email in batches, unlike ''non-productive'' people (cough, cough '''Jim'''!)" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 06:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1773: Negativity

2018-01-18T05:12:13Z

172.68.54.34:

Any chance that 'the pain and negativity of the internet' is a reference to [http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 this recent SMBC comic] where SMBC's artist Zach challenges Randall to 'out-nerd him now' (seen when you click the red button just below the comic).
I've been wondering whether the first XKCD after that (that is: today's XKCD comic) would refer to it.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173|141.101.104.173]] 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
: I kinda doubt it. SMBC wasn't being "negative" or objectionable - if anything it was a challenge - and even a kind of complement. An adequate response to that kind of a challenge might take longer than a few days to prepare. If we're going to see anything in response, I suspect it'll be more obvious. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
:: We better be seeing a string theory joke sometime in the next week... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.226|108.162.216.226]] 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
::: [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=171 Here you go.] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.126|162.158.122.126]] 12:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
:: @SteveBaker That was my doubt too. Looking forward to an adequate response from Randall though :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173|141.101.104.173]] 07:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
:: The negative interpretation might as well be humorously exaggerated. Alluding to political correctness gives the defense some weight. A point in favor of our observation, that I came just here to validate, would be the lawn. "Get of my lawn" is a common meme, but even the lawn is impressed with Zach. Anyway I chuckled. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.10|162.158.114.10]] 17:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
:: The link at the top does not work. [http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 This one should] . [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.35|108.162.246.35]] 16:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This article mentions XKCD number 1749 as involving "talking to inanimate organisms", but nobody talks to the mushroom in that strip. Neither does the mushroom talk to them, it merely growls. [[User:Ajfaraday|Ajfaraday]] ([[User talk:Ajfaraday|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
: I would object to "inanimate". Things are inanimate, and well, maybe dead organisms; but a growling and talking organism is obviously alive.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.171|162.158.91.171]] 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite a stretch to assume that this is meant to "refer to" the 2016 election. At best it was inspired by the negativity around it, but there has been trolls and negative people on the internet, and this comic is totally relevant even if you ignored the fact that the election happened. I think it's more like someone is reading too much into it based on the fact that it happened close to the same time as the electoral college vote. That would be just one more area where people are being miserable as usual. There is no hint in any of these comics that are supposed to be "about" the internet post-election that they are suggesting anything is changed or different, and that the net use to be a better place. It's more like he's pointing out how the net IS. 2016 is just more of the usual. I haven't noticed anything getting particularly worse than they were before, in spite of that the media likes to suggest. And why not, it gives them something else to blame on Trump. You think after a while they'd realize you don't really have to make stuff up; there is plenty there to work with. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 05:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

1772: Startup Opportunity

2018-01-18T05:04:13Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1772
| date = December 14, 2016
| title = Startup Opportunity
| image = startup_opportunity.png
| titletext = While there's no formal regulation, it turns out their industry group is NOT one you want mad at you.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Beret Guy|Beret Guy's]] [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business|company]], first seen in [[1032: Networking]], [[1293: Job Interview]] and [[1493: Meeting]], returns, and its purpose is as vague as ever.

Analysts, brought in to advise his company, determine that it doesn't actually serve any purpose (a problem which could ironically be attributed to business analysts in general). Beret Guy is dumbfounded, claiming that his company must do ''something'', and takes a line of reasoning that faintly resembles the sort of logic a child might use. A child that visits an office building might conclude that an office does a lot because there are a lot of employees working inside, unaware that what really makes a successful business is how efficiently it uses its employees to deliver goods and services to the consumer. 

Now, if Beret Guy is given the benefit of the doubt, his odd statement could be taken to mean that his company has many administrators (a.k.a. chairmen); as the owner of a sufficiently large business often interacts with the department in charge of overhead, a person in his position runs the risk of becoming myopic, losing touch with the workers that actually make the business function. 

However, this ''is'' Beret Guy we're talking about here. He has demonstrated, [[1467: Email|time]] and [[1569: Magic Tree|time]] and [[1583: NASA Press Conference|time]] again, that he is hopelessly out of touch with reality, and this very strip shows no sign of him having gotten a firmer grasp of Earth logic. Displaying less business acumen than a child ''and'' less grounding in perspective than a CEO, he uses the number of chairs in the workplace as a yardstick for success, with no mention of his actual, human workforce. It may even be a stretch to say that a child would make the same assumption based on the number of chairs.

The analysts suggest that Beret Guy find an industry to disrupt. The mention of "industry" immediately reminds Beret Guy of {{w|SimCity}}, where Industrial (along with Residential and Commercial) is one of the three main zone types - it allows factories and farms to develop. {{w|Disruptive innovation|Disruption}} means coming up with a product that redefines what the market expects and leaving existing competitors in the dust (for instance, smartphones disrupted mobile, digital photography disrupted film, and air travel disrupted rail and sea travel (and is in turn being disrupted by high-speed rail)) - it's now an industry buzzword and virtually every company claims to be "disruptive".

When pointed in the right direction, Beret Guy realizes that the main industry he deals with is weird disappearing shops selling cursed goods. This is {{tvtropes|TheLittleShopThatWasntThereYesterday|a common trope}} in fantasy stories (notably Stephen King's novel Needful Things, using this exact premise), and as soon as [[Hairy]] hears about it he wants out of the building, but as his colleagues point out it also bears more than a passing resemblance to many dodgy {{w|startup companies}}. These appear suddenly with a lot of promotion and a marketable idea, looking for {{w|venture capital}} (or, a lot of times in recent times, pre-orders on {{w|Kickstarter}}). However, many startups fail - either because they didn't take into account the difficulties involved in bringing a product to market, or because they were an active scam - and disappear without a trace, leaving customers either empty handed or with a buggy product that falls short of promises. As [[Cueball]] notes, these cursed shops are actually the perfect startup, at least from a moneymaking perspective. This humorously ignores the more obvious larger problem, that such a business would be impossible to create due to not actually having magical items to sell (unless, of course, one is referring to items that are sold by making unrealistic or implausible claims as to their use, which could be considered similar to "magic". This is common enough in the real world, and many such products call themselves "magic" without actually explicitly claiming to use mysterious powers of sorcery. One character could be thinking literally, and the other one figuratively). Apparently, the business may become one, if he does spend most of his money there.

As with most Beret Guy comics, there are multiple layers of absurdity. For a start, the fact that he-and by extension, the rest of the cast-live in a world including supernatural shops is, while not inconsistent, still supernatural. The assertion that this is where he buys most of his materials and other products is also curious, given the shops' inherent temporary nature, as it implies either something about him causes these shops to appear, or that he is drawn to these shops instinctively. Most absurdly, he apparently purchases his food from these establishments (which may also serve as an explanation for his 'soup outlet' in [[1293: Job Interview]]), despite previously stating everything they sell is cursed, conjures troubling images in the mind of how exactly food would be cursed-and its effects. Perhaps this explains Beret Guy's [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|strange powers]].

The title text alludes to the fact that irrespective of whether or not there is formal regulation, it is unwise to anger a group of people who have access to cursed magical items. It is easy to imagine numerous ways they could make one's life substantially worse.[[[285|''citation needed'']]]<noinclude>

==Transcript==
[Beret Guy is sitting in a board meeting]
:White Hat: We've discovered that your company doesn't do anything.
:Beret Guy: How is that possible?! We have so many chairs!

:White Hat: You need to find an industry to disrupt.
:Beret Guy: An...industry?
:Beret Guy: Oh, yeah!
:Beret Guy: The zoning thing from SimCity!

:White Hat: No, like, a kind of business.
:Beret Guy: How do I find those?
:White Hat: I don't know. What's something you spend a lot of money on?

[Beat panel]

:Beret Guy: You know those mysterious shops that sell you magical items, and then it turns out they're cursed, but when you go back later there's no sign the shop was ever there?
:Beret Guy: I get most of my stuff from those.
:Beret Guy: Like groceries.

:Hairy: We should go.
:Hairbun: Wait. High-value sales, no regulation, and when customers try to complain, they can't find you...
:Cueball: Maybe this ''is'' the perfect startup.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Beret Guy's Business]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]

1769: Never Seen Star Wars

2018-01-18T03:27:34Z

172.68.54.34: I think the theme is that neither has seen Star Wars, but by being afraid to admit it, he misses an opportunity to discover that she hasn't seen it either, which would have been a relief to both of them.

{{comic
| number = 1769
| date = December 7, 2016
| title = Never Seen Star Wars
| image = never_seen_star_wars.png
| titletext = If anyone calls you on any weird detail, just say it's from the Jedi Prince book series, which contains so much random incongruous stuff that even most Expanded Universe/Legends fans collectively agreed to forget about it decades ago.
}}

==Explanation==
[[White Hat]] tries to start a conversation with [[Cueball]] about the [[wikipedia:Star Wars|''Star Wars'']] space opera film franchise, which Cueball cuts short by stating that he has never seen the movies. This deeply astonishes White Hat. Because the movies are known worldwide and are ingrained into American pop culture, White Hat considers seeing ''Star Wars'' a universal experience.

Cueball reasons that not having watched the films is the "default option", the option that applies if a person makes no explicit choice. In this case it means that if a person does not make the explicit choice to watch the films, then they remain in their initial state of not having watched them. There is some (mildly flawed but still relevant) logic to this: it has been estimated that about 1 billion people, about 15% of the world's population, have seen at least one of the Star Wars movies. This means that about 85% of people alive today have, intentionally or otherwise, exercised that default option. Even accounting for people who have never had the option of seeing Star Wars movies (through poverty, age, country of residence, what have you) people who have not seen Star Wars are still in the majority.

However, the Star Wars mythology is so frequently referenced in American popular culture that it's difficult to consume a normal media diet in the US without being exposed to enough quotes, clips, references, parodies and analogies to piece together most of the plot and major scenes of the films, even having taken no action to see them. Even without having watched it, it's reasonable that White Hat would expect Cueball to know something about the series. He is right, as it happens, since Cueball is able to recognize that "{{w|Death Star}}" is a ''Star Wars'' reference, and later knows that Darth Vader is a major character and that there exists something known as Jedi.

When White Hat finally begins to grasp that Cueball has indeed not seen ''Star Wars'', he declares that they must see it very soon or even immediately. When Cueball again shows a lack of interest, White Hat seemingly calls in social reinforcements to agree with him that having watched ''Star Wars'' is the norm. Cueball feels threatened by his friend's unreasonably assertive behavior and quickly removes himself from the situation.

White Hat's attitude during this exchange can be contrasted with [[1053: Ten Thousand]], where Cueball instead handles a similar knowledge gap as an opportunity rather than something horrifying.

Later, [[Ponytail]] likewise wishes to start a conversation about ''Star Wars'', this time about a new movie coming out. Based on his previous experience, Cueball reconsiders admitting to not having seen the past movies, and instead pretends to be looking forward to the new one. Ponytail then tries to continue the conversation, so Cueball bluffs with an incorrect declaration that Darth Vader eats Jedi, likely constructed from other mentions of the ''Star Wars'' characters that he has overheard throughout his life. Cueball carefully chooses his words to make it seem as if he knows what he is talking about.

However, Ponytail doesn't call him out on this error, instead agreeing with it. Cueball is relieved—expressed as his thinking an onomatopoeic sigh of relief—as he believes he has guessed at an accurate piece of information and has avoided entering a similar situation to the previous one. The punchline of this part of the comic is Ponytail's identical feeling of relief, showing that she likewise hasn't seen ''Star Wars'', is also hiding this fact, and is also glad to not be caught. It may be inferred that Ponytail thinks not starting a conversation about ''Star Wars'' might expose her as someone who doesn't follow the series closely. It also might be viewed as his having lost an opportunity to meet and get to know another person who hasn't seen Star Wars, because he is too afraid of a repeat of the previous incident. So he meets another person also pretending to be interested in Star Wars, in spite of never having seen it (presumably to avoid the same sort of reaction, which she may have experienced in the past). By responding to her by pretending to actually be a "big fan", he forces her to keep up the charade, and they both leave thinking they "dodged a bullet", while if he had just been truthful, she would have admitted she had never seen it either, and perhaps a friendship could have developed based on their mutual lack of interest. This would make it a message about being honest with others even at the risk of disapproval.

The "{{w|Star Wars expanded universe|Expanded Universe}}" (EU) was the term used to refer to canonical content outside of original six motion pictures, including novels, comic books, and video games, which existed in a shared continuity. After the ''Star Wars'' franchise was acquired by Disney it was announced that the "Expanded Universe" would be discontinued and rebranded as "Legends", so that the new ''Star Wars'' movies would not have to adhere to the established EU canon.

The title text is a tip for people like Cueball, to help them hide deception when roped into conversations about the films. It argues that since the ''{{w|Jedi Prince series|Jedi Prince}}'' series of novels established so many strange concepts that don't mesh with most other canon information, it makes for an excellent scapegoat to blame ill-fitting declarations on, seeing as even the most devoted, well informed fan has agreed to forget the entire series. Casually bringing up such a forgotten series might also make the bluffer out to be extremely knowledgeable about the ''Star Wars'' franchise as a whole.

This comic may be inspired by the fact that a new ''Star Wars'' movie, ''{{w|Rogue One}}'', was released into American theaters on December 16, 2016, 9 days after the publishing of the strip.

The huge pop cultural success of Star Wars means it is genuinely surprising to encounter an individual who has not seen it (at least amongst the typical audience of XKCD). The TV series ''{{w|How I Met Your Mother}}'' had {{w|Do I Know You?|an episode}} based around this premise, and there is a radio comedy chat show on {{w|BBC Radio 4}}, as well as a television version in the UK titled ''{{w|I've Never Seen Star Wars (radio series)|I've Never Seen Star Wars}}'', in which celebrity guests try out experiences that are common to others, but new to them.

==Transcript==
[White Hat is facing Cueball while talking to him]
:White Hat: You know the scene on the Death Star where—
:Cueball: Nah, I've never seen ''Star Wars''.

[Close-up of White Hat in a smaller panel]
:White Hat: <big style="background:#000;color:#fff;">''WHAT.''</big>

[White Hat and Cueball are still facing each other]
:White Hat: ''…How?!''
:Cueball: Uh, it was easy?
:Cueball: It was literally the default option.

[Close up of Cueball, White Hat is speaking off-panel]
:White Hat: But… How did you—
:Cueball: Not doing things is my superpower. I'm not doing an infinite number of things ''as we speak!''

[White Hat and Cueball are still facing each other]
:White Hat: We ''have'' to watch it.
:Cueball: Nah, I'm good.

[White Hat has turned away from Cueball and has his hands to his mouth to shout to people off-panel. Cueball has likewise turned away as he walks away and is speaking back over his shoulder]
:White Hat: ''Hey everyone! This guy's never seen Star Wars!''
:Cueball: Listen, I gotta go.

{|class="wikitable"
|Later…
|}
[Ponytail is looking down at her phone in her left hand while Cueball is facing her]
:Ponytail: Wait, there's a new ''Star Wars''?
:Cueball: Oh, I've nev—
:Cueball: …Yeah! Excited for it! Big fan.

[Ponytail holds her phone to her side, transferred to her right hand, as she and Cueball face each other]
:Ponytail: What'd you think of the last one?
:Cueball: Uh… That Darth Vader, man.
:Cueball: Sure does love eating Jedi.

[Ponytail and Cueball continue facing each other]
:Ponytail: Haha, he sure does!
:Cueball [thinking]: Phew!
:Ponytail [thinking]: Phew!
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Star Wars]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

1768: Settling

2018-01-18T03:12:51Z

172.68.54.34: The title text means that since one cannot know what would have happened if they had made a different choice, the act of keeping score of times you made the "wrong choice" is necessarily a matter of speculation.

{{comic
| number = 1768
| date = December 5, 2016
| title = Settling
| image = settling.png
| titletext = Of course, "Number of times I've gotten to make a decision twice to know for sure how it would have turned out" is still at 0.
}}

==Explanation==

This is a chart showing when [[Randall]] made the wrong decision in leaving a place. It shows that he almost always was wrong in staying, and not in leaving to find something else to do. This kind of behavior, often tied to a need to fit in, is very common in teens, although some books and movies suggest that people do the opposite, and are wrong to do it. (An example, in ''The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy'', is that a woman meets an alien, who offers to take her off planet, but she goes back for her bag and never sees him again.)

People often stick with situations they are not happy with (a broken relationship, an unfulfilling career, a stale piece of cake) because they think sticking with the situation is better than throwing it away. This risk aversion can lead to people sticking with something a lot longer than they ought to if they want to be happiest. Humans' aversion to loss is common; you, being at the necessary reading level for this wiki, surely can easily recall many times when you feared to lose access to something or someone you valued.

Economists and behavioral scientists refer to this behavior as the "sunk cost fallacy", more formally known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment Escalation of commitment]. Colloquially, this is a situation where resistance to change is justified by the amount of effort or time already expended. A proverb recognizing the error in this thinking is [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/186789/etymology-of-throw-good-money-after-bad "Throwing good money after bad"], while a competing proverb seemingly justifying the behavior is [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_for_a_penny,_in_for_a_pound "In for a penny, in for a pound"]. The popular book [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow "Thinking, Fast and Slow"] by Daniel Kahneman details many "errors" in human decision-making, like our aversions to losses, the sunk cost fallacy and others.

The title text references a common thread in human regret, which is wondering whether we should have turned the other way when making a choice ("I would have...", "I could have...", "I should have...", et al). Randall points out that it is literally impossible to know how it would have turned out, perhaps urging readers to not regret their decisions and live in the moment. It also points out that the previous "scorecard" cannot be regarded as accurate, since a person is not given the luxury of knowing what WOULD have happened if they had made a different choice. Thus, one can assume that they mmade the wrong choice and would have been better off if they had left sooner, but in actuality, it may have turned out even worse. It is impossible to know, therefore he can't be positive that the times he "should have left" he didn't actually make the right choice.

Although knowing individual outcomes is impossible, and although it is difficult to separate correlation from causation when analyzing large numbers of decisions, rigorous attempts have been made. Notably, a paper titled [http://www.nber.org/papers/w22487 "Heads or Tails: The Impact of a Coin Toss on Major Life Decisions and Subsequent Happiness"]. The paper confirmed that "For important decisions (e.g. quitting a job or ending a relationship), those who make a change (regardless of the outcome of the coin toss) report being substantially happier two months and six months later."

==Transcript==

'''Life Scorecard'''

Times when I thought...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|"I'm not really happy here, but maybe this is the best I can expect and I'll regret giving it up."
|}

...It turned out I...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|Should have stayed||Should have left sooner
|-
| || || <strike>||||</strike> <strike>||||</strike> |||
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:1759: British Map

2018-01-18T02:53:56Z

172.68.54.34: It's "Norther Sea", not "North Sea".

Might be a bit of a stretch, but Cardigan could also be a reference to Ceredigion, the Welsh county. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.34|172.68.10.34]] 16:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:Ceredigion and Cardigan are the same word - Cardigan is just the Anglicised spelling. That's why it was formerly called Cardiganshire. The town is still called Cardigan, which is mentioned in the table. [[User:Schroduck|Schroduck]] ([[User talk:Schroduck|talk]]) 08:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Minas Tirith could be a reference to the gorges in North Somerset. It's slap-bang on Cheddar Gorge and Clifton Village (cliff-town) in Bristol is built on the side of the Avon Gorge. [[User:Camarones|Camarones]] ([[User talk:Camarones|talk]]) 12:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The actual location for Braintree should be Essex not North Yorkshire.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.171|141.101.98.171]] 15:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:When I first saw that, I was wondering how likely a [http://images.neopets.com/halloween/braintree.gif Neopets] reference was. Seeing that it's a real thing, and the creators of Neopets are from the UK, things make a lot more sense now. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.196|108.162.210.196]] 14:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Could Highland be a reference to Highlander? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.84|173.245.52.84]] 15:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I know you removed the </nowiki> that ruined the italics there, [[User:Davidy22|Davidy]]. Don't lie to me, you troll. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 19:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:Whoops, was removing autogenerated nowiki text from another user, missed the first tag. Also, that edit was completely unnecessary. 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::No it wasn't, see that "Please sign your comments" below? Leaving the <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> made the italics become quotemarks, and if there hadn't been a </nowiki> at the end of it, it would ruin the rest too. But thanks for apologizing, just try to be more careful. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 20:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Blick could be referring to Wick , at the top of Scotland ''Please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''

''Waterdown: Near [the actual] Grimsby'' Interestingly enough, in southern Ontario, Canada, there's a Waterdown not far from a Grimsby. Waterdown is considered part of Hamilton, and is towards its northwestern edge, while Grimsby is to Hamilton's east. --[[User:VonAether|VonAether]] ([[User talk:VonAether|talk]]) 17:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The protractor off the West coast of Scotland is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mull_of_Kintyre_test
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.215|141.101.98.215]] 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Blick could also be Oldmeldrum.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.229|162.158.234.229]] 19:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Why aren't the coordinates part of the first table? [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Waterdown perhaps another Watership Down reference? [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 20:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Pity there's no [[wikipedia:Towcester|Towcester]] :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.251|141.101.98.251]] 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Lakebottom" is equated with Lake Windermere (probably correct, largest lake in the Lake District) and the table states that many waterspeed records were set there. Arguably it is Coniston Water (same area, third largest "Lake" in the region) that is more (in) famous for speed records... Not that Randall references speed at all. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.159|141.101.98.159]] 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this, Windermere was home to only one (successful) water speed record attempt. Coniston is more popular for them as it doesn't have as many islands, so you can get a longer run in. Also, whichever one it is, it is drawn roughly east-west, whereas both Coniston and Windermere run north-south.

For me, the lake with the two boats is an obvious reference to the children's book 'Swallows and Amazons'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swallows_and_Amazons#Places_in_Swallows_and_Amazons See wikipedia] -- so these are neither speedboats nor yachts but rather sailing dinghies. There is however a discrepancy: they had a gaff rig, but it looks like Randall gave them a Bermuda rig.

Helcaraxë and Blick seem to share a single dot. Maybe Randall forgot to put a dot there, or there's some other reason? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.112|108.162.216.112]] 22:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:Helcaraxë and Highlands are areas, not towns, so don't get dots. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.32|198.41.239.32]] 07:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

since Randal Munroe wrote the comic, and he is an american, the map WAS labeled by an american[[User:Jessep13|Jessep13]] ([[User talk:Jessep13|talk]]) 00:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

‘Seasedge’ and ‘Eyemouth’ look like they should be Seahouses and Lynemouth. So far as I can tell, Seasedge is marked as a little north of Seahouses, roughly west of Lindisfarne (which suggests Haggerston; regardless, north Northumberland coast), and Eyemouth is marked approximately where Ashington should be; ‘Hairskull’ appears to be where Durham should be. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.160|141.101.98.160]] 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"BBC Channel 4" might also be a reference to Torchwood and other BBC Shows that were filmed in Wales (though did not necessarily air on Channel 4) [[User:Bpendragon|Bpendragon]] ([[User talk:Bpendragon|talk]]) 03:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, "Channel 4" is a channel not related to the BBC, so the reference to "BBC Channel 4" would be a mash-up between "Channel 4" and "BBC4" [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Wessex", although "obsolete" as a place name, is still in common use as a descriptive term. For example, there is both a Wessex Police Force and a Wessex Water supply company. [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 08:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I know the "Fhqwhgads" reference from the Ikea-ripoff video game Home Improvisation - always thought it was a pun in that game on Ikea's Swedish product names. Is the Homestar Runner reference older? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.162|141.101.98.162]] 09:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:I always thought it originated in Homestar Runner as a randomly typed name of an email sender. It's from Strong Bad Email #9 dated January 14, 2002, far predating Home Improvisation from 2015. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.243|108.162.221.243]] 14:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Aidenn" is an alternate form of "Eden." It's best known for Poe's using it in "The Raven." If the actual location is Merseyside, it could be a wordplay suggesting divine mercy. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The “hey then” explanation for “Aidenn” is so tortured as to be implausible. It should be changed per the above comment. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.81|172.68.55.81]] 13:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The text [[http://cogink.com/cleese/]] that is referenced for "The Shire" and attributed to John Cleese is actually a hoax, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/revocation.asp [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 10:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:And the reference in this piece to the incorrectness of "Devonshire" is completely wrong. Although the official name of the county is now "Devon", the form "Devonshire" has a pedigree going back over 1000 years and is still used in formations such as the Duke of Devonshire, HMS Devonshire, the Devonshire Regiment etc. The same goes for Dorset/Dorsetshire. [[User:Mikej|Mikej]] ([[User talk:Mikej|talk]]) 13:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"Tarp" probably refers to the meme "It's a tarp!": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=It%27s%20a%20tarp. [[User:Yodah|Yodah]] ([[User talk:Yodah|talk]]) 11:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

;Riffing on Boston?

The title text may be derivitive of an old joke around Randall's home town, where Boston has neighborhoods with geographically illogical names: The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the center we find the South End.
This is not to be confused with South Boston, which lies directly east from the South End.
North of the South End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End. BackBay was filled in years ago

Also, from the counties surrounding Boston: Norfolk is mostly south of Suffolk, except for a small gerrymandered piece that is in the middle between Suffolk and Middlesex.

;Bottoms
"Bottoms" are not confined to Northern England. We have many bottoms here in Kent, which is not Northern. (See Lock's Bottom and Pratt's Bottom.) Also, "bottom" may refer to somewhere that is lower than somewhere else, but not necessarily in a valley as such. Also also, snurk. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.143|141.101.98.143]] 12:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

: "Bottoms" is not confined to Europe either, so don't feel special - we land-dwellers in North America use it too, usually to mean 'Low-lying alluvial land adjacent to a river' as defined in the dictionary! In more general terms, this would refer to land subject to frequent flooding, commonly called a floodplain. If you have a bottoms that never floods, you really should consider renaming it. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 04:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

*And "-folk" is not common in place names. It exists in Suffolk and Norfolk but two (among thousands) can't be called common. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.143|141.101.98.143]] 12:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Crewneck could also refer to actual crewneck sweaters, popularised by The Beatles in the 60's. The Beatles came from Liverpool... {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.41}}

Blighton would be pronounced the same as the surname of Enid Blyton (1897-1968), a famous author of childrens' books known for their resolute white middle class-ness. But she is associated with southern England; she lived in Beaconsfield, west of London. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.82|172.68.55.82]] 16:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

While I found this comic funny, what I found most humorous was the reactions to it. Facts: Randall drew a map of Britain, he said it was labeled by an American, and it included both real and made-up place names. Unfortunately, it seems that those commenting here and generating this article interpreted it as an American-bashing opportunity. I interpreted it as this: to the average American, Britain has a LOT of funny names for places and struggles with using appropriate directional prefixes. It's extremely funny how so many of you chose to see it in the least funny way possible, likely because you can only see it through your own eyes! --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does it list "North Sea" as "no joke" when on the map it's written "Norther Sea"? There must be some explanation for writing it this way. Is it actually pronounced that way in England or something? It's sometimes called "Northern Sea" (or am I thinking of the one near Alaska? Maybe that's the joke?). Bu never "Norther Sea". Unless it's meant to sound like "Northersea", like "Battersea"? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 02:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1921: The Moon and the Great Wall

2017-11-27T19:08:03Z

172.68.54.34:

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/workinginspace/great_wall.html

gives something like an authoritative explanation togeter with photos taken from the ISS.

Summary: the great wall can't really be seen from space. But you may be able to spot its shape if the conditions are right. Such as light from the right direction (see the shadow), or snow accumulating on one side of the wall but not the other.

Jyrki Lahtonen

"The statement in the comic, however, is actually true." - It might be, but the part about the Great Wall in it is somewhat irrelevant - it is equally true also from anywhere else in the world. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.210.88|162.158.210.88]] 09:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah it's simply a reversal of the myth. "The Great Wall of China" could be replaced with "anywhere on Earth". But that would be less funny. [[User:Jdluk|Jdluk]] ([[User talk:Jdluk|talk]]) 10:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Great Wall is 13,000+ miles long, but only 35 feet wide. It's the narrowness that make it impossible to see from space. If we use thread (approx 1/100th of an inch wide) as an analogue, the GWC can be represent by a piece of thread 732 ft long (1.5 inches equals one mile), viewed from 5.5 feet away (equivalent to the 100 miles "edge of space"), or 1222 ft (22,000 miles geosynchronious orbit) or 2.5 miles (238,855 miles orbit of the moon) [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That's simply false. The Great Wall of China is another structure on the surface of a celestial body that can be seen with the naked eye from the Great Wall of China. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 19:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Those merlons are way too small. They are not going to protect Megan & Ponytail from incoming arrows. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1921: The Moon and the Great Wall

2017-11-27T19:05:38Z

172.68.54.34:

Talk:1914: Twitter Verification

2017-11-10T18:08:20Z

172.68.54.34:

Isn't it obvious? Twitter verified Kessler's account as a way of marking a public enemy, and distinguishing him from fake troll accounts. Now the internet is gonna fuck his shit up.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.135|162.158.74.135]] 07:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/jack/status/928658511311097856 Comic may relate to twitter's usage of the verification symbol. Randall might be mocking Twitter for not realizing how the verification symbol would be thought of as a symbol of importance. Character shown may be Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO. --[[User:Videblu|Videblu]] ([[User talk:Videblu|talk]]) 05:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of when the checkmark emoji on Mastodon (https://joinmastodon.org) was similar to the Twitter "verified" mark and anyone who wanted was a verified user. Then, people moved on to pineapples for whatever reason. -- --[[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe|(Arguments welcome)]]

How can a bot write this text? Does it automatically scan the text in the comic, somehow find a news page about the topic and copy its text? If that's the case, that's some pretty advanced AI and it should be applied to more things than this wiki. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, the bot only creates a new page with an image and a title text when a new comic goes online. See [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1914:_Twitter_Verification&action=history edit history] and [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:DgbrtBOT bot's profile] ;) The incomplete tag is kept even after people start editing the page, until it looks complete. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.218|141.101.96.218]] 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, I tip my hat to Fvalves for [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1914:_Twitter_Verification&diff=prev&oldid=147658 this edit] to the incomplete template! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.82|162.158.92.82]] 12:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:For posterity (and so future visitors don't have to wade through the edit history), the page was created by a bot and then edited by a non-bot, a Cylon, and a Verified Twitter User. It was later "verified by a creationist twit." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 18:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So how do I get verified on twitter? I'm real I tell you! I'm a real boy! I am Iam! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.71|162.158.69.71]] 14:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Sam

Twitter should just change the standard for who gets the checkmark to be the same as the Wikipedia notability standard: getting "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That seems to create few quarrels. An even easier solution for them is to make the requirement be having a personal Wikipedia page – that way, now it's Wikipedia's problem. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41|172.68.26.41]] 16:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:I'll add that maybe the badge would look less like an "endorsement" if it were just, say, a rectangle with an "R" for "real account", rather than something with such positive implications as a check mark (which you get on your good grades at school for example) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41|172.68.26.41]] 16:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
::DOES CAPS ALSO FEEL NATURAL? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I saw the end of this story on [https://www.fox.com/watch/4e9ac96523b454de771f95a4f775facb/ The Orville]. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I have always assumed this "verified account" thingy is available to anyone who applies for it and supplies an ID scan or something to prove their identity (not a twitter user, obviously). They just randomly give it to people as they see fit? WTF were they thinking? [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:As someone who has literally never been on Twitter, this doesn't seem hard. Why doesn't Twitter just give verified status to people who can verify who they are? User sends Twitter proof of their identity, if Twitter finds the proof satisfactory they make that account verified.[[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1914: Twitter Verification

2017-11-10T18:04:52Z

172.68.54.34:

Isn't it obvious? Twitter verified Kessler's account as a way of marking a public enemy, and distinguishing him from fake troll accounts. Now the internet is gonna fuck his shit up.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.135|162.158.74.135]] 07:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/jack/status/928658511311097856 Comic may relate to twitter's usage of the verification symbol. Randall might be mocking Twitter for not realizing how the verification symbol would be thought of as a symbol of importance. Character shown may be Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO. --[[User:Videblu|Videblu]] ([[User talk:Videblu|talk]]) 05:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of when the checkmark emoji on Mastodon (https://joinmastodon.org) was similar to the Twitter "verified" mark and anyone who wanted was a verified user. Then, people moved on to pineapples for whatever reason. -- --[[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe|(Arguments welcome)]]

How can a bot write this text? Does it automatically scan the text in the comic, somehow find a news page about the topic and copy its text? If that's the case, that's some pretty advanced AI and it should be applied to more things than this wiki. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, the bot only creates a new page with an image and a title text when a new comic goes online. See [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1914:_Twitter_Verification&action=history edit history] and [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:DgbrtBOT bot's profile] ;) The incomplete tag is kept even after people start editing the page, until it looks complete. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.218|141.101.96.218]] 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, I tip my hat to Fvalves for [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1914:_Twitter_Verification&diff=prev&oldid=147658 this edit] to the incomplete template! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.82|162.158.92.82]] 12:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:For posterity (and so future visitors don't have to wade through the edit history), the page was created by a bot and then edited by a non-bot, a Cylon, and a Verified Twitter User. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So how do I get verified on twitter? I'm real I tell you! I'm a real boy! I am Iam! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.71|162.158.69.71]] 14:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Sam

Twitter should just change the standard for who gets the checkmark to be the same as the Wikipedia notability standard: getting "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That seems to create few quarrels. An even easier solution for them is to make the requirement be having a personal Wikipedia page – that way, now it's Wikipedia's problem. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41|172.68.26.41]] 16:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:I'll add that maybe the badge would look less like an "endorsement" if it were just, say, a rectangle with an "R" for "real account", rather than something with such positive implications as a check mark (which you get on your good grades at school for example) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41|172.68.26.41]] 16:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
::DOES CAPS ALSO FEEL NATURAL? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I saw the end of this story on [https://www.fox.com/watch/4e9ac96523b454de771f95a4f775facb/ The Orville]. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I have always assumed this "verified account" thingy is available to anyone who applies for it and supplies an ID scan or something to prove their identity (not a twitter user, obviously). They just randomly give it to people as they see fit? WTF were they thinking? [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:As someone who has literally never been on Twitter, this doesn't seem hard. Why doesn't Twitter just give verified status to people who can verify who they are? User sends Twitter proof of their identity, if Twitter finds the proof satisfactory they make that account verified.[[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

572: Together

2017-11-02T22:11:09Z

172.68.54.34:

{{comic
| number =572
| date =April 22, 2009
| title =Together
| image =together.png
| titletext =This scavenger hunt is getting boring. Let's go work on the treehouse!
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] run away from two others (who look like Cueball and Megan as well) standing next to a box in an open field of grass. Together, Cueball and Megan become romantic, get married and retire in old age to a porch swing. Without a word, old Cueball leaves old Megan and returns to the same location shown in the first panel, as indicated by the same two people, now older and still standing beside the box. Old Cueball picks up a sheet of paper and checks off "HAPPINESS" from a list entitled "SCAVENGER HUNT," where the other items include INDIAN-HEAD PENNY, SNAKE SKIN, FOUR-LEAF CLOVER and SHARK TOOTH.

So finding happiness was just one item in what is presumably the longest-running {{w|scavenger hunt}} of all-time, considering Cueball grew significantly old during the hunt (the duration is as much as 70 years, since Cueball is having to use a cane). The comic ends with one of the three people asking, "What's next?"

The list indicates this is a hunt for somewhat rare items. The US {{w|Indian Head cent}} (penny) was produced from 1859 to 1909, making it somewhat rare. A {{w|four leaf clover}} is a rare variation of the common three-leaf clover. A shark tooth is not easy to obtain, especially from a live shark, unless you live near a beach with souvenir shops and even then you have to question whether the tooth really is from a shark and not some other animal. Like the shark tooth, the snake skin is a little easier to find but still challenging unless you live in the southwest United States. Even so, you have to find a snake and skin it or at least find a snake skin that has been shed by the animal while molting, but that might not qualify depending upon the requirements for "snake skin" since this is just the dead outer layer of the snake's skin.

The title of the comic is probably a reference to the saying that you find happiness ''together'' with your loved one. Cueball and Megan could have taken many different paths to find happiness, together or separate, but they chose togetherness as a way to find happiness, which is a common theme in love stories. But happiness is not something a person finds, it is an experience, hence the need to accumulate enough experiences to determine beyond doubt that happiness was truly found.

The title text indicates that after all this time, the players may abandon the game due to being bored with it, which is another genius punchline. The treehouse reference in the title text is another example of a common childhood activity. Naturally, the intended mental image of a bunch of old men and women building a treehouse and playing in it like six year olds is another punchline. It is also typical for children to tire of a game before it is finished. Except here, Cueball spent nearly a lifetime on just one part of this game! The idea of adults having a fort in the woods was also mentioned, rather darkly, in the title text of [[219: Blanket Fort]].

Three of the old people looks very similar to three of those standing in line in [[586: Mission to Culture]]. And much later in [[1910: Sky Spotters]] the two birdwatchers looks very much like the old version of Cueball and Megan.

==Speculation==

Why did Cueball wait until old age to confirm that he and Megan had found happiness? Two possible explanations: 1) he forgot they were playing a game (Megan may have forgotten or simply didn't connect Cueball's leaving her with the game) or 2) Cueball wanted to be certain that he had found happiness and not just some illusory sensation of happiness. Often, happiness is situational and temporal, requiring a statistically sufficient population of experiences before drawing a meaningful conclusion -- and even then with a probability for error. Knowing Cueball's penchant for math and science, the latter is a more likely explanation. This observation into a true characteristic of happiness is the genius of this comic.

The reader may wonder why the second pair of players didn't simply proceed to find the next items. One explanation is that this may be a tag-team scavenger hunt, where each item is found in the order listed and by alternating teams. So the other two people will now have the task of finding a four leaf clover somewhere.

One explanation for old Cueball's sailor cap is to indicate a cherished memory of them being together in the rowboat during their early courtship.

The reader may wonder why Cueball didn't invite Megan to share in the triumph of checking off the item, since they are shown together in the initial frame. One explanation is to create a plot twist and build suspense, invoking questions as to where Cueball was going, as well as propelling the action into the following scene. This may be unsatisfying because the reader must assume that Megan was in on the game from the beginning and therefore would be aware of the hunt, and if they were so much in love for so long, why wouldn't Cueball want to share the triumph with her of checking off this rare item from the list? It leaves a confusion that may never be cleared up and is just one of those unfortunate sacrifices to the art of storytelling. A better setup might have been to start with only Cueball and his friends, Megan is not involved in the game (although the reader would have to assume that Cueball met Megan somewhere, somehow). Then Cueball courted Megan, married her and grew old with her in happiness, then leaves her to return to his friend and the game -- this would have made more sense and been just as poignant. Leaving old Megan on the porch wondering, "What's happening, did I do something wrong, is my husband okay?" -- it seems rude for Cueball to just leave her without explanation and not fitting in with the premise of being happy together. Maybe Megan long ago gave up on the game and doesn't care about it anymore and Cueball never gave up on it, but this is just speculation.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are running in a field, holding hands. They are running away from another pair which also looks like Cueball and Megan. This pair stand in the background, next to a small box. There may be something lying on top of the box, but it is difficult to see clearly. The sun is shining above them.]

:[Cueball and Megan are in a boat on a lake, very romantic. Cueball is speaking to Megan, illustrated with a heart.]
:Cueball: ♡

:[Cueball and Megan sit together on a bench on a beach, watching the sunset.]

:[Cueball and Megan stand in front of an altar under a wedding arch, with confetti falling around them. He is wearing a butterfly and she a veil.]

:[Cueball and Megan, now old and wrinkled, sit together holding hands on their porch at the top of a small stair outside their house. He has a sailor cap on and Megan now wears her hair in a bun. Although the woman looks like [[Hairbun]], and the old man is wearing a sailor cap, we can assume this is still Megan and Cueball given the juxtaposition of the preceding panel.]

:[The same setting is depicted but seen from the side of the house. Cueball begins walking away from Megan using his cane. He has descended from the stair. Finally Megan speaks, and unusually there is a speech bubble, with an extra smaller bubble hanging on to it for the second sentence.]
:Megan: Dear? Where are you-
:Megan: Come back!

:[Cueball approaches an old couple, presumably the kids from the first panel now turned old. They seem tired looking down all the time. The man only has hair around his neck and also a cane. The woman has long thinning hair. The box from the first panel is between Cueball and the other two. On top of it lies a piece of paper]

:[Same picture except that Cueball is now standing still and has picked up the paper from the box and writes on it with a pen. Again there is a speak bubble.]
:Cueball: Okay,

:[The paper is shown. It is a scavenger hunt list with at least six items. The three first items have been checked off. The last item is blocked by the speech bubble, but can be seen to be there from the check box.]
:Scavenger hunt:
:☒ Indian-head penny
:☒ Snake skin
:☒ Happiness
:☐ Four-leaf clover
:☐ Shark tooth
:☐
:Cueball (off-panel): What's next?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Wedding]]

572: Together

2017-11-02T22:08:30Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number =572
| date =April 22, 2009
| title =Together
| image =together.png
| titletext =This scavenger hunt is getting boring. Let's go work on the treehouse!
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] run away from two others (who look like Cueball and Megan as well) standing next to a box in an open field of grass. Together, Cueball and Megan become romantic, get married and retire in old age to a porch swing. Without a word, old Cueball leaves old Megan and returns to the same location shown in the first panel, as indicated by the same two people, now older and still standing beside the box. Old Cueball picks up a sheet of paper and checks off "HAPPINESS" from a list entitled "SCAVENGER HUNT," where the other items include INDIAN-HEAD PENNY, SNAKE SKIN, FOUR-LEAF CLOVER and SHARK TOOTH.

So finding happiness was just one item in what is presumably the longest-running {{w|scavenger hunt}} of all-time, considering Cueball grew significantly old during the hunt (the duration is as much as 70 years, since Cueball is having to use a cane). The comic ends with one of the three people asking, "What's next?"

The list indicates this is a hunt for somewhat rare items. The US {{w|Indian Head cent}} (penny) was produced from 1859 to 1909, making it somewhat rare. A {{w|four leaf clover}} is a rare variation of the common three-leaf clover. A shark tooth is not easy to obtain, especially from a live shark, unless you live near a beach with souvenir shops and even then you have to question whether the tooth really is from a shark and not some other animal. Like the shark tooth, the snake skin is a little easier to find but still challenging unless you live in the southwest United States. Even so, you have to find a snake and skin it or at least find a snake skin that has been shed by the animal while molting, but that might not qualify depending upon the requirements for "snake skin" since this is just the dead outer layer of the snake's skin.

The title of the comic is probably a reference to the saying that you find happiness ''together'' with your loved one. Cueball and Megan could have taken many different paths to find happiness, together or separate, but they chose togetherness as a way to find happiness, which is a common theme in love stories. But happiness is not something a person finds, it is an experience, hence the need to accumulate enough experiences to determine beyond doubt that happiness was truly found.

The title text indicates that after all this time, the players may abandon the game due to being bored with it, which is another genius punchline. The treehouse reference in the title text is another example of a common childhood activity. Naturally, the intended mental image is a bunch of old men and women building a treehouse and playing in it like six year olds is another punchline. It is also typical for children to tire of a game before it is finished. Except here, Cueball spent nearly a lifetime on just one part of this game! The idea of adults having a fort in the woods was also mentioned, rather darkly, in the title text of [[219: Blanket Fort]].

Three of the old people looks very similar to three of those standing in line in [[586: Mission to Culture]]. And much later in [[1910: Sky Spotters]] the two birdwatchers looks very much like the old version of Cueball and Megan.

==Speculation==

Why Cueball waited until old age to confirm that he and Megan had found happiness? Two possible explanations: 1) he forgot they were playing a game (Megan may have forgotten or simply didn't connect Cueball's leaving her with the game) or 2) Cueball wanted to be certain that he had found happiness and not just some illusory sensation of happiness. Often, happiness is situational and temporal, requiring a statistically sufficient population of experiences before drawing a meaningful conclusion -- and even then with a probability for error. Knowing Cueball's penchant for math and science, the latter is a more likely explanation. This observation into a true characteristic of happiness is the genius of this comic.

The reader may wonder why the second pair of players didn't simply proceed to find the next items. One explanation is that this may be a tag-team scavenger hunt, where each item is found in the order listed and by alternating teams. So the other two people will now have the task of finding a four leaf clover somewhere.

One explanation for old Cueball's sailor cap is to indicate a cherished memory of them being together in the rowboat during their early courtship.

The reader may wonder why Cueball didn't invite Megan to share in the triumph of checking off the item, since they are shown together in the initial frame. One explanation is to create a plot twist and build suspense, invoking questions as to where Cueball was going, as well as propelling the action into the following scene. This may be unsatisfying because the reader must assume that Megan was in on the game from the beginning and therefore would be aware of the hunt, and if they were so much in love for so long, why wouldn't Cueball want to share the triumph with her of checking off this rare item from the list? It leaves a confusion that may never be cleared up and is just one of those unfortunate sacrifices to the art of storytelling. A better setup might have been to start with only Cueball and his friends, Megan is not involved in the game (although the reader would have to assume that Cueball met Megan somewhere, somehow). Then Cueball courted Megan, married her and grew old with her in happiness, then leaves her to return to his friend and the game -- this would have made more sense and been just as poignant. Leaving old Megan on the porch wondering, "What's happening, did I do something wrong, is my husband okay?" -- it seems rude for Cueball to just leave her without explanation and not fitting in with the premise of being happy together. Maybe Megan long ago gave up on the game and doesn't care about it anymore and Cueball never gave up on it, but this is just speculation.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are running in a field, holding hands. They are running away from another pair which also looks like Cueball and Megan. This pair stand in the background, next to a small box. There may be something lying on top of the box, but it is difficult to see clearly. The sun is shining above them.]

:[Cueball and Megan are in a boat on a lake, very romantic. Cueball is speaking to Megan, illustrated with a heart.]
:Cueball: ♡

:[Cueball and Megan sit together on a bench on a beach, watching the sunset.]

:[Cueball and Megan stand in front of an altar under a wedding arch, with confetti falling around them. He is wearing a butterfly and she a veil.]

:[Cueball and Megan, now old and wrinkled, sit together holding hands on their porch at the top of a small stair outside their house. He has a sailor cap on and Megan now wears her hair in a bun. Although the woman looks like [[Hairbun]], and the old man is wearing a sailor cap, we can assume this is still Megan and Cueball given the juxtaposition of the preceding panel.]

:[The same setting is depicted but seen from the side of the house. Cueball begins walking away from Megan using his cane. He has descended from the stair. Finally Megan speaks, and unusually there is a speech bubble, with an extra smaller bubble hanging on to it for the second sentence.]
:Megan: Dear? Where are you-
:Megan: Come back!

:[Cueball approaches an old couple, presumably the kids from the first panel now turned old. They seem tired looking down all the time. The man only has hair around his neck and also a cane. The woman has long thinning hair. The box from the first panel is between Cueball and the other two. On top of it lies a piece of paper]

:[Same picture except that Cueball is now standing still and has picked up the paper from the box and writes on it with a pen. Again there is a speak bubble.]
:Cueball: Okay,

:[The paper is shown. It is a scavenger hunt list with at least six items. The three first items have been checked off. The last item is blocked by the speech bubble, but can be seen to be there from the check box.]
:Scavenger hunt:
:☒ Indian-head penny
:☒ Snake skin
:☒ Happiness
:☐ Four-leaf clover
:☐ Shark tooth
:☐
:Cueball (off-panel): What's next?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Wedding]]

1907: Immune System

2017-10-26T13:42:49Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1907
| date = October 25, 2017
| title = Immune System
| image = immune_system.png
| titletext = It also helps with negotiation. "Look, if it were up to me, *I'd* accept your offer, but my swarm of autonomous killer cells literally can't be reasoned with. It's out of my hands!"
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, Ponytail is delivering an informative report to a group of listeners, likely important managers of some large company. She begins her lecture by stating she is the host of a microscopic autonomous swarm that will do anything to protect her. She is referring to the immune system, which could technically be defined as a "microscopic autonomous swarm" that will do anything to protect her -- i.e destroy pathogens such as viruses and bacteria, both of which cause multitudinous diseases in humans. Like many of the systems of the body, the immune system cannot be controlled by conscious thought, and should not be taken as unordinary.

The caption below reveals the method behind her madness. Randall claims that beginning any business presentation with a surreal description of one's own immune system is guaranteed to strengthen your case. Whether or not this is actually the case is irrelevant, the point of the comic is about "how cool the immune system is", and explains its coolness through an unconventional description of how the process works. Additionally, Ponytail's description implies more potential power than an immune system typically has, perhaps to to gain more respect/fear from the speaker's audience.

The title text elaborates further on this, stating that similar arguments can be used in negotiation. The description of the immune system is deliberately misleading, implying that the immune system may attack the other negotiator if the terms of the deal aren't satisfactory. While it is correct that your immune cells cannot be reasoned with and theoretically it could cause an anaphylactic shock in the targeted organism, the veiled threat omits the fact that the immune system 1) is unaffected by external negotiations conducted by its host, 2) is incapable of attacking things outside of the body{{Citation needed}}, and 3) would have to overcome the target's own immune system.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Ponytail is standing in front of a boardroom, holding a stick up to the board. Cueball, Megan and Hairbun are in the audience, sitting at a long table; an extra, unoccupied chair is in the front.]
:Ponytail: My body hosts an autonomous microscopic defensive swarm that will do anything to protect me.
:Ponytail: I have no ability to restrain it and I don't know my own power.
:Ponytail: So listen up.
:Ponytail: Sales grew by 4% this quarter...

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Business protip: You can strengthen any presentation by opening with a reminder about how cool immune systems are.

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:1905: Cast Iron Pan

2017-10-20T14:26:07Z

172.68.54.34:

Wouldn't you mean solstices instead of equinoxes? Why travel to the Arctic during an equinox? The day is 12 hours long there during an equinox just the same as anywhere in the world. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.233|108.162.246.233]] 04:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC) An Arctic Inhabitant
:There is only one solstice (the summer one) that has 24-hour sunlight (a.k.a. midnight sun) in the Arctic circle. However, near the North pole, you have close to 6 months of daylight (a.k.a. polar day), bounded by the equinoxes. So, you could theoretically visit the North Pole in late March and mid-September to have two days of 24-hour sunlight nearly 6 months apart. [[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe|(Arguments welcome)]] (From the subtropics) 
::It is also for this reason it says close to the equinoxes. At the equinoxes the sun sets for the first time in 6 months at one of the poles (rises at the other), splitting that 24 hour cycle in two times 12 hours of sun/no sun. And then it either stays up of stays down the next half a year. So if you come just after the sun rose and then again just before the sun sets on the North Pole you could get 24 hours sun shine with about a half year apart, but not completely. So this is White Hat's objection, although the title text also states that it doesn't have to be equally spaced. But in White Hat's opinion (of his teasing Cueball) it should be exactly half a year apart, and probably preferably on the two poles when the sun is highest at the Summer/Winter Solstices... ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to make sure, the "iron filings" part has no real use. Isn't it? --[[User:Lou Crazy|Lou Crazy]] ([[User talk:Lou Crazy|talk]]) 09:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
:Yes the two last advice has no meaning and also has no myth they are based on. The soap myth may be a problem if the coating is just oil based and could in principle be a problem with some old pans --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to throw away pans if the seasoning gets messed up, just reseason them, in case of rust or extreme gunk attack it with an angle grinder until it is shiny. Use safety equipment! Then reseason it. [[User:BlakeFelix|BlakeFelix]] ([[User talk:BlakeFelix|talk]]) 12:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that you don't want to use soap on a cast iron pan because the soap will get into the pores and cause any food you cook on it after that to taste like soap. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 14:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1865: Wifi vs Cellular

2017-07-19T19:03:59Z

172.68.54.34:

802.11n can go up to 600 Mbps, and the routers and cards that support it are very reasonably priced with the advent of 802.11ac. That's not to say that LTE isn't sometimes faster, but it's disingenuous to suggest that WiFi is always slower now. ~~Stephonovich~~

I'm not sure it applies in my country. While I have access to cellular internet that is somewhat faster than my home wifi, it is not nearly as reliable for important downloads and definitely several magnitudes costlier when it comes to, say, a Gigabyte of data. [[User:Xenos|Xenos]] ([[User talk:Xenos|talk]]) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Heck, it doesn't even apply in my area of the US (rural Maine). We have no cellular connection at all (well, if you stand at a window at the farthest end of the house, sometimes you can make a call), and the Internet connection for our computers is so slow that upgrading a new-to-me laptop to Windows 10 last week took 36 hours. Now I'm trying to add several thousand jpg images to my Google Drive; that takes about 75 minutes per 100 photos. While they're uploading I don't dare visit any other website. Something about keepalive pings not being able to get to the modem, which then shuts down the link altogether. [[User:MaineGrammy|MaineGrammy]] ([[User talk:MaineGrammy|talk]]) 08:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Panamax is probably a reference to [[1632]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.88|172.68.10.88]] 09:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that home wifi was even a thing that could be used widely by the public in the early 2000s. [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 15:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Apple's AirPort was introduced in 1999. So while it may not have been used widely, it was in use at my house. The graph mentions reliability, not ubiquity. [[User:Neopanamax|Neopanamax]] ([[User talk:Neopanamax|talk]]) 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
:Fair enough. I wasn't talking at all about reliability, I genuinely didn't know home wifi was available that early. [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The explanation says something about ubiquity, which seems odd in relation to HOME wifi - either you have it or you don't. The performance issue Randall mentions might be the WiFi itself, or might be down to the network; it's common for broadband solutions to be marketed as "up to", while never achieving close to the advertised speed (either through sharing the connection or range-related drop-off). Case in point, I have an ancient (~2004) ADSL connection that was supposed to be 8Mbit/s, and barely reaches 2; my home wifi (which as it happens I've just updated) isn't the sticking point - the upstream connection is. At some point I'll go optical and fix this, but my ADSL router is currently doing complicated things with IP translation and a fix isn't a trivial drop-in. I can't be the only one with iffy home data. Meanwhile, my cell phone's connection has healthily outperformed my ADSL from the moment it went 4G; I'm actively annoyed that my cell provider recently added a 12GB cap on tethered data, because operating system updates are appreciably faster if I link to my phone. Cellphone connections do have to share the available bandwidth across more users, but on the other hand they're less likely to suffer interference and poorly-implemented devices. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1865: Wifi vs Cellular

2017-07-19T19:02:56Z

172.68.54.34:

802.11n can go up to 600 Mbps, and the routers and cards that support it are very reasonably priced with the advent of 802.11ac. That's not to say that LTE isn't sometimes faster, but it's disingenuous to suggest that WiFi is always slower now.[[User:Stephonovich|Stephonovich}} ([[User talk:Stephonovich|talk]]) 18:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure it applies in my country. While I have access to cellular internet that is somewhat faster than my home wifi, it is not nearly as reliable for important downloads and definitely several magnitudes costlier when it comes to, say, a Gigabyte of data. [[User:Xenos|Xenos]] ([[User talk:Xenos|talk]]) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Heck, it doesn't even apply in my area of the US (rural Maine). We have no cellular connection at all (well, if you stand at a window at the farthest end of the house, sometimes you can make a call), and the Internet connection for our computers is so slow that upgrading a new-to-me laptop to Windows 10 last week took 36 hours. Now I'm trying to add several thousand jpg images to my Google Drive; that takes about 75 minutes per 100 photos. While they're uploading I don't dare visit any other website. Something about keepalive pings not being able to get to the modem, which then shuts down the link altogether. [[User:MaineGrammy|MaineGrammy]] ([[User talk:MaineGrammy|talk]]) 08:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Panamax is probably a reference to [[1632]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.88|172.68.10.88]] 09:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that home wifi was even a thing that could be used widely by the public in the early 2000s. [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 15:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Apple's AirPort was introduced in 1999. So while it may not have been used widely, it was in use at my house. The graph mentions reliability, not ubiquity. [[User:Neopanamax|Neopanamax]] ([[User talk:Neopanamax|talk]]) 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
:Fair enough. I wasn't talking at all about reliability, I genuinely didn't know home wifi was available that early. [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The explanation says something about ubiquity, which seems odd in relation to HOME wifi - either you have it or you don't. The performance issue Randall mentions might be the WiFi itself, or might be down to the network; it's common for broadband solutions to be marketed as "up to", while never achieving close to the advertised speed (either through sharing the connection or range-related drop-off). Case in point, I have an ancient (~2004) ADSL connection that was supposed to be 8Mbit/s, and barely reaches 2; my home wifi (which as it happens I've just updated) isn't the sticking point - the upstream connection is. At some point I'll go optical and fix this, but my ADSL router is currently doing complicated things with IP translation and a fix isn't a trivial drop-in. I can't be the only one with iffy home data. Meanwhile, my cell phone's connection has healthily outperformed my ADSL from the moment it went 4G; I'm actively annoyed that my cell provider recently added a 12GB cap on tethered data, because operating system updates are appreciably faster if I link to my phone. Cellphone connections do have to share the available bandwidth across more users, but on the other hand they're less likely to suffer interference and poorly-implemented devices. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

1841: Who?

2017-05-24T15:43:21Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1841
| date = May 24, 2017
| title = Who?
| image = who.png
| titletext = Gonna feel even dumber when I realize that all this time he's been talking into a bluetooth thingy and we're not actually friends.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Something is wrong with the links, and I do not know how to fix it}}
Cueball and Hairy are walking while Hairy is talking about going to a wedding by sharing a ride. He names three people: the groom, a friend with whom he's sharing the ride, and another person he hopes to meet on the way, perhaps another guest at the wedding. The ellipsis at the beginning indicates he's been talking beforehand, and Cueball has listened to all of it.

Cueball at first replies with an "it's cool" sentence, expressing satisfaction at the idea of Hairy meeting the people he mentioned. This usually happens when two people are talking about something they have in common, like meeting with friends at a social gathering.
However, Cueball suddenly expresses that he's been lying about knowing them, and he doesn't have any intentions of preserving such lie. Note that he didn't need to explicitly acknowledge to be those people's acquaintance, he might just have nodded or said expressions like "it's cool".

Part of a social need for inclusion, or as a way to continue a conversation, people sometimes agree with the person they are talking to, or feign knowledge of the people, things or topics that were mentioned.

The title text suddenly changes the situation by stating that it's possible Hairy has been talking to someone else using a Bluetooth earphone set. This hands-free device is used to communicate via phone call and is small in nature and only visible from one side of the face, so anyone who comes across someone using this device can at first wonder whether they're actually talking to them, because no phone can be seen. This situation could mean that Cueball has been hearing and / or talking to this person, who might not even be his acquaintance, given that he knows people that Cueball doesn't seem to know about, and that he might not actually be his friend. This is a hilarious exaggeration of people with some attention problems.

The title text is an allusion to [https://xkcd.com/476/], where Randal doesn't realize who the other person is talking to.

In [https://xkcd.com/302/] Cueball also has difficulty with names.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking from left to right while Hairy follows him.]
:Hairy: ...I'm getting a ride with Katie to Adam's wedding. Hoping to see Brian on the way!
:Cueball: Oh, that's cool!
:Cueball: ...I can't keep living this lie, so I'm just gonna come out and admit it: I have no idea who any of the people you keep mentioning are.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]

1833: Code Quality 3

2017-05-05T18:22:16Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1833
| date = May 5, 2017
| title = Code Quality 3
| image = code_quality_3.png
| titletext = It's like a half-solved cryptogram where the solution is a piece of FORTH code written by someone who doesn't know FORTH.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Still needs to explain what example code is.}}

This comic is a direct continuation of [[1513: Code Quality]] and [[1695: Code Quality 2]] in the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality]] series, in which Ponytail continually insults Cueball's code style. In this comic, as in the previous, Cueball does not directly appear, only speaking off-panel; however, as it is a continuation of the series, it is clear that this is Cueball's code.

In the first panel, Ponytail references {{w|query string|query strings}}, which store information, such as search queries or page numbers, relevant to the URL. Query strings are not meant to be especially human-readable, so a song based on one would likely not be a good one.

A tactical light is a light that can be mounted on a gun for use in low-light scenarios. They tend to be very durable and very bright. Different models have different features and capabilities, so they are given cool-sounding model numbers. A JSON table of these model numbers would look like random data.

{{w|Alan Turing}} was a British theoretical computer scientist, often considered the father of the field. His 1936 paper outlined Turing machines, a theoretical model for computing, as well as computability and the halting problem. Theoretical computer science is very different from practical coding; understanding the contents of the paper would not at all help a coder to understand today's algorithms, design patterns, and best practices.

In the final panel, Ponytail references {{w|leet|leet-speak}}, in which symbols are replaced with similar-looking symbols, and a {{w|manifesto}}, a statement of a person or group's beliefs and intentions. A manifesto from a survivalist cult leader might be nonsensical, even before being translated to leet-speak. Memory allocation is a low-level computer programming concept; most modern languages have features that take care of memory allocation for the programmer, possibly implying that Cueball does not know how to use these features.

At this point Cueball, quickly becoming impatient with Ponytail's sass, retorts that if she can't start giving him the constructive criticism that he's looking for, he can always find someone else to replace her. Ponytail smugly responds that nobody else would be able to stomach his code for more than one sitting, and that she's the only one he's got.

{{w|Forth_(programming_language)#Programmer.27s_perspective|Forth}} is an old programming language that tends to be difficult to read. A {{w|cryptogram}} is a cipher puzzle, generally one easy enough to be solved manually. The title text implies that the code is so bad that it looks like unreadable FORTH code that is missing random characters.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail sitting in front of a computer screen typing. Cueball speaks only off-panel, but since this is a direct continuation of comic 1513 and 1695: Code Quality and Code Quality 2 where Cueball is shown, there can be no doubt it is him.]
:Ponytail: Your code looks like song lyrics written using only the stuff that comes after the question mark in a URL.
:Cueball (off-panel): Sorry.
:[Zoom in on Ponytail's upper body.]
:Ponytail: It's like a JSON table of model numbers for flashlights with "tactical" in their names.
:[Zoom back out again. Ponytail has lifted her hands off the table.]
:Ponytail: Like you read Turing's 1936 paper on computing and a page of JavaScript example code and guessed at everything in between.
:[Zoom in again on Ponytail's face.]
:Ponytail: It's like a leet-speak translation of a manifesto by a survivalist cult leader who's for some reason obsessed with memory allocation.
:Cueball (off-panel): I can get someone else to review my code.
:Ponytail: Not more than once, I bet.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Code Quality]]

1832: Photo Library Management

2017-05-04T15:04:44Z

172.68.54.34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1832
| date = May 3, 2017
| title = Photo Library Management
| image = photo_library_management.png
| titletext = A good lifehack is to use messy and unstable systems to organize your photos. That way, every five years or so it becomes obsolete and/or collapses, and you have to open it up and pick only your favorite pictures to salvage.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More explanation needed on what the comic is about, and the transcript is incomplete. The title text also needs to be explained.}}

The comic is split into 6 sectors as described below:
{| class="wikitable"
!Sector
!Caption
!Explanation
|-
| Low Amount of Photos Taken, more than a little amount of time to sort
| No Problems
| With only a few photos to sort, and lots of time to do so, Randall is able to maintain his photo library efficiently.
|-
| Area under line increasing where more time is spent as more photos are taken
| Can't find the good photos among the thousands of bad ones
| The amount of photos being taken is too high for Randall to adequately sort in the small amount of time he has.
|-
| Area above line of negative gradient, as number of photos increases and time decreases
| Can't Sleep, Too busy sifting through photos to find the best one
| Randall has taken too many photos, but has dedicated the time to sorting them. As a result, he is lacking sleep through his determination to complete the task.
|-
| Area in between both side lines, after No Problems but before cloud storage
| Phone library fits on most devices as long as they're not too old
| Randall takes quite a few photos, but still enough to fit on a more modern hard drive.
|-
| Area in between both side lines, after 'not too old' but before 'Moore's Law'
| Need cloud storage, external hard drives, or frequent upgrades
| Randall takes so many photos that he needs more storage than is on his computer to hold them.
|-
| Area after 'cloud storage', going off until the two side lines meet
| Photo library grows faster than Moore's Law
| {{w|Moore's Law}} is a law that states that technology will keep getting better exponentially. However, Randall's photos take up so much space that even Moore's law can't catch up to the number of photos stored.
|}

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

A graph with the x axis being number of photos taken per day and y axis being the time spent going through photos per day, divided into six sections:

Section 1: Few photos taken per day, no limit to time spent: "No Problems"

Section 2: Some photos taken per day, a limited amount of time spent going through: "Photo Library Fits On Most Devices As Long As They're Not Too Old"

Section 3: More photos taken per day, less time spent going through: "Need Cloud Storage, External Hard Drive, Or Frequent Upgrades"

Section 4: A lot of photos taken per day, a very even less time spent going through: "Photo Library Grows Faster Than [http://www.mooreslaw.org/ Moore's Law]."

Section 5: Above line increasing where more time is spent as more photos are taken: "Can't Find The Good Photos Among The Thousands Of Bad Ones"

Section 6: Below line of negative gradient, as number of photos increases and time decreases: "Can't Sleep, Too Busy Sifting Through Photos To Find The Best One"
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Line graphs]]

Talk:1811: Best-Tasting Colors

2017-03-15T15:22:49Z

172.68.54.34:

This is obviously wrong because white chocolate is not [[378|real]] chocolate. Let the flamewar begin. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 15:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)