explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2983: Monocaster

2024-09-10T12:05:34Z

172.68.70.135:

Unicycles aren't (or at least aren't usually) chain-driven. I might try to fix that if my phone stops being so slow that it feels like I'm using a 90s PC to do this. Maybe a restart will help. Rebooting in 10, 9, 8... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.76|172.70.91.76]] 07:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:I just went in and Actual Citation Needed it (seeing lower comment, when editor reloaded this page for me, forcing me to rewrite, that may have changed now).
:*It doesn't look like a chain-drive. Could be hub-geared, but not the same thing.
:*Chain-drive to raise the rider (most of the mass) up higher will ''raise'' the CoG.
:*'Underslung' chain-drive (see 1880s example, [[1673: Timeline of Bicycle Design|here]]?) has problems. Pedals hitting the ground would be one of them, unless your wheel was indeed significantly larger...
:*...and if it is (perhaps for better off-roading?), this intrinsically pushes up the CoG. Perhaps you are trying to lower it slightly, again, then. But you can't bring the saddle (and crotch!) lower than the now higher top of the wheel. ("Timeline of Bicycles" version excepted, assumed assymetric? In [https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47de-4b7d-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99 some manner]?)
:Add to that a few niggles about the bicycle. Not sure if intended to be a Moulton-style one (wheels maybe the classic 17", frame totally wrong) or a roadbike-style-ish one (frame relatively Ok, as drawn by someone not fully adhering to the design, maybe confused by some MTB variations, but clearly not in the ~27" wheel range, give or take). Of course, wheels are neither concentric nor circular, so depends a bit on which bits of the 'circles' are right for the intended arc and which bits ended up more casually doodled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.99|172.70.91.99]] 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, Randall missed an opportunity to put a Penny-Farthing in there... though I'm not sure how that would have categorised given that it has two wheels of different sizes. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:He has a "Big Wheel Trike" (child's low-rider style thing) in there. On the logarithmic scale, and imprecise reference point (bottom/middle(/CoG,where different)/top of wheel/vehicle/rider/whole?), both the big front wheel and the small trailing wheels colpd be in the right place-ish, although having it slightly inclined could put them in the (place Tandall considers to be) ''exactly'' right place. ((Note also where the 10(?)-wheeler truck-and-trailer is placed horizontally vs the possibly relevent "number of wheels".))
:You could do something similar with the Old Ordinary (i.e. "Penny-Farthing"), either make it roughly right or depict going up a ''marginally'' steeper hill. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.142|172.69.194.142]] 09:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: unicycles, the COG thing doesn't look right either, but I was distracted by a (thankfully) now-deleted troll comment before and actually fixing the description is beyond my skills, especially on so little sleep.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 08:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:i had good intentions, we need to call randall out --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.122|172.69.194.122]] 09:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Call him out for *what* exactly? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 12:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

As a unicyclist myself, I don't think the unicycle is easier to balance because of a lower center of mass and a chain drive. As a few others have mentioned, they don't normally have a chain drive, although there are a few specialist ones that do. Normally, the cranks are just attached to the hub so you can directly control the speed of the wheel at a 1 to 1 ratio, which makes it easier to balance on. The other thing that would make the unicycle easier than the monocaster is that you can control what direction the wheel is pointing by turning the seat with your thighs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.128|172.68.186.128]] 09:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1456: On the Moon

2024-09-04T18:51:40Z

172.68.70.135:

'''Transcript'''

I don't see why the transcript is incomplete, it looks pretty complete and all there to me... [[User:Official.xian|Official.xian]] ([[User talk:Official.xian|talk]]) 14:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:Agreed, removed incomplete tag. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I wondered if the cartoon is about sex discrimination. After all, when people went to the moon, nobody even considered (as far as I know) letting a woman go on an Apollo flight. Megan might be saying "Land a ''man'' on the moon?" Or she might be tired of Cueball saying this and be obliquely suggesting NASA send him there on a one-way trip! [[User:Gade|Gade]] ([[User talk:Gade|talk]]) 15:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that only means that you are blinded by the alienation caused by the noxious media sites you visit. This strip is clearly about doing a 'real' manned moonlanding instead of that fake hollywood footage from 1969 that doesn't look anything like the photos taken last year from the chinese lander. --[[User:Loon|Loon]] ([[User talk:Loon|talk]]) 18:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:Appropriate handle, considering that half-baked claims that the moon landings were faked have been debunked so many times over the past forty years. In fact, XKCD #[[1441]] (Turnabout) only works *because* we landed on the moon.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:That was my initial interpretation. As for the debunking, the day you can explain away the photographs which are obvious fakes, i'll start to consider believing the rest of what they had to say. If you lie about one thing, why should anything else you say on the subject be believed? We've still been there now, and anyway, it had nothing to do with this, and all to do with the description above about the ironic statement. [[User:Badwolf|Badwolf]] ([[User talk:Badwolf|talk]]) 12:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::I have to go. Your stupidity is causing me to lose brain cells, Badwolf.

Is there a reference for the claim "Unmanned hardened pre-cooled robotic probes either got crushed or fried before landing, or survived only a couple of hours at most."? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:Yes. The Venera probes. Citation provided. --Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:(Well, you got me an edit conflict, after checking, editing and reviewing,but here's what I wrote.)
:That's not the way I would phrase that claim, but it sounds like it's Venera 9 and its similar successors being talked about, with the "pre-cooling".
:A brief check of a book I have (no, I've never heard of The Internet) suggests that the complete list of landers that actually got to Venus are as follows:
::Venera 3 (descent probe, probably crashed, communications failed before approach)
::Venera 4 (descent probe, ran out of power before destroyed in the atmosphere)
::Venera 5 (descent probe, may have crushed at late stage of descent while still powered)
::Venera 6 (descent probe, as V5)
::Venera 7 (23 minutes of faint recordings from surface, probably landed on side after rough landing)
::Venera 8 (50 minutes on surface before going silent)
::Venera 9 (53 minutes, before radio contact with orbiter lost and not regained)
::Venera 10 (can't find timing details)
::Venera 11 (95 minutes, before contact with orbiter lost)
::Venera 12 (110 minutes)
::Venera 13 (a confirmed 127 minutes)
::Venera 14 (57 minutes, ditto; managed to "measure its own lens-cap" in the intended soil-compressibility experiment!)
::Vega 1 (no time information for Venus Lander component
::Vega 2 (56 minutes for on surface for Venus Lander component)
::Pioneer (an hour, for one of three landers on the mission)
:Knowing the surface environment (temperature and pressure) and the design specs it can be assumed that Venera 13's confirmed 127 minutes of operation is near the top-end of functionality and that those that merely went out of range would have had not much more survival time. Although by the time of the final Veneras the expected survival time was only 30 minutes, and yet they may have lasted at least twice as long, so who knows... (Also note the possible usage of "a couple of hours" in relation to [[1070]].)
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.247|141.101.98.247]] 17:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::That looks like an XKCD comic in and of itself. {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.72}}

Man, for a minute I thought the second 'MAN' refers to a truck from the car company [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAN_Truck_%26_Bus MAN]. They are rather heavy. 5 December 2014 {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.139}}

I thought "land" was a euphemism. Read it again and tell me what you think. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.153|108.162.215.153]] 03:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)OctopodesC

Seems like "still lack a coherent vision" is a bit too editorial, especially given the launch and return of the Orion capsule. "Coherent vision" or its lack might be in the eye of the beholder... [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 11:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

;Aide explanation

The "no return" part instantly reminded me of [http://www.mars-one.com/ Mars One], a project to land people on Mars and never return them back on Earth. The most prominent reason for the impossibility of return are (1) the amount of fuel that has to be carried to Mars to be able make it back is insane (Tsiolkovsky's equation). {{unsigned|Shnatsel}}

:"we" vs "we"

When I read the comic, I thought the joke here was that 'we' (humanity) can place a man on the moon, but we (Cueball et al.) can't; to which Cueball responds that they're working on it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.153|108.162.254.153]] 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The explanation gives an 8:12 ratio for moonwalkers, however, weren't there other astronauts that didn't land on the moon, but also didn't die? I thought the overall rate of deaths was around 5% (just looked it up, top link has 7.5% http://www.penmachine.com/2003/02/is-being-astronaut-most-dangerous-job.html), so 8:12 is cherry-picking, right? {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.140}}
:Going into low-earth orbit and going to the moon are to very different ball games. I think the distinction is fair. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.65|108.162.223.65]] 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I assumed Megan was preemting Cueball from making a logical fallacy (a bad analogy a.k.a. [[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/36-appeal-to-the-moon Appeal to the moon]]), by suggesting the only thing that logically follows: that it's possible to land a man on the moon. --[[User:Strindhaug|Strindhaug]] ([[User talk:Strindhaug|talk]]) 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

;T-38 and F-104 crashes are immaterial. "8:12" ratio is invalid.

There's a major ''apples vs. oranges'' comparison being made here.

You're really lumping the risk of pointy-nosed-airplane flying in with the risk of flying on moon-landing missions (while you're missing info on the number pointy-nosed-airplane flights, the number of people who flew them, etc.).

Flying an airplane is an ''ordinary'' activity, especially for those selected as astronauts. Those in the pool of people who are candidates for astronaut, would, if not selected, otherwise ''still'' be flying pointy-nosed-airplanes, likely in war (Vietnam), and likely with a ''greater chance'' of crashing (being shot down).

Oh! There's ''so much wrong'' with that "8:12" comparison. I'd like to go into it more, but there's not enough time. I think you-all get the idea though.

See the #1453 for commentary on bad methodologies. This "8:12" malarkey is a perfect example.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.103|108.162.219.103]] 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2969: Vice President First Names

2024-08-16T13:05:37Z

172.68.70.135: /* observation about related trends /

I mentioned [[1122]] in the description. Are there any other comics about election trends/rules? Well, [[2383]], of course. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.150|172.71.182.150]] 14:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In checking all names, surprised to see so many "né"s, but not overly surprised to see no "neé"s. (I mean, "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (née H. D. Rodham)" would have been one, of course, in a different trouserleg of time. But Harris stayed as "Harris", not taking/adding "Emhoff" from the person who may well become the first First Gentleman.) Interesting though. Had to resist adding "Dubya", "Ronnie" and "Rocky" nicknames, of course, as they were not the 'formal' nickname that the respective people prefered to go by. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.130|172.70.90.130]] 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Harris only actually met Emhoff in 2013, way after she started her political career - which I guess is why she didn't want to shake her 'brand' by switching her name up. The practise isn't nearly as automatic these days as it used to be. And re:other nicknames, I only mentioned Ike's cause as far as I know it's the case where it was embraced by his campaign the most. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.115.103|172.70.115.103]] 22:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::My only knowledge doesn't ''quite'' stretch far enough back to know if John "Jack" F. Kennedy was often identified as such as a contemporaneous slightly-familiar-but-public-facing name (it's used by recollections of his contemporaries and peers, and historic depictions of those who were more casual). "Ike" of course was great for his chosen slogan.
::Other than that, I know that the likes of (Tricky-)Dicky and Ronnie were used publicly by detractors, or at least those who weren't likely to be saying them to their faces (though I'm sure "Ron" and "Ronnie" were also used by Jane and Nancy, personally). Of course "Mr President", and Sir-like honorifics, would have been the more public in-person address for all of them.
::There'd be a lot of personal preference, that would be interesting to analyse from transcripts of conversations at various levels of formality. I'd say, though, that generally the earlier (culturally) they got established, perhaps the more they'd be used to a more formal address, but the younger they were established in the public eye (seeking to establish themselves) then the more likely they were to 'debut' with a handy shortened name. Add a bit of personal preference ("Not 'Don', please") or difficulty to make a casual version ("Kama? Kam? Mala?" ...maybe also more difficult with unfamiliar names not already having well known alternatives in the given sphere, though I've seen the opposite, e.g. {{w|Shaparak Khorsandi|"Shappi" being thought handier than "Shaparak"}}) and there's probably a number of confounding factors, but the tendency towards informal/casual or even outright depricative in recent years has probably rid culture of the original ("don't call me Thomas, only my mother and my old teachers call me Thomas...").
::I think Jimmy Carter got in there early. Relatively young, when aquiring his 'electoral name', and the dactyl "James Carter" doesn't trip as easily as the double-trochee that already fit with a whole slew of predecessors (though his immediate predecessor was anapestic) and successor. The "eighties onwards" trend has seemed to bend towards more casual for most people, though. Exceptions generally having humps in the road to going along with this idea. ("Barry" Obama doesn't improve the syllables at all, and seems to have most use as a dismissive informality by detractors.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.145|172.70.86.145]] 11:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Going from the beginning you're pretty much limited to Johns and a Levi prior to the chart. There a few potential Hanks and Bills, and a possible Ted more commonly referred to as Teddy. I've never heard anyone refer to Tom Jefferson or Chet A. Arthur. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:What about {{w|Hannibal Hamlin|Hann}}? And, {{w|Schuyler Colfax|'Sky'}} (Unless you decide to pronounce the latter more like "Schu". Because, if you did, those two together would fit them like a {{wiktionary|Handschuh#German|glove}}...) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.157|172.68.186.157]] 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, it seems that ''somebody'' has removed my earlier comment protesting the ongoing genocide that Harris supports. Has this wiki fallen too? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.130|172.70.90.130]] 17:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:A quick runthrough of article edits doesn't show anything of what you say, unless I've missed it as too subtle. But, I have to say, that the wording you use here is indicative of the problem being with your 'interpretation'. "Genocide" is a heavy allogation to make and such extraordinary claims would require extraordinary justification, not just talking points taken from the fast-and-loose fringes of public opinion. (Not to mention that if your political rivals were as wicked as that, then you'd be risking your life/freedom to oppose them. But, hey, you apparently have the free speech to say utter nonsense with!)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.173|172.70.86.173]] 17:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::check twitter [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.152|172.70.85.152]] 18:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, I checked it. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 19:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I mostly haven't checked it ever since Elon "check-marked" it with that X and made it impossible to browse/lurk effectively just to see what arguments were currently happening. Probably too late to actually get myself an account, anyway. But those already there are welcome to it; even with possible diamonds in the rough, there's no sense of FOMO from me... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.231|172.70.86.231]] 11:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::I think they're talking about the Talk, rather than the article - comment added at 16:20, and removed in the edit at 16:29 (possible it was just an edit conflict (as opposed to a conflict edit...), since the subsequent update was not small).[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.128|172.68.186.128]] 09:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like an opportunity was missed to point out how many presidents on the list have exactly 6 letters in their first name...Kamala, Donald, Donald, Barack, George, George, Ronald, Gerald, Lyndon, Dwight. It may be worth mentioning? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.153|172.70.131.153]]

About name shortening - a critique of the actual comic: I'm not sure about nationwide, but in his home state of Minnesota, VP Mondale -- when not called "Fritz" (which I noticed has been deleted from the table) -- was more often called "Walt" over "Walter". I remember when the state called up ol' Walt Mondale to replace the late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone after his tragic death in a plane crash up near the Arrowhead. (I was attending U of Minn at the time; they held the public memorial service in the basketball arena not far from my apartment.) --BigMal27 / [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.216|172.70.134.216]] 13:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Product naming also began to simplify in the late 20th century, driven by marketing strategies that favored brevity and memorability, exemplified by Apple's iconic "iMac" and "iPhone" products (again, cf. names like "Tandy 1000", "Ford F 500" or "Little Debbie's Oatmeal Creme Pies")." This feels cherry picked and apples-to-oranges. Referring to the iMac and iPhone product names in comparison to the combined brand and product name doesn't seem like a useful way to do it. F-500 is as short visually (if not syllabically) as iMac or iPhone, and while people mostly wouldn't have referred to a "1000" like they would an iPhone, Tandy 1000 seems pretty comparable to Apple iPhone. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.116|162.158.62.116]] 19:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a slightly stronger correlation considering monosyllabic names. "George" extends the observed trend to 1980 and adds two more Presidents to the tally. Meanwhile, "JD" would no longer qualify but that race is as yet undecided. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 13:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2966: Exam Numbers

2024-07-31T20:36:35Z

172.68.70.135: Noted that pre-algebra requires algebra to solve

pre-algebra: 4, calculus: pi^2 / 4 (about 2.467), physics: cosmological constant: depends on how you measure it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.48|162.158.167.48]] 18:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Game theory: -5x10⁶ (maybe helpful, maybe not... just be thankful I didn't include an ''i'' factor in there somewhere...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Could somebody reformat all the math here in whatever LaTeX plugin this wiki uses? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.102|162.158.222.102]] 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Probably not, because the MathML here is broken. But, also, nothing I see requires anything particularly complicated, it can all stay in fairly straightforward (standardly formatted) text. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.224|141.101.98.224]] 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I had to look up "TREE(3)." Seriousness aside, I think the largest number would be the astrological sign 1 that has its end_points_ as galaxy clusters.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.184|172.68.245.184]] 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Infinity is _not_ a number. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If infinity _is_ a number, it might be a possible solution to the game theory question. The average of any set of numbers that includes infinity is infinity, and infinity + 10 is still infinity. I probably wouldn't try that in most classes, but a game theory professor might approve "gaming" the system, as it were.
:If I would prefer no-one (else) to win, I might submit -∞ as my answer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.74|172.70.90.74]] 20:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Infinity is absolutely not a number, and is the one answer I would mark as unambiguously wrong for the last one. Just say TREE(G_64) or something. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 20:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I did a bit of a deep dive into wikipedia and the googology wiki and the answer to the last question depends on a few things (along with assuming ZFC). If transfinite ordinals count as numbers, then those at the end of {{w|List of large cardinal properties}} take the cake (if i'm reading it right). Otherwise, something based off [https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Rayo%27s_number Rayo's number] is the best googologists have come up with so far. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 20:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Bumpf

Isn’t the joke in the pre-algebra that it would require algebra in order ro calculate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 20:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)