explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2729: Planet Killer Comet Margarita

2023-01-26T00:42:31Z

172.69.42.134: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2729
| date = January 25, 2023
| title = Planet Killer Comet Margarita
| image = planet_killer_comet_margarita_2x.png
| imagesize = 607x942px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'll take mine on the rocks, no ice.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MARGARITAFIED METEOR - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A {{w|margarita}} is a popular cocktail made from {{w|tequila}}, {{w|agave}}, {{w|triple sec}}, and {{w|lime juice}}. The frozen margarita variety is blended with ice, and this comic suggests making an enormous drink using the ice from a {{w|comet nucleus}} – the one depicted having more than a passing similarity to the much studied {{w|67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko}}. Based on the amount of ice in a typical comet, it extrapolates the quantity of the other ingredients. The size of this drink will fill {{w|Lake Mead}}, a massive reservoir on the {{w|Colorado River}} holding water controversially held by {{w|Hoover Dam}}.

''{{w|Armageddon_(1998_film)|Armageddon}}'' is a movie starring {{w|Bruce Willis}} about a team of astronauts and oil drill engineers on a mission to blow up an asteroid that's on a collision course with the Earth. The oil drill would be used to drill a hole deep into the asteroid, into which they'll drop a nuclear bomb to destroy it. The comic suggests using the same technique to explode the comet nucleus to get the ice.

Randall has substituted orange liqueur for the triple sec. This was used in one of the apocryphal origin stories of the drink.

In the title text, he asks for it "on the rocks". In the context of margaritas this means on ice. But the comet nucleus also contains lots of rocky material. If you explode the nucleus and remove the ice, the drink will be full of rocks.

In the header, it says "Today's comic was drawn for Daniel Becker, based on
[https://what-if.xkcd.com/162/ his winning question] submitted to the [https://xkcd.com/what-if-2/ What If? 2] contest."

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

:<big>The Planet Killer</big>
:Comet Ice Margarita

:Ingredients
:4,000 oil tankers full of tequila
:1,000 tankers full of orange liqueur
:1,000 tankers full of agave
:The juice from 20 trillion limes
:One comet nucleus

:Instructions
:(1) Drain Lake Mead, combine ingredients behind Hoover Dam
:(2) Detonate comet using Bruce Willis's drilling rig from ''Armageddon'' (1998)
::''Boom''
:(3) Dispense drink through Hoover Dam turbines

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Puns]]

Talk:2702: What If 2 Gift Guide

2022-11-28T15:41:14Z

172.69.42.134:

The puzzle is almost certainly a reference to the Monty Hall problem, since that's usually framed in terms of 3 doors: behind 2 are goats (bad prizes), behind the third is a new (the desirable prize). While the other puzzles share some attributes, I doubt they're intended. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:Who says goats are a bad prize? If you want to make goat's milk cheese, they are quite necessary. Whereas a car may be a burden, most states still require the recipient to pay sales tax, which can be thousands of dollars. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 01:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:Maybe figuring out how to transport the goats in the new car without the goats ruining it would also be a puzzle.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.215|172.71.102.215]]

The goat can be left on its own, but not with the fox or the cabbage. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.135|172.70.162.135]] 00:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Another problem with the James Webb photo is that, from its orbit, the Earth appears too close to the Sun to be safe to photograph. So, the recipient of the gift would have to travel into deep space, well past the orbit of the Moon, for the shoot. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.29|172.70.111.29]] 22:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't Bobcat in a Box inspired by xkcd #576 and its title text, which wasn't even the first boxed bobcat in xkcd? Feels weird to say that the boxed bobcat is a reference to an external brand and not xkcd's rich internal history of mailing people bobcats. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 06:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume that even if the platinum (or platinum-iridium) cylinder used to define kilogram was recreation, rather than original, it would still be very expensive ($31,965 per kg). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 11:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

== "Katherine and Brandon" ==

Could someone explain those Names in the "Chemistry" entry to me? It would be very atypical for Randall to make a mistake in that place, but both seem to be impossible to spell with the periodic table of elements.
Potassium, Astatine and Helium would give K-At-He- (and some radiation posioning) and Iodine and Neon -Id-Ne. But neither Rubidium (Ru), nor Radium (Ra), nor Ruthentium (Ru), nor Rhodium (Rh) nor Radon (RN) give you a pure "R" and likewise there is no Element Ri or Er, so it is impossible to put the "R" into "Katherine".
Likewise "Brandon" could be started with Boron (B), Radon (Ra), Nitrogen (N) and finished with Oxygen (O) and again Nitrogen (N), but there are only two "D"s in the whole peridoic table and both are fixed to other letters, that would not fit: Paladium (Pd) and Gadolinium (Gd).
P.S.: 3 full Minutes of Captcha-solving for a Wiki? WTF??? {{unsigned ip|172.70.247.13|23:40, 23 November 2022}}
:Potassium-Astatine-Hydrogen-'''Erbium'''-Iodine-Neon [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.184|172.69.79.184]] 23:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:As for Brandon, you seem to have missed '''Neodymium''' (Nd). So, Boron-Radon-Neodymium-Oxygen-Nitrogen [[User:TurZ|TurZ]] ([[User talk:TurZ|talk]]) 07:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Could he be limiting himself to rendering only the capital letters of each element? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.43|172.71.160.43]] 00:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
But Astatine is so radioactive that no one has ever seen it. A lump big enough to physically see would instantly sublimate with its own heat of radioactivity. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.7|172.68.210.7]] 00:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Due to the prior comic, I actually bought a Cybiko (I'm into older computer collecting). Now that he's mentioned it again, I'm thankful I got it quick, before the inevitable price rise. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.106|108.162.221.106]] 01:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:Is it good? —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&printable=yes printable version] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&action=info page information] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:While_False what links there] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&days=30&from=&target=User%3AWhile_False related changes] | [https://www.google.com Google search] | current time: {{CURRENTTIME}}) 05:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:I got one, long ago. I think it has a serial connection (RS232?) as well as a radio of whatever kind, and there was reasonably good SDK support for writing your own software, on PC, to download to the Cybiko. I had and have an RSI problem with my hands, and what I tried to do is to use it as a one-handed PC keyboard - so I had to do some pretty simple programming for that, to transmit keys. On the PC end, I think that a serial keyboard was or is a standard supported disability aid option. It might wear out, thought. But currently I do better with a touch screen PC and the "FITALY" on-screen typing program - the man who wrote that died, though. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.222|172.70.162.222]] 13:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Might be relevant, but What If? had a chapter dedicated to the hypotetical idea of building a periodic table with each square comprised of the element represented therein. It obviously gets dangerous/apocalyptic by the time you get past the first couple rows.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.114.20|172.71.114.20]] 13:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A quick and largely inelegant run-through (assuming I listed all 118 correctly) shows that as well as two single characters (J and Q) for which there are currently no possible elemental spellings, there are a further 45 digraphs (excluding those already rendered impossible) with no possibilities of being spelt, as well as 2543 trigraphs (again, minus all those predisqualified) which cannot be so rendered. (Without such cascading exclusions, that's 145 digraphs and 8365 trigraphs - out of the basic and otherwise unaccented 26 letters, making a full 8%, 21% and 48%, respectively of all conceivable lengths from 1 to 3, incapable of being sequenced.)
 Though all absences should more properly be weighted to the likelihood of encountering them, as well. Maybe "ytz" isn't such a great loss, and "qqq" even less so; except perhaps by the next Musk child, who will probably have other issues to worry about. But the impossibility of "dan" (not even with Deuterium, which was just one of those that I didn't include in my check) causes problems for anyone called Dan as well as hypernyms (Daniel/Danielle, etc, though for those, and others, the lack of "iel" is probably a bigger problem). If anyone is called anything like "BMX" or "BMW" (depending upon the peculiar, and possibly misguided, aspirations of their parents) then they're probably also outliers!
 If I find a good name-frequency list, I may run the lists through a further stage to highlight particularly overlooked holes in the sequences such that we can work out which new symbols (under the guise of whole 'relevant' names) we could most usefully petition IUPAC to adopt for elements 119+... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.136|172.71.178.136]] 07:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:Impossibility of a short name does not necessarily imply longer names containing them are impossible. "Tim" is not possible, but "Timothy" is. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.30|172.70.46.30]] 12:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

== Psychology ==

Hi, this is my first edit, I hope I'm doing it right. The psychology example is most likely about the norm of reciprocity (see Wikipedia). It's a very strong norm. Violations of this norm can indeed cause distress to a point where people express anger if they can't reciprocate (which seems somewhat irrational at times).
I'm a psychology student from Germany, I might do some errors when writing in english :) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.85|198.41.242.85]] 06:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
: Welcome! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.156|172.71.154.156]] 21:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

== Baby Shoes ==

Has nobody mentioned the xkcd comic that references this yet? https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1540:_Hemingway

Artinum [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.186|172.71.178.186]] 09:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The alt text is a reference to Ernest Hemingway's 6 word short story [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_sale:_baby_shoes,_never_worn "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."] This is also referenced in comic 1540 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1540:_Hemingway —[[User:Robm|Robm]] ([[User talk:Robm|talk]]) 19:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

...this was [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2702:_What_If_2_Gift_Guide&diff=299763&oldid=299762 already Explained] before any of the above was added to the discussion. (It had to be improved, e.g. the wikilink, but now it's fairly well resolved unless you think it needs tweaking.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 21:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who wishes he'd done it as "Babies/Literature (Not Both): Baby Shoes" -- mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.134|172.69.42.134]] 15:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1724: Proofs

2021-04-16T01:40:31Z

172.69.42.134:

Judging from my experience when I first encountered proofs in math classes (or my general experience from math classes), the teacher is going to write down a "proof" which makes absolutely no sense to students and is also never explained in a way that actually makes them understand. Instead, they are just going to use "dark magic" and write what seems to be completely senseless to students.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.223|141.101.91.223]] 04:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: 'Dark magic' might also refer to the supernatural, so when the teacher said that an answer 'will be written' in a specific location, Cueball took this to mean that a spirit would be summoned to write it, like a ouija chalk board. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.67|141.101.70.67]] 09:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Transcript generated by the BOT was murdering me, had to change it. Proposing miss Lenhart is party 1. [[User:EppOch|EppOch]] ([[User talk:EppOch|talk]]) 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: I support that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.223|141.101.91.223]] 06:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: Me to, but I am on mobile, so editing is a pain [[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.71|162.158.86.71]] 06:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: Done [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Note that the BOT doesn't create any text - [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1724:_Proofs&oldid=125654 see here]. The transcript was made by several people. Agree completely that this is Miss Lenhart, but even if it was not "[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1724:_Proofs&direction=next&oldid=125660 party 1 and party 2]" is not the way to describe a woman with long blonde hair and Cueball ;-) There is at the moment [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#New_character_category_for_blonde_woman_news_reporter_.28from_1699.29|a discussion]] what to call other women looking like this (i.e. those that are not clearly Miss Lenhart, [[Mrs. Roberts]] or her daughter [[Elaine Roberts]]). Chip in there if you have any opinions on that regard... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Irrationality proof isn't really a proof by contradiction (it doesn't use double negation elimination). You're showing (exists a,b. ...) -> False by assuming (exists a, b. ...) and showing False, which is implication introduction --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.105|162.158.85.105]] 07:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking she's doing one of those proof that write down a formula or function out of nowhere, and proceeds to proof everything with it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.125|108.162.222.125]] 08:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of "divination" rituals, where a magical spirit is summoned to write out an answer. Usually not something as complex as here, but hey, XKCD! --[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Man, Reductio ad absurdum never made any logic. If we could assume any thing, why use logic?
Oh wait, it has already been covered in XKCD {{unsigned ip|162.158.49.12}}

"Dark magic" proofs are centered around properties of functions, and abstract concepts, rather than manipulating the functions themselves?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113|108.162.246.113]] 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My assumptions is that the "Dark Magic" being referred to here is more "A technique that works, though nobody really understands why." [see http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/black-magic.html] In this case, the teacher is setting up a proof in an manner which will lead to the desired goal, but to the student it is exceedingly unobvious as to why one would do it this way, other than "it works" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that a "dark magic proof" referred to those ridiculous "party trick" proofs like 'proving' that 1 = 0 via some confusing train of logic, and mathematical sleight of hand. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.213}}

Maybe he meant "dark patterns"? {{unsigned ip|162.158.126.139}}

It seems pretty obvious to me that by "weird, dark magic proofs", the student is talking about proofs that drag in far-flung reaches of mathematics so distant that they no longer appear to be mathematics, especially ones that involve meta-reasoning. Gödel's proof of the incompleteness of Peano arithmetic is the archetypical example, but others include Lob's theorem and any proof by contradiction involving the halting problem. Ms Lenhart's proof starts out by setting up a proof-by-contradiction, already a warning sign, and she then escalates it at the end by implying that this proof will somehow involve the actual physics of where the solution can and cannot be written. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123|108.162.241.123]] 17:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

:: Agreed, although I think starting out with a proof by contradiction setup is by itself not that much of a warning sign. However it heads straight into meta-space by making the assumption of the existence of a function that produces a solution of something. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

:: The fact that the proof mentions the actual blackboard on which it is written is of course problematic in numerous ways, as is predicating on whether something "will eventually" happen. This is well outside the scope of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory usual mathematical foundations]. Since careless use of meta-recursion is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox trap], such a proof would have to very very carefully consider foundational issues and cannot handwave over them. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

----
"''In the title text the decision of whether to take the axiom of choice is made by a deterministic process. The axiom of determinacy is incompatible with the axiom of choice...''" The axiom of determinacy is not really relevant to deterministic processes - it is about (certain types of two-players-) games and says that any such game is determined (that is, some player has a winning strategy). So this axiom is not relevant to the title text --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.66|162.158.83.66]] 17:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:I agree. I read the title text in almost exactly the opposite way - that the proof relies on the existence of a deterministic process for selecting objects, and therefore the invocation of the axiom of choice as a part of the process is superfluous (but not a contradiction). Anyhow, the axiom of determinacy isn't ever mentioned, so it probably shouldn't be shoehorned in here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.53|162.158.74.53]] 20:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel like it is a stretch to assert Lenhart is setting up a proof by contradiction. It sounded to me more like an prior knowledge proof (not sure it's technical name). For example, "calculate the space between two concentric circles of differing diameter when the longest straight line you can draw is length d." If you assume there is a function F(r1, r2) which has been previously proven to calculate this space, then it is easy to show that the space is in fact .5*pi*(.5*d)^2 (as you have a degenerative case where r1=0, and you have an ordinary circle). I also think this type of proof is more "dark magic"-feeling than a simple proof by contradiction. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.87}}

:While technically the same pattern, I would assume something more like NP-complete proofs: Assume we have function F which solves this problem in polynomial time ... then we can solve that problem in polynomial time as well. Just, instead of "polynomial time", the existence of function is the question here, so it will likely be something around {{w|Recursively enumerable set|recursively enumerable}}/{{w|countable set|countable}} stuff. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't like how this explanation uses the word "standard". Non-standard mathematical objects are subjects of non-standard analysis, not metamathematics. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.185|108.162.218.185]] 02:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Simplest explanation would be Cueball suspect Ms Lenhart already made-up an answer for a made-up function (hence ''magic''), which is confirmed at the last panel. Laymen like myself wouldn't grasp any of those methamathematical stuff explanation. :) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.35|162.158.167.35]] 07:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
: There is no such thing, like "answer for a function", so you can't be right. And this interpretation is completely ignoring the mathematical similarities, yet it was [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1724:_Proofs&diff=125861&oldid=125829 introduced] as a summary of the mathematical explanation. If you don't grasp the idea, don't try to summarize it, please. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.138|162.158.133.138]] 14:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the explanation of Godel's incompleteness theorem is not quite right. I've always heard the precise formulation of it as "Any logical system powerful enough to include basic arithmetic has statements that are true but cannot be proven or disproven within the system." I would edit the page to reflect this, but to be honest I'm not that confident in my understanding of it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.134|172.69.42.134]] 01:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

628: Psychic

2021-04-02T19:47:15Z

172.69.42.134: links are bad...

{{comic
| number = 628
| date = August 26, 2009
| title = Psychic
| image = psychic.png
| titletext = You can do a lot better than 1% if you start keeping track of the patterns in what numbers people pick.
}}

==Explanation==
A {{w|psychic}} is a person who is able to access information that is beyond normal sensory perception through {{w|extrasensory perception.}} This information may vary widely in scope and value, ranging from archaeological to the ability to read minds. [[Cueball]] describes himself as such a person, to which [[Megan]] responds with disbelief because it is a bold and unsupported claim. To prove his abilities, Cueball has Megan think of a random number from 1 to 100, which he then guesses correctly to demonstrate his ability to read minds. Megan is amazed that Cueball was correct, but he simply dismisses her disbelief and wants to go back to pretending to lead a normal life.

The four panels are actually a setup to the real joke in this comic: the final sentence spoken by a narrator. It reveals that Cueball has simply played a trick on Megan and that anyone can repeat it. The joke is that, theoretically, a person can guess a random number from 1 to 100 once in one hundred tries, or 1% of the time, according to the {{w|law of large numbers}}. By playing this trick enough times on enough friends, the trickster is statistically likely to get a number right eventually. Assuming the person whose number he guesses is not familiar with the trick, it will appear as if the trickster is actually psychic. Should this happen, the trickster can then play the joke out as he wants, hence the "it's totally worth it" at the end.

The title text appeals again to statistics. People are poor [http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/05/is-17-the-most-random-number/ random-number generators]—e.g. being less likely to pick numbers at the extremes or exactly in the middle. Knowing this, the 'psychic' could restrict his guesses accordingly, improving his odds of guessing correctly.

[[Randall]] has made several smaller references to the number 42 as the answer to the ultimate question about the universe from Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (for instance in [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/1/1c/42_coins.PNG this message] from [[1608: Hoverboard]], and the vision test in [[1213: Combination Vision Test]]. This could be the reason he chose 42+1 as his guess. He both knows Megan, and knows that she knows him. So thinking that he may suspect she would choose 42, she thus adds one, to not choose that exact number... Cueball took a similar reasoning based on his knowledge of Megan and himself, and was lucky this time. Maybe thus increasing his chance to more than 1% as from the title text.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is talking with Megan.]
:Cueball: I'm psychic, you know.
:Megan: There's no such thing.

:[In a frame-less panel they continue to talk.]
:Cueball: Okay, think of a number from one to one hundred.
:Megan: Okay.
:Cueball: 43.
:Megan: Holy shit!

:[Cueball lifts one hand towards Megan.]
:Cueball: I try not to let it affect my life too much.
:Megan: Wait, I can't believe this.

:[Cueball turns and walks away, but stretches his arm back out towards Megan, who is still just standing looking after him.]
:Cueball: Don't worry about it. Forget I said anything.
:Megan: But-
:Cueball: Let's get to the movie.
:Megan: I, uh... OK, sure.

:[Caption below the last two panels:]
:This trick may only work 1% of the time, but when it does, it's totally worth it.

==Trivia==
*This comic has a clear resemblance to the [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] series. This would also make it clear the Cueball in this comic is actually [[Randall]].
*See also [[525: I Know You're Listening]], [[858: Milk]] and [[2203: Prescience]] for similar use of guessing that if correct will make people surprised.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Talk:2425: mRNA Vaccine

2021-03-20T23:04:32Z

172.69.42.134:

Well, RIP Cueball-on-Leia's-fake-Death-Star. [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 22:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the "Hairy" guy with a beard [https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Jan_Dodonna]? Or I guess it could just be a generic person. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.148|172.69.34.148]] 23:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
:Bail Organa (Leias 'father')? This could be an alternate Ep4 in which various unseen prior events went smoother than unfolded in the sky-scrawled start. (i.e. What the vaccine did was somehow bypass the whole Rogue One job on Scarif, with a much earlier copy of data being obtained). Alderaan thus gets a heads-up? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.104|172.69.55.104]] 01:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
::Dodonna was my first guess, before I scrolled down and saw 172.69.34.148's comment. In the films, Bail sent Leia to take the plans to the Rebellion (where Dodonna presented the battle plan to the pilots); he was didn't need them himself. --[[User:NotaBene|NotaBene]] ([[User talk:NotaBene|talk]]) 02:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Looks like Yavin (or similar generic base), on the ground, could be Alderaan (or many other planets) from space. Without the whole Tantive IV capture, neither place would actually be obvious initial targets for the Empire so it's a total guess where this lot of rebels are, perhaps where Leia always intended to go (and stay?) before first being captured. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.98|141.101.105.98]] 03:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a weird feeling when Princess Leia provided the Death Star plan to the beard guy, I think there's (jokingly) a misunderstanding - Princess Leia simply gives the beard guy the Death Star plan, without actually ordering to build one - But eventually they built a Death Star and triggered the earth's defense system, that's why the Death Star constructor team member is so confused.

Yeah I think it's a misunderstanding, not Leia ordering a target practice Death Star.
:I definitely agree. Comic-wise, it makes no sense for a Leia who knew about the order to construct a Death Star to panic; the events of the metaphor only make sense if she wasn’t aware of it. Metaphorically, it’s not so bad either; the plans are the mRNA, and the delivery mechanism (Leia) isn’t specifically “trying” to produce viral Death Stars, it’s just passing along the information. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.244|108.162.215.244]] 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
::It works fine (Ponytail was about to give up, but Leia pressured her to continue learning a Death Star's ins and outs). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
:It's no misunderstanding. They are all just doing "their job", so to speak. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
::Leia is the 'nanolipid' courier capsule in her first role, liasing with the cell (both senses!) and handing over to whoever (not actually sure the beard is Dodonna-enough, but meh...) represents the start of the cellular machinery that will be beneficially 'fooled' into creating the training matter (here, apparently, the full capsid, which strays as an analogy) by casually handing the instruction into the constructor bits along with all instructions normally handed ''outwards'' from the nucleus.
::Then she is actually part of the cellular machinery (perhaps "more torpedos! more ships!" is normal nucleus-sourced building plans, or whatever is needed to increasingly bud initially naive antibodies/antigens)
::By the end, probably we can say she is a Helper T-cell (Luke - or his voiced equivalent if he's been left unDroided at Uncle Lars's place because there was clearly no Escape Capsule event, etc - acted as Killer T-cell) reacting to the exhaust-port Antigen handwaviness. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.92|172.69.54.92]] 12:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
:Personally I fall into the total misunderstanding camp, as there's no way for cells to remember the reason why they built something. But since there's dispute, I've edited it so that the article is silent on the issue of whether or not Leia knew it was a benign station. I guess it really depends on what Leia is in this analogy, but it seems like she's playing a few different roles.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.93|172.69.42.93]] 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Construction Crew B strikes me as a reference to the Golgafrincham "B" Ark from the ''Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'' series, to justify the crew being treated as expendable.
[[User:AnotherOnymous|AnotherOnymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherOnymous|talk]]) 14:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that immune cells can't think or directly communicate hasn't watched enough Star Trek. :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 06:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't scientifically correct to say the current vaccines are 100% effective against death (unless you are "rounding off" to 100, which is not how people will read it). To know that exact number, we would have to observe every single person now and in the future and note that no one ever dies after being vaccinated. This would need to include extremely thorough and precise testing for deaths that are most likely currently unrecognized as being due to COVID, since one missed case in a million changes your number. I think the current statistics would support "well over 99% effective in preventing death," perhaps over 99.9%. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.134|172.69.42.134]] 23:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)