explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-22T03:39:31Z

172.69.33.82: /* Explanation */ adjust per order

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

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

There are many different temperature scales. Most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements, as it is part of the {{w|metric system}} that has been widely adopted as at least the more officially favored civil measurement. However, the United States and Liberia retain the US customary (or 'imperial') system, where the unit is {{w|Fahrenheit}}. There are also many more temperature scales. Most notable is {{w|Kelvin}}, using the 'separation' of Celsius degrees but rooted upon {{w|absolute zero}} (as {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} does with Fahrenheit degrees), which is more directly useful for the purposes of scientific calculation. This comic showcases all these, as well as a lot of mostly unused scales.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water Freezing Point
! scope="col" | Water Boiling Point
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || All but a handful of countries use degrees Celsius as their default measurement of temperature, and most of those use Celsius in conjunction with another scale. Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. This (along with Kelvin) is considered the least cursed temperature system (at least from those where the ranking values make any sense), likely due to Randall's background. Notably it is still considered a 2/10, implying an inherent degree of cursedness for all systems.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} that intends to use the same base metric as degrees Celsius, but zero is set to absolute zero and (by way of using the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}, as of 2019) the melting point of ice (0°C) is considered to be 273.15K. Immediately prior to this, the {{w|Triple point#Triple point of water|triple-point of water}} was precisely 273.16K (and 0.01°C), and the conversion remains commonly considered that ''°C = K - 273.15'', within any useful degree of precision.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0-100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit is a system officially used in only 5 countries in the world (Liberia, the USA and its three associated free states in the Pacific), and unofficially in several countries across the globe, mostly those with ties to the UK or the US, alongside Celsius. It was originally defined with 0 degrees as the freezing point of a particular solution of brine (salt water) and 90 degrees being an (inaccurate) guess of standard human body temperature. Despite being in common use in Randall's home country, due to being defined by such arbitrary fixed points (and Randall's scientific education) it is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in standard atmosphere being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero || 6/10 || Randall has shown disdain for this before, like in [[2292: Thermometer]].
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || -8 || -6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. Randall has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood (''without the e'').
|-
| Galen || -4? || 4?? || Runs from -4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/-4 || Galen, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/-4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpretted as -100% cursedness.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || As most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large but there exists an absolute minimum temperature, defining the scale in this way (giving an absolute maximum but allowing indefinitely negative values) is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. This might be interreted as "infinitely cursed", or else just {{w|NaN|Not a Number}}.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This direction 'survives' in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || A nonlinear scale of temperature (which is typically measured linearly) is indeed very cursed. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e. the cursedness could be understood as 50/50 (or 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
|-
| °X ([[Randall]]'s new temperature scale as defined in the title text) || 42.8 °X || 152 °X || The record lowest surface temperature on Earth is -89.2°C (-128.6°F), recorded at the Vostok Research Station in Antarctica on July 21, 1983. The average surface temperature of the Earth is approximately 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).{{fact}} The record highest surface temperature on Earth is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch in Death Valley, California, USA. || ∞∞↑↑∞∞ || The title text states: "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed."

{{cot|Derivation}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 15°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 15°C (from -89.2°C to 15°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to -89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 15°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

m₁ = (50 - 0) / (15 - (-89.2)) = 50 / (15 + 89.2) = 50 / 104.2 ≈ 0.48

Now, using the point (15°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

50 = 0.48 × 15 + b₁

50 = 7.2 + b₁

b₁ = 50 - 7.2 = 42.8

Thus, the equation for temperatures below 15°C is:

X = 0.48 × C + 42.8

2. Above 15°C (from 15°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 15°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

m₂ = (100 - 50) / (56.7 - 15) = 50 / 41.7 ≈ 1.2

Now, using the point (15°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

50 = 1.2 × 15 + b₂

50 = 18 + b₂

b₂ = 50 - 18 = 32

Thus, the equation for temperatures above 15°C is:

X = 1.2 × C + 32

Freezing and Boiling Points

1. Freezing point of water (0°C):
* Since 0°C is below 15°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.8:

X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.8 = 42.8

So, the freezing point is 42.8 °X.

2. Boiling point of water (100°C):
* Since 100°C is above 15°C, we use the equation X = 1.2 × C + 32:

X = 1.2 × 100 + 32 = 120 + 32 = 152

So, the boiling point is 152 °X.

Final Results:
* Freezing point of water: 42.8 °X
* Boiling point of water: 152 °X
{{cob}}
|}

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

:[Header:]
:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns. The columns are labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]
:[Row 1:] Celsius. 0. 100. Used in most of the world. 2/10.
:[Row 2:] Kelvin. 273.15. 373.15. 0K is absolute zero. 2/10.
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit. 32. 212. Outdoors in most places is between 0-100. 3/10.
:[Row 4:] Réaumur. 0. 80. Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100. 3/8.
:[Row 5:] Rømer. 7.5. 60. Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design. 4/10.
:[Row 6:] Rankine. 491.7. 671.7. Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero. 6/10.
:[Row 7:] Newton. 0. 33-ish. Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in". 7-ish/10.
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood. -8. -6.7. Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about. 9/10.
:[Row 9:] Galen. -4?. 4??. runs from -4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?). 4/-4.
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius. 100. 0. in Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it. 10/0.
:[Row 11:] Dalton. 0. 100. A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton. 53.9/50.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:2829: Iceberg Efficiency

2023-09-15T22:12:24Z

172.69.33.82:

BH clearly isn't Freudian. For the {{w|File:Structural-Iceberg.svg|Iceberg of the Mind}}, the most important part is the 90% of it that is ''hidden''. Which makes for a totally ''different'' (and potentially more implementable) solution whenever you happen to consider that the most important function of an iceberg is to sneak up on ships... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.68|172.71.178.68]] 13:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

i added a transcript hopefully it isn't horrible [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
:Tweaked (slightly, to personal descriptive tastes), but definitely not horrible. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.7|172.70.86.7]] 14:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have knowledge of aerogels being infused with helium? I'm assuming it wouldn't be too outlandish to do so, but honestly don't have a lot of experience with them. [[User:Fifteen12|Fifteen12]] ([[User talk:Fifteen12|talk]]) 14:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
:It'd be complex. Most are 'open cell', so need an external coating. Or "pockets of helium" could mean small helium-filled ballonettes embedded within aerogel; being uniformly externally supported by the aerogel, these pockets could be structurally less bulky than traditional bladders of lift-gas (still need to be impermeable, but without the inflate-stretching of rubber, can be a more 'delicate but efficient' material, perhaps [https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/online/27257/Graphene-displays-unexpected-permeability graphene]). You could (also?) coat the outside of the aerogel, but adding an arbitrarily large envelope of such a membrane around helium-infused aerogel and then adding more (normally aerated) aerogel onto the outside as additional buffer/structural precaution might be wise(r), as you go ship-hunting... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.61|141.101.98.61]] 15:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems ChatGPT was use to write the description text? The contributor share in on XKCD's euphoria channel: https://chat.openai.com/share/02006f2e-cca5-4518-8fb4-f9176b39512e [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.117|188.114.111.117]] 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What aerogel would break down in water? From what I've seen, I thought most aerogel was made of silica? (There's actually no gel left in an aerogel; the gel is replaced by gases.) Is this an error produced by ChatGPT? Since my searches just now have turned up no mention of aerogel being made water soluble, I'm removing that statement for now; if someone has a citation supporting it, we could add it back in? [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not filling the aerogel with hydrogen? You might save for torpedoes then. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"God himself couldn't sink this ship." That's just giving Murphy a temptation far too great to resist. Naval architect Thomas Andrews, the leader of the Titanic's design team, knew exactly how much damage his ship could sustain and stay afloat, and he knew that the damage inflicted by the iceberg was too great to sustain. He [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews#Death did not survive the sinking.] [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.82|172.69.33.82]] 22:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-25T23:49:46Z

172.69.33.82: /* Explanation */ counter-example

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a hypothesis and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}} style and {{w|puffery}} title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a {{w|hypothesis}} and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly-promotional clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity caused by the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

{{w|Emperical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' almost always state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}},'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports'' (or ''{{w|case study|case studies}} — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of emperical analysis''), which present data and a chronicle of its collection without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''{{w|Conference proceeding|conference papers}},'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways on work; ''{{w|Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|syntheses}},'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''{{w|Comparison|comparative studies}},'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''{{w|Interpretive discussion|interpretive}} papers,'' showing a different perspective of previous work; ''{{w|technical reports}},'' which usually present information on a specific procedural topic; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended to argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they are more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published. However, research articles describing the discovery of new microbes in prestigious peer-reviewed journals are often published as observational reports[https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004029] so Megan's concerns are likely unfounded.

In the title text, the conflict of interest statement says that the authors hope their results are correct because, "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential {{w|conflict of interest}} usually refers to the authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2699: Feature Comparison

2022-11-17T07:23:59Z

172.69.33.82: /* Explanation */ deet

{{comic
| number = 2699
| date = November 16, 2022
| title = Feature Comparison
| image = feature_comparison_v2.png
| imagesize =
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Below the Web, and the Dark Web, a shadowy parallel world of Cybiko users trade messages on the Translucent Neon Plastic Web.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MULTIHOMED MESH NODE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is comparing different remote communication services, including the relatively well-known {{w|Twitter}}, {{w|Discord}}, {{w|Mastodon}}, {{w|Facebook|F(ace)B(ook)}}, {{w|Slack (software)|Slack}}, {{w|Signal (software)|Signal}}, {{w|Internet Relay Chat}} (IRC), {{w|Tumblr}}, {{w|Reddit}}, and mobile telephone {{w|SMS}} text messages.

The less well-known "{{w|Cybiko}}® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000)" was a handheld computer designed for teens and released in 2000, which featured its own two-way radio text messaging system. The Cybiko has two-way communication capabilities along with built-in games and music player capabilities. Additional information about it is available at [http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Cybiko the Dead Media Archive], as the device has not been manufactured since 2003. The chart suggests that the Cybiko has an advantage over all of the other ten communication services listed, as it has all eight of the features listed in the table, whereas none of the other services under consideration have more than five of the features. Of course, purchasing a Cybiko or finding friends who own one can be its own challenge, as device was discontinued nearly 20 years ago.


{{w|Mesh networking}} is the ability for users to have P2P connections, and talk without a centralized server. The Cybiko has this as well as wireless message delivery because it communicates to other devices via radio hence the ability to operate without any internet connectivity at all.

The table appears to have a number of errors. For example, Mastedon doesn't require a central server and doesn't support file transfer. (An earlier version of the comic suggesting there Mastedon has no user-run instances was corrected by [[Randall]] shortly after publication of the original.) IRC does require at least one central server, and doesn't support file transfers without the use of client extensions. Discord, Reddit, and Slack have instances moderated and administered by users, but the corporations behind them "run" their software and control their data storage. Discord doesn't have built-in games, but Reddit occasionally does. Tumblr does have a form of group chats.




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

:[A table with checkmarks to indicate which features various messaging services have. Each column is labeled with a service name and its logo beneath, except that for the last column, the device's longer name is written higher than all the other services' names, with an arrow pointing to a drawing of the device below it.]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Twitter
! Discord
! Mastodon
! FB
! Slack
! Signal
! IRC
! Tumblr
! Reddit
! SMS
! Cybiko® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000)
|-
! Direct messages
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
! Group chats
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! File transfer
| || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Built-in games
| || ✓ || || ✓ || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! User-run instances
| || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Doesn't require central server
| || || || || || || ✓ || || || || ✓
|-
! Mesh networking
| || || || || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! Wireless message delivery works without internet
| || || || || || || || || || ✓ || ✓
|-
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Social networking]]