explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3092: Baker's Units

2025-05-22T13:35:42Z

172.69.224.82:

Why did he go with only 9/13ths of a Baker's List? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.65.8|172.69.65.8]] 23:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:This suggests that the "expected" length of a list is 12. [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 07:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

A ruler for a "baker's foot" is, apparently, similar to a metal casting patternmaker's {{w|shrink rule}}, although in practice those top out at 2.5%, versus 13/12ths or 8.{3}%. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears to me like g marked by the g-clef is on the second space making the notes b and c which wound be 13 semitones apart. Two compensating errors or just a bit more cleverness for lagniappe?[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 01:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There's also baker's percentages. All the ingredients are defined as a percentage of the weight of the flour. So if you have 1kg (1000gr) of flour and 600ml (gr) of water then the water is said to be 60% hydration.

<blockquote>which are not Platonic solids and cannot be used as dice due to having multiple face types, rendering dice-based games unbalanced</blockquote>
Being a platonic solid is sufficient, but not necessary, for a fair die. The simplest shape for a fair 13-sided die that I can think of off the top of my head is two 6-sided pyramids joined at the base, with one of them truncated for the 13th side. To make it fair, the lengths of the pyramids and the truncation would have to be fine-tuned, but that's certainly possible. Where's John von Neumann when you need him? --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 10:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'd imagined two 6SPs joined by a ''barrel'' (maybe a smooth ring, maybe a set of squares/triangles for either a primsatic or anti-prismatic hexagonal-faced centre-section, but all the way round counting for the same 'roll', either way.) Too short, the chances of landing on the 'edge' is greatly lowered, too long a mid-section, it'll be almost impossible to land anywhere ''but'' on it (imagine a pencil, sharpened at both ends).
:Thus there's a point where a symmetrical (lengthwise, as well as by rotations) shape has ''just enough'' 'middle band' to have equal chances of landing with that as with any other single 'point ends' face (landed on; with it being prismatic, an obvious and readable 'face-up' also presenting itself).
:But it'd be a tight specification, perhaps need emperical testing. The angle between adjacent 'pointy end' triangles with each other would be different from the angle between any of them and the 'barrel', so sharper or rounder edges between faces (not an issue with platonics, as the rolling-resistance is equal by all edge-/corner-intersections being exactly as equal as the faces are) could decrease or increase the probability of mid-roll tumbling. As could deliberately rolling along the prismatic axis to either try to stay on 'that face' or to make it more likely thst the random-walk of tumbles sends it off it (I'd have to run a few simulations; either bias, ''or both'', might be easiest to manipulate by a bit of practiced handling).
:I do rather envisage it being 'numbered' as having +1..+6 and -1 to -6 on the pyramidal ends (by tradition, every +n is on the opposite triangle of the opposite pyramid to its -n counterpart, but you can alternate +s and -s between adjacent pyramid faces), and 0 on the mid-section, so that it'll give symmetrical chance distribution across the good/bad range, which might make the "natural zero" midpoint a not quite so vital number to ensure is as strictly equally likely as all the others. Alternatively, 1..12 (similarly distributed to add up to 13 when taking sat-upon and face-up together) leaves either 13 (beyond-lucky) or 0 (the ''most'' critical of fails) on the ring which is ''deliberately'' mad less-likely to get.
:For even better game-symmetry, supply ''two'' "D12±" dice, design your system on rolling them in pairs. Rolling ''either'' the 0 on the 0..12 ''or'' 13 on the 1..13 gives you the critical [failure|success] on top of the sum-of-the-dice result. Rolling ''both'' 0 and 13 invokes a "critical funny" result (or a "fortunate fail"/"pyrrhic success"), in whatever way suits the game style, current encounter or even the scenario/plot's ultimate challenge. (To contrast a Toons-type game from a Paranoia one, or a straight-up Dungeon-Dive where extreme peril/hilarity needs to be more tightly modulated by the GM.)
:Of course, I'm generally working on the assumption that "12 (or 13) is good, 1 (or 0) is bad", but there's nothing to say the D13 rolls are ''for the players'', and a D13 with a ''higher''-than-normal chance of a 13 would be just the thing for a Horror-themed RPG, invoking the latest plot-stage of whatever cthuluesque escalation is lurking and awaiting the (un?)wary players. I've played all kinds of dice-led games (favourite variation, amongst them is "Babylon 5 dice" - roll two D6, one red, one green... ''lowest'' pips counts, dice-colour dictates if it's positive or negative (upon the baseline for the task attempted), equal dice is zero-offset ''except'' for double-6/double-1 which are critical success/failure ...all nicely symmetrical, as a modified version of a 2D6 distribution 'around' the result of 7), and a 'cursed dice' would not even be amongst the strangest treatments I've seen. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.224.82|172.69.224.82]] 13:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Stick figure

2025-05-17T16:31:31Z

172.69.224.82:

[[File:white hat.png|thumb|200px|[[White Hat]] is an example of a stick figure character]]

A '''stick figure''' is a style of drawing human beings (or other creatures) in which major portions of the body are simplified into single line segments. The majority of [[xkcd]] is drawn in a stick-figure style.

A typical stick figure has one line each for the torso, each arm and each leg, and a circle for a head. More complexity can be added to stick figures by adding joints (two line segments for each arm or leg, or a neck) as well as adding line segments for feet, circles for hands, line segments for fingers, or facial features for expression. xkcd typically makes use of these more versatile methods of adding expression or movement to stick figures, although modern xkcd strips rarely use facial features on stick figure characters, conveying most 'expressions' through the posing of the whole body, arm gestures or even a tilt of the head.

The most common adornment, to differentiate stick figures, are hats or hair. Hats are more common for characters understood to be male, with hair for those understood to be female, but there [[Hairy|are]] some [[Amelia Earhart|exceptions]] and [[Knit Cap|possible ambiguities]]. Clothing, or other bodily adornements, may also be drawn where it [[2660: Gen Z|suits the context]], but the lack of drawn clothes does not apply any degree of nudity (only possibly the [[487: Numerical Sex Positions|depicted scenario]]). The most [[Cueball|undifferentiated]] stick figure has no hat ''or'' obvious hair, and can either be the anonymous character, a [[Rob|named one]] or even presumed to be [[Randall Munroe|the author's avatar]], all of whom may be considered implicitly male.

In most stick figure drawings (including xkcd, typically), most other objects depicted are generally drawn in a similarly simplified style, just as simplified outlines or with line segments or basic shapes in place of more complex figures. Depictions [[968: Everything|in silhouette]] will have figures' heads (and any other items) filled.

==See also==
* [[:Category:Characters]]
* {{w|stick figure|Stick Figure on Wikipedia}}

[[Category:xkcd]]{{xkcdmeta}}

Talk:YES

2025-05-08T12:21:39Z

172.69.224.82:

{{notice|There are many other xkcd pages like this and we're trying to decide how to add them to the wiki. Please see '''[[explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals#Misc pages]]''' for more info.}}
;YES
[[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 11:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

there is a page on xkcd with just a large word, yes.
... i do not compute with this information. {{unsigned|162.158.162.102|06:33, 8 May 2025}}

Talk:3084: Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object

2025-05-05T19:49:20Z

172.69.224.82:

lol, i remember this explanation from a minutephysics video. however, the version of the problem i heard, which is actually paradoxical, is "what happens when an immovable object meets an '''irresistible''' force?" [[User:Not without text|Not without text]] ([[User talk:Not without text|talk]]) 00:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:That was also literally my first thought. [[169]], anyone? --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 05:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::How do connect this comic with [[169: Words that End in GRY]]? I see no connection! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Communicating poorly and then acting smug. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 11:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:The MinutePhysics video: [https://nebula.tv/videos/minute-physics-immovable-object-vs-unstoppable-force-which-wins/ on Nebula] or [https://youtu.be/9eKc5kgPVrA on YouTube] --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 09:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Come on, it's just an arrow made of W- bosons, right? [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 03:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there no joke here? Is it just the solution? [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 06:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I remember an explanation by Isaac Asimov in one of his books which was like "by definition, an immovable object will not move at all under any force in the universe, and an unstoppable force will move all of the objects in this way" and then explained how the definitions conflicted each other and as such prevented both from being able to register for the hypothetical at the same time [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.161|172.64.236.161]] 06:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

In the first MMO games, collision was a big problem. A player could block a doorway, and nobody else could go through. It was even worse if the player had "follower" characters or pets.
One solution was to have characters automatically "push" stationary characters out of the way, but that caused other problems. Modern MMO's such as World of Warcraft simply allow characters to pass through each other, as depicted in this xkcd comic. Our eyes fool us into "seeing" that two characters somehow slid past each other. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.228.132|172.68.228.132]] 07:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Our eyes, or the programmers? I don't have that much experience with MMO's but they probably do render it in specific way to make that effect. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

When the two things pass through each other, at the instant where they both occupy exactly the same space, is there one object or two? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.159|162.158.216.159]] 08:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Given that force is not an object, one. Just like there was when they weren't colocated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.220|172.69.43.220]] 08:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::OK, but what about the 'unstoppable force carrying particles' in the title text? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.204|172.69.194.204]] 19:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I understand it as if a particle interacting with the object counts as 'stopping', in which case an unstoppable force-carrying particle wont have any effect. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.120.157|162.158.120.157]] 20:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The force could simply go around the object. The object hasn't moved, and the force wasn't stopped. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 11:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Redirecting would imply the force could be redirected, allowing us to trap it inside a closed loop, effectively stopping it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.57.132|172.70.57.132]] 15:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This is like the Chinese saying the spear and the shield. Using this comic, I guess spear wins [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 14:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Gonna be honest, I think this is my least favorite comic of the last 500 or so. It's a solution already given by minutephysics, except with all the perspective about reference frames, and what people actually mean with these terms replaced by a caption with a superiority complex. I suppose it gets pretty hard 3000 comics in, but c'mon.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.83|172.68.35.83]] 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:''--Comment by [[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 22:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC) deleted--''
:: Ok, as we're giving personal opinions, I can't let it stand. Some might not exactly be total belly-laughs, but I think they each still have something to them and I prefer a mix of tones (and a wider spatter of focuses and treatments) to them all being exactly the same aspect of 'high-humour'. Not that I'd care to rank them, anyway, but I'm nowhere near ready to go off and make disparaging comments as if this site was bitchaboutxkcd.com, or whatever.
:: I won't try to tell you what to think, yourself, though maybe you should just roll with it. If you really don't like a comic, there'll be another along in two or three days. That might be even 'worse', as well as 'better', but then you can be even more unchill about ''that''. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.82|141.101.98.82]] 22:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

All forces are irresistable. No objects are immovable. If any force acts on any object, the object moves (or deforms). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.84.145|172.68.84.145]] 22:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Can we not say that Dark Matter, if that's what we imagine it might be, entirely resists the electromagnetic force? (It's one of my possible interpretations of the comic, though without enough hint that it was intended to have me annotate the Explanation accordingly.)
:That said, it's ''unstoppable'' force (and there's are no Cavorite-like forceproof barriers), and it's rather that ''immovable'' objects are awkward to imagine under Relativity and there being no actual preferable frame of reference in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.113|172.69.195.113]] 22:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would say that, since a force is mass*acceleration, the force cannot yet be stated while passing through the immovable object, because the object have to accelerate to calculate the force. Therefore, the "force" is only potential or kinetic energy at this point.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 12:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I would say that nothing happens. If you think of Pressure and immoveable object: An infinite force would acting on an immoveable (think infinite mass) object would lead to no movement at all.
Well, actually a black hole would be created, swallowing up the object and the force. Since the object's further behavior now cannot be seen from outside mass could be reduced anf the black hole could simply evaporate.
Result: Force and objects actual mass would simply be converted into energy, representing a bomb. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.187.224|104.23.187.224]] 16:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Did someone pull out ChatGPT again for this explanation? The claim that the humor derives from the contrast between the casual meaning of "force" and its meaning in physics is ridiculous and patently false. A "force" in physics doesn't have a physical position to begin with and so it can't "pass through" anything. At this point I really feel like there should be some kind of policy on writing explanations using LLMs like ChatGPT because it almost never adds anything of value and it just complicates the explanation and makes the process of ''real'' people digging into the actual meaning and themes more difficult.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.223|172.71.102.223]] 18:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Looking at what it replaced, it was an improvement, if not described as well as I think it should be. I believe it means to talk of the flux from a point-originated field (e.g. the most common fields normally deplete by inverse-square rule, all the way to infinity, from the point(s) of origin, though nuclear forces are... different).
:Given the depiction of the "unstoppable force" as actually 'moving', it has to be looked at as some kind of propagating pulse of 'forceness', albeit one that does not interact with the object seen as in its path (which would therefore neither react to the 'force' nor attenuate its potential effects). But that might need to be said in similarly short fashion (if my interpretation is even agreed with). Good luck! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.52|172.70.162.52]] 20:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Agree! The physical explanation of force is plainly wrong in the explanation text. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.207|172.68.110.207]] 23:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Could the objects be ''in front'' of each other instead of colliding? {{unsigned|Dardafus1|18:00, 5 May 2025}}
:Not both at the same time... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.224.82|172.69.224.82]] 19:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3083: Jupiter Core

2025-05-01T08:22:09Z

172.69.224.82:

NOOO RANDALL USED ‘DATA’ AS SINGULAR NOOOO I HOPE HE FIXES IT. [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 15:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:Used with an information science perspective as it is here, it is usually used as a singular (https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/data-is-or-data-are/). At least, that's what I found while clicking around with one of my computer mouses :P [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 15:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:: From your source: "In academic and scientific writing, the word data is almost always treated as a plural word, as in ''The data collected by the research team suggest that the water supply has been contaminated''." [[Special:Contributions/172.71.144.179|172.71.144.179]] 18:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:English is not Latin. Latin words work differently in English than they do in Latin. In English, "data" is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun mass noun] (a.k.a., an uncountable noun). For almost as long as the English language has existed, folks have been trying to "correct" people into using Latin rules of grammar, but that's not correct and never has been. [[User:Equites|Equites]] ([[User talk:Equites|talk]]) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::Exactly. English doesn't say noun adjective either only a few things continued that aspect of Romance grammar i.e. fee simple and surgeon general (I'm surprised it's alloidial title not title alloidial!) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.195.74|172.71.195.74]] 20:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
::If "data" aren't countable, then they probably aren't data... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.20|172.68.205.20]] 00:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Can someone fix the formatting for the table, it’s annoying on mobile and shrinks the page because its 1 row [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 15:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
: Nevermind, it wasn’t loading properly [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 15:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
: Sorry, that was on me. Just figuring out how to use tables. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 17:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it contains nougat. Perhaps with further study of Jupiter, humanity will finally be able to learn what, exactly, nougat is. [[User:Equites|Equites]] ([[User talk:Equites|talk]]) 16:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jupiter_diagram.svg This image] has always given me the impression it's actually a delicious frozen cake. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:Nonsense - it's obviously a toy/choking hazard.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.89|141.101.99.89]] 08:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Two things:

1: It looks like Jupiter is made of avocado flesh in the avocado pit image.

2: If jupiter were a giant avocado with the same mass, it would represent 95 quadrillion years' worth of global avocado production.
--'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[DSBContribs |'''''My life choices''''']] 19:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, the baby Jupiter raises questions about it's sexuality. Also who the father is. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al |'''''Converse''''']][[DSBContribs |'''''My life choices''''']] 19:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

: Jupiter's parents are Saturn and Opis. Seems as if Saturn is a single parent since Opis is nowhere to be found in the solar system. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.86|172.69.109.86]] 21:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)