explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2641: Mouse Turbines

2022-07-04T22:33:38Z

172.70.114.43:

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

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

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

I'm confused by the statement that smaller turbines are less "efficient". There's nothing about efficiency at that link. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.43|172.70.114.43]] 22:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

2639: Periodic Table Changes

2022-06-30T01:52:18Z

172.70.114.43:

{{comic
| number = 2639
| date = June 29, 2022
| title = Periodic Table Changes
| image = periodic_table_changes.png
| titletext = It's nice how the end of the periodic table is flush with the edge these days, so I think we should agree no one should find any new elements after #118 unless they discover a whole row at once.
}}

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

The {{w|periodic table}} is a table used to arrange {{w|chemical elements}} according to their chemical and physical properties. This comic proposes "changes" to the periodic table that would be more pleasant aesthetically or make the periodic table look more regular. Some of these are (somewhat) practical changes to element abbreviations that could improve clarity in English, though changing documents to use different abbreviations would probably be more trouble than it's worth. However, other changes move elements around without taking into account that elements would stop being arranged by their properties. The periodic table would stop being useful after such changes unless said changes were meant to physically change the material properties of the elements, which would be impossible{{citation needed}}, although the comic plans to solve the problem with "free training" to their atomic behavior. The attitude is similar to impossible economic plans attempted with unpleasant results, possibly a current event.

Other modifications make up new elements or remove existing ones from the table, which would not be a reasonable decision given that the periodic table is supposed to include all existing elements, whether they make the table neater or they don't.

;Move helium over here. It fits nicely!
Helium is moved from the upper right corner to the second column next to hydrogen. However, the reason it is placed at the far-right Group 18 and not Group 2 is because it is a {{w|noble gas}}, rather than a reactive {{w|alkaline earth metal}}. You could say helium is in group 2 because it has two electrons in its outer shell, but normal periodic tables place it in group 18, the noble gases, with which it has far more in common. Hydrogen has similar problems being in group 1, as it's a non-metal and the elements below it are metals which don't have much in common with it chemically. There are periodic tables that show hydrogen floating above the periodic table for that reason.

;Elements in this corner are cool. Add more!
TBD (to be determined). Elements in that corner, such as carbon, oxygen, phosphorous, and nitrogen, participate in covalent bonding and are the primary elements involved in biochemical reactions, which may be why they are considered cooler than other elements.

;Sp (Spite element)
Wedged between fluorine and neon. This could be a reference to spite houses, houses jammed into a narrow space to block other construction.

;Merge these boring metals with titanium to make *tixanium*
Tixanium (Tx) replaces five metals, including titanium (Ti). This may be a reference to the term "UX" (user experience) being used instead of "UI" (user interface) as more of an umbrella term.

While titanium certainly has an impressive name, and is used in the aerospace industry and other high-performance applications, the others are hardly boring; manganese, for example, was part of the cover story for the top-secret {{w|Project Azorian}}.

;Update Latin/Neo-Latin symbols to match names. This isn't ancient Rome.
* Sodium: Na (Natrium) => So
* Potassium: K (Kalium) => Pm
* Iron: Fe (Ferrum) => I
* Silver: Ag (Argentum) => Sv
* Gold: Au (Aurum) => Gd
* Tin: Sn (Stannum) => Tn
* Lead: Pb (Plumbum) => Ld
Since I is already used for Iodine, it gets a new abbreviation Io, and Gadolinium is re-abbreviated to Gm to free up Gd.

Oddly, this group of changes doesn't include mercury (Hg -- hydrargyrum) or antimony (Sb -- stibium).

;Replace the blander post-transition metals with new kinds of carbon
* Indium (In) -> C II.
* Antimony (Sb) -> C III.
* Tellurium (Te) -> C IV.
* Thallium (Tl) -> C V.
* Bismuth (Bi) -> C VI.

Carbon can make four covalent bonds, which means it can form a huge range of chemicals, above all ones vital to life. The post-transition metals don't have this level of interest. If there were more chemicals like carbon, it could allow more exciting chemistry and perhaps new kinds of life.

;That W annoys me
* Tungsten: W (Wolfram) -> Tg.

"Wolfram" is the name for tungsten in some languages and is derived from the mineral wolframite, which comes from the name "wolf rahm" in German (wolf soot).

;3.4% of all elements are named after Ytterby, Sweden (pop. 3,000). Let's keep Yttrium, but rename the other 3 after bigger cities (Tokyium, Delhium, and Jakartium?) to be more fair.
Four elements -- yttrium (Y), ytterbium (Yb), terbium (Tb) and erbium (Er) -- are named after {{w|Ytterby}}, a Swedish village. Scandium (Sc), thulium (Tm), holmium (Ho) and gadolinium (Gd) were isolated from minerals found in the same quarry. Randall suggests naming 3 of them after some other major world cities.
* Terbium (Tb) -> Tokyium (Ty) - Tokyo
* Erbium (Er) -> Delhium (Dh) - Delhi
* Ytterbium (Yb) -> Jakatium (Jk) - Jakarta

;Inserting the lanthanides and actinides properly makes the table too wide. Triage is needed. Each element will be offered free training to help adjust to its new column.
Though the lanthanides and actinides typically are placed under the bottom of the table to conserve space, they actually belong in the 6th and 7th rows of the table, as they are numbered elements 57-70 and 89-102. Randall says that properly placing these elements makes the table "too wide" and he recommends that the elements be readjusted. And they will be "trained" to fit properly elsewhere.

The title text suggests discovering elements only in entire rows at once. Elements with more protons than 118 could be discovered in future by collisions in particle accelerators, but aren't likely to be discovered in an entire row at a time.

Changing the periodic table was also the topic of [[2214: Chemistry Nobel]].

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

:Changes I would make to the periodic table.
:[A modified periodic table is shown, with changes in red.]

:[Helium is moved from the upper right corner to the second column next to hydrogen:]
:Move helium over here. It fits nicely!
:[Two elements labeled TBD (to be determined) are added to the left of boron and aluminium:]
:Elements in this corner are cool. Add more!
:[Narrow triangular shape is wedged between fluorine and neon:]
:Sp (Spite element)
:[Tixanium replaces five elements: scandium, titanium, vanadium, chromium and manganese:]
:Merge these boring metals with titanium to make *tixanium*
:[The symbols of sodium, potassium, iron, silver, gold, tin and lead are changed:]
:Update Latin/Neo-Latin symbols to match names. This isn't ancient Rome.
:[The symbols of indium, antimony, tellurium, thallium and bismuth are changed to symbols containing the letter C followed by Roman letters II to VI, respectively.]
:Replace the blander post-transition metals with new kinds of carbon.
:[The symbol of tungsten is changed from W to Tg.]
:That W annoys me
:Move.
:Inserting the lanthanides and actinides properly makes the table too wide. Triage is needed. Each element will be offerent free training to help adjust to its new column.
:3.4% of all elements are named after Ytterby, Sweden (pop. 3,000). Let's keep yttrium, but rename the other 3 after bigger cities (tokyium, delhium, and jakartium?) to be more fair.

{{comic discussion}}

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

2065: Who Sends the First Text?

2022-06-29T03:51:45Z

172.70.114.43: /* Explanation */ majority of GRAPH

{{comic
| number = 2065
| date = October 29, 2018
| title = Who Sends the First Text?
| image = who_sends_the_first_text.png
| titletext = I sort of wish my texting app showed the percentage next to each person, but also sort of don't want to know.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Text messaging}} is a back-and-forth communication via SMS between two users. In this comic, Randall shows a line graph of "who sends the first text more often?" This is meant to show who Randall initiates conversations with, and who initiates conversations with him.

Maintaining a friendship or relationship (whether intimate, friendship, casual, or business) typically requires communication; often that communication takes place when two individuals are not in the same location by means of an exchange of text messages. A normal balanced relationship typically involves both parties involved to have an approximately equal interest in making conversations happen, as measured in this case by "who sends the first text". The person who desires that a particular communication take place typically will send a text message, and once the other person responds the conversation happens, and the relationship progresses. If neither person initiates, the relationship will likely suffer.

While the majority of this graph shows relationships which involve friends whereby both sides are prone to initiating conversations, the graph also shows some groups that are a little more at the extremes, some where Randall texts a lot but they typically don't initiate text conversations to him, and some where others text him a lot but he rarely initiates text conversations with them.

On the left side of the graph are people with whom Randall initiates conversations with "100% of the time". On the right side of the graph are those who initiate conversations with Randall.

The chart is separated into 5 blocks. The two blocks on the left are those who may be, or definitely are, "just politely putting up with [Randall]". This is implied that they may not be close friends with Randall, but Randall still wants to be friends with them. Their reluctance to initiate conversation with Randall is shown by the fact that Randall usually sends the first text to them.

The largest block, in the middle, is "friends". These friends range from Randall initiating a lot, to them initiating a lot. There is a healthy range of who initiates first.

The next block to the right is for "that really nice friend who keeps inviting me to things even though I flake constantly". This means that Randall promises to go to events that this friend invites him to, but does not always follow through. This friend is still persistent in inviting Randall. Additionally, Randall could be less close to this person, based on him not categorizing this person under "friends".

The final block is "automated alerts and political campaigns". Randall would certainly not be likely to initiate "conversation" with automated systems, and would be very unlikely to initiate conversations with political campaigns. The fact that the bar is not purely 100% suggests that he has on rare occasion sent the first text to such recipients, perhaps for a campaign he believes in, or to request to be added to an automated alert system (i.e. opt-in). The fact that it includes political campaigns is a reference to the incessant texts being sent to Americans about the upcoming midterms.

In the title text, Randall wishes that he would know the percentage of "who sends the first text more often", for each person that he texts. But he is also wary of the potential implications of finding out this information.
(Many old school messenger like pidgin offer such statistics through plugins though)

==Transcript==
:'''Who sends the first text more often?'''
:[A line graph with a segmented bar underneath shows a 50/50 marker in the middle while the left end is labeled "I text first 100% of the time" whereas the right end is labeled "They text first 100% of the time".]

:[The bar below is divided into five sections:]

:[A small part at the left, and a next, slightly larger part. The text below points to the second part:]
:People who I think of as friends but secretly worry that they're just politely putting up with me

:[Below this a text is shown for the first part:]
:...'''''definitely''''' just politely putting up with me

:[In the middle is a big part:]
:Friends

:[To the right the parts are symmetric, the first is larger:]
:That really nice friend who keeps inviting me to things even though I flake constantly

:[The last small bar at the right:]
:Automated alerts and political campaigns

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

2636: What If? 2 Countdown

2022-06-27T19:11:49Z

172.70.114.43:

{{comic
| number = 2636
| date = June 22, 2022
| title = What If? 2 Countdown
| image = what_if_2_countdown.png
| titletext = If you don't end the 99 Bottles of Beer recursion at N=0 it just becomes The Other Song That Never Ends.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by FOUR SCORE AND 7 BOTTLES OF BEER ON THE WALL - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic takes the idea of {{w|advent calendar}}s to the extreme. It uses absurd and obscure ways to measure the amount of time until [[Randall]]'s new book [https://xkcd.com/whatif2 ''What if? 2''] is released, with esoteric units and esoteric numbers.

Some concepts that appear multiple times throughout the calendar are:

* '''{{w|SI prefixes}}''', which can be applied to the beginning of a unit's name to multiply or divide the unit by powers of 10 or 1,000. This is standard for units like meters and grams, but is rarely applied to measurements of time other than when a unit of less than one second is needed, most commonly in various fields of science and engineering such as physics and electronics.
* The '''{{w|Gettysburg Address}}''', a famous speech delivered by U.S. president Abraham Lincoln in 1863, where he began by referring to the signing of the Declaration of Independence taking place "four score and seven years ago". A score is a dated term for the number 20, so "four score and seven" is equivalent to 87.
* A '''dog year''' is traditionally considered to be one-seventh the length of a normal human year, since a dog's overall lifespan is roughly one-seventh of a typical human's. The comic applies this to other units of time, such as minutes and months, each of which is also one-seventh the length of the standard unit. The number 7 (traditionally a "lucky number") is also used in many of the numbers quoted in the calendar.
* Other comparative durations of time that are not normally or usefully applied to day-length multiples. At the top end, there is the age of the universe, at the other there is {{w|Planck units#Planck time|Planck-time}} – with entire durations of periods of human history and the time needed to watch popular TV/film franchises in-between – most of which require a non-trivial multiplier or divisor to bring them to the necessary scale required.
* A '''{{w|baker's dozen}}''' is 13, or one more than a normal dozen. Here, the "baker's" prefix can be applied to any unit by adding an extra one of its constituent parts, like an extra hour added to a day.
* '''{{w|Irrational numbers}}''' like {{w|pi}} (3.14159...), {{w|Euler's number}} or ''e'' (2.71828...), the {{w|golden ratio}} (1.61803...), and the {{w|square root of 2}} (1.41421...). These are all interesting numbers because of their mathematical properties, but very impractical to use as arbitrary measurements of time because they have an endless series of non-repeating decimal digits.
* The teenage dating game '''{{w|Seven minutes in heaven}}'''.
* Rotational and orbital periods of various bodies in the Solar System.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! style="text-align:center;" | Days left !! Date !! Duration specified !! Duration in days !! Explanation
|-
| 83 || Jun 22 || πe millidecades || 82.03 days || π ≈ 3.14159, ''e'' ≈ 2.718, so πe is about 22.459. A millidecade is 1/1000 decade, or 1/100 year, or 3.652425 days. Multiplying these results in 82.03 days. This is a play on {{w|Euler's identity}}, eiπ+1=0, but raising pi to the power of ''e'' instead.
|-
| 82 || Jun 23 || 7 megaseconds || 81.02 days || 7,000,000 seconds. 60*60*24 = 86400 seconds in a day, so 7,000,000/86,400 ≈ 81.02 days
|-
| 81 || Jun 24 || ''e'' lunar months || 80.27 days || A lunar month ≈ 29.53059 days, ''e'' ≈ 2.718, so 29.53059*2.718 ≈ 80.26 days.
|-
| 80 || Jun 25 || 60 rotations of Foucault's pendulum in Paris || 79.67 days || {{w|Foucault's pendulum}} demonstrates Earth's revolution, with the one at the latitude of Paris completing a full rotation every 31.8 hours.
|-
| 79 || Jun 26 || 8 milligenerations || 78.89 days || A generation is in general 22-33 years, with a reasonable mid-point of 27; and 8 x 0.001 (milli) x 365.2425 (accounting for leap years) x 27 ≈ 78.89 days
|-
| 78 || Jun 27 || 777,777 dog minutes || 77.16 days || A popular myth is that dogs age 7 times faster than humans, so 1 dog minute equals 1/7 human minutes.
|-
| 77 || Jun 28 || 7! episodes of ''Jeopardy!'' (skipping ads) || 77+ days || 7! = 7x6x5x4x3x2x1 = 5040. The standard episode of ''Jeopardy'' is 22-26 minutes, skipping ads. At 22 minutes each, the total is 110,880 minutes, or exactly 77 days.
|-
| 76 || Jun 29 || 5,000 repeats of ''99 Bottles of Beer'' || 76.39 days || Each verse of {{w|99 Bottles of Beer}} is "''N'' bottles of beer on the wall, ''N'' bottles of beer. Take one down, pass it around, ''N-1'' bottles of beer on the wall." The entire song contains 99 verses. Randall apparently sings this rather slowly at around 72 bpm, taking about 13 seconds per verse.
|-
| 75 || Jun 30 || 5 baker's fortnights || 75 days || A {{w|baker's dozen}} is a dozen (12) plus 1 extra item. Randall has generalized this to adding 1 to any unit. A fortnight is 2 weeks, so a baker's fortnight is 15 days. 5x15 is 75 days. (Wait, so shouldn't a baker's fortnight be 3 weeks!)
|-
| 74 || Jul 1 || √2 dog years || 73.79 days || See day 78 (Jun 27)
|-
| 73 || Jul 2 || π millivics (1/1000th of Queen Victoria's reign) || 72.97 days || {{w|Queen Victoria}} ruled between 20 June 1837 and 22 January 1901 (23,226 days).
|-
| 72 || Jul 3 || 42 drives from NYC to LA (Google Maps estimate) || 71.75 days || According to Google Maps, the drive from New York City to Los Angeles via I-80 W (2789 miles or 4489 km) takes 41 hours.
|-
| 71 || Jul 4 || 1,000 viewings of ''Groundhog Day''|| 70.14 days || Using {{w|Groundhog Day (film)|Groundhog Day's}} 101-minute run time.
|-
| 70 || Jul 5 || 100,000 minutes || 69.44 days || 1,440 minutes per day
|-
| 69 || Jul 6 || 1/10th of Martian year || 68.70 Earth days || Martian sidereal and tropical years both round to 687.0 Earth days
|-
| 68 || Jul 7 || 1,234,567 sound-miles || 67.63 days || The speed of sound in air depends on the temperature. 15 °C or 59 °F gives the value 340 m/s and the travel time of 67.6349058 days.
|-
| 67 || Jul 8 || 2πe seconds || 66.74 days || 2^(π^e) = 5,766,073 seconds
|-
| 66 || Jul 9 || 216 beats (Swatch Internet Time) || 65.54 days || A "{{w|.beat}}" is equal to 1/1000 day.
|-
| 65 || Jul 10 || 1,000 ISS orbits || 64.58 days || Each orbit of the ISS takes 90-93 minutes. Here a value of 93 minutes is used.
|-
| 64 || Jul 11 || 🎵🎶🎵 Five hundred twenty five thousand (base seven) minutes|| 62.88 days || This refers to {{w|radix}}-7 arithmetic: 525,0007 minutes = 90,55210 minutes. Also references the opening and recurring line "Five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes" from {{w|Seasons of Love}}, a song from the musical {{w|Rent (musical)|''Rent''}}, which is also referenced in [[1047: Approximations]]. "Base seven" has the same rhythm as "six hundred".
|-
| 63 || Jul 12 || 1050 Planck times || 62.38 days || 10^50 x 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds
|-
| 62 || Jul 13 || 4,000 episodes of ''The Office'' (skipping ads)|| 62.50 days || {{w|The Office (British TV series)|''The Office''}} was originally a {{w|BBC}} television show which had no commercial breaks, so Randall must be referring to the later {{w|The Office (American TV series)|US version}}. This US "half-hour" comedy format contains 22.5 minutes of content (including the title sequence) and 7.5 minutes of ads. There are only 201 distinct episodes of the US version, so watching 4,000 episodes would require a lot of re-watching. 
|-
| 61 || Jul 14 || Four score and seven kilominutes || 60.42 days || 87 x 1000 minutes
|-
| 60 || Jul 15 || 2 lunar months || 59.06 days || There are a number of different ways to define the {{w|lunar month}}. The most common is the synodic month, because it relates to the phases of the moon, and it's approximately 29.53 days.
|-
| 59 || Jul 16 || Half a day on Venus || 58.38 Earth days || A Venus synodic day is 116 days 18 hours.
|-
| 58 || Jul 17 || 5 megaseconds || 57.87 days || 5,000,000 seconds
|-
| 57 || Jul 18 || 30 microLits (1/1,000,000th of the time since the invention of literature) || 57.21 days || 5222 years × 30 × 10-6. 3200 BCE is the approximate date of pre-Sumerian proto-writing as given in {{w|History of writing|Wikipedia's article on the history of writing}}.
|-
| 56 || Jul 19 || 1,000 viewings of ''Run Lola Run'' || 55.57 days || Using {{w|Run Lola Run|the movie's}} run time of 80 minutes.
|-
| 55 || Jul 20 || One million sound-miles || 54.78 days || The speed of sound in air depends on the temperature. 15 °C or 59 °F gives the value 340 m/s and the travel time of 54.7843137 days.
|-
| 54 || Jul 21 || 30 Ionian months || 53.07 Earth days || Orbital period of Io around Jupiter is approximately 1.77 days.
|-
| 53 || Jul 22 || One dog year || 52.18 days || See day 78 (Jun 27)
|-
| 52 || Jul 23 || 60 viewings of ''Star Wars Episodes I-IX'' || 51.75 days || According to [https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2021/05/04/how-long-to-watch-every-star-wars-movie/ Fansided] the combined running times are 20 hours 42 minutes.
|-
| 51 || Jul 24 || 1/100,000,000,000th of the universe's age || 50.40 days || The universe is estimated to be about 13.8 billion years old.
|-
| 50 || Jul 25 || 5 milli-generations || 49.3 days || See day 79 (Jun 26)
|-
| 49 || Jul 26 || 10,000 games of ''7 minutes in Heaven'' or 7 games of ''10,000 minutes in Heaven'' || 48.61 days || {{w|Seven minutes in heaven}} is an Anglo-culture teenager game, occuring in several movies. 10,000 minutes in Heaven is almost a week of making out (or doing whatever) in a closet, so this game is unlikely.{{citation needed}}
|-
| 48 || Jul 27 || φeπ minutes || 47.62 days || 68,567.57 minutes
|-
| 47 || Jul 28 || 4 megaseconds || 46.30 days || 4,000,000 seconds
|-
| 46 || Jul 29 || 216 minutes || 45.51 days || 65,536 minutes
|-
| 45 || Jul 30 || eee seconds || 44.15 days || 3,814,279.10 seconds
|-
| 44 || Jul 31 || π fortnights|| 43.98 days || 3.14159 x 14 days
|-
| 43 || Aug 1 || One devil's spacewalk (666 orbits of the ISS) || 43.01 days || See day 65 (Jul 10). 666 is the {{w|number of the beast}}.
|-
| 42 || Aug 2 || 1 kilowatt-hour per watt || 41.66 days || 1000 hours
|-
| 41 || Aug 3 || eπ Ionian months || 40.94 Earth days || Orbital period of Io around Jupiter is 1.769137786 days
|-
| 40 || Aug 4 || 30 rotations of Foucault's pendulum in Paris || 39.84 days || Refer to Day 80 (Jun 25)
|-
| 39 || Aug 5 || ''e'' fortnights || 38.06 days ||2.71828 x 14 days
|-
| 38 || Aug 6 || πe baker's days (25 hours) || 37.98 days || See day 75 (Jun 30)
|-
| 37 || Aug 7 || One deciyear || 36.52 days || One tenth of one year
|-
| 36 || Aug 8 || 7! milliweeks || 35.28 days || 5040 × 0.001 weeks
|-
| 35 || Aug 9 || 100,000 plays of the ''Jeopardy!'' "Think" music || 34.72 days || ''Think'' is the music played while the contestants try to answer the Final Jeopardy question; it is 30 seconds long.
|-
| 34 || Aug 10 || 1000 basketball games (game time) || 33.33 days || Uses the NBA game time of four 12-minute quarters, or 48 minutes
|-
| 33 || Aug 11 || 777 hours || 32.38 days || 24 hours per day
|-
| 32 || Aug 12 || One millilincoln (1/1000 of fourscore and seven years) || 31.78 days || {{w|Abraham Lincoln}}'s {{w|Gettysburg Address}} begins with the famous phrase "Four score and seven years ago". 1 score = twenty. 
|-
| 31 || Aug 13 || 1,000 episodes of ''60 Minutes'' (skipping ads) || 31.25 days || Uses a television 'hour' containing 45 minutes of content and 15 minutes of ads
|-
| 30 || Aug 14 || All of ''Star Trek'', consecutively || 27.16* days || As per [https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2021/01/22/take-far-longer-watch-star-trek-think/ RedShirtsAlwaysDie.com] of January 22, 2021. *Note well: dozens of additional ''Star Trek'' franchise episodes have been produced since, and more are presently scheduled to be released through June, July, and August, so this value is somewhat indeterminate over the scope of the countdown.
|-
| 29 || Aug 15 || 777,777 nanocenturies || 28.41 days || 777,777 × 10-9 × 100 years.
|-
| 28 || Aug 16 || One sidereal lunar month || 27.3 days || The time it takes moon to return to the same position relative to the fixed stars
|-
| 27 || Aug 17 || 6 dog months || 26.1 days || See day 78 (Jun 27)
|-
| 26 || Aug 18 || ππ kilominutes || 25.32 days || 36,462.16 minutes
|-
| 25 || Aug 19 || 7 games of 7! minutes in Heaven || 24.5 days || 7 x 5040 (7 {{w|factorial}}) minutes. See also day 49 (Jul 26).
|-
| 24 || Aug 20 || 50 viewings of the extended ''Lord of the Rings'' trilogy || 23.82 days || ''The Fellowship of the Ring'' extended version is 208 minutes, ''The Two Towers'' is 226 minutes, and ''The Return of the King'' is 252 minutes for its e.v., according to [https://fictionhorizon.com/how-long-are-all-the-lord-of-the-rings-and-the-hobbit-movies-combined/ FictionHorizon.com]
|-
| 23 || Aug 21 || A drive from NYC to LA where you keep remembering new things you forgot and have to go back 6 times || 22.21 days || See day 72 (Jul 3). This is for 6 round-trips and 1 one-way trip.
|-
| 22 || style="white-space:nowrap;" | Aug 22 || ''It's a Small World'' sung at 1/10,000th speed || 21.18 days || {{w|It's a Small World}} is a song that was composed for the attraction of the same name at various {{w|Disney}} theme parks, and plays continuously at them in various languages. The song lasts 12–15 minutes, depending on the language.
|-
| 21 || Aug 23 || 500 hours || 20.83 days || 24 hours per day, or 0.041678 days per hour
|-
| 20 || Aug 24 || √2 fortnights || 19.80 days || 1.4142 × 14 days
|-
| 19 || Aug 25 || Time it would take Vanessa Carlton to walk 1,000 miles || 18.94 days || {{w|Vanessa Carlton}} is an American singer, and {{w|A Thousand Miles}} is her most successful song. Randall estimates her walking speed at about 2.2 miles/hour.
|-
| 18 || Aug 26 || 100,000 breaths || 17.36 days || The normal respiratory rate for adults is typically 12-20 breaths per minute, or about 3-5 seconds each. However, the day length here is for 15 seconds/breath, so Randall may be a practitioner of [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00353/full slow breathing].
|-
| 17 || Aug 27 || √2 megaseconds || 16.37 days || 1.4142 × 1,000,000 seconds
|-
| 16 || Aug 28 || πππ πcoseconds || 15.51 days || 1.3402 × 1018 picoseconds (i.e., 10-12 seconds), making a joke how the mathematical "pi" is written with the character "π"
|-
| 15 || Aug 29 || One baker's fortnight (15 days) || 15 days || See day 75 (Jun 30)
|-
| 14 || Aug 30 || One baker's dozen (13) baker's days (25 hours) || 13.54 days || 325 hours; see day 75 (Jun 30)
|-
| 13 || Aug 31 || 300 hours || 12.5 days || 0.041678 days per hour
|-
| 12 || Sep 1 || One million seconds || 11.57 days || 86,400 seconds per day
|-
| 11 || Sep 2 || One nonstop bike ride from NYC to LA || 10.54 days || Google maps estimates the trip at 253 hours
|-
| 10 || Sep 3 || 1⁄1,000th of a generation || 9.86 days || See day 79 (Jun 26)
|-
| 9 || Sep 4 || 777,777 seconds || 9.002 days || 1.15741×10-5 days per second
|-
| 8 || Sep 5 || 100 viewings of ''Groundhog Day'' || 7.01 days || See Day 71 (Jul 4).
|-
| 7 || Sep 6 || 100 games of ''Lincoln Kissing'' (fourscore and seven minutes in Heaven) || 6.04 days || 8,700 minutes
|-
| 6 || Sep 7 || One pico-universe-lifetime || 5.04 days || See Day 51 (Jul 24)
|-
| 5 || Sep 8 || The ''Baby Shark'' chorus for a family of 50,000 sharks || 4.63 days || The chorus lasts about 8 seconds per 'person'
|-
| 4 || Sep 9 || One centiyear || 3.65 days || 365.2425 days/100
|-
| 3 || Sep 10 || Cyndi Lauper's ''Time After Time'' played 1,000 times || 2.79 days || Based on a length of 4 minutes, 1 second
|-
| 2 || Sep 11 || ''Speed'' (1994) played at one frame per second || 1.9 days || {{w|Speed (1994 film)}} has runtime of 116 minutes = 6,960 seconds = 167,040 film frames at standard frame rate of 24 frames/second
|-
| 1 || Sep 12 || F(99) where F(N) means sing all the verses of ''N Bottles of Beer On the wall'' followed by F(N-1) || 0.76 days || Each iteration contains ''N'' verses. ''N + N-1 + N-2 ... + 1'' equals ''N * (N+1) / 2'', so 99 recursions = 4950 verses. Using the same 13-second (72 bpm) rate as Jun 29, this is close to 18 hours. Probably refers to Donald Knuth's article {{w|The Complexity of Songs}}.
|-
| 0 || Sep 13 || ''What If? 2'' release day || N/A ||
|}

The title text refers to the recursive time period on Sep 12. If you don't stop when you reach N=0 bottles, the repetition never ends, so that time interval becomes infinite. He likens it to {{w|The Song That Never Ends}}, another repetitive children's song, which is specifically intended to go on forever. The difference is that the Beer song has a natural stopping point at 0, while ''The Song That Never Ends'' is completely repetitive.

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

Large heading: Countdown to ''What if? 2''

Subheading: (Preorder at [https://xkcd.com/whatif2 xkcd.com/whatif2] to get it at the end of the countdown)

Remainder of comic is a calendar with the date in one corner of each day's box.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Date !! Description
|-
| Jun 22 || πe millidecades
|-
| Jun 23 || 7 megaseconds
|-
| Jun 24 || e lunar months
|-
| Jun 25 || 60 rotations of Foucault's pendulum in Paris
|-
| Jun 26 || 8 milligenerations
|-
| Jun 27 || 777,777 dog minutes
|-
| Jun 28 || 7! episodes of ''Jeopardy!'' (skipping ads)
|-
| Jun 29 || 5,000 repeats of ''99 Bottles of Beer''
|-
| Jun 30 || 5 baker's fortnights (15 days)
|-
| Jul 1 || √2 dog years
|-
| Jul 2 || π millivics (1/1000th of Queen Victoria's reign)
|-
| Jul 3 || 42 drives from NYC to LA (Google Maps estimate)
|-
| Jul 4 || 1,000 viewings of ''Groundhog Day''
|-
| Jul 5 || 100,000 minutes
|-
| Jul 6 || 1/10th of Martian year
|-
| Jul 7 || 1,234,567 sound-miles
|-
| Jul 8 || 2πe seconds
|-
| Jul 9 || 216 beats (Swatch Internet Time)
|-
| Jul 10 || 1,000 ISS orbits
|-
| Jul 11 || 🎵🎶🎵 Five hundred twenty five thousand (base seven) minutes
|-
| Jul 12 || 1050 Planck times
|-
| Jul 13 || 4,000 episodes of ''The Office'' (skipping ads)
|-
| Jul 14 || Four score and seven kilominutes
|-
| Jul 15 || 2 lunar months
|-
| Jul 16 || Half a day on Venus
|-
| Jul 17 || 5 megaseconds
|-
| Jul 18 || 30 microLits (1/1,000,000th of the time since the invention of literature)
|-
| Jul 19 || 1,000 viewings of ''Run Lola Run''
|-
| Jul 20 || One million sound-miles
|-
| Jul 21 || 30 Ionian months
|-
| Jul 22 || One dog year
|-
| Jul 23 || 60 viewings of ''Star Wars Episodes I-IX''
|-
| Jul 24 || 1/100,000,000,000th of the universe's age
|-
| Jul 25 || 5 milli-generations
|-
| Jul 26 || 10,000 games of ''7 minutes in Heaven'' or 7 games of ''10,000 minutes in Heaven''
|-
| Jul 27 || φeπ minutes
|-
| Jul 28 || 4 megaseconds
|-
| Jul 29 || 216 minutes
|-
| Jul 30 || eee seconds
|-
| Jul 31 || π fortnights
|-
| Aug 1 || one devil's spacewalk (666 orbits of the ISS)
|-
| Aug 2 || 1 kilowatt-hour per watt
|-
| Aug 3 || eπ Ionian months
|-
| Aug 4 || 30 rotations of Foucault's pendulum in Paris
|-
| Aug 5 || e fortnights
|-
| Aug 6 || πe baker's days (25 hours)
|-
| Aug 7 || one deciyear
|-
| Aug 8 || 7! milliweeks
|-
| Aug 9 || 100,000 plays of the ''Jeopardy!'' "Think" music
|-
| Aug 10 || 1000 basketball games (game time)
|-
| Aug 11 || 777 hours
|-
| Aug 12 || one millilincoln (1/1000 of fourscore and seven years)
|-
| Aug 13 || 1,000 episodes of ''60 Minutes'' (skipping ads)
|-
| Aug 14 || All of ''Star Trek'', consecutively
|-
| Aug 15 || 777,777 nanocenturies
|-
| Aug 16 || one sidereal lunar month
|-
| Aug 17 || 6 dog months
|-
| Aug 18 || ππ kilominutes
|-
| Aug 19 || 7 games of ''7! minutes in Heaven''
|-
| Aug 20 || 50 viewings of the extended ''Lord of the Rings'' trilogy
|-
| Aug 21 || A drive from NYC to LA where you keep remembering new things you forgot and have to go back 6 times
|-
| Aug 22 || ''It's a Small World'' sung at 1/10,000th speed
|-
| Aug 23 || 500 hours
|-
| Aug 24 || √2 fortnights
|-
| Aug 25 || Time it would take Vanessa Carlton to walk 1,000 miles
|-
| Aug 26 || 100,000 breaths
|-
| Aug 27 || √2 megaseconds
|-
| Aug 28 || πππ πcoseconds
|-
| Aug 29 || One baker's fortnight (15 days)
|-
| Aug 30 || One baker's dozen (13) baker's days (25 hours)
|-
| Aug 31 || 300 hours
|-
| Sep 1 || One million seconds
|-
| Sep 2 || One nonstop bike ride from NYC to LA
|-
| Sep 3 || 1⁄1,000th of a generation
|-
| Sep 4 || 777,777 seconds
|-
| Sep 5 || 100 viewings of ''Groundhog Day''
|-
| Sep 6 || 100 games of ''Lincoln Kissing'' (Fourscore and seven minutes in Heaven)
|-
| Sep 7 || One pico-universe-lifetime
|-
| Sep 8 || The ''Baby Shark'' chorus for a family of 50,000 sharks
|-
| Sep 9 || One centiyear
|-
| Sep 10 || Cyndi Lauper's ''Time After Time'' played 1,000 times
|-
| Sep 11 || ''Speed'' (1994) played at one frame per second
|-
| Sep 12 || F(99) where F(N) means sing all the verses of ''N Bottles of Beer On the wall'' followed by F(N-1)
|-
| Sep 13 || ''What If? 2'' release day
|}
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Book promotion]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Songs]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:2637: Roman Numerals

2022-06-24T22:43:05Z

172.70.114.43:

Immediately came to this site as soon as the comic popped up [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.43|172.70.114.43]] 22:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

2636: What If? 2 Countdown

2022-06-23T12:20:08Z

172.70.114.43: /* Explanation */ Skeleton for a few more days

2633: Astronomer Hotline

2022-06-16T16:09:20Z

172.70.114.43:

{{comic
| number = 2633
| date = June 15, 2022
| title = Astronomer Hotline
| image = Astronomer Hotline.png
| titletext = Employment statistics have to correct for the fact that the Weird Bug Hotline hires a bunch of extra temporary staff every 17 years.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by 17 YEAR CICADA TRYING TO LOOK LIKE A FIREFLY - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a joke about {{w|Helpline|helplines}}, and how people sometimes call helplines for non-significant reason.

The comic starts with someone having called the "Astronomer hotline", hence the title. Judging by the way the helpline employee, [[Cueball]], starts the call, by asking for a description of the weird lights, it is implied that this is the main/only purpose of the helpline, or is, in practice, the only type of call they receive.

The caller is in panic, and doesn't know how to describe the light. Cueball is used to this and asks the caller to stay calm, then starts to go through his check list, asking them if it is daytime, because if it was he might assume they have just noticed the Sun. Most people are familiar with the Sun{{Citation needed}} and would not need help in identifying it, although people have also mistaken the Moon for a 'mysterious light in the sky' at times. Asking this could thus seem very condescending, but it is like when the employee at a tech support hot-line asks if the computer is turned on, or if the caller tried to restart the computer, see [[806: Tech Support]]. It may also refer to the most immediate danger, as looking directly to the sun is a bad idea.

The caller is not affronted, but tells Cueball that the Sun has set. When asked if they are stationary, which is very nearly the case with stars, the reply is that they are zipping around in the bushes.

At this point Cueball realizes that the caller has just seen {{w|Fireflies}}. He describes them for the caller as lightning bugs, tree blinkers or ground stars, and tells the caller that these are not a problem, so the caller is now relieved.[https://media3.giphy.com/media/Q7FbMX6oJa4ycuY5Hf/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e4722auax8gq5cv0t1zeqgxga2rc4w4hypf6jpigta9&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g] Those descriptions are reminiscent of the fools stars (and planes) mentioned in [[2017: Stargazing 2]].

However, Cueball must admit that astronomers do not know much about fireflies, since they are too fast for the astronomers' telescopes (in general, astronomers don't study terrestrial phenomena). And he thus transfers the caller to the "Weird Bug Hotline" in a process that is apparently somewhat routine – enough to have the correct line somehow preprogrammed into his call-handling system. This is clearly not the first 'astronomy' query that actually concerns fireflies.

Before the call ends, at Cueball's end, he hears the opening question from the other hotline: "Is it currently biting you?" Again going directly to the most important part, i.e. whether there is any immediate danger to be resolved...

It is possible that Cueball will actually be speaking to the Weird Bugs line initially, quickly priming the Weird Bug call-handler with the salient facts already established before fully handing over the call. This could get the original caller straight into the correct conversation if the onward line's handler is anywhere as competent and experienced in such a transfer. However, if this were the case the question "is it currently biting you" would probably not be asked, as Cueball already established the Weird Bug was likely a firefly, which the Weird Bug call-handler would already know don't typically bite and are not dangerous.

Some people (often {{w|Unidentified flying object|UFO}} enthusiasts) tend to get a little over-excited about calling every light in the sky they don't expect a UFO. This comic takes this to the extreme, where someone calls a helpline because they saw fireflies, and thought they were UFOs. While UFOs are not mentioned by name, they are heavily implied. Technically, such a person would be correct, so long as the lights are actually unidentified, flying and caused by a physical object, but if the expectation is that it is an extraterrestrial spacecraft then the truth (if discovered and also accepted) can be disappointing to some people, rather than lead to an interesting alternative avenue of appreciation of whatever phenomenon it truly is.

The title text is a reference to bugs that have gaps of several years between emerging from their larval state. Most famous are the {{w|Periodical cicadas}}, 13- and 17-year cicadas, that only emerge every 13 or 17 years, depending on species. The 17 years in the title text thus refers to the 17-year cicadas. Every 17 years the bug hotline hires a bunch of temporary staff, either because there will be more callers due to the unexpected new bug no one has seen for 17 years, or it could be because they just like to emulate nature and thus do this every 17 years. The largest 17-year cicada appearance in the USA is called {{W|Brood X}} which last occurred in 2021 and before that 2004. [https://cicadas.uconn.edu/broods/ There are smaller broods in other years], but the majority come out with 17 years interval, and the next is expected in 2038. The joke in the title text is that the employment statistics for the weird hotline have to correct for this fact. Periodical cicadas have been mentioned before in [[2263: Cicadas]], see details about them in that comics [[2263:_Cicadas#Trivia|trivia section]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, with a headset on, is sitting in an office chair at a desk in front of his computer screen, hands on the keyboard. He receives a call, and the caller's voice is shown in a jagged frame above Cueball, between his two lines of text.]
:Cueball: Hello, Emergency Astronomer Hotline. How would you describe the lights?
:Caller on phone: ''I don't know! Help!''
:Cueball: Stay calm. Is it day? If so, that's the Sun.

:[Cueball is now seen en face with the headset, but the computer etc. is not shown. The caller's voice is now written normally but with zigzag lines going to the text from Cueball's headphone. Cueball's reply has a normal line going up to it.]
:Caller on phone: No, the Sun set and then the light appeared!
:Cueball: Hmm, could be stars. Are they stationary?
:Caller on phone: No, they're all zipping around bushes.

:[In a frameless panel, the setting returns to the one from the first panel, with the caller's voice in jagged frames again.]
:Cueball: ''Aha!'' Fireflies!
:Caller on phone: "Fireflies"?
:Cueball: Lightning bugs. Tree blinkers. Ground stars.
:Cueball: They're fine.
:Caller on phone: ''Phew!''

:[Same setting as first panel, but broader panel. After Cueball's reply and a short reply from the caller as in the first panel, there is a sound indicating transfer to another hotline. Then to the right there is a square panel with jagged edge, with the voice from the other hotline's employee.]
:Cueball: We don't know much about them as they're too fast for our telescopes, but I can transfer you to the Weird Bug Hotline.
:Caller on phone: Sure, thanks.
:Transfer of call. *''Click''*
:Weird Bug Hotline on phone: ''Hi, Weird Bug Hotline. Is it currently biting you?''

==Trivia==
*The UK Military had a UFO helpline for over 50 years. [[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34277625 Link]]
**The US took up that mantle by requesting UAP ({{w|Unidentified Aerial Phenomena}}) reports in 2021.[https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2223-preliminary-assessment-unidentified-aerial-phenomena]
*This comic has a lot of themes that have been touched on in previous comics, including
**Helplines [[278: Black Hat Support]], [[806: Tech Support]]
**People not understanding basic concepts [[876: Trapped]]
**Cicadas [[2263: Cicadas]]

{{comic discussion}}


[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Animals]]

2632: Greatest Scientist

2022-06-13T23:36:39Z

172.70.114.43:

{{comic
| number = 2632
| date = June 13, 2022
| title = Greatest Scientist
| image = Greatest Scientist.png
| titletext = "Ow! One of the petri dishes I left on the tower railing fell and hit me on the head. Hey, that gives me an idea..."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by HISTORY'S WURST SCIENTIST - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pretends that many (6 by my count) of history's greatest scientists were the same person, and says that this person was the greatest scientist in history. A combination of 6 of the greatest scientists ever would most likely be the greatest scientist ever.{{Citation needed}}

These scientists are most likely {{w|Galileo Galilei}}, {{w|Benjamin Franklin}}, {{w|Alexander Flemming}}, {{w|Ivan Pavlov}}, {{w|Eratosthenes}}, and {{w|Isaac Newton}}

Humorously combining multiple science experiments into one was also a punchline in [[1584: Moments of Inspiration]].
{| class="wikitable"
|+ List of experiments in the comic
|-
! Experiment in comic !! Experiment in reality !! Meaning !! Scientist
|-
| The Leaning Tower of Pisa || {{w|Galileo}} conducted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment an experiment] at the Leaning Tower of Pisa to measure whether the rate at which objects fall is dependent on weight or is consistent. || Galileo found that objects with different weights still fall at the same rate, disproving Aristotle's theory which purported the opposite. However, {{w|Viviani}} had already discovered this.|| {{w|Galileo Galilei}}
|-
|While flying a kite into a distant thunderstorm, where lightning || In June 1752, Benjamin Franklin performed his famous {{w|Kite experiment}}, where he attached a conductive wire to a kite, and flew it near a thunderstorm. Attached to the kite was a key, which was further attached to a {{w|leyden jar}} || While the kite was not hit by lightning, "Franklin did notice that loose threads of the kite string were repelling each other and deduced that the Leyden jar was being charged" This is sometimes considered the discovery of the fact that lightning contains/is electricity. || {{w|Benjamin Franklin}}.
|-
| caused two mouldy petri dishes to fall || In August 1928, Alexander Flemming put ''S. aureus'' into multiple petri dishes, and then left to go on holiday/vacation. On September 3, he returned and found that one plate had mould on it. This plate was the only one that did not have ''S. aureus'' bacteria in it. He later repeated this experiment, and the result was confirmed. {{w|History_of_penicillin#The_breakthrough_discovery|Wikipedia link}} || The mould that Alexander Flemming had discovered produced Penicillin, an antibiotic. This was the first time that a substance had been discovered that could ''Reliably'' treat bacterial infections, and had a huge effect on medicine across the world. || {{w|Alexander Flemming}}
|-
| Onto a bell next to a salivating dog, || [https://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html In 1902 Ivan Pavlov conducted a study on dog reflexes] he gave dogs food, and rang a bell. When the dog saw the food, it started salivating. Eventually, ringing the bell made the dog salivate as the dog associated the bell ringing with food. Pavlov also performed other, less humane experiments on other dogs. || This was the discovery of {{w|classical conditioning}}, where a stimulus is paired with an unrelated other thing, through repeated exposure. The subject will eventually react to the unrelated thing like the stimulus, instinctively. This is an example of taught reflexes, where a subconsious reaction like a reflex or instinct is taught. || {{W|Ivan Pavlov}}
|-
| whose shadow angle determined the circumference of The Earth. || |In the 200s BCE, the greek philosopher Eratosthenes {{w|Earth's_circumference#Eratosthenes|measured the circumference of the Earth.}} While his exact method had been lost to time, A simplified version remains: At high noon on the summer solstice in a Alexandria, the sun was almost directly overhead. This was confirmed with a sundial. 5,000 stadia away in Seyene, at the same time, the angle of the sun was measured with another sundial. The angle of the sun could then be converted into degrees away on Earth's surface. Some simple division and multiplication could then yeild the circumference of the Earth. || This was on of the first, if not the first, measurement of the Earth's circumference with any accuracy. The distance Eratosthenes calculated for the circuference of Earth was 250,000 stadia. This estimate was either 2.4% low or 0.8% high compared to modern knowledge, depending on whether he used Greek or Egyptian Stadia. || {{w|Eratosthenes}}
|-
| (Title text) fell and hit me on the head. Hey, that gives me an idea... || Sir Isaac Newton is a very famous scientist, who discovered/invented a lot of important things, including {{w|Calculus}} and that white light can be split. His most famous discovery, however, was how {{w|gravity}} works. The story goes that while contemplating things in his garden, {{w|Isaac_Newton#Apple_incident|an apple fell on Newton's head}}. Rather than brushing it off, he wondered what ''exactly'' caused the apple to fall. This lead him to investigate gravity and celestial motion, eventually publishing ''{{w|Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica}}'', or simple ''principa'' || Gravity is important {{Citation needed}}, so understanding gravity and its effects was, and still is, very important. || Sir {{w|Isaac Newton}}
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript |Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Caption below the panel:]
:History's greatest scientist was probably that one who measured the shadow of the Leaning Tower of Pisa while flying a kite into a distant thunderstorm where lightning caused two moldy Petri dishes to fall onto a bell next to a salivating dog whose shadow angle determined the circumference of the Earth.

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

2632: Greatest Scientist

2022-06-13T20:09:27Z

172.70.114.43: fix kite date

Talk:1277: Ayn Random

2022-06-08T13:32:21Z

172.70.114.43:

I think that should be /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i.

[[Special:Contributions/173.66.108.213|173.66.108.213]] 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was confused for a while about what the b's were doing.

[[Special:Contributions/99.126.178.56|99.126.178.56]] 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to have an Ayn Rand category? --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to the mathematically challenged *how* the list of names fits the regular expression? [[Special:Contributions/141.2.75.23|141.2.75.23]] 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: Agreed, I would like to understand what the hell is going on with that. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: How specific do you want it? Basically it matches two words consisting of the letters plurandy. The list of names is just a random selection of two part names that only consists of these letters. More specifically it matches: Two groups ({2}), each consisting of a word boundary (\b), followed by a non-empty sequence of the letters plurandy ([plurandy]+), followed by a word boundary (\b), finally followed by an optional space ( ?). [[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Also, the /'s on the end delimit the regex proper, and the `i` on the end denotes case insensitivity. --[[Special:Contributions/75.66.178.177|75.66.178.177]] 09:39, 14 October
2013 (UTC)
:::In the explanation of how the regex works after the explanation "'''the {2} on the end means to repeat the pattern, so it must match exactly twice'''" I think you need an explanation of how the optional space in the middle interacts with the word boundaries. I.e.
::::(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}
:::Expanding:
::::\b[plurandy]+\b ?\b[plurandy]+\b ?
:::Now the optional space at the end is redundant, and the space in the center is not optional, since if there is no space the word boundaries do not exist. If the space is present the word boundaries are redundent because letter space letter sequence always matches them.
::::\b[plurandy]+ [plurandy]+\b ?
:::And this now closely matches the text description "'''Overall, it matches two words separated by a space, composed entirely of the letters in [plurandy], which is what all the names listed have in common.'''" --[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:Some examples
:* "Ru Paul" would match, because it is two sequences, each containing only capital or lowercase versions of the listed letters.
:* "Randall Flagg" would not match, because the letters F and G are not in the bracketed list.
:* "Aura Anaya Adlar" would not match; even though the letters are all in the list, there are more than two sequences.
:Hope this helps!
:[[User:Swartzer|Swartzer]] ([[User talk:Swartzer|talk]]) 20:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/209.132.186.34|209.132.186.34]] 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Randal would make such mistake, he would probably use \< \> anyway... unless, he wants us
to think he did mistake, or that backslash was eliminated in html/javascript... thus poining ut to
source code of the page... is there something interesting?
: I skimmed over the source and didn't see anything unusual. The '\'s are absent from the source too. I think it's just that Randall (or a tool he's using) was so affraid of [[327|Bobby Tables]] that he stripped all backslashes from the alt text. {{unsigned|Jahvascriptmaniac}}
::The title text at xkcd.com now has the missing backslashes. Do you normally update the comic here to reflect updates?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Already updated. You were saying?
::::Hmm, backslashes are still missing for me when viewing the original at xkcd.com (viewing in Chrome) [[User:Brion|Brion]] ([[User talk:Brion|talk]]) 02:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me where "In their view, if some humans are born more capable of satisfying their desires than other people, they deserve to reap greater rewards from life than others" comes from? I'm somewhat familiar with objectivist philosophy and I've never heard this put forward as an actual principle. [[Special:Contributions/50.90.39.56|50.90.39.56]] 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues.{{unsigned ip|37.221.160.203}}
:In fact, this is an imprecise and, therefore, incorrect statement of Objectivist philosophy. A correct and more complete statement can be found under the entry for "Selfishness" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.8|108.162.237.8]] 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Most people would write the regexp as /(\b[adlnpruy]+\b ?){2}/i. Using "plurandy" makes it look like a word, which is more confusing than using the letters' natural order. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be better to identify Alan Alda not for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in MASH, but for his role in The West Wing as Arnold Vinick, a fiscally-conservative Republican presidential candidate? [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:Depends, are we trying to remind him to general audience (I think MASH is more known) or find out why he was included in list? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is probably an additional joke or three in that the regex is the minimum needed to capture the first three names together (hinted at by "plurandy" eg plural rand) , but also captures the others. on top of which all of the listed people are considered "intrinsically better" (by virtue of fame if nothing else)[[Special:Contributions/74.213.201.51|74.213.201.51]] 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan Ladd may have been a founding member of the Secret Council of /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i. [[Special:Contributions/71.190.237.117|71.190.237.117]] 07:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably obvious to most programmers, but is it worth pointing out that part of the pun is that the random number generator function is called rand() in most C-family languages? [[Special:Contributions/130.60.156.183|130.60.156.183]] 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Another member of this secret society is Randall P [[Special:Contributions/79.182.178.53|79.182.178.53]] 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From above: "Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues." OK, but a few comments: All philosophies are inconsistent when looked at closely enough, refer Godel and others. Others do not see the inconsistency in Objectivism quite so plainly as in the quoted comment. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are not "the" basis of libertarian thought, there are far more highly thought of libertarian thinkers, a list of whom should come readily to mind to any of those occupying "the intellectual world" (sic), whether or not they have sympathy with libertarian ideas. It is also unfair to characterise Objectivism as having as its "sole" objective that as stated. Further, as a general principle, one ought not to take someone poking fun at a concept as *proof* that they are quite as opposed to it as you are. Now, whereas I would not categorise myself quite as a fellow traveller, a much fairer view of Objectivism is found at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) [[Special:Contributions/81.135.136.159|81.135.136.159]] 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Other philosophies are no more consistent, agreed. But other philosophies do not claim perfect "objective" consistency as their fundamental principle. Attacking Objectivism/Objectivists for lack of internal consistency--or for not recognizing that at some, very fundamental, level it is all stacked on top of some assumptions (just like every other philosophy, and even the scientific method)--is the equivalent of attacking Christianity/Christians for lacking compassion and forgiveness. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Poking fun can indeed fall into the categories of self-irony or goodwill, but in this case Randall quite explicitly accuses the recipient of bias, making his disapproval pretty unequivocal. [[Special:Contributions/199.48.147.40|199.48.147.40]] 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a line about the rational numbers joke; it's definitely there, though I'm not sure if Randall intended it (probably did?). {{unsigned ip|76.124.119.161}}
:Don't think it makes much sense, because a random number generator algorithm of any kind couldn't possibly generate irrational numbers in finite time. [[Special:Contributions/77.244.254.228|77.244.254.228]] 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
: It does make sense, mathematically speaking a random number chosen in any open interval is irrational with probability 1, and yet any open interval contains rational numbers that could, in principal, be chosen due to density of the rationals. The joke is brilliant, if intended. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::Yes but, at that point, all random number generators are biased and not just the Ayn Random number generator. Also, the bias towards rational numbers doesn't seem to be there when your pool of numbers is just the rationals. The whole idea behind the joke seems to be more like Ayn Rand's assumptions of objectivity ending up favoring certain social groups. I dunno, it just seems forced to me. [[Special:Contributions/220.117.150.36|220.117.150.36]] 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Considering real numbers are well-understood mathematically this seems like a shortcoming of implementation, which isn't that interesting... the concept is there. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: The whole idea behind random number generation bias is the bugs they can create within software implementation (for example, weakening cryptography). An hypothetically generated irrational number would have to be truncated at some decimal place (thus making it rational) for it to be usable. Here it's a programming joke, not a math one. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 22:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::::: ...unless interpreted as a math joke. I agree that the joke admits programming interpretation, but I'd never try to exclude other interpretations as well. The math interpretation is valid since one can choose not to get muddled in implementation and to instead envision a hypothetical random number generator not bound by truncation. Randall's comics certainly admit this kind of whimsy. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Well, it says "This Ayn Random number generator you wrote" so I'd take it at face value, but that's just me. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And somehow, no one's mentioned the classic cartoon ''[[221]]:Random Number'', which presents a random number generator which is heavily biased towards one number. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the joke here not along the lines that Ayn Rand's politics, and that of Libertarianism, claim that they are fair and that they treat everyone equally - in that, supposedly, anyone can get what they want and be successful if they work hard - but the reality is that some people will fare better than others due to having certain advantages such as having been born into wealth, knowing the right people, one might even suggest that being white, middle class and male are advantageous. In a random number generator you would expect any number to be as likely to come up as any other. Similarly, Rand supporters would argue that under Objectivism, any person is by default as able to be successful as any other. The fact that some people succeed and others fail is explained as some people being inherently more able to succeed, rather than any bias in the system itself - hence she divides people into 'looters' and 'moochers'; there's also that scene I always remember in Dirty Dancing where the guy chucks a copy of The Fountainhead in Baby's direction and says 'some people count, some people don't'. Randall is mocking the idea of a system that is supposedly inherently fair and yet biases certain classes of people, with the idea of a 'random' number generator that is biased towards certain numbers not because of a problem with the system but because some numbers are supposedly 'inherently better'.[[Special:Contributions/213.86.4.78|213.86.4.78]] 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding rational numbers, p and q are allowed to have a common factor. 3/3 is still rational, just not reduced. Every rational number has an irreducible representation, but it doesn't have to be reduced to be part of the set of rationals. Also, since the definition is otherwise very specific, it could mention that q cannot be 0, which I don't think is mentioned. While that's a neat observation, I agree with the guy above that pointed out that no implementation of a random number generator produces irrational numbers. It isn't simply that the random number generator has to truncate the number, but you cannot fit infinite digits which neither terminate or repeat in a physical computer's finite memory. The random number generator would have to return symbolic results like "sqrt 2" or "e" instead of numerical values, but not returning actual numbers makes the idea of it being a random 'number' generator debatable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.197}}

All numbers are random, but some numbers are more random than others. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:Goddammit Jorgbrown, I was going to say that! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.89|108.162.237.89]] 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Computers don't store any "thing", they store a representation. Therefore, a computer can reference any "thing", because representation "sets" can be swapped out. At any given moment, if the user is aware, "1" could mean a purple flying dog. At any other given moment, "1" could mean a swimming cactus. Therefore, the number of "things" that computers can store representations for is unlimited, even if the "set" of representations it can store at any given time is limited. In our specific example, the computer can store a representation of an irrational number by collapsing the number into a recursive or incremental method of reproducing the number. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:"Although a computer could encode irrationals or generate them randomly if it uses another representation" - however even that is not enough. Whatever format you chooses you can only specify only definable numbers because other are... well cannot be defined. Whatever language you choose as long as you require the description to be finite you can cover only countable many of numbers. To cover all reals - including not only π or e but all of them - you need to have capability of storing infinitely large amount of memory. Similarly incremental method will give you only computable set. Either way you miss significantly large amount of numbers (ℶ₁ vs ℶ₀). This is ignoring that we cannot draw a number from natural numbers with equal probability (we would expect P(3|X) = 1/3 and P(¬3|X) = 2/3 but both sets are equal so we would expect P(3|X) = P(¬3|X)...). That's why we get random numbers for the finite set and normalize according to need. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.227|172.68.142.227]] 07:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So nobody noticed how "this ain't random" seems to be the first thing Cueball says? I think the pun "this Ayn/ain't random" is a big part of the joke. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 07:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:doesnt add up, sorry. ayn rand's first name is pronounced "ine" (/aɪn/), according to an ipa note on her page on wikipedia. the main part of the joke is that objectivism (ayn rand's main philosophy) claims to distribute resources fairly but does not, hence an "ayn random" number generator claims to distribute probability fairly but does not --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.43|172.70.114.43]] 13:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1277: Ayn Random

2022-06-08T13:31:45Z

172.70.114.43:

I think that should be /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i.

[[Special:Contributions/173.66.108.213|173.66.108.213]] 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was confused for a while about what the b's were doing.

[[Special:Contributions/99.126.178.56|99.126.178.56]] 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to have an Ayn Rand category? --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to the mathematically challenged *how* the list of names fits the regular expression? [[Special:Contributions/141.2.75.23|141.2.75.23]] 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: Agreed, I would like to understand what the hell is going on with that. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: How specific do you want it? Basically it matches two words consisting of the letters plurandy. The list of names is just a random selection of two part names that only consists of these letters. More specifically it matches: Two groups ({2}), each consisting of a word boundary (\b), followed by a non-empty sequence of the letters plurandy ([plurandy]+), followed by a word boundary (\b), finally followed by an optional space ( ?). [[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Also, the /'s on the end delimit the regex proper, and the `i` on the end denotes case insensitivity. --[[Special:Contributions/75.66.178.177|75.66.178.177]] 09:39, 14 October
2013 (UTC)
:::In the explanation of how the regex works after the explanation "'''the {2} on the end means to repeat the pattern, so it must match exactly twice'''" I think you need an explanation of how the optional space in the middle interacts with the word boundaries. I.e.
::::(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}
:::Expanding:
::::\b[plurandy]+\b ?\b[plurandy]+\b ?
:::Now the optional space at the end is redundant, and the space in the center is not optional, since if there is no space the word boundaries do not exist. If the space is present the word boundaries are redundent because letter space letter sequence always matches them.
::::\b[plurandy]+ [plurandy]+\b ?
:::And this now closely matches the text description "'''Overall, it matches two words separated by a space, composed entirely of the letters in [plurandy], which is what all the names listed have in common.'''" --[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:Some examples
:* "Ru Paul" would match, because it is two sequences, each containing only capital or lowercase versions of the listed letters.
:* "Randall Flagg" would not match, because the letters F and G are not in the bracketed list.
:* "Aura Anaya Adlar" would not match; even though the letters are all in the list, there are more than two sequences.
:Hope this helps!
:[[User:Swartzer|Swartzer]] ([[User talk:Swartzer|talk]]) 20:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/209.132.186.34|209.132.186.34]] 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Randal would make such mistake, he would probably use \< \> anyway... unless, he wants us
to think he did mistake, or that backslash was eliminated in html/javascript... thus poining ut to
source code of the page... is there something interesting?
: I skimmed over the source and didn't see anything unusual. The '\'s are absent from the source too. I think it's just that Randall (or a tool he's using) was so affraid of [[327|Bobby Tables]] that he stripped all backslashes from the alt text. {{unsigned|Jahvascriptmaniac}}
::The title text at xkcd.com now has the missing backslashes. Do you normally update the comic here to reflect updates?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Already updated. You were saying?
::::Hmm, backslashes are still missing for me when viewing the original at xkcd.com (viewing in Chrome) [[User:Brion|Brion]] ([[User talk:Brion|talk]]) 02:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me where "In their view, if some humans are born more capable of satisfying their desires than other people, they deserve to reap greater rewards from life than others" comes from? I'm somewhat familiar with objectivist philosophy and I've never heard this put forward as an actual principle. [[Special:Contributions/50.90.39.56|50.90.39.56]] 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues.{{unsigned ip|37.221.160.203}}
:In fact, this is an imprecise and, therefore, incorrect statement of Objectivist philosophy. A correct and more complete statement can be found under the entry for "Selfishness" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.8|108.162.237.8]] 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Most people would write the regexp as /(\b[adlnpruy]+\b ?){2}/i. Using "plurandy" makes it look like a word, which is more confusing than using the letters' natural order. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be better to identify Alan Alda not for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in MASH, but for his role in The West Wing as Arnold Vinick, a fiscally-conservative Republican presidential candidate? [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:Depends, are we trying to remind him to general audience (I think MASH is more known) or find out why he was included in list? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is probably an additional joke or three in that the regex is the minimum needed to capture the first three names together (hinted at by "plurandy" eg plural rand) , but also captures the others. on top of which all of the listed people are considered "intrinsically better" (by virtue of fame if nothing else)[[Special:Contributions/74.213.201.51|74.213.201.51]] 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan Ladd may have been a founding member of the Secret Council of /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i. [[Special:Contributions/71.190.237.117|71.190.237.117]] 07:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably obvious to most programmers, but is it worth pointing out that part of the pun is that the random number generator function is called rand() in most C-family languages? [[Special:Contributions/130.60.156.183|130.60.156.183]] 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Another member of this secret society is Randall P [[Special:Contributions/79.182.178.53|79.182.178.53]] 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From above: "Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues." OK, but a few comments: All philosophies are inconsistent when looked at closely enough, refer Godel and others. Others do not see the inconsistency in Objectivism quite so plainly as in the quoted comment. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are not "the" basis of libertarian thought, there are far more highly thought of libertarian thinkers, a list of whom should come readily to mind to any of those occupying "the intellectual world" (sic), whether or not they have sympathy with libertarian ideas. It is also unfair to characterise Objectivism as having as its "sole" objective that as stated. Further, as a general principle, one ought not to take someone poking fun at a concept as *proof* that they are quite as opposed to it as you are. Now, whereas I would not categorise myself quite as a fellow traveller, a much fairer view of Objectivism is found at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) [[Special:Contributions/81.135.136.159|81.135.136.159]] 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Other philosophies are no more consistent, agreed. But other philosophies do not claim perfect "objective" consistency as their fundamental principle. Attacking Objectivism/Objectivists for lack of internal consistency--or for not recognizing that at some, very fundamental, level it is all stacked on top of some assumptions (just like every other philosophy, and even the scientific method)--is the equivalent of attacking Christianity/Christians for lacking compassion and forgiveness. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Poking fun can indeed fall into the categories of self-irony or goodwill, but in this case Randall quite explicitly accuses the recipient of bias, making his disapproval pretty unequivocal. [[Special:Contributions/199.48.147.40|199.48.147.40]] 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a line about the rational numbers joke; it's definitely there, though I'm not sure if Randall intended it (probably did?). {{unsigned ip|76.124.119.161}}
:Don't think it makes much sense, because a random number generator algorithm of any kind couldn't possibly generate irrational numbers in finite time. [[Special:Contributions/77.244.254.228|77.244.254.228]] 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
: It does make sense, mathematically speaking a random number chosen in any open interval is irrational with probability 1, and yet any open interval contains rational numbers that could, in principal, be chosen due to density of the rationals. The joke is brilliant, if intended. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::Yes but, at that point, all random number generators are biased and not just the Ayn Random number generator. Also, the bias towards rational numbers doesn't seem to be there when your pool of numbers is just the rationals. The whole idea behind the joke seems to be more like Ayn Rand's assumptions of objectivity ending up favoring certain social groups. I dunno, it just seems forced to me. [[Special:Contributions/220.117.150.36|220.117.150.36]] 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Considering real numbers are well-understood mathematically this seems like a shortcoming of implementation, which isn't that interesting... the concept is there. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: The whole idea behind random number generation bias is the bugs they can create within software implementation (for example, weakening cryptography). An hypothetically generated irrational number would have to be truncated at some decimal place (thus making it rational) for it to be usable. Here it's a programming joke, not a math one. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 22:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::::: ...unless interpreted as a math joke. I agree that the joke admits programming interpretation, but I'd never try to exclude other interpretations as well. The math interpretation is valid since one can choose not to get muddled in implementation and to instead envision a hypothetical random number generator not bound by truncation. Randall's comics certainly admit this kind of whimsy. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Well, it says "This Ayn Random number generator you wrote" so I'd take it at face value, but that's just me. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And somehow, no one's mentioned the classic cartoon ''[[221]]:Random Number'', which presents a random number generator which is heavily biased towards one number. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the joke here not along the lines that Ayn Rand's politics, and that of Libertarianism, claim that they are fair and that they treat everyone equally - in that, supposedly, anyone can get what they want and be successful if they work hard - but the reality is that some people will fare better than others due to having certain advantages such as having been born into wealth, knowing the right people, one might even suggest that being white, middle class and male are advantageous. In a random number generator you would expect any number to be as likely to come up as any other. Similarly, Rand supporters would argue that under Objectivism, any person is by default as able to be successful as any other. The fact that some people succeed and others fail is explained as some people being inherently more able to succeed, rather than any bias in the system itself - hence she divides people into 'looters' and 'moochers'; there's also that scene I always remember in Dirty Dancing where the guy chucks a copy of The Fountainhead in Baby's direction and says 'some people count, some people don't'. Randall is mocking the idea of a system that is supposedly inherently fair and yet biases certain classes of people, with the idea of a 'random' number generator that is biased towards certain numbers not because of a problem with the system but because some numbers are supposedly 'inherently better'.[[Special:Contributions/213.86.4.78|213.86.4.78]] 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding rational numbers, p and q are allowed to have a common factor. 3/3 is still rational, just not reduced. Every rational number has an irreducible representation, but it doesn't have to be reduced to be part of the set of rationals. Also, since the definition is otherwise very specific, it could mention that q cannot be 0, which I don't think is mentioned. While that's a neat observation, I agree with the guy above that pointed out that no implementation of a random number generator produces irrational numbers. It isn't simply that the random number generator has to truncate the number, but you cannot fit infinite digits which neither terminate or repeat in a physical computer's finite memory. The random number generator would have to return symbolic results like "sqrt 2" or "e" instead of numerical values, but not returning actual numbers makes the idea of it being a random 'number' generator debatable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.197}}

All numbers are random, but some numbers are more random than others. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:Goddammit Jorgbrown, I was going to say that! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.89|108.162.237.89]] 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Computers don't store any "thing", they store a representation. Therefore, a computer can reference any "thing", because representation "sets" can be swapped out. At any given moment, if the user is aware, "1" could mean a purple flying dog. At any other given moment, "1" could mean a swimming cactus. Therefore, the number of "things" that computers can store representations for is unlimited, even if the "set" of representations it can store at any given time is limited. In our specific example, the computer can store a representation of an irrational number by collapsing the number into a recursive or incremental method of reproducing the number. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:"Although a computer could encode irrationals or generate them randomly if it uses another representation" - however even that is not enough. Whatever format you chooses you can only specify only definable numbers because other are... well cannot be defined. Whatever language you choose as long as you require the description to be finite you can cover only countable many of numbers. To cover all reals - including not only π or e but all of them - you need to have capability of storing infinitely large amount of memory. Similarly incremental method will give you only computable set. Either way you miss significantly large amount of numbers (ℶ₁ vs ℶ₀). This is ignoring that we cannot draw a number from natural numbers with equal probability (we would expect P(3|X) = 1/3 and P(¬3|X) = 2/3 but both sets are equal so we would expect P(3|X) = P(¬3|X)...). That's why we get random numbers for the finite set and normalize according to need. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.227|172.68.142.227]] 07:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So nobody noticed how "this ain't random" seems to be the first thing Cueball says? I think the pun "this Ayn/ain't random" is a big part of the joke. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 07:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:doesnt add up, sorry. ayn rand's first name is pronounced "ine" (/aɪn/), according to an ipa note on her page on wikipedia. there is a pun in that objectivism (ayn rand's main philosophy) claims to distribute resources fairly but does not, hence an "ayn random" number generator claims to distribute probability fairly but does not --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.43|172.70.114.43]] 13:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1277: Ayn Random

2022-06-08T13:31:04Z

172.70.114.43:

I think that should be /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i.

[[Special:Contributions/173.66.108.213|173.66.108.213]] 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was confused for a while about what the b's were doing.

[[Special:Contributions/99.126.178.56|99.126.178.56]] 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to have an Ayn Rand category? --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to the mathematically challenged *how* the list of names fits the regular expression? [[Special:Contributions/141.2.75.23|141.2.75.23]] 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: Agreed, I would like to understand what the hell is going on with that. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: How specific do you want it? Basically it matches two words consisting of the letters plurandy. The list of names is just a random selection of two part names that only consists of these letters. More specifically it matches: Two groups ({2}), each consisting of a word boundary (\b), followed by a non-empty sequence of the letters plurandy ([plurandy]+), followed by a word boundary (\b), finally followed by an optional space ( ?). [[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Also, the /'s on the end delimit the regex proper, and the `i` on the end denotes case insensitivity. --[[Special:Contributions/75.66.178.177|75.66.178.177]] 09:39, 14 October
2013 (UTC)
:::In the explanation of how the regex works after the explanation "'''the {2} on the end means to repeat the pattern, so it must match exactly twice'''" I think you need an explanation of how the optional space in the middle interacts with the word boundaries. I.e.
::::(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}
:::Expanding:
::::\b[plurandy]+\b ?\b[plurandy]+\b ?
:::Now the optional space at the end is redundant, and the space in the center is not optional, since if there is no space the word boundaries do not exist. If the space is present the word boundaries are redundent because letter space letter sequence always matches them.
::::\b[plurandy]+ [plurandy]+\b ?
:::And this now closely matches the text description "'''Overall, it matches two words separated by a space, composed entirely of the letters in [plurandy], which is what all the names listed have in common.'''" --[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:Some examples
:* "Ru Paul" would match, because it is two sequences, each containing only capital or lowercase versions of the listed letters.
:* "Randall Flagg" would not match, because the letters F and G are not in the bracketed list.
:* "Aura Anaya Adlar" would not match; even though the letters are all in the list, there are more than two sequences.
:Hope this helps!
:[[User:Swartzer|Swartzer]] ([[User talk:Swartzer|talk]]) 20:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/209.132.186.34|209.132.186.34]] 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Randal would make such mistake, he would probably use \< \> anyway... unless, he wants us
to think he did mistake, or that backslash was eliminated in html/javascript... thus poining ut to
source code of the page... is there something interesting?
: I skimmed over the source and didn't see anything unusual. The '\'s are absent from the source too. I think it's just that Randall (or a tool he's using) was so affraid of [[327|Bobby Tables]] that he stripped all backslashes from the alt text. {{unsigned|Jahvascriptmaniac}}
::The title text at xkcd.com now has the missing backslashes. Do you normally update the comic here to reflect updates?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Already updated. You were saying?
::::Hmm, backslashes are still missing for me when viewing the original at xkcd.com (viewing in Chrome) [[User:Brion|Brion]] ([[User talk:Brion|talk]]) 02:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me where "In their view, if some humans are born more capable of satisfying their desires than other people, they deserve to reap greater rewards from life than others" comes from? I'm somewhat familiar with objectivist philosophy and I've never heard this put forward as an actual principle. [[Special:Contributions/50.90.39.56|50.90.39.56]] 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues.{{unsigned ip|37.221.160.203}}
:In fact, this is an imprecise and, therefore, incorrect statement of Objectivist philosophy. A correct and more complete statement can be found under the entry for "Selfishness" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.8|108.162.237.8]] 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Most people would write the regexp as /(\b[adlnpruy]+\b ?){2}/i. Using "plurandy" makes it look like a word, which is more confusing than using the letters' natural order. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be better to identify Alan Alda not for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in MASH, but for his role in The West Wing as Arnold Vinick, a fiscally-conservative Republican presidential candidate? [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:Depends, are we trying to remind him to general audience (I think MASH is more known) or find out why he was included in list? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is probably an additional joke or three in that the regex is the minimum needed to capture the first three names together (hinted at by "plurandy" eg plural rand) , but also captures the others. on top of which all of the listed people are considered "intrinsically better" (by virtue of fame if nothing else)[[Special:Contributions/74.213.201.51|74.213.201.51]] 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan Ladd may have been a founding member of the Secret Council of /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i. [[Special:Contributions/71.190.237.117|71.190.237.117]] 07:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably obvious to most programmers, but is it worth pointing out that part of the pun is that the random number generator function is called rand() in most C-family languages? [[Special:Contributions/130.60.156.183|130.60.156.183]] 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Another member of this secret society is Randall P [[Special:Contributions/79.182.178.53|79.182.178.53]] 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From above: "Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues." OK, but a few comments: All philosophies are inconsistent when looked at closely enough, refer Godel and others. Others do not see the inconsistency in Objectivism quite so plainly as in the quoted comment. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are not "the" basis of libertarian thought, there are far more highly thought of libertarian thinkers, a list of whom should come readily to mind to any of those occupying "the intellectual world" (sic), whether or not they have sympathy with libertarian ideas. It is also unfair to characterise Objectivism as having as its "sole" objective that as stated. Further, as a general principle, one ought not to take someone poking fun at a concept as *proof* that they are quite as opposed to it as you are. Now, whereas I would not categorise myself quite as a fellow traveller, a much fairer view of Objectivism is found at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) [[Special:Contributions/81.135.136.159|81.135.136.159]] 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Other philosophies are no more consistent, agreed. But other philosophies do not claim perfect "objective" consistency as their fundamental principle. Attacking Objectivism/Objectivists for lack of internal consistency--or for not recognizing that at some, very fundamental, level it is all stacked on top of some assumptions (just like every other philosophy, and even the scientific method)--is the equivalent of attacking Christianity/Christians for lacking compassion and forgiveness. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Poking fun can indeed fall into the categories of self-irony or goodwill, but in this case Randall quite explicitly accuses the recipient of bias, making his disapproval pretty unequivocal. [[Special:Contributions/199.48.147.40|199.48.147.40]] 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a line about the rational numbers joke; it's definitely there, though I'm not sure if Randall intended it (probably did?). {{unsigned ip|76.124.119.161}}
:Don't think it makes much sense, because a random number generator algorithm of any kind couldn't possibly generate irrational numbers in finite time. [[Special:Contributions/77.244.254.228|77.244.254.228]] 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
: It does make sense, mathematically speaking a random number chosen in any open interval is irrational with probability 1, and yet any open interval contains rational numbers that could, in principal, be chosen due to density of the rationals. The joke is brilliant, if intended. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::Yes but, at that point, all random number generators are biased and not just the Ayn Random number generator. Also, the bias towards rational numbers doesn't seem to be there when your pool of numbers is just the rationals. The whole idea behind the joke seems to be more like Ayn Rand's assumptions of objectivity ending up favoring certain social groups. I dunno, it just seems forced to me. [[Special:Contributions/220.117.150.36|220.117.150.36]] 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Considering real numbers are well-understood mathematically this seems like a shortcoming of implementation, which isn't that interesting... the concept is there. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: The whole idea behind random number generation bias is the bugs they can create within software implementation (for example, weakening cryptography). An hypothetically generated irrational number would have to be truncated at some decimal place (thus making it rational) for it to be usable. Here it's a programming joke, not a math one. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 22:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::::: ...unless interpreted as a math joke. I agree that the joke admits programming interpretation, but I'd never try to exclude other interpretations as well. The math interpretation is valid since one can choose not to get muddled in implementation and to instead envision a hypothetical random number generator not bound by truncation. Randall's comics certainly admit this kind of whimsy. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Well, it says "This Ayn Random number generator you wrote" so I'd take it at face value, but that's just me. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And somehow, no one's mentioned the classic cartoon ''[[221]]:Random Number'', which presents a random number generator which is heavily biased towards one number. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the joke here not along the lines that Ayn Rand's politics, and that of Libertarianism, claim that they are fair and that they treat everyone equally - in that, supposedly, anyone can get what they want and be successful if they work hard - but the reality is that some people will fare better than others due to having certain advantages such as having been born into wealth, knowing the right people, one might even suggest that being white, middle class and male are advantageous. In a random number generator you would expect any number to be as likely to come up as any other. Similarly, Rand supporters would argue that under Objectivism, any person is by default as able to be successful as any other. The fact that some people succeed and others fail is explained as some people being inherently more able to succeed, rather than any bias in the system itself - hence she divides people into 'looters' and 'moochers'; there's also that scene I always remember in Dirty Dancing where the guy chucks a copy of The Fountainhead in Baby's direction and says 'some people count, some people don't'. Randall is mocking the idea of a system that is supposedly inherently fair and yet biases certain classes of people, with the idea of a 'random' number generator that is biased towards certain numbers not because of a problem with the system but because some numbers are supposedly 'inherently better'.[[Special:Contributions/213.86.4.78|213.86.4.78]] 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding rational numbers, p and q are allowed to have a common factor. 3/3 is still rational, just not reduced. Every rational number has an irreducible representation, but it doesn't have to be reduced to be part of the set of rationals. Also, since the definition is otherwise very specific, it could mention that q cannot be 0, which I don't think is mentioned. While that's a neat observation, I agree with the guy above that pointed out that no implementation of a random number generator produces irrational numbers. It isn't simply that the random number generator has to truncate the number, but you cannot fit infinite digits which neither terminate or repeat in a physical computer's finite memory. The random number generator would have to return symbolic results like "sqrt 2" or "e" instead of numerical values, but not returning actual numbers makes the idea of it being a random 'number' generator debatable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.197}}

All numbers are random, but some numbers are more random than others. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:Goddammit Jorgbrown, I was going to say that! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.89|108.162.237.89]] 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Computers don't store any "thing", they store a representation. Therefore, a computer can reference any "thing", because representation "sets" can be swapped out. At any given moment, if the user is aware, "1" could mean a purple flying dog. At any other given moment, "1" could mean a swimming cactus. Therefore, the number of "things" that computers can store representations for is unlimited, even if the "set" of representations it can store at any given time is limited. In our specific example, the computer can store a representation of an irrational number by collapsing the number into a recursive or incremental method of reproducing the number. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:"Although a computer could encode irrationals or generate them randomly if it uses another representation" - however even that is not enough. Whatever format you chooses you can only specify only definable numbers because other are... well cannot be defined. Whatever language you choose as long as you require the description to be finite you can cover only countable many of numbers. To cover all reals - including not only π or e but all of them - you need to have capability of storing infinitely large amount of memory. Similarly incremental method will give you only computable set. Either way you miss significantly large amount of numbers (ℶ₁ vs ℶ₀). This is ignoring that we cannot draw a number from natural numbers with equal probability (we would expect P(3|X) = 1/3 and P(¬3|X) = 2/3 but both sets are equal so we would expect P(3|X) = P(¬3|X)...). That's why we get random numbers for the finite set and normalize according to need. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.227|172.68.142.227]] 07:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So nobody noticed how "this ain't random" seems to be the first thing Cueball says? I think the pun "this Ayn/ain't random" is a big part of the joke. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 07:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:doesnt add up, sorry. ayn rand's first name is pronounced "ine", according to an ipa note on her page on wikipedia. there is a pun in that objectivism (ayn rand's main philosophy) claims to distribute resources fairly but does not, hence an "ayn random" number generator claims to distribute probability fairly but does not --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.43|172.70.114.43]] 13:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)