explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1017: Backward in Time

2024-09-19T19:34:19Z

172.69.43.184: /* Explanation */ Not sure of the accuracy. Not sure it needs such detail. But, as it was, it needed typos correcting, weird phrasing changed and (having looked it up) a correction to a quote that was rendered ungrammatical.

{{comic
| number = 1017
| date = February 15, 2012
| title = Backward in Time
| image = backward_in_time.png
| titletext = People tell me I have too much time on my hands, but really the problem is that there's too much time, PERIOD.
}}

Clicking the image at xkcd.com links to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ak43bGxHGI1adDMtOHVWVXZrYzhKd2VtbFJJMmJPTEE&single=true&gid=1&output=html this spreadsheet], which [[Randall]] used to calculate the times and dates for the comic. It also has a lot of other percentages and dates, so take a look if you are interested.

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]]/[[Randall]] creates this formula which helps him wait for long stretches of time which goes increasingly faster into the past as more time goes by, which gives him the effect of looking like the time goes by quickly. Which assists in the waiting process.

As far as the actual math is concerned, the formula is an {{w|exponential function}} (i.e. the variable appears in the exponent). The effect that the function grows faster and faster as p grows, is due to T(p) being exponential. More precisely, when you repeatedly add some constant to the exponent, you will repeatedly multiply some (other) constant with the value of the function. Compare how "slow" a value grows by adding even high values (1, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001…) and how fast it grows by multiplying even low values (1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000…)

Now, the function has to be adjusted so that, as Randall put it, "the time spent in each part of the past is loosely proportional to how well I know it." The most important adjustment is putting p to the power of three. That lowers the amount added to the exponent for low values (0.1³=0.001, 0.2³=0.008, i.e. only 7/1000 have been added for 10% workflow) and increases the amount for high values (0.8³=0.512, 0.9³=0.729, i.e. more than 1/5 has been added for 10% workflow). That means the recent past will pass even slower and the historic past even faster than it already does by choosing an exponential function.
The remaining adjustments are technical. The coefficient in front of p³ adjusts the constant by which the result will be multiplied while adding some constant to p, while it also roughly ensures that p=1 yields the lifetime of the universe. The 3 added to the product in the exponent further adjusts the actual values of the power without touching the slope (the multiplicative constant). In the parentheses, e³ is subtracted to put the time to 0 when p=0. Otherwise the function would start approx. 20 yrs and 1 month ago. For bigger p, this offset does not matter much. Imagine subtracting 20 yrs from the lifetime of the universe!

Finally, the result is subtracted from the current date for aesthetical reasons. The formula could tell you "20 years ago", or it could read "February 1992". Randall decided the latter would be better.

There is actually a mathematical error in this comic; the inverse function in grey writing off at the bottom right of the main formula involves a square root, when the actual inverse of Randall's main function would involve a cube root. In addition, this function does not contain the current date, meaning that T, in the inverse, refers to how long ago a point in time was, rather than the point in time itself. When the T in the inverse is 20, it means that the date referenced by T is 20 years ago.

The punchline "Swoosh!" is about how fast the last few percents of Cueball's download happen in "such a rush". For most humans waiting for a download to complete tends to become really boring and progress would instead seem to get slower and slower.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Percent || Amount of Time Ago || Around This Time: || Explanation of Time Period
|-
| 0% || Now (As of the comics writing this would have been Feburary 15 2012) || N/A || It is {{w|Singles Awareness Day}}.
|-
| 7.308% || December 18 2011 || Kim Jong-il Dies, US Leaves Iraq|| Early 2003, the majority of Americans supported the {{w|2003 invasion of Iraq|Iraq Invasion}}. However, a little more than a year later the majority of Americans thought that the invasion was a mistake. Representative {{w|John Murtha}} introduced a resolution in 2005 for U.S. soldiers in Iraq to be "redeployed at the earliest practicable date" and the {{w|Republican Party (United States)|Republicans}} called for "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately", however this was immmeditly shot down. A year later, another bill was shot down preposing a deadline for recalling soldiers. The House Majority Leader, {{w|John Boehner}}, argued that "achieving victory is our only option". A bill finally passed congress in 2007 that called for the removal of troops within the end of the year, however it was vetoed by {{w|George W. Bush|President Bush}}. In 2008 both the American and Iraqi governments signed the {{w|U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement}}. It stated that, by June 30th of the following year, American forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities and would be completely gone by 2012. On December 18, 2011, the very last 500 solders left Iraq.
|- |-
| 10% || Sep. 2011 || N/A || This would be around the date of the tenth aniversary of the {{w|9/11 Attacks}}. Randall also got married around this time.
|-
| 20% || 2008 || N/A || The {{w|Marvel Cinematic Universe|Marvel}} movie {{w|Iron Man}} is released. {{w| Barack Obama}} wins the election and becomes the 44th President of the United States.
|-
| 30% || 1997 || N/A || {{w|O.J. Simpson|OJ Simpson}} was found liable for the deaths of {{W|Nicole Brown}} and {{w|Ronald Goldman}}. OJ owed the two families $35.5 million. Princess Diana died.
|-
| 31.12% || February 1995 || Windows 95 Debuts, OJ Found Not Guilty|| The {{w|Murder trial of O. J. Simpson|OJ Simson trial}} was a famous trial where OJ was tried for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. DNA evidence almost proved his guilt, however the defense pointed out the evidence wasn't collected correctly and could have been cross contaminated. Because of this, the jury found OJ not guilty of the double murder.
|-
| 40% || 1958 || N/A || In 1958 the European Common Market is created, Khruschev gains control of the USSR and the first American satellite, Explorer 1, is launched into orbit.
|-
| 47.91% || 1844 || Rubber Vulcanized, Bicycle Invented, Wrench Patented || {{w|Vulcanization}} is when one heats and addes sulfur to rubber, usually {{w|Polyisoprene|polyisoprene}} (natural rubber) or {{w|Styrene-butadiene|SBR rubber}}. This helps its elactisity and improves its strength. Charles Goodyear was the inventor of vulcanization. In the early 1800s tires quickly turned soft and sticky after they got hot (somthing that happens when you drive of them for miles at a time in 90 degree weather). Charles Goodyear heated up the rubber to add chemicals to the tires and to his amazment it worked!! The tires strength improved. The only problem was that the improvement wasn't because of the chemicals but because of the heating. He would eventally learn this after dropping the rubber in a frying pan, watching the rubber not melt as one would expect, but harden. Soon after, in 1844, he patented the process.
|-
| 50% || 1776 || N/A || On July 4th, the American colonies {{w|Lee Resolution|declared independence}} from Great Britain. This event started a {{w|American Revolutionary War|7 year war}}, in which, the colonies won their indepence. This heralds the start of The United States of America.
|-
| 60% || 405 AD || N/A || The {{w|War of Radagaisus}} started. Radagaisus lead a group of about 100,000 men across the Alps into Rome. The three remaining {{w|Sibylline Books}} were burned. The Sibylline books were a series of nine prophesy books written by an old woman (it has never been found out who, but most likely a {{w|Cumaean Sibyl}}. It is said that they were offered to the last Emperor of Rome, {{w|Lucius Tarquinius Superbus}}, who refused to buy them twice, which resulted in three books getting burned for each denial. She then offered them back to the emperor for the same price and, at last, the Emperor bought them. The Roman Senate took control of the books and was extremely protective of them. The books were initially put under the care of two guardians, increasing to ten, then to fifteen. However, after eight centuries, a Roman General called {{w|Stilicho}} ordered them to be burned as they were being used to attack the government.
|-
| 70% || 22,000 Years Ago || N/A || ...
|-
| 70.33 || 24,Years Ago || Caves Painted, Ceramic Art Made. Neanderthals Extict || ...
|-
| 80% || 671,000 Years Ago || N/A || ...
|-
| 90% || 55 Million Years Ago || N/A || ...
|-
| 90.42% || 68 Million Years Ago || First flowering plants. Chicxulub impact kills off most dinosaurs. || ...
|-
| 100% || 13.76 billion years ago || Universe begins. First stars ignite. || ...
|}
[[940|(Also, the workout website, Fitocracy has been mentioned previously in xkcd.)]]

Note that as of the time that this page was last cached, the comic was uploaded at {{#expr:100*(((ln(({{#time:U}}-1329195600)/31536000+e^3)-3)/20.3444)^.5)}}% progress.

==Transcript==
:When I have a boring task to get through — a three-hour lecture, a giant file download, or a long term point goal in fitocracy — I use this formula to convert the percentage completed (p) into a date:

:T=(Current Date) - (e^(20.3444*p^3+3) - e^3) years

:When the task is 0% done, it gives today's date, and as I make progress, I move further and further back in time

:(inverse given in lighter colors)
:Inverse: p = sqrt((ln(T+e^3)-3)/20.3444)

:[Line Graph explaining the correlation between completion percentages and temporal deltas.]
:0% = now (Date of comic is 2012-02-14T00:00-0500, approx. 1329195600 UNIX)
:10% = September 2011
:20% = 2008
:30% = 1997
:40% = 1958
:50% = 1776
:60% = 405 AD
:70% = 22,000 years ago
:80% = 671,000 years ago
:90% = 55 million years ago
:100% = 13.8 billion years ago

:It moves slowly through the first few years, then steadily accelerates. I tuned the formula so the time spent in each part of the past is loosely proportional to how well I know it. This means I hit familiar landmarks with each bit of progress, giving me a satisfying sense of movement.

:[The following are panels detailing completion percentages, correlated time periods, and notable events from this time period.]

:7.308% December 18, 2011
:Around this time:
:Kim Jong-Il dies. US leaves Iraq.

:31.12% February 1995
:Around this time:
:Windows 95 debuts. OJ found not guilty.

:47.91% 1844
:Around this time:
:Rubber vulcanized, bicycle invented, wrench patented.

:70.33% 24,000 years ago
:Around this time:
:Caves painted, ceramic art made. Neanderthals extinct.

:90.42% 68 million years ago
:Around this time:
:First flowering plants. Chicxulub impact kills off most dinosaurs.

:100% 13.76 billion years ago
:Around this time:
:Universe begins. First stars ignite.

:Download complete.

:[Cueball watches a download progress on a laptop in amazement and happiness. Megan stands nearby and looks at Cueball with a bemused posture.]
:Cueball: Swoosh! Watching all that time blur past is such a rush!
:Megan: So...you've tried to make an extreme sport out of...''waiting''.
:Cueball: ''Swoosh!''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Math]]

Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy

2024-09-19T19:23:30Z

172.69.43.184: One better way to punctuate it... There will be other valid re-edits.

*[[Beret Guy]] is a very strange person. Sometimes he takes these strange tendencies into the supernatural.
**'''Click''' to expand for a more detailed explanation:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed leftAlign" style="width:100%">
 
==Explanation==
In the early comics he was mostly just a strange and naive guy. There is an early start to the strangeness, but that power could also be attributed to [[Cueball]] (at least it is a shared power) in [[248]].

From comic [[1088]], Beret Guy begins to appear frequently with these strange powers, typically not related to each other, except that he has some issues with electrical sockets and power cords as seen in [[1293]] and [[1395]]. (See also [[509: Induced Current]] and the title text of [[614: Woodpecker]], regarding power cords, but not these strange powers.) He is also capable of waiting for very long time as seen both in [[1088]], [[1617]] and [[2987]].

Many of these apparent powers manifest as objects behaving strangely around him. It is unclear whether these are in fact powers inherent to Beret Guy or whether the objects are simply cursed; as indicated in [[1772]], most of his possessions were acquired from shops specializing in cursed items.

Here is a list of the comics where Beret Guy displays strange powers that are beyond the realm of possibility.

===List of abilities===
#[[248]]: Manages to create a hypothetical situation (trapping him and his friend).
#[[1088]]: Capable of waiting in the same place for five years, presumably without sustenance
#[[1099]]: He has infinite wings.
#[[1135]]: Makes spiders weave him a shirt.
#[[1158]]: Creates a rubber sheet to pull & release ball via his imagination.
#[[1293]]: Pours soup from power socket.
#[[1388]]: Subducts through the floor to form mountains in his room.
#[[1395]]: Inflates a laptop through a power cord so that it floats like a helium balloon.
#[[1422]]: Makes a phone with an old battery behave like a dying star.
#[[1486]]: Uses the vacuum energy to fly and "gain unlimited power" with a vacuum cleaner.
#[[1490]]: Sees the individual atoms, and can distinguish the different elements. But he cannot see what they are actually a part of, like a human or a dog.
#[[1522]]: Can examine life on exoplanets around distant stars through a magnifying glass just by standing on a ladder.
#[[1614]]: A little less clear what his powers are in this. But first he is walking a flying/floating dog, and then he returns flying on (or as) a kite, while the dog holds on to the line of the kite.
#[[1617]]: Living by eating newspaper and without breathing oxygen for several years in a sealed and buried box.
#[[1922]]: Riding in the air above two small dogs combined into a larger dog through interferometry
#[[2310]]: Being able to sleep on the vertical side of walls due to a much higher than normal attraction to the {{w|Great Attractor}}, because of higher dimensional bones.
#[[2325]]: Beret Guy attracts water so it flows to him rather than running out towards the nearby oceans. He thus claims he is like an endorheic basin, which is a limited drainage basin that normally retains water and allows no outflow to other external bodies of water.
#[[2376]]: Claims to have the ability to do battle with ghosts, although this is not shown because Beret Guy did not have a cursed amulet that makes ghosts angry.
#[[2446]]: He creates a huge spike protein outside his body after receiving the [[:Category:COVID-19_vaccine|COVID-19 vaccine]].
#[[2534]]: He managed to create a retractable "rocket" that can extend and deliver payload to the ISS and then return to its starting position without the base ever leaving the ground.
#[[2695]]: He created volcano seeds which, when planted, create a tiny volcano.
#[[2710]]: He created a hydroelectric dam that has achieved Q>1, meaning it has produced more water than has been put into it.
#[[2805]]: He flew off into the atmosphere holding a balloon and a basketball and survived for 1500 years, and then proceeded to get the perfect trick shot.
#[[2850]]: By changing the setting for his house in Google Map he can make himself chief of the police forcing them to do as he says.
#[[2987]]: He stands still for an entire 20 years, presumably without any food or water, to tectonic surf; although he only moved about a meter in that time.
</div>
 

[[Category:Comics by topic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]

Talk:2983: Monocaster

2024-09-10T08:35:55Z

172.69.43.184:

Unicycles aren't (or at least aren't usually) chain-driven. I might try to fix that if my phone stops being so slow that it feels like I'm using a 90s PC to do this. Maybe a restart will help. Rebooting in 10, 9, 8... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.76|172.70.91.76]] 07:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, Randall missed an opportunity to put a Penny-Farthing in there... though I'm not sure how that would have categorised given that it has two wheels of different sizes. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: unicycles, the COG thing doesn't look right either, but I was distracted by a (thankfully) now-deleted troll comment before and actually fixing the description is beyond my skills, especially on so little sleep.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 08:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2981: Slingshots

2024-09-05T06:48:51Z

172.69.43.184:

Hi [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.236|172.71.150.236]] 03:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:Hi [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.5|172.70.210.5]] 04:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
We don't put tables in the transcript, which is supposed to be screen-readable. Tables are not screen-readable. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 04:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:I now see the hidden "Tables are bad?" content in the incomplete transcript notice! Cute! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 04:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

We should clarify that it's the American Dennis and not the British one. There are differences, which I learned the hard way :(

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 06:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

1047: Approximations

2024-08-07T16:40:21Z

172.69.43.184: /* Explanation */ Thoroughly updating other "as of"s, and expanding upon the existence of the leap-year 'pause' in the estimate.

{{comic
| number = 1047
| date = April 25, 2012
| title = Approximations
| before = [[#Explanation|↓ Skip to explanation ↓]]
| image = approximations.png
| titletext = Two tips: 1) 8675309 is not just prime, it's a twin prime, and 2) if you ever find yourself raising log(anything)^e or taking the pi-th root of anything, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic lists some approximations for numbers, most of them mathematical and physical constants, but some of them jokes and cultural references.

Approximations like these are sometimes used as {{w|mnemonic}}s by mathematicians and physicists, though most of Randall's approximations are too convoluted to be useful as mnemonics. Perhaps the best known mnemonic approximation (though not used here by Randall) is that "π is approximately equal to 22/7". Randall does mention (and mock) the common mnemonic among physicists that the {{w|fine structure constant}} is approximately 1/137. Although Randall gives approximations for the number of seconds in a year, he does not mention the common physicists' mnemonic that it is "π × 107", though he later added a statement to the top of the comic page addressing this point.

At the bottom of the comic are expressions involving {{w|transcendental numbers}} (namely π and e) that are tantalizingly close to being exactly true but are not (indeed, they cannot be, due to the nature of transcendental numbers). Such near-equations were previously discussed in [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]]. One of the entries, though, is a "red herring" that is exactly true.

Randall says he compiled this table through "a mix of trial-and-error, ''{{w|Mathematica}}'', and Robert Munafo's [http://mrob.com/pub/ries/ Ries] tool." "Ries" is a "{{w|Closed-form expression#Conversion from numerical forms|reverse calculator}}" that forms equations matching a given number.

The {{w|world population}} estimate for 2024 is still somewhat accurate. The estimate is 7.9 billion, and the population listed at the website census.gov is roughly the same. The current value can be found here: [https://www.census.gov/popclock/ United States Census Bureau - U.S. and World Population Clock]. Nevertheless there are other numbers listed by different sources.

The first part of the title text notes that "Jenny's constant," which is actually a telephone number referenced in Tommy Tutone's 1982 song {{w|867-5309/Jenny}}, is not only prime but a {{w|twin prime}} because 8675311 is also a prime. Twin primes have always been a subject of interest, because they are comparatively rare, and because it is not yet known whether there are infinitely many of them. Twin primes were also referenced in [[1310: Goldbach Conjectures]].

The second part of the title text makes fun of the unusual mathematical operations contained in the comic. {{w|Pi|π}} is a useful number in many contexts, but it doesn't usually occur anywhere in an exponent. Even when it does, such as with complex numbers, taking the πth root is rarely helpful. A rare exception is an [http://gosper.org/4%5E1%C3%B7%CF%80.png identity] for the pi-th root of 4 discovered by Bill Gosper. Similarly, {{w|e (mathematical constant)|e}} typically appears in the base of a power (forming the {{w|exponential function}}), not in the exponent. (This is later referenced in [http://what-if.xkcd.com/73/ Lethal Neutrinos]).

===Equations===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!align="center"|Thing to be approximated:
!align="center"|Formula proposed
!align="center"|Resulting approximate value
!align="center"|Correct value
!align="center"|Discussion
|-
|align="center"|One {{w|light year}} (meters)
|align="center"|998
|align="center"|9,227,446,944,279,201
|align="center"|9,460,730,472,580,800 (exact)
|align="left"|Based on 365.25 days per year (see below). 998 and 698 are [[487: Numerical Sex Positions|sexual references]].
|-
|align="center"|Earth's surface (m2)
|align="center"|698
|align="center"|513,798,374,428,641
|align="center"|5.10072 × 1014
|align="left"|998 and 698 are [[487: Numerical Sex Positions|sexual references]].
|-
|align="center"|Oceans' volume (m3)
|align="center"|919
|align="center"|1,350,851,717,672,992,089
|align="center"|1.332 × 1018
|align="left"|
|-
|align="center"|Seconds in a year
|align="center"|754
|align="center"|31,640,625
|align="center"|31,557,600 (Julian calendar), 31,556,952 (Gregorian calendar)
|align="left"|After this comic was released [[Randall]] got many responses by viewers. So he did add this statement to the top of the comic page:
"Lots of emails mention the physicist favorite, 1 year = pi × 107 seconds. 754 is a hair more accurate, but it's hard to top 3,141,592's elegance." π × 107 is nearly equal to 31,415,926.536, and 754 is exactly 31,640,625. Randall's elegance belongs to the number π, but it should be multiplied by the factor of ten.

Using the traditional definitions that a second is 1/60 of a minute, a minute is 1/60 of an hour, and an hour is 1/24 of a day, a 365-day common year is exactly 31,536,000 seconds (the "''Rent'' method" approximation) and the 366-day leap year is 31,622,400 seconds. Until the calendar was reformed by Pope Gregory, there was one leap year in every four years, making the average year 365.25 days, or 31,557,600 seconds. On the current calendar system, there are only 97 leap years in every 400 years, making the average year 365.2425 days, or 31,556,952 seconds. In technical usage, a "second" is now defined based on physical constants, even though the length of a day varies inversely with the changing angular velocity of the earth. To keep the official time synchronized with the rotation of the earth, a "leap second" is occasionally added, resulting in a slightly longer year.
|-
|align="center"|Seconds in a year (''Rent'' method)
|align="center"|525,600 × 60
|align="center"|31,536,000
|align="center"|31,557,600 (Julian calendar), 31,556,952 (Gregorian calendar)
|align="left"|"''Rent'' Method" refers to the song "{{w|Seasons of Love}}" from the musical ''{{w|Rent (musical)|Rent}}''. The song asks, "How do you measure a year?" One line says "525,600 minutes" while most of the rest of the song suggests the best way to measure a year is moments shared with a loved one. This method for remembering how many seconds are in a year was also referenced in [https://what-if.xkcd.com/23/ What If? 23].
|-
|align="center"|Age of the universe (seconds)
|align="center"|1515
|align="center"|437,893,890,380,859,375
|align="center"|(4.354 ± 0.012) × 1017 (best estimate; exact value unknown)
|align="left"|This one will slowly get more accurate as the universe ages.
|-
|align="center"|Planck's constant
|align="center"|<math>\frac {1} {30^{\pi^e}}</math>
|align="center"|6.6849901410 × 10−34
|align="center"|6.62606957 × 10−34
|align="left"|Informally, the {{w|Planck constant}} is the smallest action possible in quantum mechanics.
|-
|align="center"|Fine structure constant
|align="center"|<math>\frac{1}{140}</math>
|align="center"|0.00714285
|align="center"|0.0072973525664 (accepted value as of 2014), close to 1/137
|align="left"|The {{w|fine structure constant}} indicates the strength of electromagnetism. It is unitless and around 0.007297, close to 1/137. The joke here is that Randall chose to write 140 as the denominator, when 137 is much closer to reality and just as many digits (although 137 is a less "round" number than 140, and Randall writes in the table that he's "had enough" of it). At one point the fine structure constant was believed to be exactly the reciprocal of 137, and many people have tried to find a simple formula explaining this (with a pinch of {{w|numerology}} thrown in at times), including the infamous {{w|Arthur Eddington|Sir Arthur "Adding-One" Eddington}} who argued very strenuously that the fine structure constant "should" be 1/136 when that was what the best measurements suggested, and then argued just as strenuously for 1/137 a few years later as measurements improved.
|-
|align="center"|Fundamental charge
|align="center"|<math>\frac {3} {14 \pi^{\pi^\pi}}</math>
|align="center"|1.59895121062716 × 10−19
|align="center"|1.602176565 × 10−19
|align="left"|This is the charge of the proton, symbolized ''e'' for electron (whose charge is actually −''e''. You can blame Benjamin Franklin [[567|for that]].)
|-
|align="center"|Telephone number for the {{w|White House}} switchboard
|align="center"|<math>\frac {1} {e^ {\sqrt[\pi] {1 + \sqrt[e-1] 8}} }</math>
|align="center"|0.2024561414932
|align="center"|202-456-1414
|align="left"|
|-
|align="center"|Jenny's constant
|align="center"|<math>\left( 7^ {\frac{e}{1} - \frac{1}{e}} - 9 \right) \pi^2</math>
|align="center"|867.5309019
|align="center"|867-5309
|align="left"|A telephone number referenced in {{w|Tommy Tutone}}'s 1982 song {{w|867-5309/Jenny}}. As mentioned in the title text, the number is not only prime but a {{w|twin prime}} because 8675311 is also a prime.
|-
|align="center"|World population estimate (billions)
|align="center"|Equivalent to <math>6 + \frac {\frac34 y + \frac14 (y \operatorname{mod} 4) - 1499} {10}</math>
|align="center"|2005 — 6.5 
2006 — 6.6 
2007 — 6.7 
2008 — 6.7 
2009 — 6.8 
2010 — 6.9 
2011 — 7.0 
2012 — 7.0 
2013 — 7.1 
2014 — 7.2 
2015 — 7.3 
2016 — 7.3 
2017 — 7.4 
2018 — 7.5 
2019 — 7.6 
2020 — 7.6 
2021 — 7.7 
2022 — 7.8 
2023 — 7.9 
2024 — 7.9 
2025 — 8.0 
2026 — 8.1 
2027 — 8.2 
2028 — 8.2 
2029 — 8.3 
2030 — 8.4 
2031 — 8.5 
2032 — 8.5 
2033 — 8.6 
2034 — 8.7 
2035 — 8.8 
|align="center"|
|align="left"|Grows by 75 million every year on average (100 million every year, except for a pause every leap-year). As of 2024, still a bit too small.
|-
|align="center"|U.S. population estimate (millions)
|align="center"|Equivalent to <math>310 + 3(y - 2010)</math>
|align="center"|2000 — 280 
2001 — 283 
2002 — 286 
2003 — 289 
2004 — 292 
2005 — 295 
2006 — 298 
2007 — 301 
2008 — 304 
2009 — 307 
2010 — 310 
2011 — 313 
2012 — 316 
2013 — 319 
2014 — 322 
2015 — 325 
2016 — 328 
2017 — 331 
2018 — 334 
2019 — 337 
2020 — 340 
2021 — 343 
2022 — 346 
2023 — 349 
2024 — 352 
2025 — 355 
2026 — 358 
2027 — 361 
2028 — 364 
2029 — 367 
2030 — 370 
2031 — 373 
2032 — 376 
2033 — 379 
2034 — 382 
2035 — 385 
|align="center"|
|align="left"|Grows by 3 million each year. As of 2024 the actual number is ~10 million smaller.
|-
|align="center"|Electron rest energy (joules)
|align="center"|<math>\frac {e} {7^{16}}</math>
|align="center"|8.17948276564429 × 10−14
|align="center"|8.18710438 × 10−14
|align="left"|
|-
|align="center"|Light year (miles)
|align="center"|242.42
|align="center"|5,884,267,614,436.97
|align="center"|5,878,625,373,183.61 = 9,460,730,472,580,800 (meters in a light-year, by definition) / 1609.344 (meters in a mile)
|align="left"|{{w|42 (number)|42}} is, according to {{w|Douglas Adams}}' ''{{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy}}'', the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
|-
|align="center"|<math>\sin\left(60^\circ\right) = \frac {\sqrt 3} {2}</math>
|align="center"|<math>\frac{e}{\pi}</math>
|align="center"|0.8652559794
|align="center"|0.8660254038
|align="left"|
|-
|align="center"|<math>\sqrt 3</math>
|align="center"|<math>\frac{2e}{\pi}</math>
|align="center"|1.7305119589
|align="center"|1.7320508076
|align="left"|Same as the above
|-
|align="center"|γ (Euler's gamma constant)
|align="center"|<math>\frac {1} {\sqrt 3}</math>
|align="center"|0.5773502692
|align="center"|0.5772156649
|align="left"|The {{w|Euler–Mascheroni constant}} (denoted γ) is a mysterious number describing the relationship between the {{w|Harmonic series (mathematics)|harmonic series}} and the {{w|natural logarithm}}.
|-
|align="center"|Feet in a meter
|align="center"|<math>\frac {5} {\sqrt[e]\pi}</math>
|align="center"|3.2815481951
|align="center"|3.280839895
|align="left"|Exactly 1/0.3048, as the {{w|international foot}} is defined as 0.3048 meters.
|-
|align="center"|<math>\sqrt 5</math>
|align="center"|<math>\frac{2}{e} + \frac32</math>
|align="center"|2.2357588823
|align="center"|2.2360679775
|align="left"|
|-
|align="center"|Avogadro's number
|align="center"|<math>69^{\pi^\sqrt{5}}</math>
|align="center"|6.02191201246329 × 1023
|align="center"|6.02214129 × 1023
|align="left"|Also called a mole for shorthand, {{w|Avogadro's number}} is (roughly) the number of individual atoms in 12 grams of pure carbon. Used in basically every application of chemistry. In 2019 the constant was redefined to 6.02214076 × 1023, making the Approximation slightly more correct.
|-
|align="center"|Gravitational constant ''G''
|align="center"|<math>\frac {1} {e ^ {(\pi-1)^{(\pi+1)}}}</math>
|align="center"|6.6736110685 × 10−11
|align="center"|6.67385 × 10−11
|align="left"|The universal {{w|gravitational constant}} G is equal to ''Fr''2/''Mm'', where ''F'' is the gravitational force between two objects, ''r'' is the distance between them, and ''M'' and ''m'' are their masses.
|-
|align="center"|''R'' (gas constant)
|align="center"|<math>(e + 1) \sqrt 5</math>
|align="center"|8.3143309279
|align="center"|8.3144622
|align="left"|The {{w|gas constant}} relates energy to temperature in physics, as well as a gas's volume, pressure, temperature and {{w|mole (unit)|molar amount}} (hence the name).
|-
|align="center"|Proton–electron mass ratio
|align="center"|<math>6 \pi^5</math>
|align="center"|1836.1181087117
|align="center"|1836.15267246
|align="left"| The {{w|proton-to-electron mass ratio}} is the ratio between the rest mass of the proton divided by the rest mass of the electron.
|-
|align="center"|Liters in a {{w|gallon}}
|align="center"|<math>3 + \frac{\pi}{4}</math>
|align="center"|3.7853981634
|align="center"|3.785411784 (exact)
|align="left"|A U.S. liquid gallon is defined by law as 231 cubic inches. The British imperial gallon would be about 20% larger (but the litre is the same thing as the US liter).
|-
|align="center"|''g''0 or ''g''n
|align="center"|6 + ln(45)
|align="center"|9.8066624898
|align="center"|9.80665
|align="left"|Standard gravity, or standard acceleration due to free fall is the nominal gravitational acceleration of an object in a vacuum near the surface of the Earth. It is defined by standard as 9.80665 m/s2, which is exactly 35.30394 km/h/s (about 32.174 ft/s2, or 21.937 mph/s). This value was established by the 3rd CGPM (1901, CR 70) and used to define the standard weight of an object as the product of its mass and this nominal acceleration. The acceleration of a body near the surface of the Earth is due to the combined effects of gravity and centrifugal acceleration from rotation of the Earth (but which is small enough to be neglected for most purposes); the total (the apparent gravity) is about 0.5 percent greater at the poles than at the equator.

Randall used a letter ''g'' without a suffix, which can also mean the local acceleration due to local gravity and centrifugal acceleration, which varies depending on one's position on Earth.
|-
|align="center"|Proton–electron mass ratio
|align="center"|<math>\frac {e^8 - 10} {\phi}</math>
|align="center"|1836.1530151398
|align="center"|1836.15267246
|align="left"|φ is the {{w|golden ratio}}, or <math>\textstyle{ \frac{1+\sqrt 5}{2} }</math>. It has many interesting geometrical properties.
|-
|align="center"|Ruby laser wavelength (meters)
|align="center"|<math>\frac{1}{1200^2}</math>
|align="center"|6.9444 × 10−7
|align="center"|~6.943 × 10−7
|align="left"|The {{w|ruby laser}} wavelength varies because "ruby" is not clearly defined.
|-
|align="center"|Mean Earth radius (meters)
|align="center"|<math>5^8 6e</math>
|align="center"|6,370,973.035
|align="center"|6,371,008.7 (IUGG definition)
|align="left"|The {{w|Earth radius#mean radii|mean earth radius}} varies because there is not one single way to make a sphere out of the earth. Randall's value lies within the actual variation of Earth's radius. The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) defines the mean radius as 2/3 of the equatorial radius (6,378,137.0 m) plus 1/3 of the polar radius (6,356,752.3 m).
|-
|align="center"|<math>\sqrt 2</math>
|align="center"|<math>\frac35 + \frac{\pi}{7-\pi}</math>
|align="center"|1.4142200581
|align="center"|1.4142135624
|align="left"|There are recurring math jokes along the lines of, "<math>\textstyle{ \frac35 + \frac{\pi}{7-\pi} - \sqrt{2} = 0}</math>, but your calculator is probably not good enough to compute this correctly". See also [[217: e to the pi Minus pi]].
|-
|align="center"|<math>\cos \frac{\pi}{7} + \cos \frac{3\pi}{7} + \cos \frac{5\pi}{7}</math>
|align="center"|<math>\frac12</math>
|align="center"|0.5
|align="center"|0.5 (exact)
|align="left"|This is the exactly correct equation referred to in the note, "Pro tip – Not all of these are wrong", as shown below and also [http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/140388/how-can-one-prove-cos-pi-7-cos3-pi-7-cos5-pi-7-1-2 here]. If you're still confused, the functions use {{w|radians}}, not {{w|degrees (angle)|degrees}}: when an angular measure does not specify units, radians are the assumed default.
|-
|align="center"|γ (Euler's gamma constant)
|align="center"|<math>\frac{e}{3^4} + \frac{e}{5}</math>
|align="center"|0.5772154006
|align="center"|0.5772156649
|align="left"|The {{w|Euler–Mascheroni constant}} (denoted γ) is a mysterious number describing the relationship between the {{w|Harmonic series (mathematics)|harmonic series}} and the {{w|natural logarithm}}.
|-
|align="center"|<math>\sqrt 5</math>
|align="center"|<math>\frac {13+4\pi} {24-4\pi}</math>
|align="center"|2.2360678094
|align="center"|2.2360679775
|align="left"|
|-
|align="center"|<math>\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^n}</math>
|align="center"|<math>\ln(3)^e</math>
|align="center"|1.2912987577
|align="center"|1.2912859971
|align="left"|
|}

===Proof===

One of the "approximations" actually is precisely correct: <math>\textstyle{ \cos \frac{\pi}{7} + \cos \frac{3\pi}{7} + \cos \frac{5\pi}{7} = \frac12 }</math>. Here is a proof:

:<math>\cos \frac{\pi}{7} + \cos \frac{3\pi}{7} + \cos \frac{5\pi}{7}</math>

Multiplying by 1 (or by a nonzero number divided by itself) leaves the equation unchanged:

:<math>= \left( \cos \frac{\pi}{7} + \cos \frac{3\pi}{7} + \cos \frac{5\pi}{7} \right) \frac{2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}}{2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}}</math>

The <math>\textstyle{ 2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7} }</math> on the top of the fraction is multiplied through the original equation:

:<math>= \frac {2 \cos \frac{\pi}{7} \sin\frac{\pi}{7} + 2 \cos \frac{3\pi}{7} \sin\frac{\pi}{7} + 2 \cos \frac{5\pi}{7} \sin\frac{\pi}{7}} {2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}}</math>

Use the trigonometric identity <math>\textstyle{ 2 \cos A \sin B = \sin (A+B) - \sin(A-B)}</math> on the second and third terms in the numerator:

:<math>\begin{align}
&= \frac {2 \cos \frac{\pi}{7} \sin \frac{\pi}{7} + \left[\sin \left(\frac{3\pi}{7} + \frac{\pi}{7}\right) - \sin \left(\frac{3\pi}{7} - \frac{\pi}{7}\right) \right] + \left[\sin \left(\frac{5\pi}{7} + \frac{\pi}{7}\right) - \sin \left(\frac{5\pi}{7} - \frac{\pi}{7}\right) \right]} {2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}} \\
&= \frac {2 \cos \frac{\pi}{7} \sin \frac{\pi}{7} + \left[\sin \frac{4\pi}{7} - \sin \frac{2\pi}{7} \right] + \left[\sin \frac{6\pi}{7} - \sin \frac{4\pi}{7} \right]} {2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}}
\end{align}</math>

Use the trigonometric identity <math>\textstyle{ 2 \cos A \sin A = \sin 2A }</math> on the first term in the numerator:

:<math>\begin{align}
&= \frac {\sin \frac{2\pi}{7} + \left[\sin \frac{4\pi}{7} - \sin \frac{2\pi}{7} \right] + \left[\sin \frac{6\pi}{7} - \sin \frac{4\pi}{7} \right]} {2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}} \\
&= \frac {\sin \frac{6\pi}{7} + \left[\sin \frac{4\pi}{7} - \sin \frac{4\pi}{7} \right] + \left[\sin \frac{2\pi}{7} - \sin \frac{2\pi}{7} \right]} {2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}} \\
&= \frac {\sin \frac{6\pi}{7} } {2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}}
\end{align}</math>

Noting that <math>\textstyle{\frac{6\pi}{7} + \frac{\pi}{7} = \pi}</math> and that the sines of supplementary angles (angles that sum to π) are equal:

:<math>\begin{align}
&= \frac {\sin \frac{\pi}{7} } {2 \sin\frac{\pi}{7}} \\
&= \frac12 \quad \quad \quad \text{Q.E.D.}
\end{align}</math>

To better see why the equation is true, it is better to go to the complex plane. cos(2k pi/7)  is the real part of the k-th 7-th root of unity, exp(2 k i pi/7). The seven 7-th roots of unity (for 0 <= k <= 6) sum up to zero, hence so do their real parts:


:0 = cos(0 pi/7) + cos(2 pi/7) + cos(4 pi/7) + cos(6 pi/7) + cos(8 pi/7) + cos(10 pi/7) + cos(12 pi/7)

But one of these roots is just 1, and all other root go by pairs of conjugate roots, which have the same real part (alternatively, consider that cos(x) = cos(2 pi - x)):


:0 = 1 + 2 (cos(2 pi/7) + cos(4 pi/7) + cos(6 pi/7))

Hence


:cos(2 pi/7) + cos(4 pi/7) + cos(6 pi/7) = - 1/2

which, because cos(x) = cos(pi - x), can be rewritten as


:cos(5 pi/7) + cos(3 pi/7) + cos(pi/7) = 1/2

Q.E.D.

==Transcript==
:'''A table of slightly wrong equations and identities useful for approximations and/or trolling teachers.'''
:(Found using a mix of trial-and-error, ''Mathematica'', and Robert Munafo's ''Ries'' tool.)
: All units are SI MKS unless otherwise noted.

:{| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan="2" align="center" | Relation:
|align="center" | Accurate to within:
|-
|align="center" | One light-year(m)
|align="center" | 998
|align="center" | one part in 40
|-
|align="center" | Earth Surface(m2)
|align="center" | 698
|align="center" | one part in 130
|-
|align="center" | Oceans' volume(m3)
|align="center" | 919
|align="center" | one part in 70
|-
|align="center" | Seconds in a year
|align="center" | 754
|align="center" | one part in 400
|-
|align="center" | Seconds in a year (''Rent'' method)
|align="center" | 525,600 x 60
|align="center" | one part in 1400
|-
|align="center" | Age of the universe (seconds)
|align="center" | 1515
|align="center" | one part in 70
|-
|align="center" | Planck's constant
|align="center" | 1/(30πe)
|align="center" | one part in 110
|-
|align="center" | Fine structure constant
|align="center" | 1/140
|align="center" | [I've had enough of this 137 crap]
|-
|align="center" | Fundamental charge
|align="center" | 3/(14 * πππ)
|align="center" | one part in 500
|-
|align="center"|White House Switchboard
|colspan="2" align="center"|1 / (eπ√(1 + (e-1)√8))
|-
|align="center"|Jenny's Constant
|colspan="2" align="center"|(7(e/1 - 1/e) - 9) * π2
|-
|colspan="3" align="center"|Intermission: World Population Estimate which should stay current for a decade or two: 
Take the last two digits of the current year

Example: 20[14]

Subtract the number of leap years since hurricane Katrina

Example: 14 (minus 2008 and 2012) is 12

Add a decimal point

Example: 1.2

Add 6

Example: 6 + 1.2

7.2 = World population in billions.

Version for US population:

Example: 20[14]

Subtract 10

Example: 4

Multiply by 3

Example: 12

Add 10

Example: 3[22] million
|-
|align="center"|Electron rest energy
|align="center"|e/716 J
|align="center"|one part in 1000
|-
|align="center"|Light-year(miles)
|align="center"|2(42.42)
|align="center"|one part in 1000
|-
|colspan="2" align="center"|sin(60°) = √3/2 = e/π
|align="center"|one part in 1000
|-
|colspan="2" align="center"|√3 = 2e/π
|align="center"|one part in 1000
|-
|align="center"|γ(Euler's gamma constant)
|align="center"|1/√3
|align="center"|one part in 4000
|-
|align="center"|Feet in a meter
|align="center"|5/(e√π)
|align="center"|one part in 4000
|-
|colspan="2" align="center"|√5 = 2/e + 3/2
|align="center"|one part in 7000
|-
|align="center"|Avogadro's number
|align="center"|69π√5
|align="center"|one part in 25,000
|-
|align="center"|Gravitational constant G
|align="center"|1 / e(π - 1)(π + 1)
|align="center"|one part in 25,000
|-
|align="center"|R (gas constant)
|align="center"|(e+1) √5
|align="center"|one part in 50,000
|-
|align="center"|Proton-electron mass ratio
|align="center"|6*π5
|align="center"|one part in 50,000
|-
|align="center"|Liters in a gallon
|align="center"|3 + π/4
|align="center"|one part in 500,000
|-
|align="center"|g
|align="center"|6 + ln(45)
|align="center"|one part in 750,000
|-
|align="center"|Proton-electron mass ratio
|align="center"|(e8 - 10) / ϕ
|align="center"|one part in 5,000,000
|-
|align="center"|Ruby laser wavelength
|align="center"|1 / (12002)
|align="center"|[within actual variation]
|-
|align="center"|Mean Earth Radius
|align="center"|(58)*6e
|align="center"|[within actual variation]
|-
|colspan="3" align="center"|Protip - not all of these are wrong:
|-
|colspan="2" align="center"|√2 = 3/5 + π/(7-π)
|align="center"|cos(π/7) + cos(3π/7) + cos(5π/7) = 1/2
|-
|align="center"|γ(Euler's gamma constant) = e/34 + e/5
|align="center"|√5 = (13 + 4π) / (24 - 4π)
|align="center"|Σ 1/nn = ln(3)e
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Protip]]

2955: Pole Vault

2024-07-06T17:41:31Z

172.69.43.184: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2955
| date = July 5, 2024
| title = Pole Vault
| image = pole_vault_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x179px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Ugh, and we JUST went through this yesterday with javelin.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LONG FRAGILE STICK - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In the comic, Cueball is making a run as part of a pole vault competition. However, the pole pierced the surface of the Earth, causing it to pop and violently deflate like a balloon. This does not normally happen during a pole vault,{{Citation needed}} but the title text suggests that the same recently happened during a javelin competition. No explanation is provided for how the Earth was patched or reinflated, but apparently the problem was solved in a single day without needing to cancel the event.

The comic ''may'' be inspired by the upcoming {{w|2024 Summer Olympics|Paris Olympics}}, and the geographical location of the burst may indeed be somewhere in the European continent. The view of the ragged and deflating Earth suggests the possible epicentre of the burst having more of a vague relationship with that area than it might to Randall's own location in the US (the other 'logical' definite setting he might use). It precedes any of the actual official competitions (or indeed the official Opening Ceremony) by a number of days, but perhaps this event (and the javelin one) occured at one or other of the attending nations' training camps, or national trials for a local athletics squad, already established in the general region.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball is holding a pole vaulting stick and seemingly running.]

:[Cueball puts the tip of the pole to the ground, making it bend.]

:[Borderless panel with the word POP! in a blast bubble]

:[Earth, burst seemingly around Europe, flying through space like a deflating balloon. A zigzagging path is left behind. The part of the surface visible shows parts of Asia and Australia.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Sport]]
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:2955: Pole Vault

2024-07-06T17:39:05Z

172.69.43.184:

The contrast/similarity with the conceipt of [[2952: Routine Maintenance]] is fairly clear, which might mean a similar train of thought inspired it, but I chose instead to append the suggestion that Randall was inspired by the upcoming Olympics, based upon close observation of the 'pop-zone' on the whole-Earth view. But the other link maybe could be said (instead?) if someone wants to write an appropriate paragraph. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 11:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"This does not normally happen during a pole vault,[citation needed]". LOL @ "citation needed" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.213|172.68.64.213]] 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:How do you cite a negative? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::<code><nowiki><etic>...</etic></nowiki></code> [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.185|172.69.43.185]] 17:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

2950: Situation

2024-06-25T10:43:53Z

172.69.43.184: /* Explanation */

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

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

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

- "Unsinkable Ocean Liner" refers to the RMS ''{{w|Titanic}}''.

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

- "Hydrogen-filled [...] Airship [...]" refers to the {{w|Hindenburg Disaster}}.

The {{w|LZ 129 Hindenburg|''Hindenburg''}} was a German airship which used hydrogen as a lifting gas. In 1937, during a landing in New Jersey, the ship caught fire and the inflammable hydrogen quickly ignited, causing the ship to crash and resulting in 36 deaths. While the origins of the fire are still debated, the dangers of using large amounts of inflammable gas in airships were made dramatically clear.

Ironically, the airship in the comic appears to have been commissioned for the purpose of mitigating iceberg risks (unless 'iceberg spotting' is for the purpose of steering the 'Unsinkable Ocean Liner' towards icebergs, perhaps as a tourist attraction).

- "Soviet Era Nuclear Reactor Undergoing a Turbine Test" refers to the {{w|Chernobyl Disaster}}.

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

- "Bridge Prone to Aeroelastic Flutter in High Winds" refers to the {{w|Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)|Tacoma Narrows Bridge}}.

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

As illustrated, it appears that the ship is about to sail under the bridge, while the airship will fly over it, causing the tether between the two to snag the bridge.

- The title text refers to the {{w|Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster}}.

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

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

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

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

{{comic discussion}}

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

2947: Pascal's Wager Triangle

2024-06-19T09:03:50Z

172.69.43.184: /* Explanation */ Stigler's law of eponymy

{{comic
| number = 2947
| date = June 17, 2024
| title = Pascal's Wager Triangle
| image = pascals_wager_triangle_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x802px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In contrast to Pascal's Wager Triangle, Pascal's Triangle Wager argues that maybe God wants you to draw a triangle of numbers where each one is the sum of the two numbers above it, so you probably should, just in case.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT WHO BELIEVED THE N BOTS ABOVE HIM - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic is a conflation of {{w|Pascal's Wager}} and {{w|Pascal's Triangle}}. It's structured as a layout that emulates Pascal's triangle, an infinite triangle of numbers where the top number is 1 and each value below is the sum of the adjacent number(s) above it. The second row has two 1s (each the sum of the single 1 above), and the third row has a 1 (the sum of a single 1 in the second row), a 2 (the sum of both 1s above it), and another 1, and so on. It plays important roles in binomial expansion, probability theory, and other areas of math. While {{w|Blaise Pascal}} did not invent the triangle, it is named after him (an example of {{w|Stigler's law of eponymy}}).

:
1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
.
.
.
:

Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument proposed by the same Pascal. Essentially it says that if God exists, both the rewards for believing in God and the punishment for nonbelief are infinite; if not, the cost of belief and benefit for nonbelief are negligible. Therefore, if there is a finite possibility that God exists, however small, one should believe in God.

The comic merges the two: each Cueball is wagering his proof of a god or gods to the Cueballs below him, thereby creating Cueballs that believe in all the gods of the two Cueballs above him. In the second row, the two Cueballs each believe in one god, as intended by the original Cueball. However, in the third row, the Cueball in the middle interprets the two proofs offered to him as proving the existence of two gods. Theoretically, this expansion would continue for all integers as the triangle grows, giving rise to a belief in escalating numbers of gods towards the middle interior of the triangle. This is clearly not the intent of the first Cueball, who simply wagered the proof of his one god, but he has no control over the situation below him.

It is unclear why the Cueballs behave in this fashion, instead of treating all the proofs as proving the existence of the same god. Perhaps each one rewords their arguments for god(s) sufficiently to make them sound different than other gods. This is not without precedent; for instance, scholars of comparative mythology believe{{acn}} that the religion of Proto-Indo-European peoples splintered into many disparate religions of Europe and West Asia.

This comic may be referencing a common counterargument to Pascal's Wager — that it works equally well for ''any'' hypothetical god which offers paradise for one action and damnation otherwise. This can even include hypothetical gods with contradictory criteria for entrance into paradise. In this case, the Cueballs apparently chose to believe in ''n'' deities to cover their bases.

The title text suggests that everyone should draw a proper Pascal's Triangle, since there is a possibility that God wants you to do so, and if they do then the benefits of pleasing God or the costs of displeasing God could be high, whereas if they have no such desire then there is minimal cost to drawing one anyway. The failing of this logic is that God may have a positive preference for you ''not'' to draw a Pascal's Triangle (though at least according to the Catholic Church this is unlikely, as Pascal himself is on the way to {{w|beatification}}.)

Pascal's Wager was previously mentioned in the title text of [[525: I Know You're Listening]].

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

:[Cueballs, each holding some document, are shown in a triangular arrangement, with arrows pointing from upper to lower Cueballs:]
C1
C2 C3
C4 C5 C6
C7 C8 C9 C10
C11 C12 C13 C14 C15
:[The pattern may continue downwards, off-comic, as the lowest rank are only half in-frame. Some of the following speech bubbles that are edge-adjacent are not entirely in view as they extend sidways off-pane, but are still given here in full.]
:C1: Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C2 & C3: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C4 & C6: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C5: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''two''' gods!
:C7: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C8 & C9: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''three''' gods!
:C12 & C14: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''four''' gods!
:C13: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''six''' gods!
:[The speech bubbles of C10, C11 and C15 are not seen at all, but would all be a "my (singular) god" quote.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Pascal's Wager Triangle

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:2944: Magnet Fishing

2024-06-11T09:47:10Z

172.69.43.184:

Isn't the solution to make the competition like skiing: The participants take turns fishing, instead of all fishing at the same time? And they're judged on how quickly they can "catch" a magnet in the water. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This comic made me cackle. My cat is hiding under my bed now. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There's various degrees of what you might hope to find, when fishing, and what you [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68798110.amp might] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-68402798.amp find], whilst magnet-fishing... (Also note, in that first link the "groups of 50-60" who gather – maybe multiple people per magnet – and the picture of at least ''three'' magnets being simultaneously worked from the same bridge. But not to dismiss the comic's humour, of course.)
 I think the problem for the comic was siting the competition in a natural watercourse with a too obviously V-shaped bed. Everyone lowered their magnets straight down into the water, no problem, as even a powerful magnet can't overcome gravity-induced of hanging at that sort of scale of hanging. But then all magnets not already over the thalweg slide away from the bank into it, close enough to start clumping. As the 'prizes'/scorable-finds will also have probably migrated down the benthic slopes, over time, it's in everyone's personal interest to let their magnet tumble that way, if they weren't given 'pole position' directly over the (or 'a') deepest point. If the stream's cut goes significently non-perpendicular to the bridge that crosses it, or it has multiple (low-water) channels dug into its sediment, possibly sensible coordination could allow parallel fishing. Or the rules state that minimal slack be allowed when dipping the magnet-'hook' into the water, and no lateral dragging or swinging allowed, with (judged) penalties for any who cause an 'out of line' contact to occur. I think the ''second'' world championships are entirely feasible, just needs some rethinking of the setting, conditions and competition regulations. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 09:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

== Title text ==

I believe the first "ten-way tie" refers to calling the competition a "tie" between ten competitors. It's more common in British English, but can be used as a synonym for game/match/etc. So it's saying "the ten-person match was judged a ten-way draw". {{unsigned|MightyP|16:36, 10 June 2024}}
: It's a pun on tie meaning to knot/tangle the lines, and tie in the sense of competitors finishing equally. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.117|172.70.134.117]] 18:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:As a British Englisher(!) myself, I think "cup tie" (e.g. the final culmination of a knockout competition) tends to be what "breaks the tie" between the ''two'' teams that have each reached this stage equally successful against all other opponents. (Also "3rd/4th-place tie", etc.) You don't tend to get N-way competitions called a 'tie' (though, theoretically, a trifurcated bracketing system could bring 27 teams in nine games teams could become nine teams in three games, then three three teams producing the winner, etc).
:Tie/tangle and tie/equally-scored is going to be good enough. If Randall had thought of the "cup tie"-type usage, he could have easily made a tripled-pun version with that ''and'' the two more obvious versions. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.248|172.70.160.248]] 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The prize is also a bit of wordplay. It refers to a magnetic monopole as already noted, but is also a joke, as a regular fishing pole is technically a "monopole". I've never personally seen a fishing dipole, but I suppose they could exist! {{unsigned|MightyP|16:49, 10 June 2024}}

== Triple pun for some speakers ==

I found it funny that in Austrian, monopole is "Monopol", and we use the same word for monopole and monopoly!
The prize also feels special if you have a monopoly on magnet fishing - without all the others interfering with your magnet like in the comic.

First time ever posting here. Keep up the good spirit! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.13|172.68.50.13]] 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

== Monopoles ==

If you did have a magnetic monopole... Would the field lines look a lot like the strings in this comic?

: It could in the Arctic ocean with a south monopole! Near the monopole the field lines point inward but far away they point in the direction of Earth's field. There are parts of the Arctic ocean with a 90 degree inclination and the lines are vertical instead of north-to-south. Monopoles also have two advantages: The field drops off inverse-square instead of of inverse-cube, giving the "hook" a longer range. Also, if all contestants have the same kind of monopole they will repel instead of sticking to each-other.

: [[Special:Contributions/172.70.80.121|172.70.80.121]] 00:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

:: If the contestans' monopoles repelled each other, things could get pretty chaotic with so many of them in close proximity. None of the monopoles would be in a stable position, so the fishing lines would tangle up even worse than if they were all dipoles attracted to each other.
:: [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.56|141.101.98.56]] 05:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The picture obviously shows a Tenpole Tudor. <runs for his life> [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.114|172.71.160.114]] 06:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The magnetic field lines coming out of a magnetic monopole look very much like the fishing lines coming away from the magnets all stuck together in the comic. The first thing I thought when I saw the title and the picture was that Randell was drawing a magnetic monopole.
Warm regards, Rick. {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.33|06:50, 11 June 2024}}

Talk:2942: Fluid Speech

2024-06-06T10:18:42Z

172.69.43.184:

I've noticed that this doesn't seem to be the case in all languages. For example, when native Polish speakers talk rapidly (even when speaking English), they enunciate every sound accurately in quick succession while flattening out the tone and rhythm of their speech. I wonder if this is because Polish is an inflected language where the grammar of the sentence is determined by endings of words rather than word order. Does anyone know if there have been any studies on this? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not linguists but based on how many those are, definitely. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:Russian also has vowel reduction like English and it's a Slavic language like Polish, so I don't think so. Although someone who knows more than me might be able to chip in on whether the effect is stronger in English. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.198|162.158.114.198]] 03:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just added a very barebones version of an explanation based on what I could understand from the comic. I can tell that the four diagrams depict that of the human mouth but since I am not a linguist, I lack the knowledge of various terms and thus, can't fully explain the comic. I understand what the comic is trying to convey, I just can't explain it. Looking forward to seeing how this progresses. [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 00:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think #4 is a real IPA symbol, but as I am not a linguist, I have no idea. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.36|162.158.91.36]] 01:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:/ə̃/ is a {{w|Nasal_vowel|nasalized}} {{w|schwa}} --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.92|172.71.160.92]] 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The hovertext joke is that every English speaker fully pronounces the first "t" in "Hot Potato". It's at the end of "hot". Nobody says "ha potato". [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:Unless you mean "the glottal stop should be considered an allophone of <t> at the end of syllables" then yes they do. It's /hoʔ/, not /hotʰ/. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.198|162.158.114.198]] 03:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:(Edit conflicted with 162, above, so this is my own reply...) I thought it was that it isn't "ho T'p otato", with the "teh-peh" awkwardness. For me, the natural way to say it is to glottalstop the first T for more "ho'potato" (the other Ts, there I find awkward ''not'' to get the "t>s<" out of, the ">s<"-tail being what makes a full-T not a lazy one). But clearly a different accent involved, as "ha" doesn't work at all for me unless I try to use some sort of (probably awful) Goodfellas-type accent. And my native accent is notoriously good at glottlestopped Ts (that most people misinpersonate badly, by attaching them to the wrong adjacent syllable).
:As for "going to", experimentally holding my finger over the length of my tongue, it seems it barely has to move at all in "going" (the whole tongue wants to rise on the "i", but I can suppress that and do the tone-change from further back, if not straight from the vocal chords). Though continuing through to the "to", with my finger in there, it's no better than "going ku" as I prevent the tongue-tip doing the necessary small movement to fulfil any form of T. I can do better through basic gastromancy, but behind my unmoving jaw and lips (''without'' the finger almost down my throat, of course), I can feel the tongue tip doing it's small but vital "crossing the T" work. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 03:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:For me, it's more like "ho'buh-deh-duh" - so none ot the t's get pronounced properly. And I'd drop the n in 'going to' before I dropped the t.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 08:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone's willing to start an "explain explain xkcd", I think this explanation still needs a lot of work to be intelligible to non-linguists (myself included). That aside, I do appreciate whoever took the time to type all that up. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.210|162.158.166.210]] 03:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:The current explain reads, to me at least, more like a 102 lecture than an explanation of the comic. I of course have no idea what is in a 101 first week lecture so shrug. (Aside, wth? This keyboard doesn't have a tilda. Copy and paste ftw) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.38|172.71.223.38]] 05:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Meta-response about the {{w|tilde}}: at the top of this editing window is a bar of formatting buttons (which I mostly just try to avoid accidentally clicking when I touchscreen-scroll). The second from the right gives <code><nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki></code>, having a depiction of a signature. (The "--" is not necessary, nor does anything with actual formatting/markup, but comes from quite old text communications standards.) Personally, in this current situation of using an onscreen keyboard, my configurstion hides the tilde behind the "?123" then "=\<" change-keyboard buttons.
:::(Ironically, all three of "=", "\" and "<" are already available as long-presses of the primary keyboard layout. But the much more useful "/" is hidden behind the "?123" press, ''except'' when it explicitly detects that I'm in a browser address field. Some UI designers have strange ideas that definitely mis-mesh with my usage!)
:::That's where I usually go, to sign-off. But on physical keyboards, depending upon internationalisation options, it might be either off the top-left (left of "1" key) 'triple-key, perhaps needing Shift or AltGr fingering (from experience of US (mis)configuring), or the key in the "hook" of the <Enter> key (all my physical UK keyboards, even the most squished-up laptop ones, have that as #~). If you're neither in US nor UK (and your device knows this), then where it gets shuffled out of the way of any ß, ē or ø type stuff, I wouldn't know for sure, but using the AltGr (right-Alt) ''might'' reveal characters you never ever knew you had... ;)
:::Copypasting out of the "<nowiki>Please sign your posts with ~~~~</nowiki>" Infobox or any residual from the {{template|unsigned}} templates is, of course, also a valid option. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 10:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
: I think it's fine if you can read/interpret the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA}}. If you don't it's utterly incomprehensible. I think we need some examples here as to how the sounds written here are pronounced. Like "sound <x> as in <word>" [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:: Yeah, except [[2819]] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 08:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2941: Cell Organelles

2024-06-05T15:11:53Z

172.69.43.184:

I'm a little disappointed there isn't a continuous endoplasmic reticulum with a zigzag in it.
Rogue mathematician away [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.77|172.71.154.77]] 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflicts, attempting to fix.... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.237|108.162.245.237]] 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Re [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2941:_Cell_Organelles&diff=343629&oldid=343628] is LLM use forbidden? I recall we have several ChatGPT-authored explanations, and had an ongoing discussion back when it was new. In any case, I've proofread and vouch for it, so I'm replacing the text. I encourage anyone who's bothered by it to paraphrase instead of delete. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.237|108.162.245.237]] 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

:If you've got the time to check AI-generated content properly and agree that it's what ''you'' would have written, you've got time to write it from scratch exactly how you'd have written it. And you get dangerously close to just putting in AI-content without checking at all, which right now is remains foolhardy.
:But, most of all, anything anyone submits can be changed by anyone else, and I don't know who picked up on it being AI and dealt with it the way they did, but only consensus can truly resolve where any attempt to impose an edit leads. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 22:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

::I almost completely agree with you for Wikipedia (I'd just change 'would' to 'could') and similar wikis, but it's undeniable that ExplainXkcd is different in some very substantial and obvious ways, many of which bear on whether to utilize AI. In particular, I would accept pretty much anything that helps explain the comic whether authored by human, machine, animal, or alien, but not hesitate for a second to, as the text below the Summary text input box says, edit it "mercilessly" whether I thought it was LLM-generated or not. But I wouldn't delete an even barely serviceable explanation ''just'' because I thought it came from an LLM, even if it was objectively low quality. I would try to improve it, which almost never means starting over from scratch. I'm not sure I believe the same is true for humans, who often insert, e.g., vandalism, trolling, or extremely undue and/or fringe topic passages. If an LLM is doing that, there's probably a human behind it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.17|108.162.245.17]] 00:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

:Both the paragraphs and the table have been edited far enough from what ChatGPT pretty obviously came up with (almost all of which I would say merit inclusion unaltered, [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2941:_Cell_Organelles&diff=343604&oldid=343601 looking at the initial edits; although there is evidence that the LLM output was copyedited and wikilinked in a way that it would probably not do,] i.e., we use the {{tl|w}} template here which is not at all a Mediawiki standard, the Wikimedia wikis having a different form <nowiki>[[w:...]]</nowiki>) so that whatever deleterious LLM contamination they had has surely been beat out of them at this stage. Perhaps the GenAI deletionist is trying to encourage others to not fall prey to reliance on LLMs? A worthy goal, but I agree paraphrasing is far superior. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.180|172.69.34.180]] 01:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: the chloroplasts explanation: how do we know that this is an animal cell? (Would be good to say why...) -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 22:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:The cell has a membrane instead of a wall. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.199|162.158.90.199]] 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::No, that’s human skin. [[User:Usb-rave|Usb-rave]] ([[User talk:Usb-rave|talk]]) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:: There are lots of organisms out there that have plastids (chloroplasts) and do not have cell walls ... that, in fact, do not fit the common conception of either 'plant' or 'animal'. Euglena might still be the most famous example - Euglena is more closely related to the protozoa that cause trypanosomiasis than to either plants or animals - but there are many others, and it's a deep rabbit hole. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.117|162.158.41.117]] 18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:: And speaking of "lucky to have them", did you know that plastids are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptoplasty worth stealing]? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.200|172.68.23.200]] 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Yeah, the rule of thumb is of course a generalization worthy of chemistry "rules" -- the {{w|bone cell}} being perhaps the most obvious uncategorizable corner case of several. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.236|172.71.150.236]] 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Why does Golgi look like an alien, he's so little and cute. Wtf. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 23:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

:You know what I would like to see from AI? A tiny white Grey Golgi alien working in the cytoplasm to build his apparatus. Please see below. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.106|172.71.147.106]] 03:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Should 2732: Bursa of Fabricius be referenced? It feels like the Golgi Apparatus is making a similar joke, if somewhat inverted. [[User:Dkfenger|Dkfenger]] ([[User talk:Dkfenger|talk]]) 01:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, 'Drain plug' is an engine oil-drain plug. Yes it is a bolt, rarely used in biological systems. But a cell and an engine are normally full of fluid, while plumbing sinks are normally empty. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 02:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:To me it's about as often something you would find in a kitchen or bathroom sink, especially if the plumbing was from the 1970s or earlier. Honestly I'm too young to know when sink plugs fell out of favor to levers. In any case, an actual hole in the cell membrane is almost always a potentially mortal wound, and few cells have any means of repairing all but the smallest tears. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.197|172.70.207.197]] 02:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello there! 👋 I think you guys mixed up midichlorian and mitochondria explanations. 👋 You surely will want to fix that. 👋 Also, you want to make me a sandwich. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177|172.70.85.177]] 05:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:LGTM. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.218|172.71.146.218]] 09:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little bit disappointed that there's no Sulawesi hidden in there. This is the sort of comci you'd expect it in. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
: I'm disappointed that, alongside the drain plug, there isn't a pain drug.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.183|172.69.195.183]] 12:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:: It would have had to have been a generic. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.141|172.71.147.141]] 03:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::: Generic, or genetic?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.123|172.70.90.123]] 09:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: Generic, as in "not fancy". [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.74|172.68.23.74]] 13:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I dislike that this table is in alphabetical order instead of the top-down order they were meant to be read.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.231.39|172.70.231.39]] 10:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:"Fixed." Click the column heading to return to alphabetical order. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.196|162.158.186.196]] 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to fail my Biology exam tomorrow because of this :( ([[User talk:SectorCorruptor|talk]]) 11:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a message to the person who added the 'citation needed' footnote to the remark that Golgi was not and is not an alien in our cells: Your, dear person, made my day. Thanks a ton! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.43|172.70.250.43]] 08:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) c-schroed

Wouldn't "Nucleololus" be a better continuation to "Nucleus" and "Nucleolus", with each term getting one more "ol" between "e" and the second "u"? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.50|172.71.222.50]] 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Golgi by AI art contest ===

Survey questions: (1) Which of these do you like the best? https://ibb.co/album/68tCSn Can you do better?

(2) Does anyone know how to make AI animations like those? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.181|172.71.142.181]] 03:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-04T12:48:28Z

172.69.43.184:

I'd say a bicycle is way less dangerous than a car [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 1/4)
:Considering only the two vehicles themselves, I would probably agree with you but this comic is about convenience and danger of various means of transport. Wouldn't you agree that using a bicycle for transport in crowded city traffic is rather more dangerous to the cyclist than using a car is to the driver? {{unsigned ip|172.69.60.138|21:46, 31 May 2024}}
:It depends on whether you're comparing worst case injuries versus injury rate. Since airliners are considered one of the safest, I think it's injury rate. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:I'd say a bicycle is less dangerous than a unicycle, but apparently walking<unicycle<car<bicycle. No metric I can think of matches that order, neither danger in a vacuum, danger in a self-environment, danger in a car environment, or danger to others in any environment. I'm quite confused. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.29|172.70.114.29]] 05:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::On a per-passenger-mile basis, walking is over ten times more dangerous than driving, and trains are about four times as dangerous as planes. So this comic can't be about risk of death per mile. It must be something more like risk of death per hour, which is extremely low for unicycles since people don't usually ride them in life-threatening situations outside of circuses. Similarly, travelling to and from work on a pogo stick every day would be quite dangerous, but in practice, people hardly ever die on a pogo stick. So it depends how you measure it. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::: I can see the danger/hour, but surely the unicycle shouldn't count as a mode of transportation when it is used in a circus? You also don't want to count the hours when a car is stationary and the driver is waiting for someone to enter or leave (which is a significant amount of time for taxi's). So when it is used for actual transportation, it is most certainly more dangerous per hour than many other things on this graph. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.99|172.70.110.99]] 23:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:I think there is a couple that are off on here since I think light aircraft and helicopters are also less dangerous than cars when looking at accident rates vs trips or vs miles traveled. Cars are quite dangerous. They sure are convenient though. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.87|172.64.238.87]] 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed: By any metric I can think of, this chart is grossly off on more than one form of transport. For one thing, inline skating is ''much'' safer than skateboarding in almost every scenario except approaching a bunch of mean kids. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
: I think the metric he's using is actually ''perceived'' danger.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.145|172.70.90.145]] 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:: I think the whole chart is on a "perceived" level. I would assume that "convenience" also would include "getting from A to B fast" for which cars and bicylces are too close together. And motorcycles are surely fun but if they were even closely as convenient as a car I would use the former more often than latter - which I don't as a car is MUCH more convenient. I think the meaningfulness of the chart is more like [[Fuck Grapefruit]] a matter of opinion than an actual analysis based on actual statistics. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Most deaths are either due to involved cars or people doing races or stunts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 2/4)

I would not count "died because plane crashed onto road" into car dangers, as I would not count F1 driver death into the same bucket as car commuters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 3/4)
:So I would do the same for bikes. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 4/4)
::Agreed. Deaths caused by cars should not count against bikes unless "plane crashed onto road" would count against cars & 'flying by nuclear rocket' would count against the poor people walking below.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not actually true that a hot air balloon has only one possible direction of travel. It seemed relevant so I added a couple of sentences to the explanation. I suspect Randall is aware of this of course, being a weather nerd. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.69|162.158.74.69]] 00:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh... A hot air balloon is not a "mode of transportation", that is it's not a means to go from location A (on the ground) to location B (on the ground) A hot air balloon is means of going ''Up'', and staying ''up'' for an reasonable period of time. In most balloon rides, the "destination" is irrelevant, the purpose of the ride is to reach altitude, not travel horizontally. I feel Randall misses the point of balloons here. It shouldn't be only the graph, because it's not a "Mode of transport".
[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:The graph only addresses how convenient\dangerous things are as a form of transport. A Slip-N-Slide could easily have made the list, if Randall had viewed any such record attempts lately. Putting only practical modes of transport on the chart, would leave the lower right empty. If one wanted to know whether hot-air balloon ''was'' a practical mode of transport, one could theoretically consult a chart like this to find out that it isn't.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Are American hot air balloonists commonly fond of taking sniper rifles up with them? [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:From what I understand, it's considered unamerican not to.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.176|172.70.85.176]] 10:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::Its not a commonly known law, but its actally illegal to enter a hotair balloon with anything less than a 12 gauge [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 16:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Dangerous to whom is relevant. Yes, cars are less dangerous to the driver than bicycles and pedestrians, but that is because the main threat to bicyclists and pedestrians is cars. If you count victim deaths in addition to perpetrator deaths, then cars are the least safe vehicle. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.30|172.71.99.30]] 01:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Regret
:Cars aren't dangerous; drivers are...[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.82|172.70.86.82]] 09:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:In fact, even the first part isn't true. If you just count self-caused injury/death, cars are more dangerous to their occupants than bikes are to their riders or, er, feet are to those walking.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.18|172.70.162.18]] 10:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Are scooters really more convenient than bikes or does Randall just think they are cooler? Please discuss. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.128|172.69.58.128]] 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:The convenience of scooters probably includes their relative storability/carryability between uses, easier to hop on and off (also you might get away with scootering down long corridors where a bike would be (more) frowned upon) and takes less maintenance. (Electric ones do have the additional fuss of charging (and ICE ones needing fuel/being more disruptively noisy), but hard to tell whether Randall means shove-along or motorised in any way). Probably he doesn't mean mopeds (also known as 'scooters', in some contexts), but they also may be considered like bicycles but marginally more convenient (when fuelled/serviced) and commensurately a little bit more dangerous (though I'd argue further over to near full-on-motorbikes, myself). But it's a lot of speculation either way. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.28|172.71.242.28]] 11:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Very inconvenient, and definitely more dangerous. No way to transport anything except in a rucksack. Terribly small wheels. Muscle-powered very strenous compared to a bike. Electrical make you freeze to death in winter. Wear down very quickly (bearings in wheels and steering, brakes). Only use for scooters are flat, smooth passages, certainly indoors. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.69|172.71.246.69]] 09:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:I think Randall's use of "scooters" here, may include mopeds & ebikes, since ebikes aren't listed here, yet are roughly equivalent to (or even just ''are'') a moped, while mopeds & high-output ebikes <45MPH are often classed among "scooters". [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::A "high-output e-bike" is (or should) be classified under "motorbike". And I already (before I read this) included reference to electrically-assisted bicycles under the Bicycles entry itself. There may be various distinctions recognised under different local laws, but power-assisted-pedalling versions (augmenting, but not making insigificant, the riders' 'normal' effort) and power-rather-than-pedalling versions (which would go all the way up to those with ''no pedals'', totally reliant upon the motor) would probably sit either side of the notional divide that might be recognised by those in charge of classifying them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.182|172.69.79.182]] 22:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I suspect what ProphetZarquon was getting at is that they are often ''referred to'' as "scooters", as opposed to legally classed as such.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 10:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::"Scooter" for moped, yes. But though "moped" comes from "motor-assisted pedal cycles", where I come from, they're mini-motorbikes and essentially classed as such (you need road training, driving licence, insurance, vehicle registration), divorced entirely from non-motorised bicycles and now (fudging the issue) those bicycles with electric motor assistance. It's perhaps confusing enough with "bike" being understood differently by the cycling and the motorcycling communities, but an "e-bike" that's a "scooter" is really going to be an "e-motorbike" to avoid this kind of ambiguity, and I invite anyone who might be more confused by the current crop of motor-assisted-bicycles being called "e-bikes" to submit their own more disambiguative term. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.65|172.70.90.65]] 21:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) (PS, the CAPTCHA I was just presented with was asking about "Motorcycles" and, as usual, just contained several obvious mopeds/scooters... But I know from experience that I have to go along with supporting the CAPTCHA's technically miseducated classification system.)
:::::Thing is, in a technical sense, any ebike is literally a moped, & not only are mopeds commonly and legally classed with scooters, but there's also a '''big''' regulatory gap between ≤750W ebikes & the >12KW emotos that consistently require "motorcycle" registration. A low-power ebike ''is'' just classed as a bicycle in most US regions, & over 45 MPH you're ''always'' into motorcycle classifications, but the plethora of moderately assisted 2-wheelers ''in between'', are not nearly so powerful or fast as to require motorcycle registration in many states, & instead fall into the non-licensed "scooter" classification, ''right alongside the classic mopeds which their performance characteristics are most directly comparable to.'' Not legal on interstates or other high-speed routes, nor on non-motorized routes, but legal to ride on surface streets & generally without requiring licensure. A low-power ebike doesn't differ from the performance characteristics of a bicycle enough to merit a separate listing, & a high-powered emoto is literally just an EV motorcycle, but a 1500W "ebike" is ''technically'' most similar to a moped, & legally falls into that same "scooter" category in many jurisdictions, due to being utterly unable to attain highway speeds. So, to the extent that some ebikes ''are'' much faster than a bicycle yet slower than a motorcycle, I believe ''those'' would logically be classed (like mopeds) as scooters.
:::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I would expect that unicycles are more dangerous than bicycles. For that matter, bicycles are probably more dangerous than tricycles, and those would be slightly less safe than quadcycles. There we probably hit the optimal point, but I doubt anyone has done an in dept study into this matter. Just for starters: a double blind test would not be particularly safe for the riders. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.101|172.71.98.101]] 07:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:When you have learnt how to ride a bike, a tricycle can actually be ''harder'' to ride, due to having to unlearn your existing bicycling instincts. To turn (or not to turn) on a bicycle involves at least 'microleaning', as well as steering, which can actually work against the steering geometry on a tricyle (perhaps a quadricycle is less effected, as one reverts to car-like behaviour/has to account for uneven road surfaces even more differently). Before you have the bike-riding skills (especially on front-wheel-pedal kids' trikes, which have yet more things going on than proper road-cycling tricycles) you generally don't get into the wrong mode of balance where you actually veer off exactly the opposite way to what you intend and maybe start to lift one of the rear wheels off the ground, or more.
:For similar reasons, it's much better to have a completely new passenger ('stoker') on a tandem who is not a cyclist than one who is (but it being their first time on a tandem). The 'steersman' does not need too much complication from their "luggage" instinctively leaning on their own (or unconsciously tugging left/right on their fixed-handlebars), at least until they've practiced their coordination so that there's just the right amount of weight redistribution at the right time to make the whole machine correctly metastable for the circumstances. A non-cyclist can generally be asked to "just sit there and pedal" and not, despite being told, throw themselves around in various ways not related to the (synchronised with the steersman) pedal-revs. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.28|172.71.242.28]] 11:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a "jetpack" missing to the right of hot air ballons... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61|108.162.221.61]] 10:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:On the far right. Together with paragliding. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.69|172.71.246.69]] 09:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::Hey now, paragliding is quite safe & convenient, so long as you can locate updrafts, & have free airspace, & stay away from the back & sides of any upwind slopes, & don't bank too hard, & ... OK yeah, I can see it now. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:: And jetskis.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.177|172.70.90.177]] 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::: Also, {{w|Lawnchair_Larry_flight|helium balloon chair}}.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.7|172.70.85.7]] 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hot air balloons can be particularly dangerous in large groups, each being approximately 1.11% of an extinction level event. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.143|172.69.246.143]] 15:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:That's only asserted to be true for the red ones... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157|172.70.85.157]] 17:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The place where motorcycles are on the map is why my uncle calls them "donercycles" - so many of their riders are organ donors because they die so much.
:You mean people are scraping them up and using them to make kebabs?![[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 12:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

== Other in-between modes of transport? ==

So which modes of transports belong in the white band between the "Zone of specialty and recreational vehicles" and the Hot air balloons? I would suggest the Autogyro (see [[1972:_Autogyros|#1972]]) between the skis and the hot air balloon. Any other suggestions? [[User:Frog23|Frog23]] ([[User talk:Frog23|talk]]) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:A shovel? Tunneling is both dangerous & inconvenient...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::Jet packs and guns https://whatif.xkcd.com/21/ [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 16:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

== Explain "sign error" (done?) ==

I came here to find out what a sign-error is, but the description assumes I already know. {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.69|22:58, 31 May 2024}}
: I think he means if you have erroneously given a negative as a positive, and thereby flipped your y-axis the wrong way up - making inconvenient things appear convenient.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::''And'' flipped the x-axis. Or at least how you treat it. Note that one axis is "more is better" (convenience) and the other is "less is better" (danger), so any analysis that looks at comparative overall desirability has to treat one axis's position in a negative manner, whether seeking the coordinate with least deviation from perfection, the most deviation from imperfection, the most desirable vector away from a midpoint or whatever. The choice of exactly how to compare might juggle the effective linear rank of all items, although it visually looks like Trains would always rank first in most treatments (except those with a very weird weighting between the two measures, or even an 'ideal' position not on the "not dangerous at all" edge but maybe at a 'comfortably desired' amount of thrill).
::So you need to apply exactly one sign-flip to identify the (normally) practical zone for being best (not "very convenient and very dangerous", which is high+high seeking; nor "undangerous and inconvenient", which seeks low+low). Apply that sign-flip to ''x'' instead of ''y'' (or vice-versa, depending upon your goal-seeking method) and you're identifying Hot Air Balloons as your perfect solution instead of (by Randall's apparent perception) Trains.
::At this point, you've not (just) flipped the Convenience axis over. Either you've flipped ''both'' around or you're now not doing the sanity-check on the original graph ''at all'' and just relying upon your doubly-missigned 'algorithm' (one input flipped, the other ''de''flipped).
::A related sign-error coordinate thing is in 3D data, where left-handed and right-handed coordinate systems are just a single sign-flip away (or all three flipped!), but often also combined with whether you should go with ''z'' being 'into' (or out of!) the paper graph (standard x-along and y-up, from 2D graphing) or it being 'up' (or 'down'!) with x/y being both laid horizontally. Both can be made true on a 'tabletop map', but less obvious which is the best way to use on a vertical screen. All this before you start applying other rotations, of course, to the data you initially define in whichever choice of fundemental coordinates you wish. But it can be confusing if you're unsure as to which baseline (left/right-handed, and "which axis is ''z''" probably less certain than subsequently filling in where the other two are) either to implement yourself or to interact with when you start work atop another basic implementation. I probably had more designs come up sideways (in some manner) than I ever did have them accidentally mirrored, whenever I started to dabble in a new 3D platform. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.230|172.69.195.230]] 10:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-03T14:18:00Z

172.69.43.184: /* Explanation */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-03T13:25:35Z

172.69.43.184: /* Explanation */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:1756: I'm With Her

2024-06-01T19:15:42Z

172.69.43.184: /* Hey Randall */

Comments from before 2017 can be seen here: [[Talk:1756: I'm With Her/Comments from 2016|Comments from 2016]]

The woman to the right of the H looks more like Jill than Hairbun without glasses.[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 21:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

'''Found the joke'''

It turns out that this comic was funny in hindsight. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.160|162.158.75.160]] 08:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:Ha ha ;-) But I think that most of those that rooted for Randall and Hillary fails to see the funny part now, [[1756#Sad_comics|especially Randall]], but probably also several of those that actually voted for Trump in a protest either against the system of Hillary personally... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Today was the first time I saw it, and yes, I guffawed, though definitely from a schadenfreude perspective. Not that I cared who would win, the second most hated person in America or the first most hated person in American (and, in retrospect, those titles were interchangeable), but it is ~always~ funny to see those that either beg for more gov't or those that note that ~their particular~ reason for wanting more gov't is justification to force those ideas onto those who disagree get what they wanted/justified handed to them in spades.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.30|162.158.186.30]] 01:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

: I invoke Poe's law. Either way, a comment here from a living, breathing barrier to human progress and happiness. *insert troll insult spiel here*[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.236|172.70.91.236]] 03:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This 'sad comics' list is utterly ludicrous, and really should just be removed altogether. It's headed by many bullet points of meaningless blather. And the content is just stupid. Funny gag about a notification bar in a flag being seen as a Randall making a flag for a conspiratorial three-state independence move? Comic about random funny security mishmashes (and clearly about border enforcements and laptop passwords - a very old issue) being seen as comments on Trump's presidency? Just a population distribution map being seen as Randall being 'still sad about election results'? A frigging bunch of funny emoji ideas being seen as SECRET REFERENCES to US politics, and not just the dumb things they very very obviously are? A comic about unnecessary reviews being seen as reference to nuclear war? New Year is.. maybe sad, kind of? But pretty spurious. A comic about focus being seen as political commentary. Every freaking comic here is somehow linked to Trump. Most for no reason whatsoever.
:The only person wasting time here is me, for some reason pointing out the utter meaninglessness and ridiculousness of this list. I'll go prune it now. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.241|162.158.111.241]] 00:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:: I reverted the edit that took an axe to the 'Sadness' section, as it seemed needlessly antagonistic. The section may need some culling or re-presenting, but it should be done in a more dispassionate way. For the most part, perhaps simply putting a statement at the top of the section noting that it represents speculative interpretation would suffice? (Also, for an edit that purported to be fixing spelling and grammar, it was somewhat rife with typos and grammatical errors.)[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A) Why does the sad comics list exist (see comment above)?
B) If it did have a reasonable argument for existing, why is it in here and not in its own category?
C) If it should not have its own category, wouldn't it be more reasonable to put it in a table?
D) ''How the hell are vomiting emojis supposed to represent a significant connection to Trump?''
E) A flag with 3 stars. Definitely connected to the Trump election/inauguration.
F) The list is just stupid in general. [[User:Halo422|Halo422]] ([[User talk:Halo422|talk]]) 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This utterly ludicrous 'sad comics' list only exist because just one single editor likes and maintains it. Of course it's NOT a trivia belonging to this comic which was released BEFORE the election. Randall just shows his choice to vote and he further provides some hints how to vote. So in general the entire trivia should be removed because it doesn't explain anything of this particular comic. AND if all that mentioned ''sad'' comics are really sad is highly questionable, but more worse that's also mentioned all over at the other comic explanations and nobody had criticized this before.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, not American-from-US, and frankly finding Trump amusing (Nobel!! Ha!) Anyway....why, in the comment, is Danish or possibly Megan "setting up the kite for black hat"? She's a competent and confident woman, whichever she is, and if she's setting up a kite she probably intends to fly it herself. Black Hat is just there to applaud. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.11|108.162.250.11]] 07:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

'''INCOMPLETE'''

I've moved entries from 2016 to a sub-page mentioned at the top, I removed the mentioning of "trolls" because a moderator always has to be polite. Nevertheless there are at least four major issues here to be solved (maybe more):
:The transcript is not standard.
:The table at the explanation is bad layout.
:The title text is bad explained, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel is irrelevant here but Barack Obama's famous speech "Yes, we can" has to be mentioned.
:The "Sad comics" section at trivia doesn't belong to this comic.
I am happy about any input here at the discussion or even more at the explanation. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
:I've squeezed the "Sad comics" section, but that's a preliminary solution. We can delete that irrelevant content, but maybe there is a better place for this. Most referenced comics are not actually ''sad'', but maybe we should preserve a reference at this trivia to other comics, entitled by a less sad, whining, header. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
::Sad comics tivia moved to [[Sad comics]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

== Hey Randall ==

No-one minds you backing Hillary Clinton, but we do mind you being insufferably smug about it.

Insufferable smugness became a big thing in 2016 and it won the election for the opponents of insufferable smugness.

But hey, don't think insufferable smugness will win you future elections. Don't even think elections will happen they way you think in 2200 or whenever. Insufferable smugness may become a disqualifying factor for office.

"Ugh ugh ugh TRUMP!" isn't an argument. At best, it's an 'argument' automatically dismissed. In future, 'arguments' automatically dismissed may become a disqualifying factor for office.

You people imagine that because you won the immediate present you won the future, but I gather various people in the past imagined they'd won everything that followed, and they didn't. Just bear it in mind in your arrogance. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1756: I'm With Her

2024-06-01T19:14:57Z

172.69.43.184: /* Hey Randall */ new section

Comments from before 2017 can be seen here: [[Talk:1756: I'm With Her/Comments from 2016|Comments from 2016]]

The woman to the right of the H looks more like Jill than Hairbun without glasses.[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 21:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

'''Found the joke'''

It turns out that this comic was funny in hindsight. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.160|162.158.75.160]] 08:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:Ha ha ;-) But I think that most of those that rooted for Randall and Hillary fails to see the funny part now, [[1756#Sad_comics|especially Randall]], but probably also several of those that actually voted for Trump in a protest either against the system of Hillary personally... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Today was the first time I saw it, and yes, I guffawed, though definitely from a schadenfreude perspective. Not that I cared who would win, the second most hated person in America or the first most hated person in American (and, in retrospect, those titles were interchangeable), but it is ~always~ funny to see those that either beg for more gov't or those that note that ~their particular~ reason for wanting more gov't is justification to force those ideas onto those who disagree get what they wanted/justified handed to them in spades.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.30|162.158.186.30]] 01:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

: I invoke Poe's law. Either way, a comment here from a living, breathing barrier to human progress and happiness. *insert troll insult spiel here*[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.236|172.70.91.236]] 03:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This 'sad comics' list is utterly ludicrous, and really should just be removed altogether. It's headed by many bullet points of meaningless blather. And the content is just stupid. Funny gag about a notification bar in a flag being seen as a Randall making a flag for a conspiratorial three-state independence move? Comic about random funny security mishmashes (and clearly about border enforcements and laptop passwords - a very old issue) being seen as comments on Trump's presidency? Just a population distribution map being seen as Randall being 'still sad about election results'? A frigging bunch of funny emoji ideas being seen as SECRET REFERENCES to US politics, and not just the dumb things they very very obviously are? A comic about unnecessary reviews being seen as reference to nuclear war? New Year is.. maybe sad, kind of? But pretty spurious. A comic about focus being seen as political commentary. Every freaking comic here is somehow linked to Trump. Most for no reason whatsoever.
:The only person wasting time here is me, for some reason pointing out the utter meaninglessness and ridiculousness of this list. I'll go prune it now. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.241|162.158.111.241]] 00:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:: I reverted the edit that took an axe to the 'Sadness' section, as it seemed needlessly antagonistic. The section may need some culling or re-presenting, but it should be done in a more dispassionate way. For the most part, perhaps simply putting a statement at the top of the section noting that it represents speculative interpretation would suffice? (Also, for an edit that purported to be fixing spelling and grammar, it was somewhat rife with typos and grammatical errors.)[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A) Why does the sad comics list exist (see comment above)?
B) If it did have a reasonable argument for existing, why is it in here and not in its own category?
C) If it should not have its own category, wouldn't it be more reasonable to put it in a table?
D) ''How the hell are vomiting emojis supposed to represent a significant connection to Trump?''
E) A flag with 3 stars. Definitely connected to the Trump election/inauguration.
F) The list is just stupid in general. [[User:Halo422|Halo422]] ([[User talk:Halo422|talk]]) 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This utterly ludicrous 'sad comics' list only exist because just one single editor likes and maintains it. Of course it's NOT a trivia belonging to this comic which was released BEFORE the election. Randall just shows his choice to vote and he further provides some hints how to vote. So in general the entire trivia should be removed because it doesn't explain anything of this particular comic. AND if all that mentioned ''sad'' comics are really sad is highly questionable, but more worse that's also mentioned all over at the other comic explanations and nobody had criticized this before.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, not American-from-US, and frankly finding Trump amusing (Nobel!! Ha!) Anyway....why, in the comment, is Danish or possibly Megan "setting up the kite for black hat"? She's a competent and confident woman, whichever she is, and if she's setting up a kite she probably intends to fly it herself. Black Hat is just there to applaud. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.11|108.162.250.11]] 07:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

'''INCOMPLETE'''

I've moved entries from 2016 to a sub-page mentioned at the top, I removed the mentioning of "trolls" because a moderator always has to be polite. Nevertheless there are at least four major issues here to be solved (maybe more):
:The transcript is not standard.
:The table at the explanation is bad layout.
:The title text is bad explained, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel is irrelevant here but Barack Obama's famous speech "Yes, we can" has to be mentioned.
:The "Sad comics" section at trivia doesn't belong to this comic.
I am happy about any input here at the discussion or even more at the explanation. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
:I've squeezed the "Sad comics" section, but that's a preliminary solution. We can delete that irrelevant content, but maybe there is a better place for this. Most referenced comics are not actually ''sad'', but maybe we should preserve a reference at this trivia to other comics, entitled by a less sad, whining, header. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
::Sad comics tivia moved to [[Sad comics]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

== Hey Randall ==

No-one minds you backing Hillary Clinton, but we do mind you being insufferably smug about it.

Insufferable smugness became a big thing in 2016 and it won the election for the opponents of insufferable smugness.

But hey, don't think insufferable smugness will win you future elections. Don't even think elections will happen in 2200 or whenever. Insufferable smugness may become a disqualifying factor for office.

"Ugh ugh ugh TRUMP!" isn't an argument. At best, it's an 'argument' automatically dismissed. In future, 'arguments' automatically dismissed may become a disqualifying factor for office.

You people imagine that because you won the immediate present you won the future, but I gather various people in the past imagined they'd won everything that followed, and they didn't. Just bear it in mind in your arrogance. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)