explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2595: Advanced Techniques

2022-03-21T15:12:08Z

172.70.114.3: grammar fix

{{comic
| number = 2595
| date = March 18, 2022
| title = Advanced Techniques
| image = advanced_techniques.png
| titletext = A blow from Emmy's Cutlass of Variations will transport the dragon to a corresponding symmetric position in the Noetherworld.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN EULISH CLAUSS- Please slay the CORRECT dragon when editing this page. Do NOT travel to the Noetherworld. Do NOT pass Go. Please collect the correct sedenion.}}
In typical [[Miss Lenhart]] fashion, she is teaching a mathematics class where she outlines a process by which a mathematical result is achieved through steps which sound suspiciously like magical "{{w|Role-playing game}} (RPG) logic." She both includes dragons and arrows to slay it.

One of her students asks if this is a metaphor for the technique, but her rather tetchy reply ''Does this look like English class?!''' seems to imply that she literally means that dragons and arrows will be employed in the resolution of the problem. It is also clear from the slide she is pointing at that she has drawn a dragon and a man with a bow that is aiming an arrow at the dragon.

The caption beneath the comic states that this approach describes "All advanced math techniques." This is probably a reference to {{w|Arthur C. Clarke}}'s {{W|Clarke's three laws|third law}} that ''Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'', but re-framed for mathematics. What [[Randall]] is implying is that all advanced math techniques looks like magic to normal people.

Whilst metaphor is an important part of many languages, and so definitely taught in for instance English and French classes, it is not usually used in math classes. The process of algebra denoting variables with letters could though be considered related to metaphorical thinking.

Invocations are a common classification for spoken or vocalized types of spell. In the logic Miss Lenhart used, 'invoking' Gauss's operator may refer to casting a magical spell with verbal components (such as [https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/True%20Polymorph True Polymorph]). The operator is named after the famous German mathematician {{w|Carl Friedrich Gauss}}. There is nothing on Wikipedia called Gauss's operator, but there is both {{w|Gauss's law}} and the {{w|Gauss–Kuzmin–Wirsing operator}}. As neither can transform an equation into a dragon, it is not certain what, if anything real, Miss Lenhart references.

Slaying the dragon with Hilbert's arrow, indicate that the arrow has some magical properties. The arrow could be named after {{w|David Hilbert}}, for instance, known for {{w|Hilbert space}}. Hilbert space converts subsets of an infinite vector space into a complete metric space, allowing the use of linear algebra & calculus methods which might otherwise be applicable only to finite Euclidean spaces. Vectors could be compared with an arrow.

Magical arrows are frequently used to slay dragons, in myth and role-playing games. Magical items in RPGs such as {{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}, are often named after a creator or famous user; hence, a magical "Arrow of Hilbert," might traverse infinite spaces or affect targets for which one or more stats are effectively infinite.

{{w|Conway chained arrow notation}} (2→3→4) is a means of expressing extremely large numbers and one of many uses for arrows in mathematics.

There is in fact a class of {{w|Dragon curve}}s, which do have the sort of S-shape shown on the whiteboard, but they have no connection to Gauss's operator, and are not actual dragons which need slaying.

Basically Miss Lenhart will turn the unsolvable equation into a dragon using Gauss's operator, then kill it with Hilbert's arrow. The now dead dragons corpse will then be transformed into the solution of the original equation, QED.

Miss Lenhart could be describing techniques like {{w|Fourier analysis}}, in which a problem is transformed from one domain into another which is more tractable (e.g. from the time domain to the frequency domain, commonly done for analyzing the behavior of signals or dynamical systems) and then back again.

The title text contains two puns and a reference. The phrase "{{w|Cutlass}} of Variations" is a pun on the mathematical technique called "{{w|Calculus of variations}}". The word "Noetherworld" is a pun on "{{w|underworld|netherworld}}". The reference is to the mathematician {{w|Emmy Noether}}, who was a giant in the field of abstract algebra. Furthermore, so-called {{w|Noether's Theorem}} is used in the Calculus of Variations. She was previously referenced as one of many important women in science back in [[896: Marie Curie]].

==Transcript==
:[Miss Lenhart is using a stick to point at a whiteboard behind her while facing, presumably, a crowd of off-panel students. The white board has a drawing of a snake-shaped dragon with wings, flying with it's body in an S-shape. An archer is pointing an arrow up at the dragon above him. Above the drawings there are three and below two rows of unreadable text and equations.]
:Miss Lenhart: To solve this equation, we invoke Gauss's operator to transform it into a dragon.
:Miss Lenhart: Then we slay the dragon with Hilbert's Arrow, and transform its corpse back into the solution.
:Off-panel voice: Just to be clear, this is a metaphor, right?
:Miss Lenhart: Does this '''''look''''' like English class?!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:All advanced math techniques

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Math]]

2552: The Last Molecule

2021-12-09T18:48:17Z

172.70.114.3:

{{comic
| number = 2552
| date = December 8, 2021
| title = The Last Molecule
| image = the_last_molecule.png
| titletext = Biology is really struggling; they're barely at 93% and they keep finding more ants.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CONFUSED PARTIAL BIOCHEMIST - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic jokingly proposes a situation in which chemists have discovered and catalogued every single possible molecule. Thus they declare they have "completed chemistry."

In real life the number of ways to arrange atoms into molecules grows combinatorially with the number of atoms in a molecule. Since molecules can be arbitrarily large, the number of possible combinations is much much larger than the number of particles in the observable universe, making the full cataloging of all molecules impossible. Thus, a "final molecule" cannot be reached. In addition, chemistry is the study of the interaction and changing states of atoms and molecules, not simply the cataloging of all specimens of molecule. Even if we did have a list of every molecule, there are a far greater number of ways to continue studying them, so the field would still be nowhere near completed.

This is reminiscent of biology's focus in previous centuries on simply cataloging the species on Earth.

Further, the goal of science is not to "complete" a field, but to understand it better and better. No scientific field is considered fully understood. As readers are aware of this, part of the humor comes from the very high percentages given to the different fields. The title text in particular makes fun of Biology lagging behind due to the inherent difficulty of cataloging all species, when there's no way to know how many new ones remain to be found.

Putting Biology at 93% and Physics at 98% is patently absurd. If biology ''were'' simply a matter of cataloging species, we might be at 10%. As mentioned in the comic, we don't even know how many kinds of ants there are, let alone microscopic organisms. When J.B.S Haldane, founder of the field of population genetics, was asked what could be inferred about the creator from the creation, he reportedly said, "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles". Insects aside, fundamental and important problems such as what genes promote which traits, the nature of cognition, and the mechanism behind several diseases remain complete mysteries. We know less about our own ocean floor than we do about the surface of Mars. Needless to say, Biology is nowhere close to 93% solved. As for Physics, cataloging all particles has been completed with the detection of the {{w|Higgs Boson}} completing the Standard Model. But questions such as "what the actual hell is dark matter?" and "how do we unify the four fundamental forces?" and "how do we make nuclear fusion possible on earth?" and "how many dimensions does the universe have?" make it clear that the field still has a long, long way to go.

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

:[Ponytail is presenting on a stage. To the top-center of the slide which Ponytail is pointing to, there is a circled "100% complete" under "Chemistry", then to the left is "Biology" which is at "93% complete" and to the right is "Physics" which is at "98% complete". The bottom of the slide shows the [[wikipedia:structural formula|structural formula]] of a molecule which is captioned "The Last One", along with a few smaller captions around it drawn as squiggles.]

:Ponytail: With the discovery of the last molecule, I'm pleased to announce that chemistry is finally complete.
:Ponytail: Best of luck to our competitors in their race for second place.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:2552: The Last Molecule

2021-12-09T14:24:49Z

172.70.114.3:

Unsuccessfully tried to search for a match to the image of the chemical compound. Did find this, which is difficult to use on a cellphone: OSRA: Optical Structure Recognition: https://cactus.nci.nih.gov/cgi-bin/osra/index.cgi [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.172|172.70.211.172]] 07:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:I've tried to search for SMILES of the molecule, but also got nothing: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=C1(C2CC(CCC)C(CC)C2(CCCC))C%3DCC(C(%3DCCC(%3DC)CC)C(C)C)%3DC1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.137|162.158.222.137]]

I truly don't understand the God part of the current explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.121|172.68.110.121]] 07:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:There is an article at [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-make-110000th-earths-biomass-180969141/ Smithonian Magazine] that sums it up quite nicely: Of the 550 gigatons of biomass carbon on Earth, animals make up about 2 gigatons, with insects comprising half of that and fish taking up another 0.7 gigatons. Everything else, including mammals, birds, nematodes and mollusks are roughly 0.3 gigatons, with humans weighing in at 0.06 gigatons.
::About half of all known living species on earth are insects. Therefore if there was a god who created all life, it would be reasonable to assume he likes them. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Chemistry. I love chemistry :-) There is a concept called "Chemical Space" that I learned about in school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_space may help, in short: Chemical space is a huge but finite space of all possible atom arrangements in molecules. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.106|162.158.91.106]] 07:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've heard the claim, that we know less about our own ocean floor than we do about the surface of Mars several times before. Is there actually a credible source for this and how do we even quantify how much we know about either area? [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:This essay might shed some light on the question. [[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-little-do-we-know-about-the-ocean-floor/ Just How Little Do We Know about the Ocean Floor?]] From a geographical perspective, our maps of the ocean floor are much less detailed than those covering Mars. (5km resolution for ocean floor, 100m resolution for Mars - radar doesn't work underwater). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.18|162.158.107.18]] 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The current explanation says that there are an infinite number of chemicals. Is that true? Source? Explanation how that is possible?
Obviously the number of possible molecules is huge, but is it actually a literal, mathematical infinite? Given a finite observable universe, with presumably a finite number of atoms in it. There appear to be a finite number of elements which are stable for any appreciable amount of time and capable of forming molecules.
It seems like there might be practical limitations to the size of a molecule, so that you can't keep making bigger and bigger ones just by adding more atoms/subunits?
If you just keep adding carbon atoms to a diamond will you eventually reach a point where forces such as gravitation become a factor and the molecular bonds fail? I can imagine that long chain molecules light years long might reach point where other forces overwhelm the bond strength? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.76|108.162.246.76]] 09:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:For obvious reasons, as long as you limit the number of atoms involved the number of possible "molecules" is - in a mathematical sense - finite. (As there is only a finite number of reasonable stable elements.) But already simple things like polymers can bind millions of atoms in a single molecule. Together with the possible variations intrinsic to such polymers a simple "material" like phenolic resin [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol_formaldehyde_resin]] is a mixture of more different chemical compounds (in a strict sense) than mankind can ever describe. For all practical application this compexity is not relevant, so no one really cares about.
Additionally there is no clear boundary between typical molecules and other types of condensed matter, like crystals. Same applies to biochemistry. Does chemistry include bio-molecules? If yes, the chemistry guy have to include all the gene sequencing in their to-do list.

"how fast does light travel in one direction?" is not a good example for incompleteness in physics, because this question was settled by Michelson and Morley in the 19th century (answer: it travels with the speed of light)
: It's not clear to me either what was meant here - seems out of place.
:We know how fast light travels when it goes somewhere and comes back – that's ''c'' – but we don't know how fast it goes when only traveling in one direction. For example, light going at ''c''/2 in one direction and returning instantaneously in the other would still match our observations. We also can't reliably synchronize clocks over a distance because we'd either have to do it with a speed-of-light delay, or separate two clocks and find that relativity changed the timings. Of course, Occam's razor indicates that a consistent speed is more likely, but that's not proof. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.87|172.70.126.87]] 12:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:Observing two points (nominal source and nominal destination) from a third point perpendicularly off the mid-point between thoss two points, at an arbitrary distance, you ought to see if there's slowness or instaneity involved (at least make a comparison between bidirectional traversal). This does not remove a response bias in the signal from either end as sent towards the recorder at the observation point, but as the stand-off is increased it makes both observation paths nearer and nearer to parallel and so significantly removes the quantifiable initial 'sideways bias' that may exist.
:I leave it as an excercise to the reader to produce the reasons why this might not practically work to quash all such 'inbuilt universal asymmetry', but it's a good start! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.141|172.70.90.141]] 13:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I genuinely don't understand the confusion being proposed here; in practice it's trivial to synchronize a single photon emitter with a single photon detector (such as a PMT) and confirm the speed of light across a single path, with no return trip involved. As far as I know there is know precidence in QM to suspect bidirectional travel could be a special case.

2551: Debunking

2021-12-07T11:25:49Z

172.70.114.3: /* Table */

{{comic
| number = 2551
| date = December 6, 2021
| title = Debunking
| image = debunking.png
| titletext = Mark Zuckerberg has only neutral feelings toward Peppa Pig, who he understands is a fictional character, and he blames the coronavirus pandemic on other factors.
}}

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

When writing a news article that "debunks" a claim (shows why it is false), writing its headline in the form "X is false" is [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201807/when-correcting-lie-dont-repeat-it-do-instead-2 discouraged]. The reason is that just repeatedly seeing "X", even if negated or followed by "is false", can make readers subconciously believe it.

To avoid this, Journalist Randall has worded his debunking articles in a positive sense. This makes for a confusing read if the reader has not heard of the original claim. The "original claims" allegedly being debunked here don't actually appear to have been made anywhere, and can only be inferred from the debunking.

Much of the debunking relies on setting simple facts straight, making for bizarrely banal headlines.

===Table===
{| class="wikitable"
!Article Headline
!Possible claim being debunked
|-
| AP Photos show that Dr. Fauci's office contains a normal amount of microwaves
| That {{w|Anthony Fauci}}'s office is subject to excessive microwave radiation (or placement of microwave ovens). Fauci is the head of the {{w| National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases}} in the US and is seen as the public face to the COVID-19 response in that country. US diplomats have been altering their lives due to an unexplained {{w|Havana syndrome}}, an early theory for which has been use of a microwave weapon. Microwaves can be part of a number of conspiracy theories ranging from health problems or manipulation of the public.
|-
| Singer Billie Eilish was born years after the TWA Flight 800 Explosion.
| A conspiracy theory linking {{w|Billie Eilish}} (born December 2001) with the {{w|TWA Flight 800}} crash in July 1996.
|-
| Vaccinated people can remove their hats without trouble by tugging upward, say doctors.
| That vaccination causes one's head to swell, making hats become tight.
|-
| Physicists say Dorito powder is affected by gravity.
| A claim that {{w|Doritos}} powder is not affected by gravity. For example, an anecdote around a local businessman discovering that objects levitate when sufficient powder is applied to them.
|-
| Steering wheels will work normally on Dec 12th
| Faults (perhaps due to failures in the power steering system, triggered for example by solar storms) will cause cars to steer erratically on that date
|-
| Santa's skin is dry and healthy this year, with the same amount of oil as before.
| Santa is suffering from oily skin, which can cause acne.
|-
| ''(Title Text)'' Mark Zuckerberg has only neutral feelings toward Peppa Pig...
| That the founder of Facebook ({{w|Mark Zuckerberg}}) has paranoia concerning the character {{w|Peppa Pig}}, believing her to be a real talking pig and the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. May be a reference to a [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-pm-johnson-briefly-lost-words-speech-business-2021-11-22 recent speech] by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in which he expressed admiration for Peppa, much to the bewilderment of journalists.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Several news headlines shown in boxes]

:[Box 1] AP photos show Dr. Fauci's office contains a normal number of microwaves.

:[Box 2] Fact check: singer Billie Eilish was born years after the TWA Flight 800 explosion.

:[Box 3] Vaccinated people can remove their hats without trouble by tugging upward, say doctors.

:[Box 4] Physicists say Dorito powder is affected by gravity.

:[Box 5] Steering wheels will work normally on Dec 12th; make left and right turns as usual.

:[Box 6] CNN investigation; Santa's skin is dry and healthy this year, with the same amount of oil as before.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I don't know whether the "Don't repeat the claim in the headline debunking it" thing works or not, but it definitely makes reading the news weird.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theory]]

2551: Debunking

2021-12-07T11:25:03Z

172.70.114.3: /* Table */

{{comic
| number = 2551
| date = December 6, 2021
| title = Debunking
| image = debunking.png
| titletext = Mark Zuckerberg has only neutral feelings toward Peppa Pig, who he understands is a fictional character, and he blames the coronavirus pandemic on other factors.
}}

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

When writing a news article that "debunks" a claim (shows why it is false), writing its headline in the form "X is false" is [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201807/when-correcting-lie-dont-repeat-it-do-instead-2 discouraged]. The reason is that just repeatedly seeing "X", even if negated or followed by "is false", can make readers subconciously believe it.

To avoid this, Journalist Randall has worded his debunking articles in a positive sense. This makes for a confusing read if the reader has not heard of the original claim. The "original claims" allegedly being debunked here don't actually appear to have been made anywhere, and can only be inferred from the debunking.

Much of the debunking relies on setting simple facts straight, making for bizarrely banal headlines.

===Table===
{| class="wikitable"
!Article Headline
!Possible claim being debunked
|-
| AP Photos show that Dr. Fauci's office contains a normal amount of microwaves
| That {{w|Anthony Fauci}}'s office is subject to excessive microwave radiation (or placement of microwave ovens). Fauci is the head of the {{w| National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases}} in the US and is seen as the public face to the COVID-19 response in that country. US diplomats have been altering their lives due to an unexplained {{|Havana syndrome}}, an early theory for which has been use of a microwave weapon. Microwaves can be part of a number of conspiracy theories ranging from health problems or manipulation of the public.
|-
| Singer Billie Eilish was born years after the TWA Flight 800 Explosion.
| A conspiracy theory linking {{w|Billie Eilish}} (born December 2001) with the {{w|TWA Flight 800}} crash in July 1996.
|-
| Vaccinated people can remove their hats without trouble by tugging upward, say doctors.
| That vaccination causes one's head to swell, making hats become tight.
|-
| Physicists say Dorito powder is affected by gravity.
| A claim that {{w|Doritos}} powder is not affected by gravity. For example, an anecdote around a local businessman discovering that objects levitate when sufficient powder is applied to them.
|-
| Steering wheels will work normally on Dec 12th
| Faults (perhaps due to failures in the power steering system, triggered for example by solar storms) will cause cars to steer erratically on that date
|-
| Santa's skin is dry and healthy this year, with the same amount of oil as before.
| Santa is suffering from oily skin, which can cause acne.
|-
| ''(Title Text)'' Mark Zuckerberg has only neutral feelings toward Peppa Pig...
| That the founder of Facebook ({{w|Mark Zuckerberg}}) has paranoia concerning the character {{w|Peppa Pig}}, believing her to be a real talking pig and the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. May be a reference to a [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-pm-johnson-briefly-lost-words-speech-business-2021-11-22 recent speech] by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in which he expressed admiration for Peppa, much to the bewilderment of journalists.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Several news headlines shown in boxes]

:[Box 1] AP photos show Dr. Fauci's office contains a normal number of microwaves.

:[Box 2] Fact check: singer Billie Eilish was born years after the TWA Flight 800 explosion.

:[Box 3] Vaccinated people can remove their hats without trouble by tugging upward, say doctors.

:[Box 4] Physicists say Dorito powder is affected by gravity.

:[Box 5] Steering wheels will work normally on Dec 12th; make left and right turns as usual.

:[Box 6] CNN investigation; Santa's skin is dry and healthy this year, with the same amount of oil as before.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I don't know whether the "Don't repeat the claim in the headline debunking it" thing works or not, but it definitely makes reading the news weird.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theory]]

Talk:2549: Edge Cake

2021-12-05T12:25:52Z

172.70.114.3:

The cake being all edges is a reference to everything about her birth being an edge case.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.227|172.70.110.227]] 03:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
: It seems likely that the title of the comic is a related pun: her birthday is an edge case, and so she has an edge cake.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.221|162.158.106.221]] 04:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
So is Hairbun officially named Emily now, sort of like how all instances of Megan are Megan even though she's only called that once? I know all the names here are just placeholders of convenience, but even then I've never know what the rules for naming are. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 06:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
: Well, Megan is referred to multiple times in the xkcds as "Megan", while the one time Hairbun was called Emily, it referred to the real{{citation needed}} Emily Dickinson. So, probably not. [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 02:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Edge pieces on cake are often sought after because they hold more frosting, for cakes which are frosted while out of the pan. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.23|172.70.134.23]] 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
: I have an impression that Cueball is delighted by having only edge pieces, however some cakes edge pieces may be either sought for or avoided, depending on one's tastes. E.g. tarts have more crispy base cake content and less filling at the edges. One person may go for the filling, another for the crispy base. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.11|162.158.102.11]] 09:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

So it seems the events in the comic happened on Apr 1., as the "last month" birthday could be either Feb 28. or 29. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.11|162.158.102.11]] 09:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
:Not necessarily. Remember, Emily can have her birthday ''whenever she wants'', so the date this comic is set as is entirely arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.51|172.70.178.51]] 12:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there any particular existing arctic international flights that could have been the one Emily was born on? -- [[Special:Contributions/256.256.256.256|256.256.256.256]] 15:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
:There are a few possibities (at least pre-COVID, and obviously we'd be looking historically in this case anyway) as [https://interestingengineering.com/polar-routes-flights-that-go-over-earths-poles might be shown here]. There's two possible (but neither definite) International Datelines on the comic diagram, in case they help orient which from/to directions might have been diverted further in or out of their own kinks in the flightpath to coincide with 90°N. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 16:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Expanded copies of this comic have been appearing on other comics, so large that it fills the whole screen for me. Is anyone else having this problem? [[User:Sarah the Pie(yes, the food)|Sarah the Pie(yes, the food)]] ([[User talk:Sarah the Pie(yes, the food)|talk]]) 22:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
:Someone (check the [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent Changes]] page, if you want) has been vandalising a lot of things. Currently I see a picture of an amphibious avian creature on this article's top (if I still need to revert it myself, I will do, but I've seen others have already been reverting other recent vandalism, so I may not need to by the time I've checked again). This very clever individual is obiviously mentally superior to us all(!) the way they can edit wiki pages seemingly at will... Impressive, eh? At some point I'm sure we'll get back to normlal, however boring that may be. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.67|172.70.90.67]] 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not to be too pedantic but isn't rotation a FREQUENCY, not a SPEED? [[User:Skulker|Skulker]] ([[User talk:Skulker|talk]]) 03:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
:Depends on the context (and scale). The convention is usually speed for rotation (surface(distance/time) when it's relevant, angular(revolutions/time) otherwise) to avoid conflicts with wave frequency (which is independent of speed). Also they can be freely converted, though converting to and from surface speed requires an additional radius term. The exception is, if comparing periodicity, sometimes frequency is used when it has special relevance (Ex: resonance) -- [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.200|172.69.68.200]] 02:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Tempted to add a link in the Trivia section to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Warrimoo Wikipedia] or [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ss-warrimoo/ Snopes] pages on the SS Warrimoo, a ship that (reportedly) was on the intersection of the Equator and the International Date Line at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 1900, with a number of interesting implications that follow. There's no way to prove that it actually happened, but it's fun to imagine and is somewhat similar to the premise of the comic. --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.15|108.162.221.15]] 14:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Many airplanes actually have limitations written into their operating manuals that prohibit flying north of 89 deg. N or south of 89 deg. S, mostly just so that the navigation software doesn't have to deal with the singularity. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.187|172.69.71.187]] 23:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
:bloody lazy engineers! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.107|108.162.219.107]] 12:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it not possible that Emily's birth happened to occur at the same moment that the contract specified transfer of ownership? Additionally, is it not possible that the airplane took off from within UTC+13:00 or UTC+14:00 and that the moment of Emily's birth happened to occur in the brief one-or-two hour period in which it was March 1st at that airport, but February 28th in UTC-12:00? UTC-11:00 is inhabited, so it would be possible that ownership of an airplane that took off from within UTC+14:00 was transferred to a company based out of UTC-11:00 during the one-hour period that it was February 28th in UTC-11:00 and March 1st in UTC+14:00 and that, at that exact moment, it was passing over the North Pole. [[User:DL Draco Rex|DL Draco Rex]] ([[User talk:DL Draco Rex|talk]])

Am I alone in thinking that babies don't get born instantaneously? I've never given birth myself but i'd always got the impression that it's a process and any attempt to pick a precise 'instant' is going to be somewhat arbitrary. This means that the plane will very probably have travelled through a variety of time zones any of which could be the 'real' time of birth. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.155|172.70.85.155]] 05:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Dickenson looks like a typo. Dickinson? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 08:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't an "all edge pieces cake" just a plate of cupcakes lol? [[User:Zman350x|Zman350x]] ([[User talk:Zman350x|talk]]) 06:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
:Only if you frosted all sides of it.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.3|172.70.114.3]] 12:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

2545: Bayes' Theorem

2021-11-23T01:55:08Z

172.70.114.3:

{{comic
| number = 2545
| date = November 22, 2021
| title = Bayes' Theorem
| image = bayes_theorem.png
| titletext = <nowiki>P((B|A)|(A|B)) represents the probability that you'll mix up the order of the terms when using Bayesian notation.</nowiki>
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by <nowiki> P(d/dx x^x | d/dx x^(1/x)) </nowiki> - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Bayes' theorem}} describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event.

In this comic, the off-panel student knows that they are studying Bayes' theorem, so they use that prior knowledge to guess that the test result is a false positive. The punch line is the caption - if you know Bayes' theorem well enough, you don't need to actually calculate the probabilities.

The title text refers to the mathematical definition of Bayes' theorem: P(A | B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B). Here, P(A|B) represents the probability of some event A occurring, given that B has occurred. This is often referred to as "the probability of A given B". It can be hard to remember if P(A|B) means probability of A given B, or if it's B given A, and Randall's joke is based on this difficulty. Here P((B|A)|(A|B)) is be the probability that you ''write'' (A|B) given that the correct expression is (B|A), which makes it the probability that you got the order of the notation mixed up.

==Trivia==
When this comic came out, the title text was only "P((B" and the "Black Lives Matter" image in the header replaced by "(A", but this was quickly corrected.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Miss Lenhart using a pointer and pointing to a white-board with statistical formulae]
:Miss Lenhart: Given these prevalences, is it likely that the test result is a false positive?
:(off-panel voice): Well, this chapter is on Bayes' Theorem, so yes.

:[Caption below the panel]:
:Sometimes, if you understand Bayes' Theorem well enough, you don't need it.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

Talk:2538: Snack

2021-11-05T23:40:08Z

172.70.114.3:

IRB is Institutional Review Board. IRB approval is needed for biomedical research involving human subjects.
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/institutional-review-boards-frequently-asked-questions
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.91|172.69.34.91]] 20:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering what the International Rugby Board had to do with the price of fish. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who changed the bot's name to "Apple Cookie," but now I really want to know what that would taste like... -mezimm [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.115|108.162.221.115]] 20:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
: Simply Google it (or possibly your favourite alternate of Bing, DuckDuckGo, AskJeeves, AltaVista, Yahoo, whatever else is actually around and hasn't been fatally out-Googled). One of the first things I got just now suggests a 20 mins bake using Brown sugar, apple, egg, baking soda, all purpose flour... but there are several others.
:(I wasn't the Bot-changer, I must add, but I too now want some sort of apple biscuity-snack. And I only have some of the above ingredients at hand.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.185|172.70.85.185]] 21:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Is altruism the only thing that psychologists study? It seems like psych students should be suspicious of just about any interactions. For instance, if they're invited to play in a game of chance, it could be a study of how they assess risk. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I understood the comic as if he was given a choice that will reveal something about his personality instead of the altruism interpretation. The two very different options led me to this idea, that he doesn't want to choose the cookie because it seems unhealthy or whatever. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.167|108.162.237.167]] 23:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I was given a choice of snack in one study that I participated in. But I don't know WHY. This might be too niche for me to understand.

2536: Wirecutter

2021-11-04T03:53:56Z

172.70.114.3:

{{comic
| number = 2536
| date = November 1, 2021
| title = Wirecutter
| image = wirecutter.png
| titletext = This was always going to be a controversial Wirecutter post, but what really got them in trouble were their 'budget' and 'upgrade' picks.
}}

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

''{{w|Wirecutter (website)|Wirecutter}}'' is a product review website owned by ''The New York Times''. Randall is parodying the website by having them "review" the 70 most popular [[:Category:Religion|religion]]s. Product review websites typically make posts with the "best" X, e.g. "Best smartphones," or "Best laptops." These reviews are useful for consumers trying to choose among the wide variety of products available.

There are {{w|List of religions and spiritual traditions|a wide variety of religions}}. However, unlike electronic devices, a person does not usually choose their religion; they are taught one during childhood and most remain in that religion their entire life. Changing religions is ([[1102|usually]]) a significant life event. Many religions, including many variants of the three major {{w|Abrahamic religions}} promote {{w|Religious exclusivism|exclusivity}}, and do not recognize other religions as valid. They emphasize the importance of specific practices or belief in specific creeds. Members of those religions might not recognize a reviewer as having truly "tried" their religion if their intent was always to move on to another.

If it was easy to change a religion, it would have major implications for {{w|freedom of religion}} and whether religious {{w|discrimination}} exists. If changing a belief would be as easy as getting car tires changed, governments could reasonably tell citizens to change their religious affiliation in order to get admitted to military service, or to a hospital for treatment. Likewise, religious minorities could simply change their allegiance to evade persecution, and change back to being Jewish, for example, when the threat is over. Discrimination against people's voluntary choices is not as readily condemned as when somebody is treated disadvantageously because of a circumstance they cannot easily change and had no control over, like skin color or {{w|congenital defect|congenital defects}}.

A post "reviewing" religions is sure to stir up controversy, as many religious followers are passionate about their religious beliefs and believe their religion is best. {{w|Religious_war|Literal wars}} have been fought over the idea one religion could be superior to another, and it is not a wound most practitioners are willing to reopen any time soon. Moreover, religions are typically chosen for more fundamental reasons -- such as by comparing the likelihood that each religion makes accurate claims, or the efficacy of each religion in promoting an ethical life, or the connection a practitioner feels to the religion's rituals, metaphors, and images, or by privileging a preexisting cultural or family connection to a particular tradition -- not by comparing gimmicky features or price.

The title text mentions "budget" and "upgrade" picks, which are subcategories for reviewers - cheaper options and options that are good for upgrading your current product. Neither of these categories are typical categories for religions {{Citation needed}} and could further anger their adherents. The association of religion and money could allude to various controversial topics such as {{w|tithe|tithing}}, {{w|indulgences}}, {{w|televangelism}}, or {{w|Prosperity theology}}. Budget need not be just about money, it could also refer to the amount of time or effort involved. (e.g., how much time is spent in religious activities, needing to learn a new language, etc.) Some religious followers might be offended if their religion was picked in a "budget" category. The idea of a religion "upgrade" evokes the highly divisive concept of {{w|supersessionism}} among the major Abrahamic religions, which would be guaranteed to cause further outcry no matter which one of those the article would pick for the category.

In related matters, {{w|Pascal's wager}} says that it is beneficial to believe in God, but crucially, it assumes that people actually have the power to ''choose'' to believe in God - and takes for granted that they would choose the correct God out of the many Gods supported by various religions, and many others possible.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A New York Times Wirecutter article. There is the NYT logo and Wirecutter logo in the top left. Also in the top of the page is a search bar, a user account icon, and 7 "header" level hyperlinks with illegible text. The article title is as follows:]
:The Best Religion
:By Wirecutter Staff

:[The words "Wirecutter Staff" are followed by illegible text presumably representing the date of the article. Below are icons for Twitter, Facebook, e-mail, and save.]

:[The article's image depicts Cueball shrugging in the center of the picture with many question marks floating above him. The content of the article is as follows:]

:What does it all mean? Our reviewers tried out over 70 of the most popular belief systems. Here's what they found...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

2535: Common Cold Viruses

2021-10-30T18:25:20Z

172.70.114.3: restored paragraph that was somehow removed during dkmell's revision. may still need revision.

{{comic
| number = 2535
| date = October 29, 2021
| title = Common Cold Viruses
| image = common_cold_viruses.png
| titletext = "It's not an influenza, but the onset has notes of the '09 H1N1 strain." "Ah yes, that was a good year for H1N1."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a RHINO-SHAPED RHINOVIRUS. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is another entry in a [[:Category:COVID-19|series of comics]] related to the {{w|COVID-19 pandemic|2020-21 pandemic}} of the {{w|SARS-CoV-2}} virus, which causes {{w|COVID-19}}.

In this strip, [[Megan]] and [[White Hat]] are listening to [[Cueball]] explain his newfound interest in the various different viruses that cause the {{w|common cold}}, which is an umbrella term used to describe the mild-to-moderate symptoms these viruses all cause.

Megan expresses curiosity as well, and White Hat suggests he could get a {{w|DNA sequencer}} to help. By the third and final panel, several years have passed. All three characters appear to be chronically ill, presumably as a result of purposefully infecting themselves with diseases such as {{w|respiratory syncytial virus}} (RSV) and the various types of {{w|rhinoviruses}}, and are describing their symptoms with terms similar to ones used in {{w|wine tasting}}.

This strip follows the theme of [[915: Connoisseur]], making fun of the fact that people often develop strong opinions on virtually identical items or circumstances - in this case, the common cold. This is also referenced in [[1095: Crazy Straws]].

The title text references the H1N1 {{w|swine flu}} virus, which was the disease at the heart of the {{w|2009 swine flu pandemic}}. It also further expands on the wine tasting comparison – connoisseurs often consider the environmental conditions of the growing season the grapes came from as an important factor in the quality of a given wine, so certain years may be considered better than others.

As access to community makerspaces, labs, and knowledge has spread, people have begun doing more things at home that were previous confined to industrial and academic research environments. This was stimulated further during the onset of the pandemic, when communities became focused on helping offset overtaxed national resources.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan, Cueball, and White Hat are standing in a group. Cueball is talking.]
:Cueball: COVID has made me so curious about colds. The next time I get one, I want to know which virus it is specifically.
:Cueball: A Rhinovirus? RSV? Mild Influenza? Or something weird like Metapneumovirus?

:[Megan, Cueball, and White Hat are talking.]
:Megan: How distinct are they? Could you learn to tell them apart?
:Cueball: See, I wonder!
:White Hat: I could get a sequencer from work...

:[In this panel, Cueball is sitting on the left, Megan is sitting on the right, and White Hat is standing at the far right. Megan is coughing, there is a tissue box in the middle, and rolled-up tissues lying around on the ground.]
:Caption above the panel: Several years later...
:Cueball: Ah yes, this one has the rich, full-bodied bouquet of RSV, but the heady congestion lends it a lingering Rhinovirus nosefeel.
:Megan: *Cough* Quite right!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:2533: Slope Hypothesis Testing

2021-10-26T14:40:31Z

172.70.114.3:

In the line "Randall has repeatedly made comics about this hopeful error", should specific examples be provided? I know /882 is one, but I'm blanking on any others. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.114|172.68.132.114]] 10:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:Definitely, otherwise it would not be very useful. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.54|162.158.203.54]] 13:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I love it. [[User:Fwacer|Fwacer]] ([[User talk:Fwacer|talk]]) 02:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:hi, I added the line. I was also thinking of 882. my sense was that there were others but I could definitely be wrong. could ask randall on twitter if we're all amnesiacs. hmmm I think there was one where article titles that blatantly used poor statistical techniques were repeatedly summarised, not sure. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.3|172.70.114.3]] 14:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I imagine that the problem here is that the errors are not independent. I can't find anything else wrong with this, but I feel like there's something obvious I'm not seeing. They might revoke my statistics degree if I miss something big here, hehe.--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 03:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:The scores are clearly the one score they originally (sometime prior to the expanded test) received. Either that or multiple tests with the same exam questions without having given them enough feedback to change their answer-scheme at all. The volumes are probably a "good go at screaming" on demand, belying any obvious "test result -> thus intensity of scream" (what might be expected if the scream(s) of shock/joy/frustration were recorded immediately upon hearing a score).
:What they have here is a 1D distribution of scream-ability/tendency (which was originally a single datum), arbitrarily set against test scores. (Could as easily have been against shoe-size, father's income-before-tax, a single dice-roll, etc.)
:Whether there ''was'' an original theory that grades correlated with intensity of vocalisation is perhaps a valid speculation, but clearly the design of the test is wrong. Too few datum points, in the first instance, and the wrong way to increase them when they find out their original failing.
: The true solution is to recruit more subject. (And justify properly if it's intensity of spontaneous result-prompted evocations or merely general ability to be loud that is the quality the wish to measure. Either could be valid, but it's not obvious that the latter is indeed the one that they meant to measure.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.54|141.101.77.54]] 04:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
: It's pretty straightforward. This is a simple linear regression, Y = α + βX + ε, where α and β are parameters and ε is a random variable (the error term). Their point estimations for α and β are correct. But their confidence intervals (and thus p-values) are wrong, because they are based on a false assumption. They constructed their intervals assuming ε was normally distributed, which it clearly is not. ε will always be approximately normally distributed if the central limit theorem applies, but it does not apply here. The central limit theorem requires that the samples be independent and identically distributed. Here, they are identically distributed, but they are not remotely independent. After all, the same people were selected over and over again. Therefore ε will probably not be randomly distributed (it isn't even close), and the confidence intervals (and so p-values) are wrong. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.47|172.70.178.47]] 09:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:: You seem to be the only person so far who's learned in academia why this is wrong. Is the current state of the article correct? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.3|172.70.114.3]] 14:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the title text speakers are unidentified, I'm pretty sure it's a direct continuation of the dialogue in the last panel. [[User:Esogalt|Esogalt]] ([[User talk:Esogalt|talk]]) 04:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:I agree. the second speaker starts to say "I said, are you sure--", this is the start of Cueball's last line. I think this is intended to be Cueball and Megan trying to talk about the results while the students are still screaming. [[User:TomW1605|TomW1605]] ([[User talk:TomW1605|talk]]) 06:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
::It could also be the case that their hypothesis was true and they failed so badly at statistics, that their voices are inaudible now.
:::Because, since they didn't write that test, their score is zero. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a polynomial that better fits this data? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2533: Slope Hypothesis Testing

2021-10-26T14:31:34Z

172.70.114.3:

In the line "Randall has repeatedly made comics about this hopeful error", should specific examples be provided? I know /882 is one, but I'm blanking on any others. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.114|172.68.132.114]] 10:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:Definitely, otherwise it would not be very useful. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.54|162.158.203.54]] 13:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I love it. [[User:Fwacer|Fwacer]] ([[User talk:Fwacer|talk]]) 02:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I imagine that the problem here is that the errors are not independent. I can't find anything else wrong with this, but I feel like there's something obvious I'm not seeing. They might revoke my statistics degree if I miss something big here, hehe.--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 03:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:The scores are clearly the one score they originally (sometime prior to the expanded test) received. Either that or multiple tests with the same exam questions without having given them enough feedback to change their answer-scheme at all. The volumes are probably a "good go at screaming" on demand, belying any obvious "test result -> thus intensity of scream" (what might be expected if the scream(s) of shock/joy/frustration were recorded immediately upon hearing a score).
:What they have here is a 1D distribution of scream-ability/tendency (which was originally a single datum), arbitrarily set against test scores. (Could as easily have been against shoe-size, father's income-before-tax, a single dice-roll, etc.)
:Whether there ''was'' an original theory that grades correlated with intensity of vocalisation is perhaps a valid speculation, but clearly the design of the test is wrong. Too few datum points, in the first instance, and the wrong way to increase them when they find out their original failing.
: The true solution is to recruit more subject. (And justify properly if it's intensity of spontaneous result-prompted evocations or merely general ability to be loud that is the quality the wish to measure. Either could be valid, but it's not obvious that the latter is indeed the one that they meant to measure.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.54|141.101.77.54]] 04:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
: It's pretty straightforward. This is a simple linear regression, Y = α + βX + ε, where α and β are parameters and ε is a random variable (the error term). Their point estimations for α and β are correct. But their confidence intervals (and thus p-values) are wrong, because they are based on a false assumption. They constructed their intervals assuming ε was normally distributed, which it clearly is not. ε will always be approximately normally distributed if the central limit theorem applies, but it does not apply here. The central limit theorem requires that the samples be independent and identically distributed. Here, they are identically distributed, but they are not remotely independent. After all, the same people were selected over and over again. Therefore ε will probably not be randomly distributed (it isn't even close), and the confidence intervals (and so p-values) are wrong. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.47|172.70.178.47]] 09:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:: You seem to be the only person so far who's learned in academia why this is wrong. Is the current state of the article correct? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.3|172.70.114.3]] 14:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the title text speakers are unidentified, I'm pretty sure it's a direct continuation of the dialogue in the last panel. [[User:Esogalt|Esogalt]] ([[User talk:Esogalt|talk]]) 04:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:I agree. the second speaker starts to say "I said, are you sure--", this is the start of Cueball's last line. I think this is intended to be Cueball and Megan trying to talk about the results while the students are still screaming. [[User:TomW1605|TomW1605]] ([[User talk:TomW1605|talk]]) 06:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
::It could also be the case that their hypothesis was true and they failed so badly at statistics, that their voices are inaudible now.
:::Because, since they didn't write that test, their score is zero. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a polynomial that better fits this data? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.143|108.162.241.143]] 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

2530: Clinical Trials

2021-10-19T23:39:24Z

172.70.114.3:

{{comic
| number = 2530
| date = October 18, 2021
| title = Clinical Trials
| image = clinical_trials.png
| titletext = We don't need to do a clinical trial of this change because the standard of care is to adopt new ideas without doing clinical trials.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by MEDICAL PROCEDURE STEP DERF - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic begins with a simple process for adopting a new idea just by convincing people that it is a good ideas. The joke is that this skips the important step of checking whether it actually ''is'' a good idea. That correction presumably comes about after ideas are adopted which sounded good but turn out to be harmful. The comic captions the addition of this checking step as "the invention of clinical trials".

The purpose of clinical trials in medicine is to make sure that a new medicine works and doesn't have serious side-effects. One example of the dangers of failing to make sure that it doesn't have serious side effects is {{w|thalidomide}}, which caused a lot of birth defects. In a clinical trial, the effect of a treatment is compared to the effect of a placebo, or an existing treatment, to make sure it has actually has a beneficial effect. (Earlier trials establish that it is even a viable candidate for testing and establishing possible dosages/regimens that can then be carried forward to a treatment (Phase III) trial.)

Before the invention of clinical trials, people generally didn't know, or at least had no way of confirming, whether medicines actually worked. Although many herbs and medicines were effective, others were no better than a placebo, and some medical treatments such as {{w|trepanation}} and {{w|bloodletting}} not only had no benefit but were very likely to be harmful. Those treatments that did work at all were mostly those that had been tried (for {{w|doctrine of signatures|whatever reason}}) and had just happened to be useful, but many others that were tried had neutral or even adverse effects, but had still managed to not be so entirely deadly such that recoveries regardless of (or despite!) such treatments were taken as common-knowledge 'proof' of their efficacy.

Some may, like some of today's treatments, have been gradually discovered to help a particular condition only by noticing beneficial side-effects when consumed for sustenance or for unrelated medical 'guesses'. However, they also remained without the full scientific rigour so long as it remained a 'traditional remedy' with at best an oral tradition across many disparate practitioners, and no consistent effort to formalise or test the falsifiability of any findings.

At the time that this comic was published, the world was in the middle of the {{w|COVID-19 pandemic}}, which made the existence of clinical trials more relevant to the public, who waited eagerly for what sounded like good ideas to get through clinical trials and available to the general public…or fail clinical trials and not do that. During this frustrating wait, many unscientific claims have been made that various drugs or non-drug treatments (such as sunlight) are cures for COVID-19, making it difficult to convince believers to get real treatments.

The title text is a nice bit of Munroean humor — because we didn't have clinical trials as part of the "standard of care" before their adoption, we didn't need to do testing before we started using them. If we had had them as the standard of care, then we would have had to perform tests before we switched over (in concept; in practice of course that kind of political change is still not tested) and it would have taken longer.

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

:1. Come up with new idea
:2. Convince people it's good

:[Scrawled in red handwriting, as an afterthought, an arrow indicating it is between item 2 and the original item 3]
:3. Check whether it works

:3. [Now scribbled over and amended to "4."]
:New idea is adopted

:[Caption below the panel]
:The invention of clinical trials.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Science]]
[[Category: Comics with color]]

Talk:2527: New Nobel Prizes

2021-10-12T18:48:12Z

172.70.114.3: Add H2G2 theory

I can't understand the title text --[[User:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e]] ([[User talk:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|talk]]) 02:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
:I think it's implying that they're so desperate to stop Dr. Adams that they're offering a Nobel Prize to whoever gets her to stop. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.21|162.158.63.21]] 03:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the comic is riffing on the gender imbalance. We're led to expect the dialogue to say all this year's Nobel prizes went to men (which in 2021 they did - which was newsworthy). ---- {{unsigned|141.101.107.229 who didn't use tildes}}
: Indeed, because there is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics laureate to tell them that the odds of this happening are 1/64, which isn't *that* surprising, especially given that the gender imbalance, (for whatever reason(s), good or bad) mean that the odds are actually higher because it's not an even 50/50 chance to pick a specific gender per 'coin flip.' For instance if the split were 75:25 in favor of women, then the odds of an all-female prize winning year would be ~18%, which means that at least every 6th year random chance should deliver a all-female-winner year if genders really do have no role in awarding winners. Ergo, it's only newsworthy if you have a political angle.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.235|172.69.68.235]] 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's more like discovering new particles, than elements, with some sort of Enhanced Standard Model of Nobel Prizes probably being added to by the likes of supersymmetric partners, Higgses, etc. (But might be worth a mention that (pure) Mathematicians conspicuously miss out Nobel glory due to a deliberate oversight/snub? Not that I have skin in that game, but it's a known fact.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.53|162.158.159.53]] 08:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This is probably also a jab at the "Nobel prize for Economics", which was awarded yesterday. That prize exists since the 1970s, but is often not regarded as a "real" Nobel prize because it was not specified in Alfred Nobel's will, but is rather the result of an outside donation. One could say it is a unrelated prize that is just cleverly marketed by smuggling Alfred Nobel's name into it and by awarding it one day after the "real" Nobel prizes. In that way, one could thoretically create a near infinite number of new "Nobel prizes" for irrelevant stuff, as the comic suggests. -[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.90|162.158.91.90]] 09:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Could this be a riff on the AAAI Squirrel AI award given recently, which people are calling a "new Nobel"? https://pratt.duke.edu/about/news/rudin-squirrel-award --[[User:Sophira|Sophira]] ([[User talk:Sophira|talk]]) 10:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
:It's pretty cmomon for the most prestigious award in some other field of study to be figuratively called the "Nobel of X". For instance, the Turing Award could be considered the Nobel Prize of computing. So I doubt this is a riff on any particular industry award, especially since it was published just after all the Nobel Awards were announced. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Swede here, on a little minor issue. As far as I know, Alfred Nobel was never knighted, so he should not be called Sir, which he currently is in the text.

I added an explanation for the title text as there was none previously. I feel like someone else could've explained it much better that I could, however.[[User:MrYellow04|MrYellow04]] ([[User talk:MrYellow04|talk]]) 17:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Today is the 42nd anniversary of Douglas Adams's ''The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'', so it is possible Randall is referencing him with the name of Dr. Adams. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.3|172.70.114.3]] 18:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

2523: Endangered

2021-10-04T20:01:46Z

172.70.114.3:

{{comic
| number = 2523
| date = October 1, 2021
| title = Endangered
| image = endangered.png
| titletext = The list includes polio, Guinea worm, and this one particular enterovirus strain that they've been tracking out of spite after it went around the lab a few years ago.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HEARTBLEED BUG - Title text not explained, specifically why the mentioned virus type could be such an issue for the team. Is it embarrassing? Or where they just all very ill. Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The {{w|endangered species}} list (also known as the {{w|IUCN Red List}}) is a system for categorizing species based on "level of extinction".

[[Ponytail]], [[Cueball]], and [[Megan]] in this comic are scientists who are sarcastically worried about pathogen strains becoming extinct. People in general want harmful pathogens to go extinct.

Randall was most likely inspired by [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00642-4 this article] about different {{w|influenza}} strains. Influenza causes the yearly flu, which infects 5–15% of the global population annually and causes 3-5 million severe cases worldwide.

The title text mentions {{w|polio}} and {{w|Dracunculiasis|Guinea worm disesase}} - diseases that are being eradicated due to worldwide efforts - the former, famously, through vaccination, and the latter through education and prevention techniques. A Google search [https://www.google.com/search?q="sarcastic+endangered"+list] seems to indicate that the "sarcastic endangered" list is not a real thing.

The bitter irony here is that much recent scholarship has described [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/parasites-are-going-extinct-heres-why-thats-a-bad-thing-180964808/ links between parasite biodiversity and ecosystem-wide, indeed planet-wide, biodiversity]. In few, if preserving and expanding biodiversity are seen as good things, then preserving and expanding biodiversity of parasites is a good thing, the one not being possible without the other. Parasites and disease agents, arguably, are classes of predators, and their removal can help establish a superpredator, the actions of which can catastrophically drive down biodiversity. Humans, released from predation by a large percentage of formerly-effective microbial predators, through the introduction of penicillin and other antibiotics plus other elements of 'heroic medicine', sanitation, etc., have arguably [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-humans-have-become-superpredators-180956348/ become such a superpredator], and one that is mediating a loss of global biodiversity that may become the largest single species-extinction event in the history of planet Earth.

There also seems to be some evidence that infections with influenza viruses increase the chance of a heart attack. For instance regular flu shots [https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/11/18/flu-shot-reduces-risk-of-death-for-people-with-heart-disease reduce the risk of heart attacks]. Thus the fact that we are "heartbroken" when B/Yamagata goes extinct could be sarcastic, since we might in fact suffer less from broken hearts.

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail stands facing Cueball and Megan in front of a poster board.]
:[Ponytail is pointing a stick to the board reading "Current List" with bullet points beneath.]
:[The first bullet reads Influenza B/Yamagata.]
:[Four further bulletpoints follow, which are left indistinct.]

:Ponytail: Influenza's genetic diversity has declined druing the pandemic, and the B/Yamagata lineage is at risk of extinction.
:Ponytail: Which would be ''such'' a shame.
:Megan: Yeah, I'm sooooooo worried about it.
:Cueball: We'd be just ''heartbroken!''

:[Caption below the panel]:
:When a pathogen that scientists really don't like is close to disappearing, it gets added to the sarcastic endangered species list.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Biology]]