explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2867: DateTime

2023-12-15T02:51:39Z

172.69.134.163:

Comics like this are why this wiki exists. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.172|172.70.100.172]] 23:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
:The time falsehoods gist linked above is a really good explanation about why a programmer might panic about calculating time. Especially the ones about calling "getCurrentTime()" twice in a row doesn't always mean the results are in the order you think they were called, or even different values. t2 might very well be the same or less than t1. It can be maddening. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.197.149|162.158.197.149]] 23:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
::The last item is the most important to me: ''Users prefer to use the local timezone.'' This causes so much frustration while browsing the web! [[File:PissedOff.gif]] --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.110.68|162.158.110.68]] 00:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
::Worth noting that events can take place over long periods. A sunspot or an illness or a relationship doesn't happen at a single point in time, it takes place over days or weeks or longer. When did it "start"? Who knows? Also I miss calling TI4-1212 here in DC. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.27|172.70.175.27]] 01:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
::Out of curiosity, could someone explain the item in that time falsehoods list that says "Months have either 28, 29, 30, or 31 days"? My guess is that it's a reference to their being more calendars in the world than Gregorian? But I'm not sure if there's more than that going on, there.[[User:ModelD|ModelD]] ([[User talk:ModelD|talk]]) 18:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Isn't that true of Gregorian calendars? February has 28 or 29 depending on the year, AJSN have 30 and JMMJAOD have 31.[[User:Gavin|Gavin]] ([[User talk:Gavin|talk]]) 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
::::It's saying that "months have either 28, 29, 30, or 31 days" is a falsehood. The first one that comes to mind is the [https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch.html switch from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar]: "In North America, for example, the month of September 1752 had only 19 days, as the day count went straight from September 2 to September 14". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.108|172.70.43.108]] 21:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
:::: (Ninjaed, with an actual example! But retrying reply anyway as it had other details.) But how many days had <insert your choice of month(s) during which a given system changed from Julian to Gregorian>? I think possibly, without looking up when each and every transition occured, below 20 days is possible. (As in the ''n''th of one month to the ''n''th of the next is less than 20 days, for the right month and a number of ''n''s. For other ''n''s, you can only actually count from the month before to the month ''after'' (two full calendar months), the daycount for that being below the typical bimonthly stretch of 59, 60, 61 or 62 days (under more standard conditions)... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.48|172.70.90.48]] 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Related insanity on Computerphile with Tom Scott: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wpm-gesOY [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 03:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Even with just Special Relativity, the question doesn't really make sense, because the answer will depend on the inertial reference frame. "Impossible to know and a sin to ask" is not a bad way to describe questions about non-invariants. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.189|162.158.154.189]] 08:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
:Is it even ''possible'' for two observers to agree on the answer and be sure that it's correct for both of them? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 16:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I can see Randall's point, so for your average everyday programming I'd say "please use a library function instead of trying to do it yourself, or you'll end up like the guy in the lower frame..." --[[User:IByte|IByte]] ([[User talk:IByte|talk]]) 11:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

When I googled "DateTime" all I came up with was Python libraries, nothing about relativity or other effects. Is that what Randall's talking about? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.125|172.69.22.125]] 22:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
:Ideally, the standard library functions for a language would cover many of the "quirks" without the programmer having to worry about remembering the details. The required inputs for the functions would be sufficient to determine the necessary offsets. But programmers still have to be careful about some of the issues, and not all languages (and their libraries) are sufficient for all situations. When things like relativistic effects have to be taken into account, the usual languages (and their libraries) don't have the needed flexibility/complexity and precision. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 00:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
::I should clarify, I'm not saying the Python library doesn't have functions for those quirks. I'm just asking: what does Randall mean when he says "DateTime" (two capital letters, no space, as per the comic title)? Is he talking about the Python library? Or something else I didn't find yet?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.163|172.69.134.163]] 02:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

2857: Rebuttals

2023-11-22T02:32:04Z

172.69.134.163: /* Explanation */ same paragraph, sentence not phrase

{{comic
| number = 2857
| date = November 20, 2023
| title = Rebuttals
| image = rebuttals_2x.png
| imagesize = 328x437px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The mainstream dogma sparked a wave of dogmatic revisionism, and this revisionist mainstream dogmatism has now given way to a more rematic mainvisionist dogstream.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a REMATIC DOGSTREAM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic provides a satirical take on the intricate layers of scientific critique and consensus. [[Cueball]] stands as a representative of the scientific community, addressing the audience with a statement that encapsulates the recursive nature of scientific debate. The comic touches on the propensity within the scientific fields to oscillate between embracing new evidence and adhering to established consensus. It reflects on the inclination to reject new findings not because they lack merit, but because they conflict with the prevailing theories that have weathered previous scrutiny and dissent. Here is what Cueball is saying, simplified:

<blockquote>"Most of us assume the following: That when a lot of people didn't agree with what most experts said, those experts stopped paying attention to new facts that didn't fit their ideas. But actually..."</blockquote>

Overall, the comic offers a funny yet deep look at how scientists think and argue. It shows that in science, people often change their minds between new discoveries and what most people already believe. The character Cueball represents scientists and explains this complicated process. The comic starts by showing how scientists sometimes don't like new ideas if they don't fit with what most people already think. This happens even if the new ideas might be true. It shows a kind of tug-of-war in science: sometimes scientists are more open to new things, and other times they stick to old ideas. Also, the comic says that when people don't agree with the usual thinking, they might also ignore new facts that don't match their own ideas. Everyone in science might miss something important because they're too focused on their own beliefs.

Cueball's words in the comic are like peeling an onion in science, showing different layers of arguments and disagreements. The comic suggests that sometimes, even when scientists are trying to move away from old ideas, they might not notice new facts that actually support these old ideas. Cueball seems to agree with this view but then starts to say "however," like he's going to give a ''rebuttal'' opinion or explain the situation in a new way. Maybe Cueball will offer a new explanation about how scientists argue or say that all sides in science have good points but sometimes misunderstand each other. This could mean that the debates in science are not as simple as they seem and that everyone might have a piece of the truth.

The title text serves as an extension of this theme, offering a linguistic maze that mirrors the complexity and sometimes absurdity of academic discourse. It whimsically encapsulates how a challenge to mainstream thought can solidify into its own dogma, necessitating further revisionist waves, in an endless cycle of intellectual evolution and revolution. This self-referential loop wittily underscores {{w|Thomas Kuhn}}'s notion of the '{{w|Structure of Scientific Revolutions}},' suggesting that what is considered revolutionary at one time may become the very dogma that future revolutions seek to overturn. The title text delights in linguistic acrobatics, stringing together a series of portmanteau and near-repetitive phrases that dance on the tongue with the finesse of a verbal gymnast. "Mainstream dogma" suggests widely accepted beliefs, but it swiftly mutates into "dogmatic revisionism," a playful jab at the stubborn insistence on reforming the norm. This revisionism doesn't just adjust the current; it becomes "mainstream dogmatism" in its own right, a new orthodoxy birthed from the rebellion. And then, with a flourish, it yields to an even more whimsically coined "rematic mainvisionist dogstream," a hilarious {{w|spoonerism}} that could leave even the most loquacious academic's head spinning. This nonsensical cascade mocks the sometimes pretentious and convoluted language that can plague scholarly communication, turning serious dialogue into a merry-go-round of terms that are as circular in progression as they are in logic. This nonsense sentence may also be mocking the way in which, when you get this many layers deep in waves of consensus and counter-consensus, all these terms start to lose any real meaning, and become mere empty labels to be thrown around as terms of deprecation or abuse between the competing factions.

{| class="wikitable"
! Title text term
! (Possible) meaning
! Nature of the term
|-
| Mainstream dogma
| The popular and currently unchallenged set of beliefs that comfortably flow with the academic current.
| Real
|-
| Dogmatic revisionism
| The stubborn insistence on changing established views, with a religious zeal for rewriting the scholarly scripture.
| Unlikely combination of real words
|-
| Revisionist mainstream
| Once the avant-garde, now the new normal; the rebel ideas that have become the establishment.
| Unlikely combination of real words
|-
| Dogmatism
| An unshakable adherence to the new creed, now fervently preached as the one true academic gospel.
| Real
|-
| Rematic
| Revisionist dogma, or perhaps related to "remake" or "remix," implying a recycled, refurbished set of ideas in vogue once more.
| Not a real word
|-
| Mainvisionist
| A visionary yet mainstream adherent, with sights set on steering the scholarly ship into familiar waters.
| Not a real word
|-
| Dogstream
| The current of thought that flows doggedly along, resistant to change and comfortably narrow. Taken literally, a river of dogs.
| Not a real word
|-
| Mainvisionist dogstream
| The dominant narrative that's been revised so often, it's hard to distinguish from its own parody.
| Not real words
|}

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, hand raised with a finger held up, stands behind a lectern on a high podium speaking into a microphone on the lectern. Behind him is a banner, with four lines of illegible writing above a (blank) picture at the bottom.]
:Cueball: It's become conventional wisdom that the backlash against the prevailing consensus led researchers to ignore inconvenient new evidence. However...

:[Caption below the panel:]
:In a field that's been around for a while, it can be hard to figure out how many levels of rebuttal deep you are.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Public speaking]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

2848: Breaker Box

2023-11-02T00:47:07Z

172.69.134.163:

{{comic
| number = 2848
| date = October 30, 2023
| title = Breaker Box
| image = breaker_box_2x.png
| imagesize = 560x776px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Any electrician will warn you to first locate and flip the house's CAUSALITY circuit breaker before touching the CIRCUIT BREAKERS one.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HIGH-PITCHED HUM GENERATOR THAT WAS LAST MENTIONED EXACTLY 1258 COMICS AGO - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A {{w|distribution board}}, referred to as a "breaker box" here and also commonly referred to as a "fuse box", "breaker panel", "DB box", and many other names, is a metal box attached to a wall, usually in some maintenance area, containing multiple {{w|circuit breakers}} that distribute electricity to various parts of the building. A circuit breaker is an electrical switch, usually in the form of a small lever that can be used to manually isolate the electrical connections it controls from the incoming power supply. These breakers are designed to automatically open (thus, breaking the circuit) if too much electrical current flows through them. This is a safety measure to reduce the risk of damage, fire or electrocution in the event of a short circuit or higher load being asked for than the wires are rated to handle.

In breaker boxes, each individual breaker is ideally labeled to let the operator know what that specific breaker controls. Typically, the circuit controlled by each breaker will feed an intuitive set of connections: a certain room, or set of rooms, or possibly a set of related services (like overhead lights, or all the outlets on one floor). Some large appliances will have a dedicated circuit and breaker.

However, in houses that have been rewired multiple times (or were poorly wired the first time), this can quickly become overcomplicated with seemingly random connections. Randall lives in Boston where much of the housing stock is from the late 1800s and early 1900s, and he is likely to live in a house with non-ideal wiring, which may have inspired this comic.

The comic satirizes these complex wiring setups, with multiple breakers "controlling" arbitrary things, including some that – in the classic style of xkcd – are puns on the word "breaker" or may be impossible to hook a breaker up to, getting progressively more absurd to the point of "breaking" certain laws of physics.

===Table of the breaker labels===
{|class = "wikitable"
! Label next to breaker !! Explanation !! Note
|-
! colspan="3"|Left column of switches
|-
| Kitchen lights || The lights in the kitchen. || rowspan="3"| Standard items that could be separate
|-
| Living room lights || The lights in the living room.
|-
| Porch lights || The lights on the porch.
|-
| Bathroom lights and one surprise mystery outlet somewhere || The lights in the bathroom, but also a random outlet.
It is not uncommon for the power supplies to bathrooms (and other rooms with water connections) to be on a separate circuit. This is because water can potentially cause a short circuit, resulting in the breaker opening, and separate circuits minimize the impact and makes the problem easier to locate.

Having initially reserved an output from the box for such a limited use, it is possible that another electrician – while adding wiring – chooses to wire seemingly unrelated things into the same circuit. This may make sense (for example, an outlet near a non-bathroom sink or some other water source could reasonably be grouped with the bathroom), or it may simply be out of convenience from how long the wires needed to run (such as an outlet in the room adjacent to the bathroom). In either case, future residents and installers may not be informed of this, and therefore wouldn't realize that the outlet is grouped with that circuit.
| Standard, but 'kludged'
|-
| North-facing appliances || colspan="2"|Peculiar and a bit complex to execute. Here's how it might have been set up:
# Install a breaker switch that is actually a mechanical switch to control a smart home automation instead of its normal function
# Replace relevant normal outlets with Wi-Fi-controlled smart outlets
# Use smart home software to create a custom group of all outlets that control all ''north-facing appliances''
# Set up a software automation to selectively toggle this user-defined group of smart outlets when triggered.
* Adding a matching appliance to the house would require editing the automation.

Alternative explanations:
* The switch may be physically wired only to outlets installed on a southern wall in the property (or ''all'' southern walls, for each room that requires them), and you'd ensure that everything connected to these exclusively north-facing outlets also faces directly away from the wall(s).
* The switch could control appliances on the north-facing walls of the house.

Note: "North-facing" has broad interpretation, as lax as northeast to northwest or as strict as {{w|Points of the compass#32-wind compass rose|north by east to north by west}}. It could also be as exact as perfect north, but this would render this breaker completely functionless unless an appliance happens to be ever-so-perfectly aligned.

|-
| Bathtub drain light || colspan="2"|Bathtub drains typically do not have lights, but this breaker provides power to that and only that. Why it isn't already considered a "bathroom light" is unexplained (unless it's for the bit of the pipe that is ''external'' to that room).

It obviously cannot be the "surprise mystery outlet" already referred to earlier as being covered under the switch for the bathroom lights, much apart from it not being a socket/outlet.
|-
| Appliances whose names contain the letter "F" || colspan="2"|Another odd and amusing specification.

To make it work, one might use the "North-facing appliances" setup described above, but just with a different custom group of Wi-Fi-controlled smart outlets chosen to only control appliances with an "F' in their name.

Some common household appliances (kitchen and elsewhere) that this switch might control:
* coffee maker
* refrigerator
* freezer
* fan
* air fryer
* food processor
* waffle iron
* fabric steamer
* fireplace (electric)
|-
| {{w|Hot water heater}} || Usually just a heater that creates (and typically stores) hot water. But given that the next breaker controls the "Regular water heater", this breaker might actually control a water heater that pointlessly heats water that is ''already'' hot.
This is probably a joke about the fact that the common phrase "hot water heater" is [[technically]] redundant or misleading:
* Redundant because the simpler term "water heater" is enough to describe a device that produces hot water.
* Misleading because it's not the purpose of residential water heaters to heat water that is ''already'' hot.

Trivia: In some languages, "hot water" is a separate, single word, so "hot-water heater" is accurate.
|rowspan="2"|Two "heaters"
|-
| Regular water heater || The heater for regular water. In context with the switch above, this label presumes it's for a heater for heating water that is not yet hot (usually called a "hot water heater", hence the joke). Alternatively, if we assume that a ''hot water heater'' is for ''making'' hot water, this heater must be for making “regular water”, whatever temperature that may mean.
|-
| Outlets in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in || colspan="2"|This controls every outlet in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in, such as the dining room and kitchen and – depending on the "normal" habits of the inhabitants – other rooms such as the bedroom, bathroom, or living room (if not already covered by the "living room lights" switch above). Closets and single-purpose rooms such as the laundry room are presumably not included.
|-
| High-pitched hum generator || colspan="2"|Controls a high-pitched hum generator. This is a call-back to [[1590: The Source]], which was released just over 8 years before this comic.
|-
| The solution to the cryptogram below: || colspan="2"|Likely a pun on a "code breaker," something or someone that solves a code, such as Randall's cryptogram, a type of puzzle where a sentence has been encoded using a cipher, usually simple, and the goal is to determine the cipher and recover the original sentence from the encoded one. Uncharacteristically, Randall has not actually written a cryptogram, simply making the label's text illegible to the audience.
2 other explanations:
* The identity of the electrical load sourced from this breaker can be found by solving the cryptogram.
* This switch enables or disables the code's solution somehow, perhaps toggling its knowability or solvability or turning on a computer for solving cryptograms.
|-
| Bugs || colspan="2"|Several interpretations are possible:
* Disable all software bugs in the house*
* Disable all insect bugs in the house – as an efficient form of pest control – perhaps using ultrasonic emitters that drive away bugs (may be a reference to [[2753: Air Handler]]) – or perhaps the house contains noise machines that play sounds of insects or other ways of simulating insects.
* Disable power to all covert listening devices, which would be able to be switched off if wired into the house's electrical grid.
* Disable the whole global category of bugs (insects, arachnids, and other small arthropods), in which case we'd have no more pests and we'd reduce disease like malaria and {{w|Lyme disease}}! Of course, food webs would also collapse, and our world would be overrun with waste.
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Though it's unlikely that it's what Randall is referring to, computer bugs switches actually exist. It's a feature in some video game emulators to either run an unofficial patched version or to stay true to the original system, for example to allow bug-exploit speedruns of a video game.
|-
! colspan="3"|Right column of switches
|-
| A whirring fan you didn't realize was on until now || colspan="2"|Fans generally produce a steady, low-level 'white' noise that people generally stop noticing. When such a fan is turned off, the absence of that noise is quickly noticed. Shutting down a fan that you didn't realize was running could be worrisome for a couple of reasons: it could be serving an important function (like HVAC or server cooling) and cause a problem when it's off, or it may be a fan that wasn't supposed to be running, but had been for some time with being noticed.
|-
| Dishwasher || colspan="2"|A dishwasher may find itself with a separate circuit breaker for a few reasons. Commercial-grade dishwashers are often high-load appliances that require more power (incorporating powerful heating units and pumps). Residential-grade dishwashers may not be as energy-intensive, but if the house wasn't originally built with a dishwasher in mind, it is likely new wiring had to be added during its installation, resulting in a breaker that exclusively controls the dishwasher.

Though what "dishwasher" actually means may depend on what the "dishes" of the next switch might be, and thus what additional device may be required to ensure they remain clean. Even at the more trivial end of the interpretation (though not then explaining the following "dishes"), a busy restaurant might have an employee section equipped exclusively for the dishwashing role and separately supplied with power in a similar manner to that suggested for the bathroom.
|-
| Dishes || colspan="2"|Dinnerware and dishes are usually not powered devices and wouldn't require a circuit breaker at all; discovering they need their own circuit breaker separate from their dishwasher is a spoof of many common circuit breaker frustrations. It's also likely that flipping the breaker also literally breaks the dishes. Lastly it's also possible the switch powers/controls two or more satellite dishes.
|-
| Hallway lights || The lights in the hallway or hallways. || rowspan="3"|"Hallway" regions
|-
| Hallway outlets || The outlets in the hallway or hallways, presumably the same as the "Hallway lights" hallways. A common confusion when turning off breakers is separate wiring for outlets and lights in the same room. Though having the room go dark is a good mnemonic that it is unpowered, it is not a guarantee, and indeed, wiring them separately allows working on the outlets without having to do it in the dark.
|-
| Hallway floors || Yet another breaker for the hallways, presumably the same hallways as the previous two breakers, adding more confusion and frustration. This breaker has several potential interpretations:
#A master switch for all floors (stories) in the building which include hallways, e.g. the guestroom areas in a hotel, whilst possibly excluding the lobby and service levels
#Outlets in the floor
#Electric underfloor heating (heated bathroom floors are a feature in some houses)
#Electrification of the floors -- not common outside of horror and heist movies
#Disabling all floors entirely, so everything resting on the floors falls through
|-
| Social media || colspan="2"|This breaker also has several potential interpretations of "turning off social media":
#'Digital detoxes', where someone says "I'm going to turn off my social media" and intends to deny themselves access to all their social media apps.
#A switch for a parent to turn off all social media entering the house to protect their kids and themselves, which references a type of specialized content filter available through Wi-Fi router settings, not traditionally a breaker box.
#A callback to [[908: The Cloud]]. Since most social media platforms are centralized services, it would be theoretically possible to hook up a switch to the main power supply of every server building at once, given some extremely long wires, a breaker capable of handling the abhorrently massive electric load, and agreement from every social media provider([[1439|optional]]).
#The theoretical desire by some to "turn off social media" for the world due to its harmful effects on society. As someone who lived before social media and saw its spread over two decades, Randall may be ruing the impacts of social media on civilization and channeling his desire to put the genie back in the bottle.
#A play on the phrase “breaking the internet”, meaning going viral on social media.
|-
| State law || Likely a pun on "State Law Breaker."
Taken literally, it would either disable enforcement of State Law or nullify every single one, creating a state of lawlessness similar to the premise of the popular movie, "The Purge". It's unclear if this refers to Randall's state of Massachusetts or State Law as a general concept.

If the switch just nullifies State Law within the confines of the house, that would make the home a place where State Law could be broken without consequence, with some exciting implications:
* '''No More Licenses''': Practice medicine, law, or cut hair without the need of a license!
* '''The Ultimate Man Cave or She Shed''': Pet lion, or maybe a nuclear reactor in the basement.
* '''24/7 Parties''': No noise complaints. Late-night parties with blaring music can continue indefinitely.
* '''Tax-Free Zone''': Sell goods from the home without any sales tax.
* '''Unusual Living Arrangements''': OK to live with 50 other people in a 2-bedroom house, with no zoning laws or housing regulations.
* '''DIY Everything''': All those building codes and safety regulations wouldn't apply. OK to install an indoor waterfall or convert the living room into a beach.
* '''Gambling House''': Turn the living room into a full-blown casino, no license needed.
* '''Ultimate Privacy''': No worries about warrantless searches. State law enforcement would have no jurisdiction inside your house.
| rowspan="2"|"Legal" items
|-
| Federal law || Likely a pun on "Federal Law Breaker," though it could also be taken literally, as above.

The ramifications of nullifying every US Federal law are immense. Disabling Federal Law while keeping State Law would theoretically fulfill the goals of the "States Rights" advocates, groups of conservatives across US history aiming to return Federal power to the States.

If the switch just nullifies Federal Law within the confines of the house, there could be some fun results:

* '''Alternative Currency Operations''': Inhabitants could craft their own monetary system, designing and printing their own currency.
* '''Endangered Species Game Park''': The house could become a zone for hunting creatures federally recognized as endangered or protected, like the bald eagle, making it a place to shoot or trap rare wildlife.
* '''Exotic Collection Hub''': With federal import restrictions made moot, the house could transform into a repository for exotic items otherwise forbidden at a national level -- a potential trove of rare fruits, plants, or artifacts.
* '''Tax-free Commercial Zone''': Any enterprise operating entirely within the house's boundaries is free from federal income taxation.
* '''Experimental Culinary Experiences''': Free from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) constraints, the house could offer dishes using ingredients or preparations not federally approved.
|-
| Second law of thermodynamics || The {{w|Second Law of Thermodynamics}} means that things naturally move from order to disorder over time. It also says you can't take heat from a place that's cooler and use it to heat up another place, unless you use some energy to do it. In short, without adding energy, only the hotter place can warm up the cooler one.

Turning off (or breaking) the second law of thermodynamics would have some pros and cons.
;GOOD STUFF
*'''Perpetual Motion Machines''': Machines that can do work indefinitely without an energy source would become possible, defying our current understanding of energy conservation.
*'''Reversibility of Processes''': Many natural processes that are irreversible under current laws could be reversed. For instance, melted ice could spontaneously turn back into a solid without energy removal.
*'''Recycling Energy''': We could theoretically use the same quantum of energy over and over again, leading to ultra-efficient systems and potentially solving many of the world's energy problems.
*'''Reversing Entropy-Driven Processes''': Things like mixing cream and coffee or ink in water could spontaneously unmix.
;BAD STUFF
*'''End Life as We Know It:''' All living organisms rely on the second law for crucial processes, including metabolism and reproduction. If the second law were negated, life, at least as we understand it, might not be possible.
*'''No Heat Engines:''' Engines rely on the flow of heat from hotter to colder bodies. Without the Second Law, our cars, power plants, refrigerators, and many other devices would not function.
*'''Breakdown of Molecular Processes:''' Molecules spontaneously move from areas of higher to lower concentration due to entropy. Without this, diffusion, osmosis, and many biochemical reactions wouldn't occur as they currently do.
*'''Loss of Directionality:''' One interpretation of the Second Law provides a directionality to time (the so-called "arrow of time"). Without it, causality and our understanding of past, present, and future could be fundamentally altered.
*'''Unpredictable Outcomes:''' Turning off the Second Law could result in a universe where outcomes are not probabilistically predictable. You couldn't rely on anything happening as it "should," leading to chaos in every sense.
This law of physics was also explored in the What If? article [https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/ Fire From Moonlight].
| rowspan="3"|"Physics" items
|-
| Friction || {{w|Friction}} is the resistive force that opposes the relative motion or tendency of such motion of two surfaces in contact. Turning it off has some upsides and downsides.
;UPSIDES
*'''Perpetual Motion Machines:''' Without friction, once an object starts moving, it would continue indefinitely unless acted upon by another force.
*'''Super-Efficient Transport:''' Cars, trains, and other vehicles would glide effortlessly once set into motion, leading to immense energy savings.
*'''Unique Sports:''' New sports and activities would emerge, where players glide or slide over surfaces without friction.
;DOWNSIDES
*'''Walking Would Be Impossible:''' We rely on friction between our feet and the ground to move. Without it, we would be unable to walk, run, or even stand.
*'''No Manual Dexterity:''' Holding, grabbing, or manipulating objects would be very difficult, because they would be perfectly slippery.
*'''Catastrophic Mechanical Failures:''' Many machines rely on friction to function. Brakes in cars, for instance, use friction to slow down and stop the vehicle. Without it, uncontrollable accidents would occur.
*'''No Sound:''' Friction between air molecules creates sound waves. Without friction, the world would be silent (some may consider this an upside).
*'''Breathing Difficulties:''' Our respiratory system relies on frictional forces when the alveoli in our lungs exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide with the bloodstream.
*'''Hard to Light Fire:''' Lighting a fire by striking a match would no longer work, because it relies on friction. However, there are other methods for starting a fire that don't require friction, [https://www.wikihow.com/Create-Fire-With-a-Magnifying-Glass the most famous of which just requires a magnifying glass].
*'''Collisions:''' Objects, once set in motion, would continue to move until they hit something, leading to a myriad of unpredictable and uncontrollable collisions.
Being in a frictionless environment (and a vacuum, as physicists love...) was the subject of [[669: Experiment]].
|-
| Gravity || {{w|Gravity}} is a natural force that attracts two bodies toward each other, proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
Turning off gravity would have some advantages and disadvantages.
;ADVANTAGES
* '''Flight''': Without gravity, every leap could turn into a flight. We could push off surfaces and float effortlessly through the air.
* '''No Weight Restrictions''': Large structures could be built without concern for weight-bearing loads. This would drastically change engineering and architectural designs.
* '''New Sports''': Zero-gravity sports and activities could become a reality on Earth. Imagine playing basketball or soccer without gravity!
;DISADVANTAGES
* '''''Uncontrollable'' Flight''': Without gravity, every leap turns into a flight... right out of the atmosphere of the Earth, and directly into space.
* '''Loss of Atmosphere and Oceans''': Without gravity, Earth's atmosphere would dissipate into space, and water from oceans, rivers, and lakes would float away, making life as we know it impossible.
* '''Unanchored Chaos''': Everything not fixed to the ground, including people, animals, vehicles, and foundationless structures, could become airborne, causing massive destruction and chaos.
* '''Disruption of Celestial Order''': Earth would no longer orbit the Sun, the Moon would drift away rather quickly, and the structural integrity of the universe, including galaxies and solar systems, would be jeopardized.
* '''Everything Exploding''': Most celestial bodies, ranging from the moon to supermassive black holes, would explode from internal pressure and centripetal forces no longer fighting against gravity, throwing everything into space.
* '''Aggregation Absence''': Stars, galaxies, and basically anything in space requires gravity to form. Without gravity, no stars, planets, or meteors would form ever again.

Of course, if this switch is turned off, it may simply mean that objects within the house itself are no longer subject to gravity. This would be '''''far''''' less cataclysmic, and as a bonus, this would make it much, much easier to move around the house, get to higher areas, and move objects, but could prove to cause some problems once the breaker is turned back on, especially for the floor.
|-
| Circuit breakers || colspan="2"|Possibly the "master" breaker, controlling the main circuit that supplies power to all other circuit breakers. However, given the other surreal things this breaker box controls, turning it off may possibly make it impossible to turn it on ever again as the switch will no longer function once switched off (i.e.: If this was turned off, it would presumably turn off the functionality of the circuit breaker itself, if it was wired to include itself).

Moreover, if this circuit breaker disables all circuit breakers everywhere, it would result in global infrastructure collapse, halting essential services, including transportation, healthcare, and communication, and leading to widespread chaos.

Note that it might be a perfectly valid label if it refers to multiple subsidiary 'boxes', cascaded off this particular one, each containing one or more additional breakers for convenience or safety. e.g. units dedicated to a shed, garage or workshop room which save the need to traipse all the way to this box's utility cupboard location in the event of an otherwise easily resolved power issue.
|-
! colspan="3"|Title text
|-
| colspan="3"|The title text is about {{w|causality}} (not to be confused with {{w|casualty}}), and how to use this (unseen, located elsewhere) breaker along with the last shown switch that (de)powers the illustrated box.

Causality, in its simplest form, is the process of cause and effect, meaning that everything that happens only happens because something caused it to happen - in other words, every event is an effect caused by another event. For example, a bag of chips can't just fall onto the floor for ''literally'' no reason - it has to be caused by some other event, such as someone smacking it or a gust of wind blowing it down.

Turning off the circuit breaker using the CIRCUIT BREAKERS switch may lead to a loop, if the disabled breaker can no longer disable itself, leading to it turning back on, etc. Alternatively, turning off the CIRCUIT BREAKER switch might be a one-way street.

Turning the CAUSALITY switch from OFF back to ON might be unlikely to do anything if the circuit breakers upstream of it have been fully deactivated. The separation of cause and effect would ostensibly take precedence over the current switch setting. Turning off CAUSALITY first would prevent either the loop or the permanent disabling of circuit breakers, but would also have many other side effects, including letting switches potentially serve power even if there is no power being served ''to them'', or even spontaneously switching (on or off) without any intervention or reason.

The 'warning', from an electrician, could even be to locate the nominally ''off'' CAUSALITY switch in order to turn it ''on'', or else all other intended effects will possibly not end up being actually actioned. Either way, whether or not turning on/off causality would change the state of causality (at one stage or other being rendered ineffectual) is an exercise left for the reader.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[An open breaker box is shown. There are 26 labelled breakers, all of which are on, paired back to back in thirteen rows as a label, switch, switch and label.]
:Kitchen lights / A whirring fan you didn't realize was on until now
:Living room lights / Dishwasher
:Porch lights / Dishes
:Bathroom lights and one surprise mystery outlet somewhere / Hallway lights
:North-facing appliances / Hallway outlets
:Bathtub drain light / Hallway floors
:Appliances whose names contain the letter "F" / Social media
:Hot water heater / State law
:Regular water heater / Federal law
:Outlets in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in / Second law of thermodynamics
:High-pitched hum generator / Friction
:The solution to the cryptogram below: [Additional squiggled words that are too small/indistinct to read.] / Gravity
:Bugs / Circuit breakers

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2783: Ruling Out

2023-05-31T20:55:44Z

172.69.134.163: ?

Wow. the amount of citation needed tags is excessive. Here's a fun idea, do like that SMBC comic and actually find and give citations. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.72|172.69.70.72]] 19:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Bumpf
:Definitely. I fixed one (it should have been ''after'' the comma), during some other edits, but was sorely tempted to remove maybe two of them to just keep the funniest one(s). Whichever that(/they) might be. I expect they'll almost all evaporate in a future edit, though, as there's plenty of editting bound to be done. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.219|172.70.90.219]] 19:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there has been serious scholarship about the habitable zone of some quasars. Let's see.... Here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2364/1/012057/pdf Not absolutely certain, but absolutely '''not''' ruled out. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.24|172.69.134.24]] 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:I think that Cueball's scientific team did a study to discount the possibilities of quasars in the habitable zone of a star, not of a habitable zone around a quasar.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.249|172.71.166.249]] 20:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
::A quasar could exist in the habitable zone of a star, and if it was particularly dim, it wouldn't make the zone inhabitable. There's no minimum brightness for quasars, is there? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.162|172.69.134.162]] 20:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)