explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2951: Bad Map Projection: Exterior Kansas

2024-06-27T10:11:19Z

172.69.195.124: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2951
| date = June 26, 2024
| title = Bad Map Projection: Exterior Kansas
| image = bad_map_projection_exterior_kansas_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x706px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Although Kansas is widely thought to contain the geographic center of the contiguous 48 states, topologists now believe that it's actually their outer edge.
}}

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

This is the seventh comic in the series of [[:Category:Bad Map Projections|Bad Map Projections]] displaying Bad Map Projection #45: Exterior Kansas.

This comic portrays an unusual projection of a map of the contiguous United States. Maps of individual countries are common, especially in academic settings. It is typical for such maps, which only display a limited area of the globe, to use a projection that does not severely distort the shape of the country or its internal borders, but a country that is large enough (as with the United States) will always noticably suffer from certain distortions of at least one element chosen from distances, areas or angles. This usually occurs at its extremities (though some projections can be made more faithful to its extremities at the expense of distorting its interior).

Here, however, Randall has opted for a much different projection. Rather than placing the geographical center of the country in the middle and the borders on the outside, this map has gone the opposite direction, with the land outside the US (which is rendered as water, including the locations of Canada and Mexico – two bordering nations that are normally above-water {{Citation Needed}}) in the center, and the geographical center of the US (Kansas) and surrounding states distorted to surround the entire map. This, understandably, results in the shape of both the national and state borders being largely unrecognizable as it effectivel puts ''every'' bit of the map out towards the distorted extremities. Much of the internal area of Kansas itself (should one wish to display internal features) may be located far beyond the comic's edges, perhaps even to infinitely far away on the projected plane.

If Alaska and Hawaii were present in this map, Alaska would be near the top of the ocean, while Hawaii would be near the center, if even visible. Both would be rather small, with Hawaii particularly compressed (to an extent dictated to by the exact projection method used).

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

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Bad Map Projection #45:
:Exterior Kansas

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Bad Map Projections]]
[[Category:US maps]]

2950: Situation

2024-06-25T23:08:35Z

172.69.195.124: /* Explanation */ I hate that "inflammable" has apparently become confusing, so let's not use "flammable" either. Verb agreement of "...fatalities... ...are...". Mentioning the dog.

{{comic
| number = 2950
| date = June 24, 2024
| title = Situation
| image = situation_2x.png
| imagesize = 578x306px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = We're right under the flight path for the scheduled orbital launch, but don't worry--it's too cold out for the rockets to operate safely, so I'm sure they'll postpone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Shark, the iceberg of the sea - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts a situation involving multiple pieces of infrastructure: a ship, sailing towards icebergs, which is tethered to an airship flying next to a power plant towards a bridge. Each of these are labelled with details that clearly reference famous disasters, all of which were caused (at least in part) by design failures. All of these incidents are common case studies for engineers studying how things can go very wrong. The implication is that, by putting them all together, most engineers would be highly concerned with the potential for catastrophe.

;"Unsinkable Ocean Liner" refers to the RMS ''{{w|Titanic}}''.
:The ''Titanic'' was a British ocean liner which famously {{w|Sinking of the Titanic|sank}} on its maiden voyage in 1912. It was the largest ship in operation at the time, and was called "unsinkable" due to its size and much-lauded design features. The ship struck an iceberg on the fourth day of its first voyage, breaching the hull and ultimately causing it to sink, resulting in 1,496 deaths. Multiple design inadequacies (although none without precedent in contemporary vessels) were afterwards identified as contributing to the rapid speed of the ship sinking and to the high loss of life. These included: too few life boats; inadequate steering ability; compartments lacking watertight ceilings and therefore allowing the water levels within to top over into previously unaffected sections.

;"Hydrogen-filled [...] Airship [...]" refers to the {{w|Hindenburg Disaster}}.
:The {{w|LZ 129 Hindenburg|''Hindenburg''}} was a German airship which used hydrogen as a lifting gas. In 1937, during a landing in New Jersey, the ship caught fire and the highly combustable hydrogen quickly ignited, causing the ship to crash and resulting in 36 deaths. While the origins of the fire are still debated, the dangers of using large amounts of such gas in airships were made dramatically clear.
:Ironically, the airship in the comic appears to have been commissioned for the purpose of mitigating iceberg risks (unless 'iceberg spotting' is for the purpose of steering the 'Unsinkable Ocean Liner' towards icebergs, perhaps as a tourist attraction).

;"Soviet Era Nuclear Reactor Undergoing a Turbine Test" refers to the {{w|Chernobyl Disaster}}.
:The {{w|Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant}} is located near the city of Pripyat, in Ukraine (part of the Soviet Union at the time of the disaster). On 26 April 1986, a reactor core partially melted during a turbine test. This led to an explosion, causing a massive release of radiation. This incident remains the worst nuclear accident to date. The disaster was determined to have resulted from a combination of uncommon circumstances and human error, which the reactor wasn't designed to account for.
:The number of fatalities from the disaster are difficult to calculate; two people died from the initial damage, twenty-eight more from acute radiation sickness, and fifteen people who were directly exposed developed terminal thyroid cancer. The radiation, however, spread far beyond the plant itself, and the number of premature deaths ultimately attributable to subsequent exposure can't be calculated directly, though most estimates are easily in the thousands.

;"Bridge Prone to Aeroelastic Flutter in High Winds" refers to the {{w|Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)|Tacoma Narrows Bridge}}.
:The Tacoma Narrows Bridge, a suspension bridge in the U.S. state of Washington, was initially built in 1940. From the time of its construction, the bridge was observed to sway and {{w|Aeroelasticity#Flutter|flutter}} in high winds, and was nicknamed "Galloping Gertie". About four months after opening, in 40 mile-per-hour (64 km/h) winds, the bridge fluttered so violently that it collapsed into the strait. There were no human fatalities, though several people were injured and a pet dog died. This collapse is frequently used to demonstrate the dangers of harmonic vibration in infrastructure, particularly structures exposed to strong winds. The bridge was eventually rebuilt, with a redesign intended to prevent such fluttering.

;The title text refers to the {{w|Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster}}.
:The {{w|Space Shuttle Challenger|''Challenger''}} was an American space shuttle which broke up shortly after its launch in 1986, killing all seven crew members aboard before reaching orbit. The disaster was caused by a failure of O-ring seals on one of the shuttle's rocket boosters and the subsequent leak of hot gases. The likely cause of these failures was the seals being unable to maintain their integrity due to being well below their design temperature range in the immediate lead-up to being exposed to launch conditions, thanks to much colder than normal weather in the launch area. Engineers for the company that had built the boosters raised this concern and recommended postponing the launch, but were overruled.

As illustrated, it appears that the ship is about to sail under the bridge, while the airship will fly over it, causing the tether between the two to snag the bridge unless the airship descends sufficiently before then. It is not clear how or if the reactor will contribute to the resulting incident.

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

:[An airship flying, labeled:]
:Hydrogen-filled scout airship for iceberg spotting
:[The airship is chained to a ship, going along a river, labeled:]
:Unsinkable ocean liner
:[In the background on the coast a nuclear power plant, labeled:]
:Soviet-era nuclear reactor undergoing a turbine test
:[The boat and airship are steering towards a bridge, labeled:]
:Bridge prone to aeroelastic flutter in high winds
:[Two unlabeled icebergs are on the water on either side of the bridge.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:In retrospect, we should have noticed how nervous the situation was making the engineers.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Engineering]]
[[Category:Aviation]]
[[Category:Space]]

Talk:2948: Electric vs Gas

2024-06-20T08:44:26Z

172.69.195.124:

Now I'm not a fan of gas engines, but that argument is in bad faith. Gas engines have one ''very big'' advantage over electrics: Energy density, and by extension, range. Batteries can't come close to the energy density of hydrocarbons, despite the latters' overall lower efficiency. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

:I think that's one of the main arguments for hybrid systems. Using a gas engine to charge an electric motor, and then using the electric motor to actually power the appliance, enables significant efficiency gains. If anything, combining the technologies enables even greater ''usable'' energy density from hydrocarbons. Hybrid electric vehicles for example are extremely efficient. [[User:Eunakria|Eunakria]] ([[User talk:Eunakria|talk]]) 17:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Energy density, and the ability to move large amounts of stored energy from one place to another quickly and easily (aka pump gas, vs charge or swap a battery), from a thermal and maintenance perspective. (Which is not entirely unrelated to energy density.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.39.54|172.70.39.54]] 18:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Swapping batteries (and slowly charging the batteries in the swap station) could offer comparable "charge" times to gasoline refuelling times, while also being better for battery lifespan, but would require industry coordination and standardisation re: battery packs and install location that, sadly, simply does not exist. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.212|172.70.42.212]] 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Plug-in hybrids have been superior since 1904, but the incremental capital cost is still an issue while oil is under $100/bbl. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.129|172.71.150.129]] 19:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: Except of course that this isn't quite as simple as this. A Honda Civic (one the most popular US petrol cars) will go about 400 miles on a full tank, about the same as a Dodge Ram. Also about the same as a Tesla Model S. There's a pretty good reason this isn't a coincidence - people don't want more much more range, and a bigger tank is more weight. A Chevy Silverado full tank will go about 500miles. If you really want range, you need to look at a hybrid car. As the comic points out, the torque on a standard otto cycle engine is poor, but that cycle is deliberately designed to give more torque. Hybrids use an Atkinson cycle which is far more energy efficient, but could not provide enough torque - so you use the electric to do that. A Prius has a range in excess of 630 miles, more than any popular petrol car. So if you want range, you still want an electric engine, just store the energy in hydrocarbons. For similar reasons, diesel trains use the diesel to run generators which then power the electric motors on the wheels, and have done for decades. {{unsigned ip|172.70.162.186|20:47, 19 June 2024}}

On the other other hand, in a lot of cases an electric motor is just a gas engine with extra steps due to the current state of the power grid. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.232|172.68.174.232]] 17:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not here in Washington State it isn't. Most of our electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: AFAIK, no new dams are being built, and I reckon that the probability is vanishingly small that any new dam that is mooted will survive the inevitable storms of protest and get built. The trend, rather, and the political pressure, salmon fans, is to remove dams (e.g. those on the Elwha River). The existing dams are aging, their impoundment volumes are dwindling due to sedimentation, and the water for those impoundments is increasingly bespoke and is, in at least some cases, declining in volume due to climate perturbations. The population, and its energy use, is increasing. As of 2022, [https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA#tabs-1 I read], WA was a net exporter of electricity. I would not be taking that status for granted. A few years ago, a study was published, finding that, in states where the electricity grid was dependent on fossil-fuel-fired plants, electric cars had a greater carbon footprint than gasoline/petrol cars - and this was before the major gains in gasoline fuel efficiency contributed by advances in computer tech (2007 Honda Civic hybrid gets the same city mileage, ca. 35 mpg, as a 2021 Honda Civic petrol engine, in my hands). I do not know what current assessments say about this. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.129|172.71.150.129]] 04:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

:I'd say an electric motor powered by a hydrocarbon grid still usually makes better use of gas than a typical gas engine. Gas engines that don't always run at full throttle (as in, a gas engine in an appliance) have dramatically worse efficiency than electric motors that don't always run at full throttle. It depends ''very'' heavily on use case, though; always take measurements and run the numbers before coming to a specific conclusion. Science would be nothing without empirical data. [[User:Eunakria|Eunakria]] ([[User talk:Eunakria|talk]]) 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Should this have [[:Category:Climate change]]? I can’t decide. [[User:Usb-rave|Usb-rave]] ([[User talk:Usb-rave|talk]]) 17:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, it's better with it for people looking though the category later on, they will want to see it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.10|162.158.186.10]] 19:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, with this argument the thing has engines have going for them over EVs is the refueling time and availability. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.175|172.69.59.175]] 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's really remarkable how uninformed and unintelligent this comic is, to the point where I now doubt the veracity of his entire What If? series. {{unsigned ip|172.70.114.62|19:13, 19 June 2024}}
:To be fair, there’s sort of an agenda here, while I don’t believe there’s one in ''What If?'' I can’t independently verify the accuracy of ''What If?'', of course, but there is that. [[User:Usb-rave|Usb-rave]] ([[User talk:Usb-rave|talk]]) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:I'd like to know more about the "uninformed and unintelligent" assessment. Given that not all of Randall's characters copy his ''exact thinking''. I don't think he'd espouse much of what he has Black Hat say/do. And clearly many of his Cueballs, even being often accepted as Author Avatars, can be clearly being dumber than Randall (who is 'writing them as dumb') is. What we have is parody. And maybe you just don't see the parody in the way intended (or understood by others). Perhaps you have a completely different mindset, or are just inclined to be anti-Randall> (Even in things he's actually right about...) I don't know where the mismatch may be here, but if you're seriously thinking that there remains not one useful take-away from anything Randall has ever said, just from the ''possibility'' that his cartoon characters don't completely mesh with what you perceive as a correct worldview, then this needs looking at from a different perspective than just reassessing the whole ''What If?'' corpus. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24|162.158.74.24]] 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: The tagline for the xkcd comic does include the word "sarcasm", which should warn against over-serious or over-literal interpretations. Not infrequently, I find, xkcd ventures into the realm of the sarcastic, the opinionated, even the polemic (cf. the Hilary Clinton campaign ads), and this one states a clear opinion in favor of electric cars ... with which one is free to debate (as here, exhaustively), or disagree. All of which brings the cartoonist to the attention of the world, and thereby supports him in his chosen line of work, which, in the current state of cartooning as a profession, is no small accomplishment. As for the opinion, consider the following question: "I have a four-mile commute to work. Which is the most eco-friendly option? The electric car? The hybrid? The gas/petrol car?" Answer: the foot car. Walking the four miles is the only minimum-carbon solution under all circumstances ... except perhaps ones that allow the questioner to keep deir job. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.4|108.162.245.4]] 05:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh... OK. I had poor signal so this one took a while to load, and I only saw the "Gas vs. Electric" title. I thought it was going to be about kitchen stoves - ones that burn ''actual'' "gas", vs. electrical heating elements. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 19:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually experienced the "cons" of a less limited degree of power and not being noisy at all, today. Someone in an electric vehicle (could have been a Tesla) pulled out of a sideroad, accelerating at what seemed like a reckless rate (it was advantageous to do so, but a petrol-powered vehicle that might have taken a bit longer to switch up the gears would still have been up to speed soon enough to not get into contention with any other vehicles). And with barely more than a whine, and perhaps a bit of road-noise that might have included at one point a bit of grit-splattering. I was watching this, and knew they were pulling out of the junction (and knew for certain, moreover, that there was no traffic coming up or down the road, nor anybody crossing the road anywhere in my rather long sight). Had there been someone ''actually'' about to cross the road (within the next 50 yards or so), however, it would have been entirely possible that they would have been caught be surprise by this near-silent and suddenly fast-moving vehicle. If it was a Tesla, then maybe its inbuilt forward 'radar'/whatever would have helped bring the vehicle to a stop, or at least slow it down/stop if from speeding up enough, before any actual accident might have happened... but this is theoretical, as it just happened not to happen anything like this on this occasion... But it could have. And the paradigm for crossing the road that I learnt several decades ago of "Stop, Look, Listen, Think" has probably now started to lose out on the "Listen" bit, and possibly degraded even the "Look" and "Think" until we start to retrain ourselves to anticipate vehicles whipping around random corners that are far more silent-and-deadly then what we've all become used to. Ok, so this is not necessarily the total fault of the electric vehicles (or even the drivers, but they must have ''some'' hand in the matter), but in changing the dynamics and situational awarenesses of road traffic so much it ''might'' be considered a relatable problem. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24|162.158.74.24]] 23:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: I drove an electric motorcycle for a while, which put me quite exposed and aware of safety and my driving environment. The concerns about EVs being too quiet don't come across as grounded in reality. Modern ICE vehicles typically have minimal engine noise already. There are really two cases: out on the road, where half the people (exaggerating) have their earbuds in, and any engine noise is swamped by tire noise anyway. No difference between ICE and electric here. Then in a parking lot, where tire noise is not significant, and maybe pedestrians could get extra auditory cues about the vehicles around them from ICE engine noise. In that context, I personally would flip open my visor and make eye contact with pedestrians. It would be nice if drivers of full-sized cars and trucks, no matter their power source, would do more of that. Driving while inattentive is unambiguously bad. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.204|172.69.23.204]] 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
: Rolling noise becomes more than enough for safe audibility by about 30 km/h (below which speed collisions are relatively less dangerous anyways, though most urban streets really should have a speed limit of 20 km/h for numerous reasons including safety), and actually dominates engine noise by about 55 km/h. ICEs are loud enough to have like a dozen deleterious health effects even while idling, though the noise of a bicycle, if sufficiently constant, is enough to reach the WHO threshold. In short, electric cars only need to make additional noise below about 30 km/h for safety, and even then only 55dBA, quieter than typical speech, and even then only if there's already a lot of noise polution to drown them out. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.33|162.158.146.33]] 07:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::Although really what they mostly need is drivers who look where they're going, and don't assume that people will just get out of their way when they hear them coming.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 08:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the current explanation is missing the forest for the trees. My impression was that White Hat was parroting a ChatGPT-style response -- noncommittal and logically incoherent. (In fact, I missed the logical non sequitur the first time I read the strip. The style just screamed to me ChatGPT, though.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 00:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:929: Speculation

2024-06-12T20:24:18Z

172.69.195.124:

I love the comics like this that work on multiple levels. They really lend to the legitimacy of xkcd as a thinking man's webcomic, and they're great comics to link to when I'm trying to make a point. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a bolt. Longbows fire arrows, crossbows fire bolts. 'K?
:That bolt looks maighte like an arrow to me... but let's not quarrel about this. --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 23:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
::Crossbows do fire bolts, so the only reason you wouldn't want to quarrel about it is because you would be wrong.
::However, the word "arrow" comes from the official transcript, so YOU don't want to quarrel about it either, 'K? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 07:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Quarrel? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarrel]--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.9|141.101.99.9]] 12:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::: Please check your adds on the preview before committing it here. Everything you do save here is viewable to everyone; that's just annoying. I just want to see your primary intention, because THAT'S IMPORTANT, if that doesn't work fix it at PREVIEW before we get a mess here. I'm just happy if I can understand what you are talking about. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 00:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The explanation states that it is Black Hat speaking in the title text. It makes much more sense if it is Randall speaking, but just demonstrating a slightly black-hat tendency. In my opinion. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 17:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, but in the original comic's title text, it uses the single-quotes--that wasn't just added by explainxkcd as a formatting thing. When Randall is supposed to be the one speaking, there are no quotation marks in the title text... that implies this one is a quote from Black Hat. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.171|108.162.216.171]] 04:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There's another joke not mentioned in the explanation. Cueball said "You're not really the '''catch''' type, are you." since Black Hat shot the basketball instead of '''catching''' it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.246|108.162.219.246]] 21:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the Category:Multiple Cueballs. I switched which Cueball is called Cueball in the transcript so now the one named Cueball has all the interesting comments of this comic and also he is the one shooting at the hoop and passing to Black-Hat. Also made a note that the other guy also looks like Cueball. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Where'd Black Hat get that crossbow? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 08:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:From the all-you-can-eat crossbow store. We're regular customers. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 00:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
::Psst— answering six-year-old comments ain't cool. [[User:BlackHat|BlackHat]] ([[User talk:BlackHat|talk]] 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC
:::How else could I have answered? (And that was a month-old comment...) [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]])) 15:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC))
:::Why the fuck not? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.88|162.158.155.88]] 17:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) (please sign your comments with four ~s)
::::Sarah, regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:929:_Speculation&diff=prev&oldid=344243 your edits], just letting you know that:
::::*You can use {{template|unsigned ip}} (or {{template|unsigned}}, for named accounts).
::::**Simply enter <code><nowiki>{{unsigned ip|<the ip>|<the timestamp>}}</nowiki></code> - the timestamp is optional, but useful.
::::**In this case, <code><nowiki>{{unsigned ip|162.158.155.88|17:35, 31 May 2023}}</nowiki></code> would have been Ok (I don't usually add the UTC bit, from the bare timestamp that I tend to copy).
::::*To quote something markup-like such as "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>", literally, you need the <code><nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></code> tag. Plus the <code></nowiki></code> closer, naturally. But the above template does that for you.
::::FYI. On the offchance you'll read this reply, as you don't have a Talk page yet.  [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

But as OF NEARLY 2023, I can say with certainty that Facebook’s “meta” project has failed miserably. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|SilverTheTerribleMathematician]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 11:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-03T14:23:22Z

172.69.195.124: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2940
| date = May 31, 2024
| title = Modes of Transportation
| image = modes_of_transportation_2x.png
| imagesize = 510x518px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = My bold criticism might anger the hot air balloon people, which would be a real concern if any of them lived along a very narrow line directly upwind of me.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Transportationally convenient but insidiously dangerous robotic car - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Randall's chart compares different modes of transportation by how convenient and dangerous they are. At the top-left (high in convenience and low in danger) are airliners and trains, as these are both fast-moving vehicles on which many millions of dollars have been spent to make them safer. In the top-right, motorcycles are at the same convenience level, but are rated much more dangerous, since they are easy to lose control of at high speeds, and careless drivers (of cars) can easily hit a motorcycle and cause extreme harm. Things like unicycles (bottom-left) are considered much lower on the convenience scale, being not very fast or easy ways to travel, but relatively safe, while towards the centre, skis are apparently moderately convenient and moderately dangerous, since they are relatively easy to fall on if going fast downhill. Way out on their own in the bottom-right, hot air balloons appear to be unique in being rated least on convenience and highest on danger. Presumably, modes of transportation similar to hot air balloons (like zeppelins and blimps) are left off the chart to increase the gap for comedic effect.

Because a hot air balloon is rated so poorly, if an optimization algorithm considers it the optimal mode of transportation, it must be the result of a sign error (e.g. having a minus sign where a plus sign is supposed to be, or vice versa), making the algorithm optimize for the opposite result by mistake. This could be because, unusually, on the y axis of the chart higher is better, whereas on the x axis lower is better. If these were treated the wrong way around, it would result in the air balloon appearing to be the best result. More typically, you might plot convenience vs ''safety'', so that a higher value on either axis would represent a better result. However, both measures are still likely to need to take underlying data (for safety, incident counts, etc.; for convenience, travel time, etc.) and invert them, leading to potential for errors.

In order to compare the relative danger from each mode of transport, one can look at statistics of fatalities and injuries sustained during each activity. Traditionally this can be reported in fatalities/{{w|Killed_or_Seriously_Injured|KSI}} per mile driven or passenger mile (or other unit of distance), to account for the fact that some modes are used much more than others and make valid comparisons. They may also be reported per capita (but this ignores the relative usage of different modes), or per journey (but this doesn't take into account the fact that different modes typically have different journey lengths and times). All of these are somewhat flawed, since they are really measuring the danger ''to'' users of that mode of transport, both from their own conveyance, and from other sources such as other road users. Since ballooning is not a very common mode of transport, hot air balloon incidents are [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9533500/ correspondingly uncommon], and flights are not routinely monitored or registered, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions from the data for hot air balloons.

The title text makes a joke that if a hot air balloon enthusiast disagrees with the ranking and is angered by it, they may wish to remonstrate or retaliate, but will have a difficult time getting to Randall's house with their preferred mode of transportation, because they are limited to travelling in the direction of the wind. If they chose an alternative form of transport, they would be making his point for him. In reality, hot air balloons have some freedom to choose their direction of travel, since by controlling their altitude they can access different wind directions at different heights. Randall should, therefore, be concerned about hot air balloonists who live within a wedge spanned by the various wind directions accessible on a given day. In principle, if the weather conditions are favorable, this could cover every direction from Randall's house. The phrase "hot air balloon people" is reminiscent of "autogyro people" from the title text of [[1972: Autogyros]].

Curiously, the comic includes most common forms of transport, and a number of less common ones, but omits examples such as buses (a mass transit solution arguably more convenient than trains). It is not clear if this is an error, or a deliberate choice to maintain the comic's layout and presentation.

This is the second comic in a row to feature an algorithm.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Transportation !! Description !! Convenience !! Danger !! Zone
|-
|{{w|Train}}s
|Mass transit on rails, typically between urban centers.
|data-sort-value=""|Convenient and comfortable, provided proper funding/maintenance and filled timetables. Allows relatively cheap travel for many people at once.
|data-sort-value=""|Exceedingly safe, due to dedicated tracks along a controlled environment. Accidents are largely limited to individuals wandering onto the off-limit tracks.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Airliner}}s
|Mass transit by aircraft
|data-sort-value=""| Extremely fast travel between population centers for larger groups of people. Less comfortable and more expensive than trains.
|data-sort-value=""| Extremely safe due to strong regulation and relatively little traffic interactions. However, the few catastrophies that do happen have high death counts.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Car}}s
|Motorised road vehicle Most common method of long distance travel, used by many individuals to reach specific destinations
|data-sort-value=""| Owners of a car can usually go easily to any road-accessible location within a 200 mile/300 km radius. Requires constant focus, but can transport a few passengers or some cargo. Parking, maintenance, and infrastructure requirements are often ignored when judging car convenience.
|data-sort-value=""| Insides of cars are covered with safety features, because collisions are relatively common. Assuming appropriate speed limits and proper focus by the driver, accidents can largely be avoided. Driving is the most dangerous thing most people do, and cars are very dangerous to nearby pedestrians and cyclists.
|Practicality
|-
|Scooters
|Either: 
*{{w|Kick scooter}} - Less convenient than the placing would suggest.
*{{w|Scooter (motorcycle)|Low powered motorbike/moped}} - More dangerous than the placing would suggest.
*{{w|Motorized scooter|Engine-powered scooter}} - A middle-ground.
|data-sort-value=""| Kick scooter-style vehicles are probably less convenient than bicycles as they do not provide seating, and are less efficient at converting energy into motion. A low-powered motorbike is about as convenient as a bicycle, requiring refueling in lieu of pedalling, and going much faster.
|data-sort-value=""| Kick scooters are much slower – and therefore safer – than bicycles. A motorized scooter can exceed bicycle speeds, but falling might be slightly safer. Low-powered motorbikes often go much faster than bicycles, and would therefore be much more dangerous. All leave the rider vulnerable to danger from motorised traffic sharing the same space.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Bicycle}}s
|Human-powered (or {{w|Electric bicycle|mostly so}}) two-wheeled road vehicle
|data-sort-value=""| Assuming proper road or trail connections, bicycles are highly flexible for traveling to any location within a ~10 km radius, or further.
|data-sort-value=""| Bicycles mostly move slow enough for falls or collisions to have little impact, though they are vulnerable to motorized traffic where it shares the road, and are often perceived to be much more subject to danger than they really are.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Boat}}s
|Watercraft of various types
|data-sort-value=""| Specialized for water traffic, which is a very common form of transportation. Quite comfortable (unless you suffer from seasickness), but usually very slow.
|data-sort-value=""| Sinking, capsizing, or falling overboard, whether by collision or misuse, can be lethal, especially on the sea. However, collisions are very rare.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Walking}}
|Personal bipedal ambulation 
|data-sort-value=""| Can travel between any two connected points regardless of infrastructure, but most people only find it comfortable for a few kilometers. Very slow compared to even bicycles, but the energy intensity is good for exercise.
|data-sort-value=""| Most danger to those walking comes from others, such as being hit by a motorized vehicle. Has the potential for trip injuries, and walking up or down stairs is particularly dangerous, since a greater fall can result.
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Motorcycle}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""| As practical as cars to move between locations, but generally less comfortable, especially in rough weather.
|data-sort-value=""| Cars with all the safety features of bicycles. Exceedingly dangerous at higher speeds, especially when sharing the road with cars.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Helicopter}}s
| Rotorcraft in which lift and thrust are supplied by horizontally spinning rotors.
|data-sort-value=""| Effective to move between any two points as long as there are landing pads of reasonable size. Can be used to hover relatively still in the air. Speed for utility helicopters is comparable to trains. Very loud, and very difficult to learn to fly.
|data-sort-value=""| As per {{w|Harry Reasoner}}: "An airplane by its nature wants to fly, and if not interfered with too strongly by unusual events or by a deliberately incompetent pilot, it will fly. A helicopter does not want to fly. It is maintained in the air by a variety of forces and controls working in opposition to each other, and if there is any disturbance in this delicate balance the helicopter stops flying; immediately and disastrously. There is no such thing as a gliding helicopter."
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Light aircraft}}
|In the United States, the general category of [https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/categories small aircraft] covers a variety of aircraft certified to weigh 19,000 pounds (8618 kg) or less at takeoff. Maximum allowed weight varies by specific category.
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Go-kart}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""| A lack of proper suspension makes for a bumpy ride, and the maximum speed is quite low.
|data-sort-value=""| Crashing is much more likely to cause spinal damage than bicycles, but the relatively low speed would make them much safer than other motorized vehicle options.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Skateboard}}s
| A board on four wheels
|data-sort-value=""| Much slower and less energy-efficient than bicycles.
|data-sort-value=""| As long as you're not doing mad tricks in a quarterpipe, using a skateboard for transportation carries little risk, other than being struck by other users of the same space. Safety gear is common.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Inline skates|Rollerblades}}
| Shoes with wheels at the bottom
|data-sort-value=""| Much slower and less energy-efficient than bicycles.
|data-sort-value=""| As long as you're not doing mad tricks in a quarterpipe, using rollerblades for transportation carries little risk, other than being struck by other users of the same space. Safety gear is common.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Ski}}s
| Narrow strips of material to stand on while sliding down a hill
|data-sort-value=""| A fine way to move downhill relatively fast, but maintenance of the slope is required. Also a fairly quick way to travel on the flat when there is snow cover that would make other modes of transport challenging. Less useful in less conducive conditions.
|data-sort-value=""|Downhill skiers can reach high speeds at which collisions could cause significant injury to the skier's lightly protected body. It can be hard to control your speed at lower skill levels, but as long as low speeds are maintained (as it might when used as a transportation option), skiing is not that dangerous.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Unicycle}}s
| One-wheeled human-powered vehicle
|data-sort-value=""|Can be a [https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/24351890.wellington-teen-circumnavigates-globe-unicycle/ practical form of transport] for skilled riders. Because unicycles lack a gear system, they are less mechanically efficient than bicycles and have a much lower top-speed.
|data-sort-value=""| Because of the lower top-speed, unicycles would be safer than bicycles, though you may fall off it more frequently.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Sled}}s
| A construction that can slide over snow, ice, or sand
|data-sort-value=""| Useful in limited conditions in which other forms of transport might struggle to cope with.
|data-sort-value=""| It is hard to properly control your speed downhill, but extremely safe on level terrain or slight slopes.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Bumper Cars}}
| Small electric karts with rubber bumpers
|data-sort-value=""| Only really convenient for making ''very'' short journeys. Typically require an electronic mesh in the ceiling to move at all.
|data-sort-value=""| Apparently safe enough to be a hardly-supervized children's entertainment attraction.
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Hot Air Balloon}}s
| A basket tied to a huge bag of heated air
|data-sort-value=""| Provide limited control and low speeds. They were the only form of air-travel available in the 19th-century, but were overtaken by powered air-travel.
|data-sort-value=""| A malfunction in the balloon can result in a very rapid descent, from great height. A poorly executed descent could result in a mid-air collision (e.g. with trees, powerlines, etc.) with potential for a nasty fall.
|?????
|}

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

:[A chart is shown, where the Y axis is labeled "Convenient for travel" and has an arrow pointing up and the X axis is labeled "Dangerous" and has an arrow pointing right.]
:[The following modes are shown in the "Zone of practicality" (a large irregular area fitting in to the top left corner of the chart), highlighted with a gray background, starting with the first few bunched at highest convenience, :]
:Trains [very convenient, very safe]
:Airliners
:Cars
:Scooters [the most dangerous of this set, at medium-low danger]
:Bicycles
:Boats [medium-high convenience, a slight amount of danger]
:Walking [the least convienient, at roughly half, and lowest danger of this set]
:[The following modes are shown in the "Zone of specialty and recreational vehicles" (a large irregular swathe from the top right to the bottom left, not quite touching the prior zone), highlighted with a gray background, the nodes spread in rough order from high convenience/danger to low convenience/danger:]
:Motorcycles [highly convenient, nearly maximum danger]
:Helicopters [not quite fully convenient, most danger]
:Light aircraft
:Go karts
:Skateboards
:Rollerblades
:Skis
:Unicycles
:Sleds
:Bumper cars [lowest convenience and lowest danger item]
:[The following is labeled "?????" (in the bottom right corner), and has a gray background all to itself in a small blob notably distant from the nearest other group:]
:Hot air balloons [placed as almost the least convenient and most dangerous, of all labels]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Hot air balloons are the optimal mode of transportation, if your optimization algorithm has a sign error.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-03T10:32:19Z

172.69.195.124: /* Explanation */

Talk:2900: Call My Cell

2024-02-29T12:39:14Z

172.69.195.124:

I think he just forgot Cueball's name. By asking hom to call him, he would see the name on the screen And remember it. Thus also remembering how annoyed he is by Cueball. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.114.136|172.71.114.136]] 06:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:Nah, this is just Black Hat being a [[72: Classhole|classhole]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.234|172.70.211.234]] 06:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
What kind of person would need to check their contacts to see if a person is blocked when you can just ask them to ring your phone? [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 06:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit sad that comic 2900 was not released on 29th of February. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
:Perhaps it technically ''was''. By the timing of the auto;pickup/article creation by the 'Bot, it was 29/Feb all the way up to (and including) Randall's own TZ. It was pretty much as 'late' as you can get before you start getting to the realms of actual "delayed a day for technical reasons" as occasionally exbibited by some of his. (Or the rare times the current 'bot fell over and humans were initially tardy at filling in.) Though the 'official' date is likely the 28th; I haven't checked the publication DB, yet, but I'd guess it still is listed as Wednesday-as-usual.
:It's also been quite some time since Randall deliberately juggled numbers (possibly even by inserting Guest Week, which ISTR allowed a years-later numerical 'synchonicity' (can't quite remember/find what that was, but it was one accepted as entirely intended). It'd be an even longer game to have also engineered ''this'' one. And not then make it something like the recent leap-light-year one to make it relevent. So probably not planned. But ''possibly'' spontaneously held back as a last-minute (and entirely unofficial) whim, on seeing the same coincidence as we have noted. IMO. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 12:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2893: Sphere Tastiness

2024-02-27T15:18:06Z

172.69.195.124:

base balls are delicious after boiling and peeling[[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.212|172.68.64.212]] 00:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:You seem to be confusing baseballs with eggs. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]])
:And who the hell calls baseballs “bAsE bAlLs”. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

who's the authority on whether or not the earth and the moon are "not tasty"????, i think the moon would be pretty delicious actually [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.71|172.69.71.71]] 00:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)GR8GH
:Some Apollo astronauts reported that moondust tastes and smells like gunpowder. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::Yum! [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds {{w|Gunpowder_tea|delicious}} to me.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.26|172.70.85.26]] 11:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:::My favorite! [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 12:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, if you like green cheese! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.123|172.70.207.123]] 03:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::I actually quite like a good blue cheese, and had a blue (red) leicester only yesterday. But some actual sage derby would fulfil the role of a green one quite tastily. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.112|141.101.99.112]] 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::{{w|Green_cheese}} can be perfectly tasty - it's just a young unaged cheese.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.26|141.101.99.26]] 11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:"Not like any cheese I've ever tasted"-Wallace[[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.43|172.70.127.43]] 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In Fuck Grapefruits, watermelons were just slightly tasty. Does he like other melons so much that the average melon is as tasty as grapes? Or has he learned how delicious watermelon actually is? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:I think that he probably just learned how delicious watermelon is. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::Watermelon is different genus (albeit in the same family) to most melons, so I'd assume watermelon is excluded here.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.162|172.69.194.162]] 11:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Of course silly discussion but the melons is listed below grapes on the tasty scale. And if that scale is also log then they could be deemed to taste much less nice than grapes even with this slight difference. Maybe even grape fruit would be close to this line? But also melons does not mean water melons! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This comic is begging for another of his four-corner plots, not a line graph. Ball bearings: lower left. Bowling balls: middle bottom. Tapioca: upper left. Cheese balls: upper middle. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.123|172.70.207.123]] 03:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:My first thought was that he clearly isn't accounting for frequency, because I'm pretty sure there's a ''lot'' more oranges than baseballs...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

:Where do you place eyeballs in that graph? (Don't need to eat them to taste them... Only lick) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.138.57|172.68.138.57]] 08:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
::(But that means you're missing the best bit... Would you just lick an egg? Or even a ''scotch'' egg?) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 15:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a linear interpolation, Michael. How big could the error be? 10%? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 03:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Grapes are spherical? I guess some varieties. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

With a logarithmic x axis and an unlabelled y axis, I find calling it “linear interpolation” without further explanation disingenious. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.121|172.68.110.121]] 08:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to give serious consideration as to how untasty the Sun is, and the possibility of subatomic particles being absolutely delicious. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189|172.69.79.189]] 10:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:Can't we just ask whoever tasted quarks to figure out the different flavours?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.24|172.69.195.24]] 11:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Baseballs aren't the only questionable object for this theory..... think of the marbles!!!--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.73|162.158.154.73]] 12:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:Marbles are tasteless. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In looking for something else that might fulfil the 800m sphere criteria I stumbled across [https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/p0qws3/self_if_you_blended_all_788_billion_people_on/ this] :o(| I'll make no comment on potential tastiness.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.191|172.70.90.191]] 12:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:Soylent Green meatball. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Galactus would totally disagree with this graph. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.25|172.70.175.25]] 16:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:As would Unicron... and Dormammu...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::[https://tick.fandom.com/wiki/Omnipotus . . . Omnipotus . . .] [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 12:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to a mile-long hotdog [https://www.lifeinthecarolinas.com/syndicated-columns/2018/3/6/miles-and-miles-of-hotdogs-from-an-igloo miles-of-hotdog], while technically not a single hotdog nor a sphere it's a mile's worth of hotdogs. I recall there once being created a mile-long submarine / hoagie / po-boy sandwich, but couldn't find it on a quick google search. That also is not remotely spherical. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The moon is made of delicious cheese, isn't it? That would put it in the upper right corner.
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.15|172.71.102.15]] 16:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Giant peaches?

Am I reading this wrong, or is the mark for grapes just slightly to the left of the tick for 10^-1 m? Which suggests that grapes are about 8 cm wide? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.82|172.70.38.82]] 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:Looks to me like it's about 2/3 the way between 10^-2 and 10^-1. So call it between 10^-1.3 and 10^-1.4. Which is between 4cm and 5cm. Still a rather large grape, but perhaps more plausible if he's measuring across its widest dimension. 10^-1.6 (2.5cm) would perhaps give a more representative grape length, or maybe 10^-1.7 (2cm) if he normalised the measurements to account for their spheroid(ish) nature. But we'd also have to get in to the question of when is a grape a grape? There will be lots of grapes that will never reach more than a few mm, but not ones that we would normally eat. His melon looks to be about 10^-0.7, or 20cm, which again seems rather large for an average dimension (though proportionately less so than the grape).[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.203|172.69.194.203]] 09:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a reference to James and the Giant Peach [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.39|172.71.155.39]] 21:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IDK how you'd define "tastes okay", but I bet you could find an 800m comet that's about 50% ice & 50% dust. [[User:Snuffysam|Snuffysam]] ([[User talk:Snuffysam|talk]]) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:I think you would need less than 50% of dust for "taste OK". Still, you may be on right track - there should be some comet consisting of mostly ice which would taste OK. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::Or one that was 50% dust and 50% ice cream.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.216|172.70.85.216]] 09:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why and how did John Young taste the moon? I heard moon dust is cancerous, far more jagged than earth sand, and even if it WAS just earth sand, it would be awful to put anywhere near your mouth. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.203|172.69.59.203]] 09:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:I've heard it had some pretty nasty effects on Cave Johnson. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.3|172.70.46.3]] 11:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::SPAAAAAAACEEEE!!!! [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:I'm sure that when they removed their helmets back in the capsule, some of the dust was airborne. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that the Earth is slightly more tasty than the Moon? [[User:Weslar|Weslar]] ([[User talk:Weslar|talk]]) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Weslar
:This was mentioned, for some time (I even rephrased the original prose about it), but it seems to have been excised during a subsequent edit. The thoughts were that this is because there were known tasty bits in it. I refined that to "on the surface", or similar wording. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.108|141.101.99.108]] 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the 800-meter sphere that tastes okay would be humans? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.120|172.70.143.120]] 03:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably best candidate for the 800 m sphere that tastes ok would be some kind of fungus. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.75|172.68.26.75]] 16:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
:Cheese. A big wheel of cheese. (Maybe blue cheese, for anyone still liking the idea of fungus...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.48|162.158.74.48]] 18:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) -- addendum: no, wait, that'd be absolutely ''delicious, not "tastes ok". At least if it's actual proper cheese and not squeezy stuff or hamburger-slice stuff.

Jumon (the “j” pronounced like the “s” in “measure”), desert treat from India, perfectly spherical, between grapes and tangerines in size, and spiked upward off the scale for tastiness, also breaks this correlation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.172|172.69.34.172]] 21:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that in "What if? 2" Randall says that stars (roughly spherical) taste overwhelmingly sour? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 17:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Megan

2024-01-27T14:32:08Z

172.69.195.124: /* Characteristics */ Fix maths

{{Infobox character
| image = Megan.png‎
| imagesize = 200px
| caption = '
| first_appearance = [[24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey]]
}}

<noinclude>:''For a list of comics, see [[:Category:Comics featuring Megan|Comics featuring Megan]].''
:''For Megan's boyfriend, see [[Cueball]].''</noinclude>

'''Megan''' is a [[stick figure]] character in [[xkcd]]. She is the second-most frequently appearing character, after [[Cueball]], and the most frequently appearing female character. She does not necessarily always represent the same character from comic to comic. She is essentially the female equivalent of Cueball, representing the every-woman to his {{w|everyman}}. This is less clear than for Cueball as there are several comics where there are [[:Category:Multiple Cueballs|multiple Cueball-like figures]], any of whom could be called Cueball. There are very few comics where this happens with Megan-like characters, with the few including [[139: I Have Owned Two Electric Skateboards]], [[173: Movie Seating]], [[1409: Query]], [[1496: Art Project]], [[430: Every Damn Morning]], [[2040: Sibling-in-Law]], and in [[1951: Super Bowl Watch Party]].

Of course, she also appears several times in some of the comics with [[:Category:Large drawings|large drawings]], like [[1110: Click and Drag]]. Often this should be seen as different small comics, where there is just one Megan in each story. In [[1608: Hoverboard]], however, there are two identical Megans at the bottom rear end of the Destroyer, where one is talking to the other. As opposed to with Cueball, an example where this is a problem for Megan has yet to be found.

Megan does sometimes appear to have slightly specific personality traits; she has quite odd habits and is sometimes shown to be very focused and intent on a goal. However, as explained above this is not a general rule for a given Megan character.

==Name==
''Explain xkcd'' originally referred to this character as "Cutie" (complementing "Cueball" with a matching first syllable). But then a "Cutie" was given a specific name, Megan, in [[159: Boombox]] and later in for instance [[215: Letting Go]], [[420: Jealousy]], [[478: The Staple Madness]], and [[654: Nachos]]. The name was also used without displaying a drawing of Megan in [[596: Latitude]] and in the title text of [[627: Tech Support Cheat Sheet]]. The name Cutie was then changed to Megan. If this rule should be followed generally, then Cueball should be re-named Rob after [[276: Fixed Width]] (and the [[:Category:Comics featuring Rob|other 12 times]] a Cueball has been named Rob in total). But as mentioned above this was not to be.

She can also be drawn under a different name as in [[672: Suggestions]], where a sexy image of her, hair hanging loose over her face, is called Susie. And in [[1221: Nomenclature]] Megan is called Mrs. Whatsit in the transcript provided in the comic source. In [[734: Outbreak]] Cueball and Megan are named Ryan and Laura, but that is a movie, so they could be actors called Cueball and Megan in real life. A character that looked a lot like Megan, but with somewhat longer hair and a much meaner attitude, was distinguished from her as [[Black Hat]]'s girlfriend [[Danish]]. A similar long-haired version of Megan also appeared in [[1730: Starshade]], although without the attitude.

==History==
Early comics often feature Megan-style characters who may or may not be identified as Megan. [[Randall]] appears not to have standardized his character lineup early in the comic's run, and as a result, certain early female characters sometimes have similar hair to Megan, but some different features. The name (or even pseudonym) "Megan" may be reference to a lost love of Randall's, given that he wrote a passive-aggressive toast for Megan's wedding in [[420: Jealousy]] about how he was madly still in love with her, put across in a way that would generally ruin the day for everyone involved. We also see this earlier in [[215: Letting Go]]. Several of the [[:Category:Cancer|comics about cancer]] have Megan representing Randall's fiancée and later wife.

==Characteristics==
Megan is distinguished by her black shoulder-length hair which generally appears to be parted in the middle in front and is draped behind what are presumably her (undrawn) ears. It is shorter than the character of similar appearance, [[Danish]]. Megan also tends to behave less defiantly than Danish does.

Megan's age is sometimes given, like in [[1409: Query]], we learn that she is 30 or younger, implying that she was born in 1983-84, and in [[630: Time Travel]], we learn she was born in 1983 (born after August 14). Although in [[2178: Expiration Date High Score]], we can calculate that she was born in 1982 or earlier. Since Randall just uses Megan for any woman not too old or young, and since the figure is not explicitly named "Megan" in any of these comics, these could be two different characters, and we cannot definitely put an age on Megan.

{{navbox-characters}}
[[Category:Characters]]
[[Category:Major characters]]

2880: Sheet Bend

2024-01-16T05:54:57Z

172.69.195.124: s/sleav/sleev/

{{comic
| number = 2880
| date = January 12, 2024
| title = Sheet Bend
| image = sheet_bend_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x244px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A left-handed sheet bend creates a much weaker connection, especially under moderate loads.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SHEET BOND - Seems like there are way too much about the security problems with this connector and less about explaining the comic. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is the seventh installment in the series of [[:Category:Cursed Connectors|Cursed Connectors]] and presents Cursed Connectors #46: The Sheet Bend. At the time of release this was the lowest number used for a cursed connector, replacing [[2495: Universal Seat Belt|#65: Universal Seat Belt]] (with [[2507: USV-C|#286: USV-C]] being the one with the highest number).

This comic shows two double-core cables being joined in a knot to make an electrical connection. The knot used to tie the two halves of the cable is a {{w|sheet bend}}, which is often used to join two ropes of different thicknesses, and explains the name for this type of cursed connector, which seems to be made by ensuring each cable end is terminated with identical electrical connections to the outer sleeving in a manner similar to various 'ring' connections in {{w|Phone connector (audio)|'phone' connectors}}, but as significantly longer and more separated sleeves.



In contrast to more normal methods, [[Randall]] has proposed yet another of his 'cursed' connectors. This one requires ''no'' additional plugs, sockets, enclosures or even tools to use. Any two cables with such ends can be brought together and simply knotted together. This particular knot, and the specific spacing of its two external conductors, appears to be chosen in order to rather elegantly create consistent connections between the respective contacts, with a minimum of fuss.

However, there are potentially many unaddressed but conspicuous problems with this connection method, thus rendering it a 'cursed' connector. Among the issues are:
* The need to have suitable ends to any cables, which would involve issues in the manufacture (and the materials used) as cable's cores must be separately tapped and reliably connected to an external length of conductive sleeving.
* The consistent ability of a cabler to tie the correct knot, which is a skill that will need practice. Done wrongly the electrical connections may not be made correctly, or at all (including as discussed in the title text).
* Even if initially tied correctly, knots can slip or distort &when subsequently pulled more taught.
* The external conducting patches of the cable are an uncommon feature of electrical junctions, with issues in both high-power and low-power situations.
** If the cables are supposed to carry high voltages, any bare conductors ought to be safely isolated from easy contact with equipment/people. In particular, plugs and sockets that carry anything approaching mains-voltages have active and passive elements integrated which protect the person connecting or disconnecting the equipment. There is no physical precaution visible to prevent the person tying or untying the cable from potential shock, who must rely upon the ''other'' end of the potentially 'live' cable being disconnected. And, when left unattended, there would continue to be a high risk of injury (including death), fire or more basic damage due to the lack of any proper physical isolation.
** Low-voltage cables that pass signals between equipment (e.g. networking data or audio signals) are susceptible to external contact disrupting the flow. Random static charges, built up and transfered into the connector, instead make other equipment or people the potential threat to the cabled-up equipment. Or at least disrupt the normal purpose of the cable, where a more standard plug-and-socket/hard-wired connection would not.

The title text says that a left-handed sheet bend would provide a weaker connection. The difference between a left-handed and right-handed sheet knot is that the two free ends of the knotted 'cords' are in the same orientation for a right-handed sheet knot (here, both on the lower side of the image), but on opposite sides for a left-handed sheet knot. A left-handed sheet bend provides less strength to the knot, due to the possibility of distorting (e.g. {{w|Knot#Capsizing|''capsizing''}}) and/or allowing one or both cables to pull through the knot.

This makes the title text a pun on the double meaning of "moderate load", which could be a moderate amount of physical tension applied through the cables ''or'' a moderate amount of electrical current passing through them. Together, it would be expected that tension drawing two conductive surfaces together would create less resistance between them, strengthening the electrical connection as well, but only if the knot holds as expected.

Knots was also the subject of the relatively recent [[2738: Omniknot]].

==Transcript==
:[Above the drawing there is a header. Below the header there is a double-core wire going in from the left and stopping just past the middle of the picture. It shows how the inside of the wire looks and how the silver and golden wires inside are connected to two rectangular pieces of silver and golden material respectively. The golden piece is to the left and the silver piece to the right, closest to the end of the wire. Beneath this wire is shown two double-core wires forming a knot of the sheet bend type. Here it becomes clear that the silver and golden pieces are on the outside of the wires (but connected to the wires running inside the wires). In the knotted part of the wires gold touches gold and silver touches silver, without them touching the other color. Beneath this knot there is a label for the connector.]
:Cursed Connectors #46:
:The Sheet Bend

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Cursed Connectors]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]