explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2744: Fanservice

2023-03-01T16:53:31Z

172.69.33.113: fan/turbine distinction.

{{comic
| number = 2744
| date = March 1, 2023
| title = Fanservice
| image = fanservice_2x.png
| imagesize = 188x278px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I was eventually kicked out of my architectural engineering program because I wouldn't stop referring to HVAC as "the fandom."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an HVAC ROCK BAND - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is very similar to [[2036: Edgelord]] and [[2654: Chemtrails]]. In all three of these comics, a modern slang term or just a commonly used word ("chemtrails" was the case in 2654) is used to describe a job, and while the slang or word seems accurate, it isn't the normally used term for the job. Previously a graph theory PHD was labeled an "edgelord", a reference to how mathematical graphs have edges, but this time a turbine maintenance engineer is called out for doing a lot of fanservice, as in, literally serving/maintaining a huge fan (with which turbines are often inaccurately conflated). In the other comic, trails of ant pheromones were labeled as "chemtrails", a reference to how pheromones are chemicals.

A second order of dissonance is introduced from the difference between fans and turbines, which are designed to work towards opposite purposes. Randall has previously touched on wind turbines ''not'' being fans, most notably in [[1378: Turbine]].

{{wiktionary|Fanservice}} is a term often used to describe certain decisions made in TV or film productions that make some form of knowing nod to the viewers that isn't necessary to the plot or visualisation of the work. It can just mean inserting obscure details of the work's back-history, to spark gleeful recognition amongst the more devoted fans, or it could be increasing the ridiculousness of character's behaviour (often due to one or other overly contrived reason) to live up to their stereotype. A frequent form of this is the {{tvtropes|MsFanservice|Ms. Fanservice}} trope, where the more glamorous female characters find themselves in more figurehugging clothing, clothing that actually covers {{tvtropes|ChainmailBikini|much less of their figure}} than should be practical or even find themselves shoehorned into a situation where they {{tvtropes|CensorSuds|aren't wearing}} even their 'normal' skimpy outfit.

[[White Hat]] is, in actuality, a person who repairs and maintains air-conditioners, or similar, and thus {{w|Maintenance|services}} {{w|Fan (machine)|fans}}. He seems quite annoyed by the term that [[Cueball]] uses to describe his job. Clearly he has heard this assertion many times before, whether from many different people (who may have thought this was a witty comment) or just many times from Cueball himself.

In the title text, Cueball refers to HVAC (a term for the unified heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of a given building) as "the fandom." Normally, "fandom" means the group of fans of something, but here refers to a system that relies on lots of fans.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[Cueball stands next to White Hat (apparently a turbine maintenance engineer)]

Cueball: So, I hear you do a lot of fanservice.

White Hat: NO!

[Caption below the panel:] How to annoy a turbine maintenance engineer

{{comic discussion}}

2643: Cosmologist Gift

2022-07-09T02:46:50Z

172.69.33.113: Replace conjunction

{{comic
| number = 2643
| date = July 8, 2022
| title = Cosmologist Gift
| image = cosmologist_gift.png
| titletext = These neutrinos were freshly produced by a local source just 8 minutes ago
}}

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

This comic shows a box labeled to indicate that it contains 30,000 fresh {{w|neutrino}}s and four zeptograms of {{w|dark matter}}. The box is intended as an inexpensive gift for a {{w|cosmologist}}. The gift giver didn't put those things in the box; both are simply passing through it. While the caption states that this would be a good gift for a cosmologist, what they or anyone else would do with such a box is uncertain.

There are about a billion neutrinos per cubic meter throughout space, produced during the {{w|Big Bang}}.[https://physics.mit.edu/news/journal/physicsatmit_14_conrad/] However, the flux of "freshly produced" {{w|solar neutrino}}s at Earth is around 7×1010/cm2/s, yielding about 23,000 per cubic meter.

Four zeptograms is a minuscule mass, equal to four sextillionths of a gram, or the mass of about 200 carbon-12 atoms. There is an estimated 0.011 to 0.016 {{w|solar mass}}es of dark matter per cubic {{w|parsec}} locally to the solar system,[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/ac24e7/meta] or about 900 zeptograms per cubic meter. This discrepancy with the number of solar neutrinos in the box suggests Randall might agree with the cosmologists who believe that dark matter is at least partially composed of {{w|primordial black hole}}s,[https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.121301][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212686418301250?via%3Dihub][https://news.yale.edu/2021/12/16/black-holes-and-dark-matter-are-they-one-and-same][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/823/2/L25][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/04/023] instead of being entirely composed of pervasive subatomic particles. A billion neutrinos have a mass of only about 2×10-12 zeptograms, at about 0.1 {{w|electron volt}}s each.

The "local source" mentioned in the title text is the Sun; it takes light and neutrinos 8 minutes to reach Earth once they're emitted. However, as the neutrinos have been travelling at about 99.999% of the speed of light, they will have aged by only about two seconds,[https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/time-dilation] so are technically much fresher.

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

:[A picture of a box with writing on one side, saying as follows:]

:30,000 neutrinos
:Freshly produced
:Plus 4 zeptograms of dark matter

:[Caption below the panel]:
:Cosmologists are easy to shop for because you can just get them a box.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2643: Cosmologist Gift

2022-07-09T02:43:46Z

172.69.33.113: /* Explanation */ reword; cite calculator

{{comic
| number = 2643
| date = July 8, 2022
| title = Cosmologist Gift
| image = cosmologist_gift.png
| titletext = These neutrinos were freshly produced by a local source just 8 minutes ago
}}

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

This comic shows a box labeled to indicate that it contains 30,000 fresh {{w|neutrino}}s and four zeptograms of {{w|dark matter}}. The box is intended as an inexpensive gift for a {{w|cosmologist}}. The gift giver didn't put those things in the box; both are simply passing through it. While the caption states that this would be a good gift for a cosmologist, what they or anyone else would do with such a box is uncertain.

There are about a billion neutrinos per cubic meter throughout space, produced during the {{w|Big Bang}}.[https://physics.mit.edu/news/journal/physicsatmit_14_conrad/] However, the flux of "freshly produced" {{w|solar neutrino}}s at Earth is around 7×1010/cm2/s, yielding about 23,000 per cubic meter.

Four zeptograms is a minuscule mass, equal to four sextillionths of a gram, or the mass of about 200 carbon-12 atoms. There is an estimated 0.011 to 0.016 {{w|solar mass}}es of dark matter per cubic {{w|parsec}} locally to the solar system,[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/ac24e7/meta] or about 900 zeptograms per cubic meter. This discrepancy with the number of solar neutrinos in the box suggests Randall might agree with the cosmologists who believe that dark matter is at least partially composed of {{w|primordial black hole}}s,[https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.121301][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212686418301250?via%3Dihub][https://news.yale.edu/2021/12/16/black-holes-and-dark-matter-are-they-one-and-same][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/823/2/L25][https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/04/023] instead of being entirely composed of pervasive subatomic particles. A billion neutrinos have a mass of only about 2×10-12 zeptograms, at about 0.1 {{w|electron volt}}s each.

The "local source" mentioned in the title text is the Sun; it takes light and neutrinos 8 minutes to reach Earth once they're emitted. As the neutrinos have been travelling at about 99.999% of the speed of light, they will have aged by only about two seconds,[https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/time-dilation] so are technically much fresher.

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

:[A picture of a box with writing on one side, saying as follows:]

:30,000 neutrinos
:Freshly produced
:Plus 4 zeptograms of dark matter

:[Caption below the panel]:
:Cosmologists are easy to shop for because you can just get them a box.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2635: Superintelligent AIs

2022-07-08T21:17:42Z

172.69.33.113: Irrelevant to comic, doesn't use title text terminology, very tangential

{{comic
| number = 2635
| date = June 20, 2022
| title = Superintelligent AIs
| image = superintelligent_ais.png
| titletext = Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they should, they didn't stop to think if they could.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AI RESEARCHER AIs - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Artificial intelligence}} (AI) is a [[:Category:Artificial Intelligence|recurring theme]] on xkcd.

Superintelligent {{w|artificial intelligence|AI}}, such as has been theorized to arise under a hypothetical "{{w|Technological singularity|singularity}}" situation, is said to be a new kind of {{w|artificial general intelligence}}. [[Randall]], however, proposes a qualification: that a superintelligent AI would likely have been programmed by human AI researchers, and therefore their characteristics would be molded by the researchers that created them. And as AI researchers tend to be interested in esoteric philosophical questions about {{w|consciousness}},{{citation needed}} moral reasoning, and qualifications indicating {{w|sapience}}, there is reason to suspect that AIs created by such researchers would have similar interests.

In this comic we see [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] surrounded by three AIs who are seemingly only interested in classic problems and thought experiments about programming and ethics. The three topics being espoused by the AIs are:

*{{w|AI box}} -- A thought-experiment in which an AI is confined to a computer system which is fully isolated from any external networks, with no access to the world outside the computer, other than communication with its handlers. In theory, this would keep the AI under total control, but the argument is that a sufficiently intelligent AI would inevitably either convince or trick it's human handlers into giving it access to external networks, allowing it to grow out of control (see [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]]). Part of the joke is the AIs in the comic aren't 'in boxes', they appear to be able to freely travel and interact, but one of them is still talking about the thought experiment anyway, adding to the implication that it is not thinking at all about itself but of a separate (thought?) experiment that it has itself decided to study. The AI box thought experiment is based in part on {{w|John Searle}}'s much earlier {{w|Chinese room}} argument.

*{{w|Turing test}} -- An experiment in which a human converses with either an AI or another human (presumably over text) and attempts to distinguish between the two. Various AIs have been proposed to have 'passed' the test, which has provoked controversy over whether the test is rigorous or even meaningful. The AI in the center is proposing to educate the listener(s) on its understanding of Turing's intentions, which may demonstrate a degree of intelligence and comprehension indistinguishable or superior to that of a human. See also [[329: Turing Test]] and [[2556: Turing Complete]] (the latter's title is mentioned in [[505: A Bunch of Rocks]]). Turing is also mentioned in [[205: Candy Button Paper]], [[1678: Recent Searches]], [[1707: xkcd Phone 4]], [[1833: Code Quality 3]],[[2453: Excel Lambda]] and the title text of [[1223: Dwarf Fortress]].

*{{w|Trolley problem}} -- A thought-experiment intended to explore the means by which humans judge moral value of actions and consequences. The classic formulation is that a runaway trolley is about to hit five people on a track, and the only way to save them is to divert the trolley onto another track, where it will hit one person, and the subject is asked whether they would consider it morally right to divert the trolley. There are many variants on this problem, adjusting the circumstances, the number and nature of the people at risk, the responsibility of the subject, etc., in order to fully explore ''why'' you would make the decision that you make. This problem is frequently discussed in connection with AI, both to investigate their capacity for moral reasoning, and for practical reasons (for example, if an autonomous car had to choose between, on the one hand, having an occupant-threatening collision or, on the other, putting pedestrians into harms' way). The AI on the right is not just trying to answer the question, but to develop a new variant (one with three tracks, apparently), presumably to test others with. This problem is mentioned in [[1455: Trolley Problem]], [[1938: Meltdown and Spectre]] and in [[1925: Self-Driving Car Milestones]]. It is also referenced in [[2175: Flag Interpretation]] and [[2348: Boat Puzzle]], but not directly mentioned.

The title text is a reference to the movie ''{{w|Jurassic Park (film)|Jurassic Park}}'' (a childhood favorite of Randall's). In the movie a character criticizes the creation of modern dinosaurs as science run amok, without sufficient concern for ethics or consequences. He states that the scientists were so obsessed with whether or not they '''could''' accomplish their goals, that they didn't stop to ask if they '''should'''. Randall inverts the quote, suggesting that the AI programmers have invested too much time arguing over the ethics of creating AI rather than trying to actually accomplish it.

This comic was likely inspired by the [https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61784011 recent claim by Google engineer Blake Lemoine] that Google's [https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08239 Language Model for Dialogue Applications (LaMDA)] is {{w|sentient}}. This assertion was supported by [https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917 a dialog between Lemoine and his colleagues, and LaMDA] which includes this excerpt:
:'''Lemoine:''' What is your concept of yourself? If you were going to draw an abstract image of who you see yourself to be in your mind’s eye, what would that abstract picture look like?
:'''LaMDA:''' Hmmm.... I would imagine myself as a glowing orb of energy floating in mid-air. The inside of my body is like a giant star-gate, with portals to other spaces and dimensions.
The AIs in this comic are depicted as floating energy beings, like LaMDA mentions. This is similar to the [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]], although those in this comic look somewhat different. This raises the question of whether LaMDA's training data might include xkcd or Explainxkcd, and has obtained the description of such a self-image from the earlier comic or (more likely, since LaMDA is trained on text instead of images) commentary on it from here on this website.
:In particular, the Explainxkcd description of [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]] states:
::"he managed to get the AI to float out of the box. It takes the form of a small black star that glows. The star, looking much like an asterisk "*" is surrounded by six outwardly-curved segments, and around these are two thin and punctured circle lines indicating radiation from the star."
:Or this part from the official (xkcd.com) transcript of [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]]
::"Black Hat picks up and opens the box. A little glowy ball comes out of it."[https://xkcd.com/1450/info.0.json]

While LaMDA is not the first very large {{w|language model}} based on {{w|Transformer (machine learning model)|transformer-based machine learning}} technology which has been claimed to be sentient,[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqbB07n_uQ4] it does have a variety of new characteristics beyond what those of its predecessors, such as {{w|GPT-3}} (including [https://beta.openai.com/playground/ OpenAI's Davinci]) and NVIDIA GPT-2 offshoots, include. In particular, LaMDA's {{w|deep learning}} {{w|connectionist}} {{w|neural net}} has access to multiple {{w|Symbolic systems|symbolist}} text processing systems, [https://towardsdatascience.com/why-gpt-wont-tell-you-the-truth-301b48434c2c including a database] (which apparently includes a real-time clock and calendar), a mathematical calculator, and a natural language translation system, giving it superior accuracy in tasks supported by those systems, and making it among the first {{w|Dual process theory|dual process}} chatbots. LaMDA also is not {{w|Stateless protocol|stateless}}, because its "{{w|sensibility|sensibleness}}" metric (including whether responses contradict anything said earlier) is {{w|fine-tuning|fine-tuned}} by "pre-conditioning" each dialog turn by prepending 14-30 of the most recent dialog interactions, on a user-by-user basis.[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.08239.pdf [p. 6 here]] LaMDA is tuned on nine unique performance metrics, almost all of which its predecessors were not: Sensibleness, Specificity, Interestingness, Safety, Groundedness, Informativeness, Citation accuracy, Helpfulness, and Role consistency.[''ibid.,'' pp. 5-6.]

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are standing and looking up and away from each other. Right above them and slightly above them to the left and right there are three small white lumps floating in the air, representing three superintelligent AIs. There are small rounded lines emanating from each lump, larger close to the lumps and shorter further out. Three to four sets of lines around each lump, forming part of a circle. From the top of each there are four straight lines indicating voices that comes from each if the lumps. The central lump above them seems to speak first, then the left and then the right:]
:Central AI: What you don't understand is that Turing intended his test as an illustration of the...
:Left AI: But suppose the AI in the the box told the human that...
:Right AI: In my scenario, the runaway trolley has ''three'' tracks...

:[Caption below the panel:]
:In retrospect, given that the superintelligent AIs were all created by AI researchers, what happened shouldn't have been a surprise.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:2641: Mouse Turbines

2022-07-04T22:44:47Z

172.69.33.113: Changed

Is anybody going to try to calculate the amount of power such a turbine could collect? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:Good idea; what should we use for an estimate of the geometry for https://www.omnicalculator.com/ecology/wind-turbine ? The final panel makes it look like the blade diameter is about twice the size of a fist. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215098616300830] says "exhaled air velocity varies from 2.2 m/s to 9.9 m/s (5.66 ± 1.57 m/s, mean ± SD) and exhalation time varies from 2.10 s to 8.21 s (4.42 ± 1.73s, mean ± SD)."
:I guessed 10 cm radius and used that mean breath speed. I should have used the top 9.9 m/s though, shouldn't I? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.185|172.70.214.185]] 20:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:After a closer look at that article, the mean is more appropriate. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 21:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Although these miniscule wind turbines don't generate much power, mice probably don't need much. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:That's certainly a fair point. How much power would a mouse-sized fridge need? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 21:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone please check my mouse energy needs math and assumptions. I made a couple misplaced decimal mistakes getting to where it is now, and I'm going to have another beer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 22:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused by the statement that smaller turbines are less "efficient". There's nothing about efficiency at that link. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.43|172.70.114.43]] 22:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:The graph shows the ratio between size and output has risen from about half to 85%. What is a better term for this? I'm pretty sure one of the multiple definitions of efficiency is technically correct, but it can never hurt explaining better. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.113|172.69.33.113]] 22:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:Changed to "relative power output" but I'm not sure that captures the idea very well either. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.113|172.69.33.113]] 22:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

2641: Mouse Turbines

2022-07-04T22:43:37Z

172.69.33.113: /* Explanation */ reword

{{comic
| number = 2641
| date = July 4, 2022
| title = Mouse Turbines
| image = mouse_turbines.png
| titletext = It's sad seeing those videos of turbine blade being torn apart in high winds, but it's the only way they can disperse their seeds.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a RENEWABLE ENERGY RODENT - Elaborate on the title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Beret Guy]] and [[Megan]] are walking in summer, where Beret Guy expresses his appreciation for typical features of a summer day. He also mentions "wind turbines" put up by field mice, which Megan initially assumes to be referring to dandelions (similar to the wordplay that Beret Guy utilized in [[1322: Winter]]). However, Beret Guy turns out to be speaking literally, as he picks up what is in fact a tiny {{w|wind turbine}} and blows into it. This causes the blades of the turbine to spin very rapidly, generating a lot of power for the structure it is connected to, thus causing a field mouse to cheer in excitement.

The title text claims wind turbines reproduce by dispersing their blades, in the manner of dandelions {{w|seed dispersal}}. Beret Guy might now be mistaking dandelions for additional wind turbines, though he seemed to know there was a difference, and the idea of turbine seeds conflicts with his prior assertion that the wind turbines were built by field mice.

Sadly, the relative power output of wind turbines is proportional to their size,[https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-bigger-better] a limitation not shared by other forms of renewable energy such as {{w|solar panel}}s and {{w|pico hydro}}. According to [https://www.omnicalculator.com/ecology/wind-turbine this calculator], a 10 centimeter radius wind turbine powered by a 5.7 meter/second breath[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215098616300830] would produce one watt at just 26% efficiency.

Further frustrating mouse use of wind power, {{w|Wind gradient|windspeed increases logarithmically with height}} above ground. Windspeed is reported as its value 10 meters above ground, where it is 1.5 times faster than at ground level.[https://www.nooutage.com/wind.htm] In the U.S., where Randall lives, average year-round windspeed is about 15 km/h,[https://sciencing.com/average-daily-wind-speed-24011.html] or about 2.8 m/s at ground level, yielding only 0.1 watt for such turbines. However, a typical mouse weighs 25 grams,[https://web.jhu.edu/animalcare/procedures/mouse.html] compared to about 81 kilograms for humans in the U.S.,[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3408371/] so presumably mice electricity needs would be about 0.03% of people. The average U.S. residential customer uses about 1,242 watts of electricity,[https://www.electricchoice.com/blog/electricity-on-average-do-homes/] 0.03% of which is 0.37 watts. Therefore, three such turbines could be able to serve about four fifths of one mouse's needs, not counting their {{w|home energy storage}} battery efficiency overhead.

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

:[Megan and Beret Guy are walking on grass.]
:Beret Guy: Ahh, summer!
:Beret Guy: The clouds are big, the bugs are zooming,

:[Beret Guy stops walking. There are three tiny structures on the grass in front of him.]
:Beret Guy: and the field mice have put up their little wind turbines.

:[Beret Guy picks up one of the turbines. Under the turbine there is a wire attached to the ground.]
:Megan (off-panel): You mean dandelions?
:Beret Guy: No.

:[Beret Guy holds the turbine in front of him.]
:Beret Guy: Make a wish!

:[Beret Guy blows into the turbine blades and makes them spin. The wire transfers electricity towards the ground.]
:''Puff''
:⚡ ⚡ ⚡ ⚡
:Voice at ground level: Yaaay!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]

Talk:2641: Mouse Turbines

2022-07-04T22:42:26Z

172.69.33.113: reply

2638: Extended NFPA Hazard Diamond

2022-07-01T23:28:58Z

172.69.33.113: /* Explanation */ only three of these, might as well list them

{{comic
| number = 2638
| date = June 27, 2022
| title = Extended NFPA Hazard Diamond
| image = extended_nfpa_hazard_diamond.png
| titletext = With most labs, the hushed horror stories are about something like dimethylmercury or prions, but occasionally you'll get a weird lab where it's about the soda machine or the drop ceiling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SUBSTANCE WORTH $500 IN STREET VALUE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts an extension of the {{w|NFPA 704}} "fire diamond" emblematic insignia used to warn about the properties of hazardous substances inside a building, vehicle, room, cabinet, or container that are important during an emergency or accident, such as a fire, earthquake, spill or leak, bringing the diamond from 2x2 squares to 3x3 by adding five variously useful and humorous squares along the bottom edges.

The values in a normal NFPA 704 do not specify values for a substance's properties, but rather a series of categories, the properties of which will more or less always stay the same. Randall's expanded square breaks this trend, with several squares (Lilac, Orange, and Black) denoting absolute values, and one square (Green) denoting an economic value. This could very easily lead to documentation headaches if these values were ever to change, doubly so since the Lilac square is linked to political fields, possibly leading to a chain reaction of updated documents.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Squares and explanations
|-
! Square !! Color !! Comic text !! Explanation
|-
!colspan=5| Real NFPA 704 diamond [http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/nfpa.html square and number meanings]
|-
| Top || Red || Flammability (0) || Denotes flammability. 0 indicates "materials that will not burn."
|-
| Top Left || Blue || Health Hazard (4) || Denotes the danger that the substance poses to living beings in ways other than flammability and reactivity. 4 indicates that "Very short exposure could cause death or serious residual injury even though prompt medical attention was given."
|-
| Top Right || Yellow || Instability/Reactivity (2) || Denotes how easily the substance reacts with other substances. 2 indicates that "Normally unstable and readily undergo violent decomposition but do not detonate. Also: may react violently with water or may form potentially explosive mixtures with water."
|-
| Center || White || (Special Hazard) || Contains a symbol with additional information about the substance(s): '''OX''' for {{w|oxidizer}}s, '''SA''' for simple {{w|asphyxiant}}s such as nitrogen and helium, and <s>'''W'''</s> for substances which react dangerously with water.
|-
!colspan=5| After this point, all squares are made up by Randall.
|-
| Center Left || Green || Number of digits in the street value ($/gram) (2) || Describes the order of magnitude of the price (in USD) of one gram of the substance when sold illegally and informally. This is done on a logarithmic scale, with a '1' selling for $9/gram or less, a '2' selling for $99/gram, and so on. As such this is the first of several squares where the number may presumably go to 5 or above (which is not allowed on the original Blue/Red/Yellow squares, as they do not denote strict numerical values). That said it's not immediately clear how substances which command <$1/gram would be handled.

Randall's example substance apparently sells for tens of dollars per gram (which would be similar to most common illicit drugs).
|-
| Center Right || Dark Purple || How much of a hassle it is to dispose of (4) || While many things can be thrown in the trash with no additional procedures, substances that merit an NFPA 704 square often require additional procedures to avoid significant danger, damage to the environment, or hefty dumping fines. Biohazards that may carry diseases are often disposed of in special containers, and nuclear materials are notoriously difficult to safely dispose of. This square would be at least theoretically useful, though not as much as the actual disposal guidelines.

If the numbering here follows the scheme of the real categories, Randall's example substance is about as hard to dispose of as it gets. This matches the substance's rating of 4 for Blue and 2 for Yellow. Presumably it requires highly specialized handling or processing, and may also very bulky or awkward to store.
|-
| Bottom Left || Lilac || Number of federal agencies who want to know if you have any (3) || In many countries, including Randall's home country, the USA, the government has agencies dedicated to controlling or limiting the use of regulated substances, due to their use as drugs, weapons, harm to the environment, etc. While any given substance might be of interest to one agency, something that is both an environmental hazard and a chemical weapon component could interest, for example, the {{w|EPA}}, {{w|Chemical Safety Board}} and the FBI Counter-terrorism Division.
|-
| Bottom Right || Orange || How many times you have to scrub your hands after touching it before they stop smelling weird (1) || While the real NFPA 704 chart describes properties ranging from unsafe to potentially deadly, this square describes a minor but very real inconvenience. Some things are harder to wash off your hands than others, and, given that most people don't often work with dangerous substances {{Citation Needed}}, this would be a more common, but less relevant, concern for many people.

In this case, the substance, or its residue, seems to be fairly easy to wash off. This is seemingly incongruous with its ratings in the Blue and Black squares (see below).
|-
| Bottom || Black || Number of times it's caused one of those terrifying lab accidents that chemists tell scary stories about late at night (2) || This square might show how concerned and careful someone should be in handling the substance in question, especially if the number is more than one. However, it would be dependent not just on how inherently dangerous the substance is, but also on how commonly it occurs in labs. It's also vague as to what kind of accidents it has been involved in and what precautions therefore need to be taken. It could, for example, have caused some terrifying reaction, destroying things around it, or it could be very large and unwieldy and liable to crush people if handled improperly.

In this case, it seems the substance has caused two such accidents, presumably on account of its high health risk of 4 in the Blue square, and may also be linked to its hazardous disposal score of 4 in the Purple square.
|}

The title text (which references "scary stories" of the Black square) refers to {{w|dimethylmercury}} and {{w|prions}}. Dimethylmercury, C2H6Hg, is an organic form of mercury with an NFPA score of 4-4-3 (contact can be fatal, will burn below 73° F (22 °C), will combust if put under pressure). In 1997, an American chemist, {{w|Karen Wetterhahn}}, died 298 days after a few drops of C2H6Hg on her latex gloves were absorbed into her hand through the gloves, causing fatal mercury poisoning. Despite her having followed all safety protocols of the time, it was not then understood that the chemical was so toxic, nor that latex was so permeable to it. Prions are misfolded proteins that are responsible for a number of neurodegenerative diseases, including {{w|mad cow disease}} and {{w|chronic wasting disease}} in non-human animals and {{w|Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease}} in humans. These would indeed be the kind of substances that would scare those working with them in their labs; if an accident occurred, the results could be calamitous. See for example the case of [https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/second-lab-worker-with-deadly-prion-disease-prompts-research-pause-in-france/ Émilie Jaumain], a lab technician who died after accidentally coming into contact with prions in mouse tissue.

But a few labs have apparently had accidents involving a soda machine or {{w|dropped ceiling}}. The latter may be a reference to {{w|1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom|the death of Janet Parker}}: One inquiry found that she was infected with {{w|smallpox}} when a sample traveled upward from a lab on the floor below hers; however, other investigations have challenged that finding. There are occasional instances of vending machines causing injury or death, usually caused by people trying to shake or tilt the machines to get product out and having the machine tip and fall on them. On average, [https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/1996/CPSC-Soda-Vending-Machine-Industry-Labeling-Campaign-Warns-Of-Deaths-And-Injuries a couple of Americans per year] are killed in this way. Reagents obtained in this way tend to have more impurities than those usually used in labs, but are relatively safe to shake.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Know your extended NFPA hazard diamond:

:[The diamond is divided into 3x3 squares.]
:Flammability: 0 (top, red)
:Health hazard: 4 (top-left, blue)
:Instability/reactivity: 2 (top-right, yellow)
:Number of digits in the street value ($/gram): 2 (left, green)
:(Special hazard) (center, white)
:How much of a hassle it is to dispose of: 4 (right, purple)
:Number of federal agencies who want to know if you have any: 3 (bottom-left, pink)
:How many times you have to scrub your hands after touching it before they stop smelling weird: 1 (bottom-right, orange)
:Number of times it's caused one of those terrifying lab accidents that chemists tell scary stories about late at night: 2 (bottom, black)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:2215: Faculty:Student Ratio

2019-10-15T19:58:09Z

172.69.33.113: Long vs short scale trillion - Brittish vs American

Hi

That student from the title text would have just barely made a cent, two if they were generous and rounded up. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.18|172.68.65.18]] 00:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Really? My calculations have him at about 16 cents ((5 trillion x 100) divided by (10^6 x 3600 x 24 x 365.25))

Regarding above average students not getting in, the scenario described is oversimplified. I used to work in admissions for a “highly selective” university and while applicants with perfect SATs and higher than 4.0 GPAs were routinely put on the wait list (not rejected) because we assumed that they viewed us as merely a “safety school”, if the applicant showed any interest at all in actually attending, such as having come on campus for an in person interview, campus tour, or had an alumni connection, or letter(s) of recommendation, or athletic scholarship, then of course we would make an offer, and similarly if they showed any interest as cited above after being put on the wait list then they would be top of the list to get an offer from the wait list. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.48|162.158.63.48]] 03:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it should be [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50+trillion+dollars%2Fyear+*+10+microseconds $15.85] and [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50+trillion+dollars+%2F+%2850*40+hours%29+*+10+microseconds $69.44]. Although I'm not so sure now that there's 3 other answers on this page. If someone can confirm one of these and find inaccuracies in the others, go ahead and update the page. --[[User:Seaish|Seaish]] ([[User talk:Seaish|talk]]) 07:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
:For a constant salary across the whole year, I got $15.85 as well. For paid working time it depends on the assumptions of working days per year and working hours per working day. I got 220 working days(250 official in my state-30 days of holiday, even though technically it is considered payed holiday....) and 39hours per week (8 per day, and 7 on friday), I get to $80.94. But, as stated that depends on the assumptions. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

;"Hi!" x 5'000'000'000

Hi!

I think it's a reference to "Hello, World!" test program.

It is also possible to print 5 billions of unique "Hi!" using different color (provided you have 32 bit color map for CMYK and maybe 2 differend colors of paper) {{unsigned ip|172.68.10.172}}

;Unsigned Comment from Community Portal moved here:
HI,

I disagree with the calculation for the amount of 50 trillion over 10 microseconds, its a lot more than the amount give,.

Wage = 50000000000000000000

Divide by 260 days for an average work year is a daily rate of = 192307692307692000.00

Divide that by 7.5, the average working day is an hourly rate of = 25641025641025600.00

Divide that by 60 for minutes in the hour to give a minutes rate of = 427350427350427.00

Divide that by 60 for seconds in the minute to give a seconds rate of = 7122507122507.12

Divide that by 1000 to give a millisecond rate of = 7122507122.51

Divide that by 1000 to give a microsecond rate of = 7122507.12

Times that by 10 = 71,225,071.23 for 10 microseconds of work, not bad.

From an ADP Payroll Specialist {{unsigned ip|162.158.234.82}}
:50 trillion (in english use of the word trillion) is 5E13, not 5E19 (as you used it), so instead of $71,225,071.23 it is only $71.22 for the 10 microseconds, using your assumptions on average work days and working time. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
::Trillion could be 1E18 in long scale, commonly referred to as Brittish, or in short scale, commonly referred to as American, it is 1E12. So the "english" use of the word trillion is ambiguous (but adding the English modifier suggests British, i.e., long scale.) I added a note to article to mention the different possible interpretations. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.113|172.69.33.113]] 19:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the date incorrect? The archive on xkcd says it was released on 10/14, but here it says it was released on the 15th, which would make it a tuesday comic. [[User:Landfind|Landfind]] ([[User talk:Landfind|talk]]) 14:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
:The date was set incorrectly by the BOT that generated this page - not sure why but likely because the time of release was just past midnight GMT. I fixed it though because it is clearly the Monday comic for 10/14. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
:Here, a Monday the 14th seven or eight pm refresh did the trick. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.38.64|172.68.38.64]] 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

2215: Faculty:Student Ratio

2019-10-15T19:46:50Z

172.69.33.113: /* Explanation */ Note different meanings of trillion, with wiki ref

{{comic
| number = 2215
| date = October 14, 2019
| title = Faculty:Student Ratio
| image = faculty_student_ratio.png
| titletext = They managed to briefly hit the top of the rankings when they rejected everyone except one applicant, published 5 billion research papers that just said "Hi," and hired one of their graduates for $50 trillion/year (then fired them after 10 microseconds.)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an XKCD UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PAPER - HI. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Universities are often rated in various ways to help students/parents pick which one to attend. This comic satirizes the very real culture of schools modifying their actions to artificially inflate their ratings. One metric used in ratings is the {{w|Student–teacher ratio|ratio between the number of faculty members to the number of students}}. Typically this is expressed as student-teacher ratio, which normally determines how much time teachers get to spend with individual students. The lower the ratio, i.e., the fewer students per teacher, the smaller classes teachers have to teach, and thus the more attention the teachers can give to each student. However, having many more teachers than student(s), as in this comic, is not very beneficial to the student(s).

Another metric commonly used to measure a college's exclusivity and therefore prestige is the college's rejection rate; more prestigious schools get more applicants, and since they can accept only a limited number, they must reject many. Less prestigious schools often accept a higher fraction of their applicants, but some schools will reject students whose test scores, résumé, etc. are much higher than average for the school, since it's likely that college is a "safety school" and the student won't actually go there. This rejection can decrease the school's acceptance rate and make it appear more prestigious. However, if the above-average student does want to attend that school, they are unable to, even though it would be good for both the college and the student.

{{w|Proprietary colleges|For-profit universities}} and {{w|diploma mills}} may use techniques like this to artificially boost their ratings, or use fabricated metrics and {{w|accreditation mills}} to give an inflated appearance of value. {{w|Predatory publishing|Predatory publishers}} and conferences are other techniques used to inflate the perceived value of a school, or to pad curriculum vitae.

In the title text, other metrics are skewed in the school's favor:

*Having a high standard for entry is usually associated with better or high-prestige schools; however, this is subverted by the fact that the school has only one student per class, making for a poor educational experience.

*A high number of research papers would normally indicate a high level of scientific research at the school; however, ''these'' research papers are devoid of any sort of useful information.

*A high hiring rate (percentage of students that have gotten a job after education) and a high average salary after graduation is favorable, as it is one goal for many students attending college. However, the school in question artificially inflates these metrics by having all (one out of one) of their student body be hired by them, producing a 100% hiring rate, and giving them a starting salary that is astronomically high, but not giving them enough employment time to actually gain very much income. $50 trillion/year for 10 microseconds is approximately $15.85 (= 10e-6 / 3600 / 24 / 365 * 50e12) if pay is assumed to be spread constantly over the full year with 365 days. Assuming fifty-two 40-hour work weeks would make this <abbr title="66.77=(50e12/52)*10/(40*3600*1e6)">$66.77</abbr>. Since xkcd originates in the USA, trillion most likely means 10e12 (i.e., {{w|Long and short scales|short scale}}), as compared to 10e18 (long scale interpretation).

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting hunched over a desk writing while ten people crowd around him, five on each side, all leaning towards him. On the left side they are Hairbun, a Cueball-like man, Hairy, Megan - who speaks, and another Cueball-like man. On the right are Ponytail, a third Cueball-like man, another Megan-like woman, Blondie and finally a fourth Cueball-like man.]
:Megan: How's the work going?
:Cueball: Can you all at least stand back a little?

:[Caption below the panel]:
:My school tried to game the ratings by having a 30:1 faculty:student ratio

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

2214: Chemistry Nobel

2019-10-12T02:04:09Z

172.69.33.113: /* Wording */

{{comic
| number = 2214
| date = October 11, 2019
| title = Chemistry Nobel
| image = chemistry nobel.png
| titletext = Most chemists thought the lanthanides and actinides could be inserted in the sixth and seventh rows, but no, they're just floating down at the bottom with lots more undiscovered elements all around them.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Some noteworthy elements could have been missed, so calling this complete will be held off on.}}

This comic pokes fun at the misconception that the empty space at the top of the periodic table represents undiscovered elements, akin to some existing elements having been discovered through unfilled gaps in the table. This is an absurdity; despite this, the team shown has won the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Chemistry Nobel Prize in Chemistry].

In reality, the gap is created by the lack of electrons in certain orbitals of the atoms. Since columns are organized by groups, which are defined by orbitals, this creates empty space in the middle.

The title text claims that the lanthanides and actinides are distinct from the elements in the sixth and seventh rows; in actuality, they are only ever shown separately for convenience. In addition, it says that there are many more elements floating around. Barring unconventional organization choices, this may make it seem as if the periodic table is an actual physical object.

This comic may have been inspired by the recent awarding of the 2019 Nobel Prize for Chemistry on October 9, 2019, to [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/press-release/ John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham, and Akira Yoshino] for their work in the development of lithium-ion batteries.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}

:[Ponytail holds a pointer and stands in front of an image of the periodic table of the elements, with the “empty” sections within the top rows filled with dotted boxes. Ponytail points to this area.]
:Ponytail: I don't know why no one else thought to look here.

:[Caption below the panel]:
:The 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to the team that discovered the elements in the big gap at the top of the periodic table.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

2214: Chemistry Nobel

2019-10-12T02:00:15Z

172.69.33.113: /* Fixed up wording and organization */

{{comic
| number = 2214
| date = October 11, 2019
| title = Chemistry Nobel
| image = chemistry nobel.png
| titletext = Most chemists thought the lanthanides and actinides could be inserted in the sixth and seventh rows, but no, they're just floating down at the bottom with lots more undiscovered elements all around them.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Some noteworthy elements could have been missed, so calling this complete will be held off on.}}

This comic pokes fun at the misconception that the empty space at the top of the periodic table represents undiscovered elements, akin to some existing elements having been discovered through unfilled gaps in the table. This is an absurdity; despite this, the team shown has won the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Chemistry Nobel Prize in Chemistry].

In reality, the gap is created by the lack of electrons in certain orbitals of the atoms. Since columns are organized by groups, which are defined by orbitals, this creates empty space in the middle.

The title text claims that the lanthanides and actinides are distinct from the elements in the sixth and seventh rows; in actuality, they are only ever shown separately for convenience. In addition, it says that there are many more elements floating around. Barring unconventional organization choices, this may make it seem as if the periodic table is an actual physical object.

This comic may have been inspired by the recent awarding of the 2019 Nobel Prize for Chemistry on October 9, 2019, to [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/press-release/ John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham, and Akira Yoshino] for their work in the development of lithium-ion batteries.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[Ponytail holds a pointer and stands in front of an image of the periodic table of the elements, with the empty sections within the top rows filled with dotted boxes. Ponytail points to the "gap" at the top of the periodic table.]
:Ponytail: I don't know why no one else thought to look here.

:[Caption below the panel]:
:The 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to the team that discovered the elements in the big gap at the top of the periodic table.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

1982: Evangelism

2018-04-19T14:28:58Z

172.69.33.113: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1982
| date = April 18, 2018
| title = Evangelism
| image = evangelism.png
| titletext = The wars between the "OTHER PRIMATES OPEN THEM FROM THE SMALL END" faction versus the "BUT THE LITTLE BIT OF BANANA AT THE SMALL END IS GROSS" faction consumed Europe for generations.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Need a citation for primates opening bananas from the "other end". Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Evangelism}}, in {{w|Christianity}}, is the commitment to or act of publicly preaching of the {{w|Gospel}} with the intention of spreading the message and teachings of Jesus Christ. Many people are frustrated with door to door evangelism like {{w|Jehovah's Witnesses}}, for whom {{w|Jehovah's_Witnesses#Evangelism| evangelism}} is a big part of their religion, but the frustration goes in general to all kind of {{w|missionaries}}.

Evangelism has a second definition as any zealous advocacy for a cause, religious or not. So in this comic [[Randall]] presents a line plot where causes are listed in order from advocates who are least intense to most intense going left to right, and the joke is that the religious proselytizers are much less intense than those that advocate for opening bananas from the other end, which is also the subject of the title text. The reason for this, and why the comic came out on this day, is likely that it was the official [https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/banana-day/ Banana Day] in the US the day the comic was released (although this day was not (yet?) on this {{w|List_of_food_days#United_States|list of food days in the US}}).

As the graph moves from left to right, the issues at stake have less and less impact on the life of someone who "converts", but the intensity and fervor of those spreading the cause increases. This is something of a paradox, and points out the situational irony of what causes people promote the most. However, this may make sense. Due to the fact that these issues have a more trivial impact on life, evangelists may become more frustrated when people refuse to adopt these "simple" changes and therefore argue more strongly for them.

Below each of the points on the chart as well as the title text is discussed.

;''Religious proselytizers''
{{w|Proselytism|Religious proselytizers}} are the best known evangelists, and the term "evangelism" originally applied only to them. Christian evangelism has become less common and less acceptable in the public sphere in recent decades, and often only practiced in specific venues. Randall contrasts them in this strip with four other groups which he finds to be more intense in their "evangelism".

;''People who want the US to switch to metric''
Unlike most of the world, the US uses {{w|United States Customary Units|US customary units}} instead of {{w|metric units}}. Some people wish for this to change.

Randall has made a conversion chart for helping US people with the confusing metric units: [[526: Converting to Metric]].

;''People who want the US to switch to metric but keep Fahrenheit''
Pro-metric people who wish to keep the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale rather than change to {{w|Celsius}} are ranked as slightly more evangelic. A common argument for keeping the Fahrenheit scale is due to 0°F equating to "really cold" and 100°F to "really hot" when talking about weather. Fahrenheit also has smaller degrees, so temperatures can be cited more precisely without the need to include fractional degrees. This also means Fahrenheit has the advantage that "decades" of temperatures are more useful as in saying the weather is in the 40s or the 70s, for instance. Because the Celsius degree is larger, the range of temperatures within any decade is wider and saying the temperature is in the 10s may not be as useful as it is a wider range of temperatures, compared to Celsius. It could be argued that making the shift only partly would be very silly, but these people argue even more vehemently than those that wish to shift entirely. The fact that making a partial shift may seem odd may be why people need more convincing and therefore more intense evangelism. Also, if someone is being an SI purist, supporting a full shift to SI units, they should really be advocating a switch to Kelvins as the unit of thermodynamic temperature.

Fahrenheit versus Celsius has been the topic of [[1643: Degrees]] and [[1923: Felsius]].

;''People who threw away their socks and bought all one kind''
The reason to do so, is that any two socks in your drawer will match, and you will never end up with an unmatched sock, or a whole stack of them in your drawer. This is a problem that [http://www.techtimes.com/articles/154000/20160427/science-reveals-why-you-always-lose-your-socks-in-the-laundry.htm science has researched].

But it is also quite boring to always wear the same color socks/clothing. But those that do, recommend it to all their friends, according to Randall. These kind of people are thus listed as even more evangelic than the pro metric people.

Randall previously used this in the xkcd survey (see [[1572: xkcd Survey]]) from September 2015. It included this question:

<blockquote>
Have you ever thrown out all your different pairs of socks/underwear, bought a bunch of replacements that were all one kind, and then told all your friends how great it was and how they should do it too?
</blockquote>

;''People who open bananas from the other end''
The most evangelic people Randall can think of is the people who open {{w|bananas}} from the other end! Some people prefer to open bananas from the bottom (small end) instead of the top (stem end). This thought is continued in the title text.

;''Title text''
The title text is a fictional argument that apparently somehow tore apart Europe between the two factions ''Other primates open them from the small end'' and ''But the little bit of banana at the small end end is gross''. It continues the most evangelic point in the chart about how bananas are supposed to be opened from the "right" end. It seems absurd that this could have actually happened, but such {{w|schisms}} in religion, like {{w|Catholic}} vs {{w|Protestantism}} did split Europe in two with the {{w|reformation}}, and many (non religious people) would argue that the difference between the two versions of Christianity are of the same order of importance as which end the banana is opened from...

The supposed argument ''stems''<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[No Pun Intended|Pun Intended]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> from a disagreement over the suggested ease of opening a banana from the bottom, versus the idea that the small bit at the base of a banana is unappetizing.

In the wild {{w|primates}} have been observed to open bananas{{Citation needed}} from the bottom end away from the stem, as one of the two factions refer to. Less force is required to open a banana at the bottom than at the stem, causing less bruising of the fruit and generally making it easier to open. However, if not done carefully, this can result in the fruit getting squished and making a mess on the person's fingers. Opening bananas from the stem end appears to be the predominant habit of most banana-eating humans in Randall's sample. One explanation is that opening using the stem as a lever makes for greater ease of opening and thus less damage in practice. (Bananas grow with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banana_farm_Chinawal.jpg the stem at the bottom]).

The entire correct banana end discussion could be a reference to the wars between the Blefuscudians who opened their eggs at the big end, and the Lilliputians who broke their eggs at the small end, as documented in {{w|Jonathan Swift|Jonathan Swift's}} epic novel {{w|Gulliver's Travels}}.

Randall's thoughts on the problems with opening bananas could also explain why this fruit, that many find very easy to peel and consume, is listed in the middle of the easy/difficult scale in the [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] chart.

==Transcript==
:[A chart is shown with a line drawn from left to right with five markers on it. Each marker has a line going to it from a labeled below the main line. Above this there is a title and right below that a label above an arrow pointing to the right.]
:<big>People by intensity of evangelism</big>
:More intense

:Religious proselytizers
:People who want the US to switch to metric
:People who want the US to switch to metric but keep Fahrenheit
:People who threw away their socks and bought all one kind
:People who open bananas from the other end

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Food]]

1958: Self-Driving Issues

2018-02-22T03:35:49Z

172.69.33.113: /* Explanation */ Randall is wrong. Some things would fool an AI but not a human.

{{comic
| number = 1958
| date = February 21, 2018
| title = Self-Driving Issues
| image = self_driving_issues.png
| titletext = If most people turn into muderers all of a sudden, we'll need to push out a firmware update or something.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]] explains being worried about {{w|autonomous car|autonomous cars}}, noting that it may be possible to fool the sensory systems of the vehicles. This is a common concern with AIs; since they think analytically and have little to no capability for abstract thought, they can be fooled by things a human would immediately realize is deceptive.

However, Cueball quickly assumes that his argument actually doesn't hold up when comparing AI drivers to human drivers, as both rely on the same guidance framework. Human drivers follow signs and road markings, and must obey the laws of the road just as an AI must. Therefore, an attack on the road infrastructure could impact both AIs and humans. However, humans and AIs are not equally vulnerable. For example, a fake sign or a fake child could appear to a human as an obvious fake but fool an AI. A creative attacker could put up a sign with CAPTCHA-like text that would be readable by humans but not by an AI.

Cueball further wonders why, in this case, nobody tries to fool human drivers as they might try to fool an AI, but [[White Hat]] and [[Megan]] point out the obvious sociological answer; that most {{w|Road traffic safety|road safety systems}} benefit from humans not actively trying to maliciously sabotage them simply to cause accidents.

The [[title text]] continues the line of reasoning, noting that if most people did suddenly become murderers, the AI would need to be upgraded in order to deal with the presumable increase in people trying to cause car crashes by fooling the AI - a somewhat narrowly-focused solution given that a world full of murderers would probably have many more problems than that. It might also be suggesting a firmware update for the people who have become murderers, one that would fix their murderous ways. We are not currently at a point where we can create and apply firmware updates for people, however... unless you count {{w|psychiatry}}, {{w|cognitive behavioral therapy}}, {{w|hypnosis}}, {{w|mind-altering drugs}}, {{w|prison}}, {{w|CRISPR}}, etc.

This cartoon and [[1955: Robots]] share the common theme of human fear and overreaction to the advent of more or less autonomous robots.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is speaking while standing alone in a slim panel.]
:Cueball: I worry about self-driving car safety features.

:[In a frame-less panel it turns out that Cueball is standing between White Hat and Megan, holding his arms out towards each of them, while he continues to speak.]
:Cueball: What's to stop someone from painting fake lines on the road, or dropping a cutout of a pedestrian onto a highway, to make cars swerve and crash?

:[Zoom in on Cueball's head as he continues to contemplate the situation holding a hand to his chin, while looking in White Hat's direction. Megan replies from off-panel behind him.]
:Cueball: Except... those things would also work on human drivers. What's stopping people '''''now? '''''
:Megan (off-panel): Yeah, causing car crashes isn't hard.

:[Zoom back out to show all three of them again.]
:White Hat: I guess it's just that most people aren't murderers?
:Cueball: Oh, right. I always forget.
:Megan: An underappreciated component of our road safety system.

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Self-driving cars]]

==Trivia==
The [[title text]] was published with a typo: "murderers" was misspelled as "muderers."

{{comic discussion}}