explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2970: Meteor Shower PSA

2024-08-12T10:46:35Z

172.69.194.97: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2970
| date = August 9, 2024
| title = Meteor Shower PSA
| image = meteor_shower_psa_2x.png
| imagesize = 561x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you hold the meteor too long, it may imprint on you and form a contact binary, making reintroduction to space difficult.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a REHABILITATED BOT ABOUT TO BE RELEASED BACK INTO THE WILD - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a {{w|public service announcement}} (PSA) regarding what to do in case you discover a {{w|meteorite}} from the upcoming {{w|Perseid}} {{w|meteor shower}}. (See here regarding [[1723: Meteorite Identification]]).

In the first panel of the comic [[Cueball]] discovers a {{w|meteorite}} on the ground from the {{w|Perseids}} meteor shower. He then proceeds to try and throw it into space again. This is of course not possible, but this is not the reason why this action is marked as wrong with an X.

Rather, the PSA claims, in the next panel, that what he should do is contact, and then deliver the meteorite to, an observatory where astronomical "rehabbers", like [[Ponytail]], will care for it, and hopefully release it back into the wild with the next space launch. This is marked with a check mark to show that this is the correct procedure to save meteorites.

This conflates meteoroids that have fallen to the Earth from the sky with baby animals separated from their parents, and in need of rehabilitation (especially baby birds that have fallen from their nests, though more often in trees rather than "the sky"). If you find a sick, injured, or orphaned wild animal, your best bet is to find a nearby wildlife rehabilitator to care for it and return it to the wild, as members of the public will rarely have the same knowledge and expertise as someone who has the training and experience. However, this advice does not apply to meteors. Also, while it may be possible to return the animal to its parents, inadvertent disturbance caused in the process may cause the parents to abandon the young.

The title text says that if you handle the meteor too long you'll form a {{w|contact binary (small Solar System body)|contact binary}}, which in this context is two space rocks lumped together. A contact binary is also a type of binary star system, but it's unlikely that a person and a rock will form this.{{cn}} In the process of rehabilitating young animals, preventing imprinting is important, since the animal cannot rely on the human caregiver to succeed in the wild (in either sense).

[[1475: Technically|Technically]], [[Randall]] has the terminology wrong. "Meteor" refers to the 'shooting star' you see in the sky when a meteoroid enters the atmosphere. If it makes it to the ground, the piece that survives is called a "meteorite" (although some call it [[1405: Meteor|magma]]). This may be intentional, as part of the "lost baby bird" analogy, in that (as with the chicks of birds that don't practice {{w|Bird nest#Type|some variation of ground-nesting}}) an 'actual meteor' should never have been found on the ground in the first place.

If you find a recently fallen meteor(ite), or a {{w|Meteor air burst|surviving fragment}} of one, do not touch it since it may be ''very cold''. Although the surface of the meteor will have been {{w|Aerodynamic heating|heated by the atmosphere}}, the interior will still be about as cold as space and quickly cool whatever surface was not already ablated or lost. The size/fragmentation and time it has lain on the ground will dictate how cold it is, unless it was {{w|Impact crater#Impact craters on Earth|big enough}} to release enough further heat from the {{w|Lithobraking|impact}} itself.

A more important reason, from the perspective of experts who would wish to study your find (rather than 'return it to the sky'), is that handling it directly may contaminate it more than necessary. (Or, in the case of {{tvtropes|GreenRocks|more dangerous examples}}, it could contaminate ''you''!)

==Transcript==
:[A two panel comic with the panels next to each other.]

:[In the left side of the first panel, Cueball spots a meteorite on the ground. It lies a bit buried in the earth between tufts of grass. On the right side, he's shown throwing the rock into the air, with small lines indicating the flight of the meteorite. There's an "X" above him. Above this there is the following text:]
:This meteor shower weekend, remember: If you find a meteor on the ground, don't try to return it to the sky yourself.

:[In the left side of the second panel, Cueball is holding the meteorite in one hand and talking on his cellphone in his other hand, there's a check mark above him. In the middle of the panel Cueball is holding the meteorite out in both hands handing it to Ponytail who is also holding both hand out to receive it. To the right in the panel a rocket is blasting upwards with fire coming out beneath it and a plume of smoke showing its ascending path. Above this there is the following text:]
:Instead, contact an observatory where astronomical rehabbers will care for it, and hopefully release it back into the wild with the next space launch.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]

Talk:2925: Earth Formation Site

2024-07-30T11:11:54Z

172.69.194.97:

The title text is only true for geocentric latitude and longitude, not geodetic (which is what is commonly used). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.125|172.69.58.125]] 18:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm impressed that whatever distant body that sign is placed upon, has actually developed plant life. Especially since it would need to be parked in place relative to the rest of the observable cosmos, & thus seems unlikely to have a suitably close star making regular appearance overhead...
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:👍[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 09:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
::Magrathea? [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
: Hi Proph! I just wanted to say that I enjoy reading your comments here and in the SMBC comment page, if you are in fact ProphetZarquon in both places. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.28|172.70.175.28]] 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::If there's another Prophet Zarquon out there - wait, nope, looks like that's me, too...
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 03:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

:The spatial location of a famous person's birth is technically not where the Solar System now is, also. If you're going to be picky about that. If you do allow the Earth's worldline to be accounted for, then it's broadly true that Earth formed (looks out of window at home) here. I think the principle concern there is whether Earth formed in the collision of planets named Ear and Theia, or whether Earth was Earth before Theia came along, which either way seems to be why there is such a large Moon beside it - made of material from both of the previous planets. And it probably counts as a change of course from the previous situation, although the apparent likelihood that Theia formed in Earth's orbit in originally a Trojan relationship may bear on that - if one planet just caught up with the other in orbit, like tailgating in traffic. Robert.Carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.184|141.101.98.184]] 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The ridiculously specific date may be a reference to how real historical markers frequently get dates incorrect [[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.135|172.70.127.135]] 23:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The other side of the sign says, "At this exact point in space, 13.7878693 billion years ago, the Big Bang took place." That's true of every point in space, according to the current model. The Big Bang implies that all of space was a single point, and space itself expanded outward from that point. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The explanation needs to be rewritten. It is missing the point and far to detailed for just saying: The marker could be standing at any point of earth's surface, as reinforced by the title text. The whole discussion about galaxies and solar systems moving is just a matter of the reference system and does not contribute to the understanding of the comic.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.32|172.70.243.32]] 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
: I agree. All location markers on earth are relative to the earth itself [citation needed] and locations with the same lattitude and longitude are considered the same location, at least on maps. The explanation is missing te point, maybe even on purpose. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.30|172.71.103.30]] 07:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
: I disagree. The section is saying that it could not have reasonably happened on Earth itself due to the fact the Earth and the Solar System itself move around through space. [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
::Randall was once a physicist. He's aware of the fact that there is no absolute system of measurements, and that locations on Earth are always relative to Earth coordinates, not some sort of galactic map. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Can you be 'once a physicist'? Once you've been a physicist, aren't you always a recovering physicist?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.92|172.70.90.92]] 16:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
::More immediately, it could not have reasonably happened on Earth, since Earth didn't exist until it happened.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.3|172.69.195.3]] 10:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
: I wholeheartedly agree. The whole joke, as reinforced by the title text, is that the marker could be anywhere on Earth. Simplify, simplify.[[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 16:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Can the Earth's core even have a latitude and a longitude? Aren't those all referring to the surface? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.198|162.158.90.198]] 11:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:You're right. That is the joke, in fact. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:Well, 162.158... is 'right' except that you ''can indeed'' have a latitute, longitude and also ''altitude/depth'' on top, not just restricting yourself to the surface (or Mean Sea Level or whatever other geometric surface you consider as your default).
:As to whether the (centre of the) core can have latitude and longitude, it's a very similar argument as that of whether the (coordinate) poles can have longitudes as well as ±90° latitude.
:If you are asking what either pole's longitude is, it would depend upon the what the algorthm was specified (or fails to have been) for the situation, as you could be told 'undefined', 'NaN', given a placeholder constant (e.g. zero), an effectively random value, a value determinate upon what led to this (you were at <location>, 10 miles south of the north pole, and modified that by 10 miles direct northwards travel, so maintain the same longitude as <location> had), a value that would normally be out of range (e.g. for silently passing on, to do the error-catching/checking later on) or several other options.
:If you're ''specifiying'' the longitude of a pole (for use in an onward algorithm) then it may well (or may not!) be possible to provide any/all of these, but perhaps ultimately ignored/chucked away as meaningless. (Unless you have it doing something like "go ten miles south from north pole, what's the <location> now?", intentionally or otherwise disambiguating via the 'arbitrary but definite' polar longitude.)
:So, similarly, if you're asking "What lat/long is the location of the core", the chances are that you're going to get to go through a different manner of deriving a result from that of requesting information such as "This is my lat/long. Is this (above) where the core is?".
:...though, yes, this still ''is'' very much the joke. Including all the ambiguity as to the rationale involved in however it apparently became disambiguated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.122|172.69.195.122]] 21:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2925:_Earth_Formation_Site&curid=27482&diff=340784&oldid=340779 valid edit], as it goes, but the ''reason'' seems a little over-omniscient. Speaking from another country that does 'signs' quite a bit (for visibility, as well as strategically placed 'table'-style info for closer perusal), I'm not sure we can say it's anywhere near uniquely US-practice. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.120|141.101.99.120]] 10:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The explanation talks about the impossibly precise date on the sign, but it's ''not'' highly precise. It's 4,450,000,000 BCE, which as far as we can tell is precise to the nearest 10 million years, or even 50 million - hardly an exact year. (The precision could have been made clear with scientific notation like 4.45x109, but that's not something you'd put on a sign for the general public.) Rounding to the nearest 10 million years matches the precision of [https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html what we know about the formation of the Earth], so it's not unreasonably precise. If Randall had wanted to make a precision joke, he would have used "4,450,002,024 years ago" or something along those lines - something that pegs Earth's formation to a specific year. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 16:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:Firstly, you top-posted. Moved your contribution down here.
:Secondly, 4.45x109 only makes clear the imprecision (c.f. "4.450000000x109"). Whereas it would be entirely possible for something to be ''precisely'' in the year 4,450,000,000 BCE, as much as it could be 4,450,000,001 BCE or 4,449,999,999 BCE.
:Of course you could 'creatively lie' to imply the correct precision (at the expense of the correct accuracy), as in the last paragraph of {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|this section on surveying a certain height}}... Or you could instead say that it was 4,450,002,023 years ago, but then you'd have to update/replace the sign at some point in 2025. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.206|172.71.242.206]] 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:I disagree that "the year 4,450,000,000" is trying to be precise to the nearest 10 million years. In no other context would specifying a single year be understood as saying "give or take a large error." Anthropologists don't claim that agriculture was developed in a certain year, they describe a rough time frame. Randall's choice of giving a precise year, then, is him being overly precise to be funny in an historical marker kind of way. Had he wanted to, he could have had the marker say that the earth formed "4,450,000,000 years ago" and your argument would be correct. He went with the more ridiculous route, and so that impossible precision is appropriately pointed out in the explanation, I think. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what astronomical standards [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2925:_Earth_Formation_Site&diff=prev&oldid=340919 are inconsistent in this removed text]. We can measure (historic) times in terms of a unit exactly 31,557,600 seconds long, the Julian year, even before its establishment. Yet appreciate that a physical (astronomically accurate) solar year ''at'' that historic time may be different, especially prior to the Thea-collision which probably did ''something'' (could depend upon if Thea had originated from L4 or L5, or what dynamics it possessed if it came from elsewhere), perhaps easily by the requisite amount to build up the nearly 2% difference. Seperately (and unrelated to the actual definition(s) of year), day length has also been changing, thus we know that a physical solar day has been other than 86400 seconds (astronomical day of 86164ish seconds) and a solar year unlikely to have been 365.25 (or 365.2425!) days, so divorcing ephemeris measurements of time (officially 31,556,925.9747 seconds per year in 1900, and changing still) from SI standards of time (as above) is already a thing.
 The prior edit removing the Thea-impact-moment idea, I agree more with. Though it ''does'' solve the issue of a definitive time and (to some extent) surface location, undoubtedly kicked off the creation of 'nu-Earth' out of the resulting gas and dust and the rest (that didn't get chucked into orbit, to be the Moon, or beyond it to add to the rest of the LHB material). And happened at very much around the time stated by the sign. Given that it's not even supposed to have a real 'answer' to what it means, Thea might well be the answer Randall didn't even think he was leading us to. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.173|172.70.160.173]] 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
: I concur with the removal that you're questioning, but I also think if you want to put it back in a way that isn't too much of a tangent, go for it. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 19:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The mechanism of the Earth's formation is an open area of research. But the general idea is that first, the Sun formed from a collapsing cloud of dust and gas. The remaining dust and gas formed a disk around the Sun called the Sun's protoplanetary disk. From this disk, the planets formed. The best current explanations fall either into the "classical accretion" camp or the "pebble accretion" camp. In classical accretion, dust particles in the Sun's protoplanetary disk collide and coagulate until the resulting body is massive enough to slowly accrete matter through gravitation. In pebble accretion, the dust particles again coagulate to form small pebbles. But here, the pebbles get concentrated in certain parts of the protoplanetary disk where they stick together. This process forms bodies massive enough to accrete matter through gravitation. Neither of those two scenarios involve a collapsing cloud of dust and gas, that's how the Sun formed, not the Earth. Maybe this should be added to the explanation. (I'm new here so I don't what the protocol for proposed changes is.) Source: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_accretion [[User:Prog|Prog]] ([[User talk:Prog|talk]]) 09:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:The protocol is "if you think it's wrong, correct it". Noting that "if other peope think ''you're'' wrong, then they'll correct/revert you afterwards" also applies, but I see little to complain about factwise. (Though you might find yourself under pressure to be a bit more summarised than above. I know: I'm also one who'd like to cover every base, every objection, to try not to leave something that's not completely right.)
:Note, as you haven't used it here, that we have a "wikilink template", {{template|w}}, which you'd want to use. Simply do something like <code><nowiki>{{w|Pebble accretion}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{w|Pebble accretion|a process of accreting pebbles}}</nowiki></code> (the latter gives the link outward text that isn't the wikipage title, if that works better for you). It doesn't do ''too'' much different from any of the other ways to linking to wikipedia (though it gets rid of the annoying "locked/unlocked" icon based upon the http(s)ness of the link you would have given), but it reads nicer in the editor than having a full URL, and a bit nicer (YMMV) than <code><nowiki>[[wikipedia:Article name]]</nowiki></code> or whatever you might otherwise use. See established edits for general guidance (and use "Show preview" to check such things look ok, rather than have to come back in to edit them right/leave it to someone else to do so). ...otherwise, welcome, new user. You sound like you might fit in rather well, from your attention to detail. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97|172.69.194.97]] 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2960: Organ Meanings

2024-07-18T12:23:08Z

172.69.194.97:

how is thymus formed [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.102|172.70.85.102]] 07:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
: It grows from seed.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97|172.69.194.97]] 12:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You think Randall might have made this one as a ploy to have explain xkcd educate him on the organs and metaphors mentioned? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.33|162.158.146.33]] 07:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is 'Liver' so high up on the metaphor scale? The only one I can think of is 'lily-livered', which doesn't appear to make much sense at all. On the other hand, I'd have 'Spleen' nearer the top, and 'Tongue' fairly high up as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 08:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed; personally I’d have liver and tongue switch places, and I’d guess the one who added silver-tongued and biting one’s tongue would probably agree also. But that might be because I understand the biological function of a liver better than the average person does. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.5|172.70.210.5]] 08:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:: Are those really metaphors, though? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.40.152|162.158.40.152]] 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::: They aren't, or at least not metaphors to the tongue. Just done an edit, before having read this, to remove the visibility of "silver tongue" (a tongue that is metaphorically as silver... or maybe even quicksilver) and a "bitten tongue" (the tongue as if restrained by biting). Though there are other forms, the metaphor to biological function must be of the general "it is the tongue of the <something else>" type, maybe such as a tongue of lava or the tongue of an oil-can (one being an extending appendage, the other additionally being a contact depositor of liquid - though not always consistent in application).
::: Something can more easily be understood as the metaphorical heart/nerves/spine/etc of something, and we also have a good understanding of what the originals do. A sewage treatment plant can be considered the kidneys of a town (arguably more understood than a liver of one, for example, so I'd have personally switched the two), but it gets more complex with some of them. In the case of the appendix, we pretty much ''only'' know (in lay-use) that it's a spare fleshy bit that might or might not have any use, so the metaphorical 'equivalent biological function' of a "town's 'appendix'" is probably more understood than a body's ''actual'' appendix, for most people, the opposite of the situation with metaphorical/actual tongues. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.64|172.70.91.64]] 10:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that 'Metaphor meaning' is going to work as a column in the table - several of these have multiple metaphors associated, often with varied and little-related meanings.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.249|172.70.160.249]] 12:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1165: Amazon

2024-06-27T17:14:32Z

172.69.194.97: Undo revision 345210 by Xplainxkcd (talk) Spam-vandalism

I believe it is not about {{w|Amazon Forest}}, but about {{w|Amazon River}}. {{unsigned|‎194.85.224.35}}
:That'd be a ridiculous amount of rain! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.53|173.245.54.53]] 06:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

;Skeletonize a cow

Isn't there an urban myth that pirahnas can skeletonize a cow in under 2 minutes? [[Special:Contributions/81.138.95.57|81.138.95.57]] 10:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

:According to [http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/piranha-eat-cows1.htm], it's not myth - you only need few nets and few hundreds of piranhas. It was not mentioned how far they needed to go to get that number of piranhas, but I would suppose setting up that kind of practical joke can't take more that few days. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

:If the cow were a calf, why not? But a grown cow, I don't think a few hundred piranhas can fit and reach the whole cow within 2 minutes. [[User:Lysdexia|Lysdexia]] ([[User talk:Lysdexia|talk]]) 02:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Does Amazon sell beef by any chance? I mean: while amazon.com can probably ship a package from Iquitos to Manaus, the Amazon can only nearly, because Manaus is situated a few kilometers upstream of a river branch where the package from Iquitos would float by. Makes me think whether there is a similiar comparison with skeltonized cows. Hence beef. [[Special:Contributions/46.142.28.57|46.142.28.57]] 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC) madd

:There was a TV programme of the Michael Palin type that took a boat trip up or down the Amazon. One of the fish mentioned in the river could strip the meat off a cow in seconds. It was a deep water dweller, not the common piranha and "IIGC" a bottom feeder so its normal cuisine was "probably" already done to falling off the bone. I saw this programme once long long ago.

If the package was being delivered by dugout on the river its speed could well exceed the 4 to 6 or more knots likely experienced in mid channel. (I seem to recall figures in the region of 8 to 12 knots.)

"lost it at 'Minutes to skeletonize a cow'." sounds like food for thought being off-putting. The stripping would not have been done by an Amazon courier as slaughtering a cow takes a lot longer by human than the minutes suggested here. The time that it would have had to lose would be considerably more than minutes considering the likely gain that a canoe piloted at mid channel as constantly as possible would make Amazon.com a lot faster even if the canoe was just drifting and not under power.

A package drifting in the Amazon would quickly get entangled in the growth along the banks and might even, on occasion, drift up-stream[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

;Reason for comparison

I think the main reason for this comparison is the dispute over the .amazon TLD between Amazon.com on one side and Brazil and Peru on the other. --[[Special:Contributions/176.101.146.145|176.101.146.145]] 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean this article (or alike): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242994/Brazil-Peru-web-giant-Amazon-battle-amazon-domain-name.html
[[Special:Contributions/78.52.195.25|78.52.195.25]] 09:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

:Indeed, they are comparing who is “more worth” the domain name and this comic shows how to compare them --[[Special:Contributions/176.101.146.145|176.101.146.145]] 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just want to say that I always thought it was a mistake to add to the (generally) three-character traditional non-geographic TLDs that they used to have. This despite buying myself a .info when that first came out, mostly as a novelty similar to the acre of Moon. (But .aero? .museum? Really?) Still, can't begrudge them the drift to non-Western characters (just wish it'd been ''direct'' non-Western equivalents to .com, .org, .mil, .gov, etc... Anyway, what's wrong with just letting each national TLD logically and self-consistently expand upon their own existing standards (.co.uk, .com.au, etc) in a manner the locals would understand, and let significant metanational organisations (UN) do the same for their own subset of responsibilities in their own pseudo-national TLD. (You see, I over-think these things.) [[Special:Contributions/178.105.155.170|178.105.155.170]] 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:I was a'waiting the question mark but found none. Thus you said your own predicate is wrong. [[User:Lysdexia|Lysdexia]] ([[User talk:Lysdexia|talk]]) 02:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

;Is anyone else thinking what I am?

Its been a while since Munroe has given something seriously good/thoughtful.... I am getting the inner feeling that he is planning something big. Like '''''BIG '''''. Anyone here concurs with me? [[Special:Contributions/117.194.86.32|117.194.86.32]] 14:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I will second that. It has been a while since he has had any labour intentive jokes. [[Special:Contributions/72.38.90.50|72.38.90.50]] 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

;Rounds 1-13

Am I the only one who wants to know what the other 11 criteria might be? [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 19:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No. But we know 3 of them, right? So we just need 10 more. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.83.200|117.194.83.200]] 18:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We need 11 more. This is criterion 14, and we know 3 of them including this one. [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 22:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

;Confused
"Of course, it would take slightly longer for Amazon.com to skeletonize a cow because the death ray takes time to heat up."
I don't like being more confused after reading the explain than before. What death ray? [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 14:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
:I thought it was just a joke that doesn't really have any deeper meaning? Hmm... Now I'm curious too ._. [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 21:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

:I am pretty sure it's just a joke. But who writes these explanations? (Now that I posted this, will you amazon people let me go?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.49|141.101.104.49]] 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit comment ''(→‎Explanation: The SI symbol for litres is a capital L, I corrected this from a lowercase l.)'' ...actually, in case that editor is reading (an IP, like me), it's either "L" or "l". And I'd handwrite a loopy-l, which also is acceptable. But at least we both agree on the spelling. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.229|172.70.162.229]] 19:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2951: Bad Map Projection: Exterior Kansas

2024-06-27T17:11:18Z

172.69.194.97: /* Adding an image? */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Yay! A task for a geography teacher (i.e. me, and I'm a big fan of Randall's work with maps), and I just happen to have the right bookmarks for this kind of thing in my browser. So here's a little toy to play around with: [https://www.worldmapgenerator.com/en/wizard/step/centering/?config=eyJpZCI6IkNVU1RPTV9XSVpBUkQiLCJsYXllcklkcyI6WyJDTElQX1BBVEgiLCJCQUNLR1JPVU5EIiwiU1BIRVJFIiwiR1JBVElDVUxFUyIsIkxBTkQiLCJPQ0VBTiJdLCJwcm9qZWN0aW9uSWQiOiJBWklNVVRIQUxfRVFVSURJU1RBTlQiLCJyZW5kZXJpbmdBZGFwdGVySWQiOiJDQU5WQVMiLCJtYXBUaGVtZUlkIjoiREVGQVVMVCIsImNlbnRlciI6WzAsMF0sInJvdGF0aW9uIjpbLTgxLDQwLDBdLCJ6b29tIjowLjksIndpemFyZFN0ZXBQcm9ncmVzc0lkeCI6MywidmVyc2lvbiI6IjEuMC4wIn0%3D] I hope my settings got preserved in the link as they should, else whoever added all those letters and numbers clearly has something to answer for! If the link works as it should it'll show you what a map of the whole wide world would look like in an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection with Kansas on the exterior. That is, I first used this Antipodes Map [https://www.antipodesmap.com] to locate the point opposite to Lebanon, Kansas at 39°48'35"S, 81°26'39.8"E , which is quite literally in the middle of the Indian Ocean, near the islands of Saint Paul and Nouvelle Amsterdam (which, incidentally, belong to France and are mainly known for being as far away from anything as you can possibly get on this planet*) and then set the centre of the worldmapgenerator.com map approximately there. It's not a very precise tool, but it'll do - it's precise enough for me to use in lessons anyway. Surprisingly, you actually get a more or less usable map for much of the world (if you're not too fussy or trying to navigate with it or anything), ''except only'' for North and Middle America. :D [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt|talk]]) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:: * At least, you can say that if you happen to land there, you're really not in Kansas any more. ;) [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt|talk]]) 16:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::Oh, I really like map stuff, but: "This site uses cookies to improve the results of our bakery. With your acceptance we can add more honey, sugar and flour to improve the website. [Accept]". Only "[Accept]", no other options (even long-winded 'deselect "things ''we'' suggest are important" options that I might disagree with'). I really don't like that. And then it also offers to install an App, apparently... Oh, website builders, just because I'm currently on a mobile device, it doesn't mean I'm eager to "app everything"; entirely the opposite, perhaps! Yeah, I know script/cookie blockers or specialist browsers exist to avoid these things, but... Anyway, nice to see a geography teacher taking it seriously, even if I've got my own conflicting issues in picking up on what you've found. (Behind/before the popup stuff, it truly looked interesting. Don't know if there's a legit way to get a screenshot of it. Don't break any Ts&Cs in doing so!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.164|141.101.98.164]] 17:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

2915: Eclipse Clouds

2024-06-21T12:17:14Z

172.69.194.97: Re-redone (native wktionary-template, and better integration).

{{comic
| number = 2915
| date = April 3, 2024
| title = Eclipse Clouds
| image = eclipse_clouds_2x.png
| imagesize = 526x251px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The rare compound solar-lunar-nephelogical eclipse
}}

==Explanation==

Following on from [[2914: Eclipse Coolness]], Randall makes another comic about the {{w|Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024|solar eclipse occurring on April 8, 2024}}.

[[Cueball]] is checking the weather forecast. At the time that this comic was posted, much of the eclipse path was projected to be overcast, and Cueball expresses disappointment as someone wishing to watch the Moon slowly block out the Sun (and not the clouds obscuring both). The off-panel voice points out the mild irony that he wanted to see something block out the Sun, so the clouds technically fit his wish, leading Cueball to exclaim that he has a specific taste for things blocking the Sun.

The title-text references the 'alignment' of Sun, Moon ''and'' cloud (Nephele [νεφέλη] is Greek for cloud), describing it as rare, although this is not really as desirable as it might make it sound. Sun/Moon conjunctions are already quite rare, so that the balance against Sun/Moon/no-cloud probabilities isn't really so notable. In theory, it should equal being the difference between cloud and no-cloud on any average day for your chosen location. In practice, scholars such as {{w|Murphy's law|Edward A. Murphy}} and {{w|Finagle's law|Finagle}} would argue that conjunctions of the Sun, Moon, and clouds are considerably more likely than a Sun/Moon conjunction occurring on a sunny day.

Note, as of the posting of this comic the weather reports had consistently shown the Eclipse path in Northern Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, the points nearest to Randall's actual home in Cambridge, MA, to have the best potential viewing in the country with near 0% projected cloud cover. While this should in theory negate Randall's anxiety, the historical forecast called for a 75% chance of cloud cover and may have prompted Randall to make other plans like visiting friends or family in sunnier portions of the eclipse path like Texas. Randall may therefore be still faced with the choice of altering his eclipse viewing plans, even if the situation technically favors New England.

"Nephelogical" appears to mean "related to clouds", but misspelled from "{{wiktionary|nephological}}".

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

:[Cueball sits on an office chair at a desk, typing at his laptop.]
:Cueball: These eclipse weather forecasts are killing me.
:Laptop: ''refresh''

:[Cueball remains at his desk. An off-panel voice from the left speaks.]
:Off-panel voice: So you really want to see something block out the sun...

:[Cueball is still at his desk.]
:Off-panel voice: ...But not a cloud. It has to be the Moon specifically.
:Cueball: '''''My tastes are very singular!'''''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Weather]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Solar eclipses]]

2941: Cell Organelles

2024-06-05T13:42:47Z

172.69.194.97: /* Explanation */

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

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

This comic shows a {{w|Cell (biology)|biological cell}} diagram with a mix of real and fictional {{w|organelle}}s, giving both accurate {{w|Cell biology|cell biology}} terms and humorous ones. Actual cell components include the nucleus, mitochondria, and Golgi apparatus, while unrelated concepts come from geology, engineering, anitvirus software, and even Star Wars. Labels like "evil endoplasmic reticulum" and "sticky endoplasmic reticulum" are variations of real cellular organelles. Other labels like "pith," "mantle," and "Vitreous humor," are borrowed from other types of circular cross-sectional diagrams (e.g., of fruit, planets, and eyeballs).

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

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Label
! Meaning
! Real?
! Cell organelle?
! Explanation
|-
| {{w|Smooth endoplasmic reticulum}}
| A network of tubular membranes within the cytoplasm of the cell, involved in the transport of materials.
| Yes
| Yes
| A standard term for the smooth (i.e., not ribosome-covered) portion of the {{w|endoplasmic reticulum}}.
|-
| {{w|Lithosphere}}
| The rigid outer part of the earth, consisting of the crust and upper mantle.
| Yes
| No
| Term from geology; part of the Earth's crust. Labeled cross-sectional diagrams of cells and of the layers of the Earth are commonly found in science textbooks.
|-
| {{w|O-ring}}
| A mechanical gasket in the shape of a torus; used to seal connections.
| Yes
| No
| Engineering term. Both the o-ring and pith are drawn connected to the inner cell membrane. Made famous in pop culture for being the root cause of the {{w|Space Shuttle Challenger disaster}}.
|-
| {{w|Pith}}
| The central tissue in plants, used for nutrient transport.
| Yes
| No
| Botanical term. Most people think of pith as the layer of soft tissue between the skin and the flesh of citrus fruit, which explains its position in the diagram. Both the pith and o-ring are drawn connected to the inner cell membrane.
|-
| {{w|Cell nucleus|Nucleus}}
| The central and most important part of an object, forming the basis for its activity and growth.
| Yes
| Yes
| The cell nucleus is an actual cell organelle which houses {{w|DNA}}.
|-
| {{w|Nucleolus}}
| A small dense spherical structure in the nucleus of a cell during {{w|interphase}}.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, involved in {{w|ribosome}} production.
|-
| Nucleoloulous
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| A humorous continuation of the terms "nucleus" and "nucleolus."
|-
| {{w|Nucleon}}s
| Protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom.
| Yes
| No
| While cells contain nucleons, the depicted circles are far larger than actual nucleons.
|-
| Drain plug
| A stopper for a drain.
| Yes
| No
| A plumbing term, which could refer to a {{w|porosome}}. Even small, temporary damage to the integrity of the {{w|cell membrane}} puts the cell at immediate and great risk of death.
|-
| Evil endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term.
| No
| No
| The rough endoplasmic reticulum is covered in ribosomes; the "evil" endoplasmic reticulum in the comic is covered in twice as many, and is thus twice as rough, making it evil.
|-
| {{w|Hypoallergenic}} filling
| Materials that cause relatively fewer allergic reactions.
| Yes
| Technically not incorrect
| Consumer product term, used e.g. for pillows and mattresses. If the {{w|cytoplasm}} doesn't cause allergic reactions within the cell, it is hypoallergenic.
|-
| Weak spot
| A vulnerable point.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| {{w|Cell membrane}} surfaces do indeed vary in strength, often due to the presence of organelles such as {{w|ion channel pore}}s or {{w|porosome}}s, both of which can be leveraged by viruses to enter cells.
|-
| {{w|Mitochondria}}
| Organelles that generate energy for the cell.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelles. Mitochondria are widely known as the "powerhouse of the cell," a phrase originally coined in 1957 by biologist {{w|Philip Siekevitz}}[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/powerhouse-of-the-cell/] which came to prominence online in the mid-2010s.{{acn}}
|-
| {{w|Midichlorians}}
| Fictional microorganisms in the {{w|Star Wars}} universe, which confer Force sensitivity and thereby {{w|Jedi}} associated powers.
| No
| Fictional
| It's unclear whether {{w|George Lucas}} intended for "midi-chlorians" to be {{w|Symbiogenesis|endosymbiotic organelles}} or internal {{w|Symbiosis|symbionts}}.
|-
| {{w|Chloroplast}}s if you're lucky
| Organelles in plant cells responsible for {{w|photosynthesis}}.
| Yes
| Yes, but in plants and plantlike organisms
| Actual cell organelles, found in plant cells and those of several different lineages of non-plant microorganisms and seaweeds. The phrase "if you're lucky" alludes to the good fortune that an organism, be it plant, animal, or microbe, gains by being able to photosynthesize, getting energy from sunlight, rather than have to run around all the time chasing energy. This benefit makes chloroplasts {{w|Kleptoplasty|worth stealing}}. Experiments have been conducted to transplant components of chloroplasts into mammal cells to slow disease.
|-
| Human skin
| The outer covering of the human body.
| Yes
| No
| Skin is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_(biology) tissue] (multicellular structure). The idea that a complex tissue can be wrapped around a single cell, as if it were a cell wall, or outer {{w|cell membrane}}, or {{w|extracellular matrix}}, is patently, and humorously, absurd. This may be referencing the common factoid that house dust is mostly human skin, implying that the cell is covered in a layer of dust.
|-
| {{w|Carbonation}}
| {{w|Carbon dioxide}} dissolved in a liquid.
| Yes
| No
| Carbonation causes soda pop and similar liquids to bubble, fizz, foam, and {{w|effervesce}}. The little dots depicted in the comic look like carbonation bubbles.
|-
| Golgi
| {{w|Camillo Golgi}} (1843–1926) was an Italian biologist and {{w|pathologist}} who discovered the Golgi apparatus; known also for his works on the central nervous system.
| Yes
| No
| The real Golgi was not and is not a tiny alien being who merged with our cells, as the comic and title text imply.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| {{w|Golgi apparatus}}
| A complex of {{w|vesicles}} and folded membranes involved in secretion and intracellular transport.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle, which takes {{w|polypeptide}} chains from the rough endoplasmic reticulum via transport vesicles and processes them into their protein structure before sending them (again via vesicles) to their destination such as an organelle or outside of the cell.
|-
| {{w|Norton AntiVirus}}
| A software product designed to protect computers from malware.
| Yes
| No
| Viruses do attempt to insert themselves into cells, and many cell types do have antiviral mechanisms (notably the {{w|CRISPR}} (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) DNA sequences in prokaryotes, which resist viral (bacteriophage) infection - however, the cell shown is not prokaryotic, since it contains a nucleus). A system designed to protect against computer viruses is unlikely to be helpful, though, since biological viruses are completely different, and cells have not been architected to support such software.
|-
| Sticky endoplasmic reticulum
| Not a real term, although parts of the reticula have sticky pockets.[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1156152/full]
| No
| No
| Another humorous twist on the actual types of endoplasmic reticula.
|-
| {{w|Pleiades}}
| A cluster of stars in the constellation Taurus.
| Yes
| No
| Even a single star is far too big to fit in a cell{{Citation needed}}. The labeled cluster in the comic looks like the actual constellation, as if this were a depiction of the night sky.
|-
| Natural flavor
| Flavoring derived from natural sources.
| Yes
| Conceivably
| A common ingredient on food labels (and sometimes cosmetics, etc.), usually meaning any substance to add flavor, aroma, or both, other than synthetic chemicals which are referred to as artificial flavors.
|-
| {{w|Cellophane}}
| A thin, transparent sheet made of regenerated {{w|cellulose}}.
| Yes
| No
| A type of packaging material. A {{w|cell wall}} is indeed made of cellulose, though not in the form of cellophane. Also, this drawing looks more like an animal cell, which unlike plants and fungi, do not usually have a cell wall.
|-
| {{w|Rough endoplasmic reticulum}}
| Endoplasmic reticulum with {{w|ribosomes}} attached, involved in protein synthesis.
| Yes
| Yes
| Actual cell organelle. "Rough" refers to the presence of ribosomes covering its membrane, which translate {{w|messenger RNA}} into polypeptide chains. Normally the endoplasmic reticulum would wrap around the cell nucleus.
|-
| {{w|Ventricle}}
| A chamber of the heart that pumps blood out.
| Yes
| No
| Ventricles are actually part of the body, and they are composed of many cells. Possibly a pun on {{w|vesicle}} (or {{w|vacuole}}), a small membrane-enclosed vessel, such as the transport vesicles that carry polypeptides from the rough endoplasmic reticulum to the Golgi apparatus for processing.
|-
| {{w|Mantle}} 
| The layer of the earth between the crust and the core.
| Yes
| No
| Misplaced geological term with many other meanings. Labeled cross-sectional diagrams of the layers of the Earth are commonly found in science textbooks.
|-
| {{w|Slime}}
| A moist, soft, and slippery substance, or a brand name for a {{w|Slime_(toy)|goopy substance sold as a toy}}.
| Yes
| No
| Could refer to the slimy texture and appearance of {{w|cytoplasm}}, but not specific to cells. Slime was a frequent appearance on the Nickelodeon TV kids channel during [[Randall]]'s youth in the 90s.{{acn}}
|-
| {{w|Vitreous humour}}
| The clear gel that fills the space between the lens and the retina in the eyeball.
| Yes
| No
| The vitreous humour is in the eyes' {{w|extracellular matrix}}, not inside cells. Labeled cross-sectional diagrams of eyes are also commonly found in science textbooks.
|-
| {{w|Seed}}s
| Plant embryos used for reproduction.
| Yes
| No
| Seeds are multicellular, and sometimes contain small proportions of non-cellular tissue. Cells are found in seeds, not the other way around. Seeds would be labeled on a cross-sectional diagram of a fruit, not a cell.
|}

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

Cell Organelles

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

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

[These labels are inside the cell:]

* Ventricle
* Mantle
* Slime
* Vitreous humour
* Seeds

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Biology]]