explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1061: EST

2025-01-19T06:47:45Z

172.69.0.178:

"24 hours 4 minutes" because the period of rotation of the Earth is 24 hours MINUS four minutes.

EST = Eastern Standard Time (USA) or England Standard Time (UK); there's no easy way to disambiguate this since it is a common time zone for English speakers in the USA and UK.

"Run clocks backward" a possible reference to the leap second.

"0.9144" because 1 yard = 0.9144 meters

"triple 4 hours after every full moon" = add on an additional 12 hours every full moon, to make the time between full moons exactly 30 "days" (in real life it's 29.5 days). [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

: Erm, just like to say, as a UK resident for all my life (five decades, adult and child), that I've ''never'' heard of "English Standard Time". GMT is Greenwich ('Gren-itch') Mean Time, which is ''for most purposes'' the same as UTC (which officially took over in the early 70s, but most lay-people still ''say'' 'GMT') and all the various other prime standards in use (give or take leap seconds, planetary rotation/orbitting adjustments, adherence to atomic clocks, etc) and BST (British Summer Time, i.e. GMT+1)has just taken over for this sun-tilted part of the year. A brief check of the usual reference sites reveals no sign of EST existing any time since any form of standardised "Railway Time" was originally instituted in the days of the Industrial Revolution, but I might have missed it.

: Anyway, as such, the two ESTs is surely a constructed part of the joke not (as I read it) some fact from RL that needs explaining. Yes, there's EST (Eastern Standard Time) for the US (and versions for Australia and elsewhere?), as well as main Egyptian time-zone and European Summer Time (actually a over-term for the three varieties: Western, Central and Eastern). (The UK roughly matches up to Western European Time and Western European Summer Time accordingly, but that's by no means official except possibly by convention/shared heritage of definition.) But I think the joke with the two 'EST's is ''purely'' to do with something like the whole Yard/Metre(/Meter) thing. Although initially I imagined it might be something to do with UK/US Gallon differences, albeit that we now tend to have to use Litres. Or, if you prefer, 'Liters'. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.99.20.83|178.99.20.83]] 21:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Narnia time ran usually much faster but sometimes much slower than real-world time. [[Special:Contributions/130.160.145.224|130.160.145.224]] 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that Taiwan, Province of China missed a golden opportunity here to establish propaganda that they founded it. Instead they are known as a township in the US. [[Special:Contributions/66.88.136.254|66.88.136.254]] 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Think of what Jack Bauer could have done with 4 more minutes! {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.101}}

Not all possible attempts to make the calendar simpler would make it as complicated (or worse) than it is. For example, removing one day each from January and August to make February have 30 or 31 like the rest of the months would make the calendar (slightly) simpler and more logical going forward.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:You'd have to rewrite {{w|Zeller's congruence}} and find a replacement for the {{w|Knuckle mnemonic}}, both of which depend upon the existing pattern, or you'd upset a lot of people!
:For the former, it relies upon the pattern of starting after February and observing that the days are 31,30,31,30,31 for March...July, the same again August...December and starting the same pattern again for January and, as far as it goes, February. Adjusting Zeller to use 12/5ths instead of 13/5ths might work out well. That seems (...back of an envelope calculation) to allow for 31 day months being March, ''June'', August, ''November'' and January (italics were 30 days), all the rest being 30 (demoting four previously 31-day months) except for the leap-February for which the ''extra''-extra-day causes no knock-on-effects.
:But you also ''could'' bring down every month to 30 days (use the factor 10/5ths, or actually just assuming the straight constant shift of +2 weekdays per month without needing to round down anything at all), except February which now has 35-or-36 days.
:(Even simpler, every month other than Feb could be 28 days - see how ''they'' like it, and Feb now be more than double the size to make up for historical wrongs. Which'd be reason enough to retain the year-downshift of Jan/Feb, but otherwise removes any month-number terms in Zeller, just the (adjusted) year-number bits because the year still ≠mod7 days.)
:...but I'd be sad to lose the Knuckles coincidence. Whatever other 'improvememts' you might think I'm suggesting! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.22|172.71.178.22]] 15:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This might be a reference to the old TV show Babylon 5 here, but that's unlikely because the show is never mentioned anywhere else.[[Special:Contributions/208.97.36.166|208.97.36.166]] 3:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but it should be noted "1958" could also refer to the Discordian calendar, in which that is the year 3125 (5^5, 5 being the by far most significant number in a religion especially obsessed with numerology).--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.29|141.101.105.29]] 22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The historical Jewish calendar did have month names; four of them happen to come up in the Old Testament. Some do suspect that the names were only used rarely. The modern Japanese calendar - and I think a few others - does have numbered months only; don't recall if any historical ones do, unfortunately. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.44|141.101.80.44]] 09:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

: I agree that the connection to the Jewish (or for that matter Japanese) calendar is nonexistent. Will remove. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 02:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I implemented it [https://solarzone1010.github.io/est-clock.html|here] (maybe it should be added to the page.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.179|172.69.0.179]] 06:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

3010: Geometriphylogenetics

2024-11-13T03:25:16Z

172.69.0.178: :3

{{comic
| number = 3010
| date = November 11, 2024
| title = Geometriphylogenetics
| image = geometriphylogenetics_2x.png
| imagesize = 316x391px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = There's a maximum likelihood that I'm doing phylogenetics wrong.
}}

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

{{w|Phylogenetics}} refers to the practice of examining relationships among things that follow the principle of "descent with modification of progeny". In the course of descent with modification, one thing may give rise to two (the progeny), different modifications happen to each, and those modifications become established. Iterated "splits" over time yield a tree of objects; it is the purpose of phylogenetics to recover ("reconstruct") these trees, and use the information gained to inform study of the things contained. Phylogenetics has been most commonly applied to the classification/taxonomy of biological species and investigations of their evolutionary history, but it has also been used to examine the evolution of genes and biosynthetic pathways. Similar conceptual approaches have been used in the study of human languages and their evolution.

Data for phylogenetic analyses may come from any attributes ("characters") of the things being examined. {{w|Computational_phylogenetics|Rigorous techniques}} for these analyses became available starting in the {{w|Willi_Hennig|1950s}}, and these replaced earlier methods based largely on the individual judgement of experts. In phylogenetic studies of organisms, their DNA is far and away the most data-dense source of information, and consequently, most present-day investigations are based on analyses of selected genes and, increasingly, whole genomes. Thanks to the advent of more robust datasets, and more robust methods of data analysis, it is now commonplace for studies, especially on relatively understudied creatures, to reconstruct an evolutionary history (a phylogeny) that is radically different from what had previously been assumed. This is the "phylogenetic revolution" referred to in the caption. One example is the genus {{w|Hippopotamus|Hippopotamus}}, which had been considered a relative of pigs, which the animals somewhat resemble, until modern data and methods revealed it to be more closely related to whales, despite the animals being very different physically (hippos spend time in water, but [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YRJCSZRJU can't swim]).

This comic presents a tree, which purports to be a phylogenetic tree and resembles one, in which the endpoints ("terminal taxa") are geometric shapes, hence "geometriphylogenetics", a portmanteau of "{{w|geometry}}" and "phylogenetics". The claim, that triangles are more closely related to circles and ellipses than to squares, rectangles, pentangles, and the like, is a riff on the findings, and even the wording, of authentic phylogenetic research papers that report "revolutionary" results. The absurdity, and the joke, is that geometries do not change over time via descent with modification of progeny, therefore phylogenetic principles and techniques are inapplicable to their study. Moreover, geometries do not contain DNA{{Citation needed}}, so genetic analysis, even if relevant, is impossible.

The title text alludes to {{w|Computational_phylogenetics#Maximum_likelihood|maximum likelihood}}, one of the most robust, and most frequently used, methodologies for phylogenetic analysis. The method builds a number of trees from the data, assigns to each a probability that it conforms to a pre-selected model of evolution, and then selects the tree that has the highest likelihood of conformity to the model. The key to the joke is that maximum likelihood is a probabilistic method; "there is a high probability that I'm doing phylogenetics wrong". Which is, in fact, the case.

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

:[A tree diagram, or a dendrogram is shown, consisting of lines that branch off from left to right, starting with one horizontal line on the left. Eight results are shown on the right: ellipse on Path 1, circle on Path 2, triangle on Path 3, parallelogram on Path 4, trapezoid on Path 5, square on Path 6, rectangle on Path 7, and a pentagon on Path 8. The paths are listed in order top to bottom.]
:[Path 3 and the triangle are bold black, while the other branches are dimmer. The paths are connected as follows: Path 2 and 3 are connected, then both connect together to Path 1; Path 4 and 5 are connected, as are Path 6 and 7, and these two paths are connected altogether; Path 8 is then connected to the branch containing Paths 4 to 7. All of Paths 1 to 3 are then connected to Paths 4 to 8, the branches all culminating in a single line on the left.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The phylogenetic revolution continues:
:Triangles were long believed to be related to squares, but genetic analysis proves that they are actually very pointy circles.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Geometry]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

3009: Number Shortage

2024-11-10T01:41:02Z

172.69.0.178: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3009
| date = November 8, 2024
| title = Number Shortage
| image = number_shortage_2x.png
| imagesize = 284x269px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "10 minutes ago we were down to only 2 0s!" "How many do we have now?" "I ... don't know!!"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT WITH 11 0S AND 10 1S. NO, WAIT... - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic presents a situation where the ability to use numbers is a limited resource. Even quantifying how many numbers are left uses up some of those numbers once the counting is finished.

Obviously in real life being able to write or say digits is not a limited resource.{{Citation Needed}} The comic does however parallel many educational video games for young children where numbers and mathematical concepts are treated as living people or factory goods, in order to give some sort of story or context to the math-related activities.

The comic conflates numbers with decimal digits. So when [[Miss Lenhart]] says "15 2s and 12 3s", that uses up two 2s (one in "2s" and one in "12") and one 3 (in "3s"). She adjusts the counts as she's speaking, so when she says "13 2s", that uses up another 3, leaving only 10 3s when she's completing the sentence.

In the title text, she uses two 0s when saying that they had two 0s left, so now they have no more 0s. But she can't use the number 0 to describe this situation because they're out of them.

===Continuation===

A continuation of the pattern would go:

* "15 2s and 12 3s."
* "No, wait, 13 2s and 10 3s."
* "No, wait, 12 2s and 9 3s."
* "No, wait, 10 2s and 8 3s."
* "No, wait, 9 2s and 7 3s."
* "No, wait, 8 2s and 6 3s."
* "No, wait, 7 2s and 5 3s."
* "No, wait, 6 2s and 4 3s."
* "No, wait, 5 2s and 3 3s."
* "No, wait, 4 2s and 1 3."
* "No, wait, 3 2s and 0 ?s."

At that point, Miss Lenhart would lack the necessary 3 to articulate that there are "0 3s."

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Miss Lenhart is standing on the left, facing Cueball and Megan on the right.]
:Miss Lenhart: The Math Department number shortage is getting worse. We have only 15 2s and 12 3s left.
:Miss Lenhart: No, wait, 13 2s and 10 3s.
:Miss Lenhart: No, wait...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Math]]

3004: Wells

2024-10-29T05:31:50Z

172.69.0.178: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3004
| date = October 28, 2024
| title = Wells
| image = wells_2x.png
| imagesize = 306x402px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = You do have to be careful, though--sometimes, instead of water, you hit this free fuel that you can sell for a lot of money instead.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MAGICALLY WATERLOGGED OIL DRILL - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A water {{w|well}} is a hole dug in the ground, deep enough to reach underground {{w|aquifers}}. They have been used for thousands of years as a source of water by people who don't live close to usable surface water sources like rivers and lakes.

This comic pokes fun of the seemingly improbable characteristics of wells; talking about how water "randomly" forms below the surface of the ground and how they "magically" refill themselves. In reality there are complex systems (the {{w|water cycle}}) that dictate the formations of the underground pools that the wells take from and the underground rivers that refill them.

The title text points out that in some cases, people intending to drill water wells instead found oil beds. Oil is a very valuable energy source, so they became very wealthy as a result<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCfGVLKr5oM</ref>. This is the source of the idiom "struck oil" to mean receiving a windfall as a result of a lucky occurrence. But you have to be careful -- if you blindly "drink whatever you find at the bottom", as Megan says, you'll get very sick if it's oil rather than water<ref>https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/injuries-and-poisoning/poisoning/hydrocarbon-poisoning</ref>. Oil tends to be buried much deeper than water.{{citation-needed}}

This theme of things that seem like they shouldn't work but do has also been used in [[2540: TTSLTSWBD]], [[2115: Plutonium]], and [[2775: Siphon]], among others

This comic bears similarity to a [https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/06/11 Calvin and Hobbes comic from 1993] that was popular in Randall's area, in that it points out properties of a common natural drink that can appear disgusting when the underpinnings are left out.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan is on the left hand side and is facing Cueball who is on the right side and facing her. Megan has her left hand raised.]
:Megan: I need water, so I think I'll dig a deep hole and drink whatever liquid I find at the bottom.
:Cueball: What will you do after you drink it all? Dig another hole?
:Megan: I dunno. Hopefully it magically refills itself or something.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:It's ridiculous that wells work.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Geology]]

3004: Wells

2024-10-29T05:31:35Z

172.69.0.178: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3004
| date = October 28, 2024
| title = Wells
| image = wells_2x.png
| imagesize = 306x402px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = You do have to be careful, though--sometimes, instead of water, you hit this free fuel that you can sell for a lot of money instead.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MAGICALLY WATERLOGGED OIL DRILL - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A water {{w|well}} is a hole dug in the ground, deep enough to reach underground {{w|aquifers}}. They have been used for thousands of years as a source of water by people who don't live close to usable surface water sources like rivers and lakes.

This comic pokes fun of the seemingly improbable characteristics of wells; talking about how water "randomly" forms below the surface of the ground and how they "magically" refill themselves. In reality there are complex systems (the {{w|water cycle}}) that dictate the formations of the underground pools that the wells take from and the underground rivers that refill them.

The title text points out that in some cases, people intending to drill water wells instead found oil beds. Oil is a very valuable energy source, so they became very wealthy as a result<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCfGVLKr5oM</ref>. This is the source of the idiom "struck oil" to mean receiving a windfall as a result of a lucky occurrence. But you have to be careful -- if you blindly "drink whatever you find at the bottom", as Megan says, you'll get very sick if it's oil rather than water<ref>https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/injuries-and-poisoning/poisoning/hydrocarbon-poisoning</ref>. Oil tends to be buried much deeper than water.{{citation-needed}

This theme of things that seem like they shouldn't work but do has also been used in [[2540: TTSLTSWBD]], [[2115: Plutonium]], and [[2775: Siphon]], among others

This comic bears similarity to a [https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/06/11 Calvin and Hobbes comic from 1993] that was popular in Randall's area, in that it points out properties of a common natural drink that can appear disgusting when the underpinnings are left out.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan is on the left hand side and is facing Cueball who is on the right side and facing her. Megan has her left hand raised.]
:Megan: I need water, so I think I'll dig a deep hole and drink whatever liquid I find at the bottom.
:Cueball: What will you do after you drink it all? Dig another hole?
:Megan: I dunno. Hopefully it magically refills itself or something.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:It's ridiculous that wells work.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-22T17:15:01Z

172.69.0.178:

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 300 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 58
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-22T07:59:14Z

172.69.0.178: