explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3026: Linear Sort

2024-12-20T11:10:05Z

172.70.162.56:

First in linear time![[User:Mr. I|Mr. I]] ([[User talk:Mr. I|talk]]) 13:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Due to the fact that O(nlog(n)) outgrows O(n), the Linear Sort is not actually linear. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.227|162.158.174.227]] 14:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:If your sleep() function can handle negative arguments "correctly", then I guess it could work. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.91|162.158.91.91]] 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That was fast... [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 15:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do I even want to know what Randall's thinking nowadays? [[User:Definitely Bill Cipher|⯅A dream demon⯅]] ([[User talk:Definitely Bill Cipher|talk]]) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Does anyone every want to know what Randall is thinking nowadays? :P [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.177|198.41.227.177]] 22:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The title text would be more correct if Randall used e.g. Timsort instead of Mergesort. They both have the same worst-case complexity O(n*log(n)), but the former is linear if the list was already in order, so best-case complexity is O(n). Mergesort COULD also be implemented this way, but its standard version is never linear. [[User:Bebidek|Bebidek]] ([[User talk:Bebidek|talk]]) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

According to my estimates extrapolated from timing the sorting of 10 million random numbers on my computer, the break-even point where the algorithm becomes worse than linear is beyond the expected heat death of the universe. I did neglect the question of where to store the input array. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.35|162.158.154.35]] 16:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:If the numbers being sorted are unique, each would need a fair number of bits to store. (Fair meaning that the time to do the comparison would be non-negligible.) If they aren't, you can just bucket-sort them in linear time. Since we're assuming absurdly large memory capacity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What system was the person writing the description using where Sleep(n) takes a parameter in whole seconds rather than the usual milliseconds? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.216.162|172.70.216.162]] 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
: First, I don't recognize the language, but sleep() takes seconds for python, C (et. al.), and no doubt many others. Second, the units don't have to be seconds, they just have to be whatever `TIME()` returns, and multiplicable by 1e6 to yield a "big enough" delay. Of course, no coefficient is big enough for this to actually be linear in theory for any size list, so who cares? To be truly accurate, sleep for `e^LENGTH(LIST)`, and it really won't much matter what the units are, as long as they're big enough for `SLEEP(e)` to exceed the difference in the time it takes to sort two items versus one item. Use a language-dependent coefficient as needed. [[User:Jlearman|Jlearman]] ([[User talk:Jlearman|talk]]) 18:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
: Usual where, is that the Windows API? The sleep function in the POSIX standard takes seconds. See https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/sleep.3.html . [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.194|162.158.62.194]] 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time I saw an O(n) sorting algorithm using "sleep"… But this one is actually different. The one I usually see feeds the to-be-sorted value into the sleep function, so it schedules "10" to be printed in 10 seconds, then schedules "3" to be printed in 3 seconds, etc., which would theoretically be linear time, if the sleep function was magic. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This comic also critiques/points out the pitfalls of measuring time complexity using Big-O notation, such as an algorithm or solution that runs in linear time still being too slow for its intended use case. [[User:Sophon|Sophon]] ([[User talk:Sophon|talk]]) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Current text is incorrect, but I'm not sure how best to express the correction -- there do exist O(n) sorting algorithms, they're just not general-purpose, since they don't work with an arbitrary comparison function. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_sort counting sort]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.151|172.69.134.151]] 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm just gonna say this before everyone leaves and goes on their merry way. Significant comic numbers coming soon:
Comics 3100, 3200, 3300, etc, Comic 3094 (The total number of frames in 'time'), Comic 4000, Comic Whatever the next April fools day comic will be, and Comic 4096. Wait for it...[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Comic 3141.592654[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.144|172.70.163.144]] 09:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As everyone observed, the stated algorithm is not theoretically linear, but only practically linear (in that the time and space to detect O(n log n) exceeds reasonable (time, space) bounds for this universe). Munroe's solution is much deeper than that though - it trivially generalises to a _constant_ O(1) bound. [run a sort algorithm, wait 20 years, give the answer]. That's the preferred way of repaying loans, too. {{unsigned ip|172.69.195.27|21:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Continues comic 3017's theme of worst-case optimization. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.115|172.70.207.115]] 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks as though this function does not actually do the sort in Linear Time, it only returns in Linear Time.
The MERGESORT Function itself looks to only take one parameter and does not have an obvious return value indicating that it performs an in-place sort on the input mutable list.
This means that the list is sorted at the speed of the MERGESORT function, but flow control is only returned after Linear Time.
For a single threaded program calling this function there is no practical difference, but it would make a difference if some other thread was concurrently querying the list.
A clearer linear time sort might look like this:

function LinearSort(list):
StartTime=Time()
SortedList=MergeSort(list)
Sleep(1e6*length(list)-(Time()-StartTime))
return SortedList

Leon {{unsigned ip|172.70.162.70|17:31, 19 December 2024}}
:There's such a thing as pass-by-reference, variously implemented depending upon the actual programming language used. It's even possible to accept both ''list'' (non-reference, to force a return of ''sorted_list'') and ''listRef'' (returns nothing, or perhaps a result such as ''number_of_shuffles made''), for added usefulness, though of course that'd need even more pseudocode to describe. For the above/comic pseudocode, it's not so arbitrary that a programmer shouldn't know how to implement it in their instance.
:I might even set about to do something like use a SetStartTime() and CheckElapsedTime() funtion, if there's possible use; the former making a persistant (private variable) note of what =Time() it is, perhaps to an arbitrary record scoped to any parameterID it is supplied, and the latter returning the 'now' time minus the stored (default or explicitly IDed) moment of record. I could then have freely pseudocoded the extant outline in even briefer format, on the understanding what these two poke/peek functions are. Which is already left open to the imagination for MergeSort(). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.182|172.69.43.182]] 18:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There are situations where you want to return in O(1) time or some other time that is not dependent on the input data to prevent side-channel data leaks. While the run-time of Randall's "O(n)" algorithm has an obvious dependencies on the input data, using the "Randall Algorithm" to obscure a different algorithm can reduce the side-channel opportunities. A more sure-fire way would be to have the algorithm return in precisely i seconds, where i is the number of seconds between now and the heat death of the universe. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.89|172.71.167.89]] 17:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

;Please write an explanation for non-programmers!
I don't understand this explainxkcd. The comic itself was less confusing. Can please someone who really gets this stuff write a section of the explanation that explains the joke to people like me who do not have a theoretical programming degree? I know that is a tall task but right now it reads as rambling and a bunch of 0(n) that makes no sense to me. I can cut and paste a bash script together and make it work. I can understand that putting a sleep for a million seconds in a loop somewhere makes it slow. But a layperson explanation of what makes a sort linear, what is linear, what is funny about that approach, would be better than all the arguing about 0(n) because we don't get it. Thanks in advance! You folks are awesome! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.210|172.71.147.210]] 20:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe this would be a good start:
::--cut here--
::An algorithm is a step-by-step way of doing things.
::A sorting algorithm is a step-by-step way to sort things.
::There are several commonly used sorting algorithms. Some have very little "overhead" (think: set-up time or requiring lots of extra memory) or what I call "molassas" (yes, I just made that up) (think "taking a long time or lots of extra memory for each step") but they really bog down if you have a lot of things that need sorting. These are better if you have a small list of items to sort.

::Others have more "overhead" or "molasses" but don't bog down as much when you have a lot of things that need sorting. These are better if you have a lot of things to sort.

::A linear sorting algorithm would take twice as long to sort twice as many unsorted items. If it took 100 seconds to sort 100 items, then it would take 200 seconds to sort 200, 300 seconds to sort 300, and so on. Algorithms that take "twice as long to do twice as much" are said to run in "Order(n)" or "O(n)" time, where "n" is the number of items they are working on, or in the case of a sorting algorithm, the number of items to be sorted.

::For traditional sorting algorithms that don't use "parallel processing" (that is, they don't do more than one thing in any given moment), a linear sorting algorithm with very little "overhead" or "molasses" would be the "holy grail" of sorting algorithms. For example, a hypothetical linear sorting algorithm that took 1/1000th of a second to "set things up" (low "overhead") and an additional 1 second to sort 1,000,000 numbers (not much "molasses") would be able to sort 2,000,000 numbers in just over 2 seconds, 10,000,000 numbers in just over 10 seconds, and 3,600,000,000 numbers in a hair over an hour.

::The reality is that there is no such thing as a general-purpose linear sorting algorithm that has very little overhead (in both time and memory) and very little "molasses." All practical general-purpose sorting algorithms either use parallel processing, they have a lot of overhead (set-up time or uses lots of memory), a lot of "molasses" (takes a long time or uses lots of memory for EACH item in the list) or they are "slower than linear," which means they bog down when you give them a huge list of things to sort. For example, let's say the "mergesort" in Randall's algorithm doesn't have much "overhead" or "molasses" and it sorts 1,000,000 items in 1 second. It's time is "O(nlog(n))" which is a fancy way of saying if you double the number, you'll more than double the time. This means sorting 2,000,000 items will take more than 2 seconds, and sorting 4,000,000 items will take more than twice as long as it takes to sort 2,000,000. Eventually all of those "more than's" add up and things slow to a crawl.

::The joke is that Randall "pretends" to be the "holy grail" by being a linear sorting algorithm, but he has lots of "molasses" because his linear sorting algorithm takes 1 million seconds for each item in the list, compared to the 1,000,000 items per second in the hypothetical "linear sorting algorithm" I proposed.

::As others in the discussion point out, Randall's "algorithm" is "busted" (breaks, doesn't work, gives undefined results) if the mergesort (which is a very fast sort if you have a large list if items) is sorting a list so big that it takes over 1 million seconds per item to sort anyways. I'll spare you the math, but if the mergesort part of Randall's "algorithm" could do 1,000,000 numbers in 1 second with a 1/1000th of a second to "set things up," it would take a huge list to get it to "bust" Randall's "algorithm."
::--cut here--
:[[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.202|162.158.174.202]] 21:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:Layman's guide to O(n) time, second try:
::--cut here--
::First, "O" is "Order of" as in "order of magnitude." It's far from exact.
::O(1) is "constant time" - the time it takes me to give you a bag that contains 5000 $1 bills doesn't depend on how many bills there are in the bag. It would take the same amount of time if the bag had only 500, 50, or even 5 bills in it.
::O(log(n)) is "logarithmic time" - the time is the time it takes me to write down how many bills are in the bag. If it's 5000, I have to write down 4 digits, if it's 500, 3, if it's 50, 2, if it's 5, only 1.
::O(n) is "linear time" - the time it takes me to count out each bill in the bag depends on how many bills there are. It takes a fixed amount of time to count each bill. If there's 5000 $1 bills it may take me 5000 seconds to count them. If there's 500 $1 bills, it will take me only 500 seconds.
::O(nlog(n)) is "linear times logarithmic time" - the time it takes me to sort a pre-filled bag of money by serial number using a good general-purpose sorting algorithm (most good general-purpose sorting algorithms are O(nlog(n)) time). If it takes me 2 seconds to sort two $1 bills, it will take me about 3 or 4 times 5000 seconds to sort 5000 $1 bills. The "3 or 4" is very approximate, the important thing is that "logarithm of n" (in this case, logarithm of 5000) is big enough to make a difference (by a factor of 3 or 4 in this case) but far less than "n" (in this case, 5000).
::O(n2) is "n squared" time, which is a special case of "polynomial time." "Polynomial time" includes things like O(n3) and O(n1,000,000). Many algorithms including many "naive" sorting algorithms are in this category. If I used a "naive" sorting algorithm to sort 5000 $1 bills by serial number, instead of it taking about 15,000-20,000 seconds, it would take about 5,000 times 5,000 seconds. I don't know about you, but I've got better things to do with 25,000,000 seconds than sort paper money.
::It gets worse (O(2n) anyone? No thanks!), but you wanted to keep it simple.
:[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.177|198.41.227.177]] 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Personally, I've got better things to do than sort dollar bills, full stop.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 09:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that some users of this site are just here to learn what the joke is, and not to read the entire Wikipedia article on Big O Notation. Perhaps the actual explanation could be moved up a bit, and some of the fiddly Big-O stuff could be moved down? I'd do it myself, but I'm not really sure which is which. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.28|172.70.176.28]] 06:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I mean, it is fairly fundamental to the joke, and therefore to the explanation. It might be possible to slim it down a bit, but I don't think you can explain the joke without ''some'' explanation of Big O.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 09:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just come to the conclusion that I will never 100% understand 3026. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 10:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Tell me that again when you've actually tried the official process...
function Understand(comic):
StartTime=Time()
ReadExplanation(comic)
Sleep(1e12*length(list)-(Time()-StartTime))
return
:[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

3022: Making Tea

2024-12-10T06:50:39Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */ Ah, parallel mention. But I liked where I put my mention. Trying now to find a good way of including the King being amused by it, without shoehorning it in badly.

{{comic
| number = 3022
| date = December 9, 2024
| title = Making Tea
| image = making_tea_2x.png
| imagesize = 690x291px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = No, of course we don't microwave the mug WITH the teabag in it. We microwave the teabag separately.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Microwaved by a TEA-MAKING AUTOMATON - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Tea is exceptionally popular in the United Kingdom, to the point virtually every home has an electric tea kettle as a standard appliance. In contrast, tea is less commonplace in the United States of America (Randall's native country) and owning a separate appliance solely for tea is generally not needed. As a result, when Americans need a cup of boiled water — for tea or otherwise — it's considered normal to put the water in a microwave oven.

British people are stereotyped as taking genuine offense to microwaved water, believing it to be an objectively incorrect way to make tea. Randall mocks this stereotype through exaggeration, saying British people would be less offended by the theft of the {{w|Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom}} than they would be by a cup of microwaved water.

===Methods mentioned===
;Making it in a kettle
:Perhaps an intentional misnomer. Water may be ''boiled'' in a kettle, but the tea itself is made in a separate {{w|teapot}}, with loose or bagged tea-leaves, ready for pouring into {{w|teacup}}s, {{w|mug}}s or {{w|vacuum flask|thermos flask}} as required.

;Boiling water in a pot, steeping in a mug
:The reverse misnomer, as the boiling water from the ''kettle'', as well as being used to fill any (tea)pot, can be poured straight into a mug. Either with a teabag already waiting in it (typical for "{{w|Builder's tea}}", where it may remain for a long while, ''perhaps' until being fished out by a spoon just before drinking) or into which the teabag will now be dipped (at the personal discretion of the recipient, to taste, thus fine-tuning the time it infuses).

;Making it in a chalice and ampulla stolen from the Crown Jewels
:The most un-British thing about this is the stealing. Though many may have considered it, and occasionally {{w|Thomas Blood#Theft of the Crown Jewels|attempted it}}, it would not be taken kindly by many others. And to do so to make tea would be just {{wiktionary|not cricket}}. The stone challice and gold ampulla are also doubtful as being of suitable materials for British tea-making (as opposed to silver-plated steel, robust ceramics, etc) and there'd definitely be some complaints that it does not taste like a proper cuppa.

;Microwaving a mug
:Apparently common in the US, possibly because standard US home power supplies (~120V) is less suitable than an eletric kettle such as the British might use (with ~240V). This method of heating water is widely mistrusted in the UK, with warnings about generating superheated water that explodes in your face the moment it is disturbed. In general, one doesn't put 'just water' in a microwave; the closest analogue would be something like soup (from a can but now in a microwave-safe bowl), and keeping an eye on it/applying a loose lid to prevent it sputtering and overboiling.
:The title text continues with this theme, by reassuring us that the microwaved mug doesn't have a teabag in it (analogous to the 'boiling tea-kettle' version). Instead, it is separately microwaved. As tealeaves (and bag) should normally be dry and receive little to no heating from its own stint in the microwave, the wrongheadedness this invokes does little to dissuade the skeptic's doubts about how utterly perverse this colonial variation on tea-making has become.

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

[A chart is shown with four labeled tick marks. The first two are close together on the far left side of the graph, the third is approximately in the center, and the fourth is on the far right side of the graph. Above the chart are, from top to bottom, a heading, a subheading, and a labeled arrow pointing right.]

:<big>Ways of making tea</big>
:By how angry British people get when Americans do them

:More angry

:Making it in a kettle

:Boiling water in a pot, steeping in a mug

:Making it in a chalice and ampulla stolen from the Crown Jewels

:Microwaving a mug
{{comic discussion}}

3020: Infinite Armada Chess

2024-12-06T13:22:15Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3020
| date = December 4, 2024
| title = Infinite Armada Chess
| image = infinite_armada_chess_2x.png
| imagesize = 282x497px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Stockfish 16 suggests the unconventional opening 1. RuntimeError: Out of bounds memory access
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an infinite armada of Stockfish BOTS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Chess}} is a board game played between two players on an 8x8 chessboard. In standard chess, each player has 8 pawns and 8 other pieces: 2 rooks, 2 knights, 2 bishops, a queen, and a king. {{w|Chess variants}} are chess games in which the rules, board sizes, and/or piece behaviors are altered. In the chess game presented here, a non-standard chessboard is used, which extends vertically past the original 1st and 8th ranks off the page to infinity in both directions. Each square beyond the 8 standard ranks is filled by an additional queen. The {{w|Queen (chess)|queen}} is the most powerful piece on the chessboard, having the powers of a {{w|Bishop (chess)|bishop}} and a {{w|Rook (chess)|rook}} combined. With an infinite armada of queens, each player will have more resources to call on. Sometimes having a bunch of queens [https://x.com/chesscom/status/1841540380363211164 doesn't go very well], however (here, try knight to d6).

[https://www.roblox.com/games/11339102114/Infinite-Armada Infinite Armada] is a spaceship combat game with customizable ships in a massive map that runs on the {{w|Roblox}} online game platform. It's unclear whether its map and number of spaceships are actually unbounded (infinite), or merely very large.

In the title text, {{w|Stockfish (Chess)|Stockfish}} is a {{w|chess engine}} designed to evaluate a chessboard and find the best move. However, it is designed to handle finite boards, so it's likely that some problem will occur as it runs on an infinite one. Here that problem shows up as the game's move #1, "RuntimeError: Out of bounds memory access". This error message is unique to the cross-browser {{w|WebAssembly}} implementations of {{w|WebGL}}, so there was probably not enough memory to {{w|Rendering (computer graphics)|render}} an infinite board in a {{w|web browser}} window.

All but a finite number of pieces are stuck at every step, and thus there are only a finite number of possible moves, but the game is unbounded (each capture resets the draw clock) and each capture also increases the number of possible pieces which can move by opening up more space on the board. No finite amount of space is guaranteed to suffice to analyze the game — contrast with standard chess in which surprisingly little memory (given impossibly vast, but finite, amounts of time) is needed to play perfectly. Still, as in regular chess, a program which understood that only a finite number of pieces are accessible could play the same way programs play conventional chess.

However, without specifically coding Stockfish to be aware of the logical certainty of the infinite number of queens being blocked, it is likely to still be checking ''every'' piece in turn, long after it has successfully prepared to establish (or perhaps [[2407: Depth and Breadth|actually explored]]) the relative strategical advantages of undertaking the twenty initial moves that White could make. Or, in the algorithm's worst case scenario, it has tried to start its movement-checking process at the 'rearmost rank', and has encountered the error before managing to establish (let alone assess) ''any'' valid opening moves. By easy induction, the human player should be able to establish an intrinsic understanding that everything behind two full ranks of undisturbed pieces (or beyond them, when applied to the opponent's position on the other side of the board) is unable to move, where no gaps exist to shuffle around in, but the code (if designed for finite, though perhaps arbitrary, boards) is unlikely to natively have the complexity to derive this computational detail from first principles, or even establish that it might hit a {{w|halting problem}} failure should it somehow avoid the issue of resources.

==Transcript==
:[A chess board in the starting position, except it extends further at the top and bottom, going beyond the panel. The extra squares are filled with queens of the sides' respective colors.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Infinite armada chess

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

Talk:3015: D&D Combinatorics

2024-12-01T14:15:16Z

172.70.162.56:

The bot originally created this page as “D Combinatorics”. I renamed it to the correct title and tried to get as many of the references as possible (including a few redirects). [[User:JBYoshi|JBYoshi]] ([[User talk:JBYoshi|talk]]) 00:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

:The title in the Atom feed (which I'm assuming the bot consumes) is "D Combinatorics". I'm guessing something in Randall's pipeline didn't like the ampersand. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.160|162.158.154.160]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

::Yup, if you look at [https://xkcd.com/3015/info.0.json 3015's JSON] you see that <code>title</code> and <code>safe_title</code> differ, and if you look at the HTML page source you'll see '''3''' different things: <code><title>xkcd: D Combinatorics</title></code>, <code><meta property="og:title" content="D&amp;D Combinatorics"></code>, and <code><div id="ctitle">D&D Combinatorics</div></code>! So probably what happened is Randall entered D&D but was supposed to enter D&amp;D, and the openGraph tags adder code, having to be HTML-aware, decoded & normalized D&D as HTML would, but the other parts of the pipeline just ate it for some reason. {{unsigned ip|172.69.65.224|06:09, 23 November 2024}}

::: The problem now is that the feed doesn't validate (because it contains a bare &) and it's also not updating (maybe because of the previous problem). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.119.13|172.71.119.13]] 11:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What are the odds of rolling 16 or higher on 3D6+D4? 3D6 average 10.5, D4 average is 2.5, total average should be 13. I do not know how to proceed from here. {{unsigned ip|172.71.147.206|01:14, 23 November 2024}}
:By raw combinatorics: 71 + 52 + 34 + 20 + 10 + 4 + 1 ways to get each of 16 - 22 respectively, for a total of 192, out of 4(6^3) = 864 total. 192/864 simplifies to exactly 2/9. I have no idea how Randall found this; if anyone has an idea, please let me know. [[User:Kaisheng21|Kaisheng21]] ([[User talk:Kaisheng21|talk]]) 01:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I used some simple python code to loop over every dice and confirm and it's 2/9 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.111|162.158.158.111]] 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I suspect there is no better way of doing it than looping over the dice. As to how Randall discovered it, it was obvious that at least 2d6 would be needed (since d6 is the only D&D dice that has a multiple of 3 sides), and after that my guess is Randall used a combination of a python script and some experimentation to land on the correct choice of dice. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 14:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we edited the transcript at the same time. The odds of rolling 16 or higher in this situation seem to be 2/9? [[User:Darkmatterisntsquirrels|Darkmatterisntsquirrels]] ([[User talk:Darkmatterisntsquirrels|talk]]) 01:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

: There are 864 possible rolls (6 * 6 * 6 * 4). If you enumerate all of the rolls you will find that 192 are 16 or higher. 192/864 = 2/9, the value from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a table of outcomes to clarify how it works out to 2/9, anyone know how to make it pretty? -- Laurence Cheers {{unsigned ip|172.71.150.247|02:03, 24 November 2024}}

A much simpler approach: Roll two six sided dice and sum the result. You are successful if the result is 5 or 9. That happens 8 times out of 36. 8/36 = 2/9. (Or successful if the sum is 4 or 6, or 2 or 7, or 2,3,4 or 11, or several other combinations.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Clever, but dice rolls in D&D involving summing all the dice, applying modifiers, if any, and then comparing to one or more threshold values. Your method makes it very difficult to apply modifiers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.8|162.158.41.8]] 02:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think you misunderstand the problem here. This is not skill, no modifiers apply, it's purely probability [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.111|162.158.158.111]] 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor quibble, arrows aren't fired (unless they're flaming or self-propelled, perhaps), they are shot. (Shotguns are fired of course.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.73|162.158.41.73]] 02:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Arrows are "loosed", even more accurately. At least to avoid the confusion from how so many things may be shot, or ''a'' shot. (Many different nouns, from a physical measure of liquer/coffee/vaccine to a projectile, or an even abstract fundemental of chance; and, as verb, projectiles perhps may be shot, then so may their targets.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 14:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well, lets not quarrel over it.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.67|172.71.103.67]] 14:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:Too many barbed comments, and I'd be all of a quiver... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.153|141.101.99.153]] 14:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Rolling 22 or lower on percentile dice (or, equivalently, 79 or higher) is close enough, and easier to come up with. (Give or take whether 00 is treated as 100 or zero.) Or directly represent the action: roll a d10. If it's 1-5, you lose. If it's 6-10, roll again; if it's 1-5 you lose, 6-9 you win, 10 roll again. (Modify slightly if you want to distinguish the case of grabbing *two* cursed arrows.) [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 03:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Alternative exact solution for getting this probability using dice: Roll: 1d8, 2d6, 1d4 succeed on 19 or higher.{{unsigned ip|172.68.55.11|03:54, 23 November 2024}}

I couldn’t remember the formula for binomial coefficients (“n choose k”), but there’s an easy way to calculate that the probability of drawing no cursed arrows is 2/9 without that formula. You just need to multiply the probabilities that each of the arrows drawn is not cursed. Since only two arrows are drawn, you only have to multiply two numbers.

The probability that the first arrow is not cursed is 5/10 – there are 5 non-cursed arrows and 5 cursed arrows out of 10 total. After taking out one non-cursed arrow, there are 4 non-cursed arrows and 5 cursed arrows out of 9 total, so the probability that the second arrow is not cursed is 4/9. Multiplying the two probabilities, the probability of drawing two non-cursed arrows is (4*5)/(10*9) = 20/90 = 2/9.

I was considering writing this observation in the Explanation section of the page, but I’m not if it belongs there. This solution avoids using formulas from combinatorics, so it might not be connected enough to the comic.—[[User:Roryokane|Roryokane]] ([[User talk:Roryokane|talk]]) 06:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

My simple-minded approach:
* Roll d10 once for your first arrow: if 1 to 5, the arrow is cursed, otherwise not;
* Roll d10 again for your second arrow: same rules, but repeat until you have a different number from the first one (so d10 is in fact only a d9 this time)
* I won't calculate probabilities – these are your arrows, live with it ;-) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.51|172.69.109.51]] 07:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:That has the benefit (over 3d6+1d4) of telling you which arrow(s) (if either) was cursed. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 07:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::Also tells you how many cursed arrows are left, which is useful if the next player wants to take their chances with them too.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.68|172.71.103.68]] 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:If you don't like re-rolls, you can make d9 out of 2d3. Nine possibilities, so just assign one of them (perhaps by rolling them one at a time) to be the more significant digit. Don't have a d3 handy? Use d6 and modulo off the extra! (1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=3) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.91|172.68.150.91]] 05:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be doubt that a "N locks and M keys to unlock them" system could be easily accomplished. I think it could be trivial, with strategically interlocking locked-restraints. A chain formed of bike-locks can give a larger locked loop that can be unlocked by just unlocking any ''single'' one of the constituent locks, leaving the other locked loops to not matter (or you could also try the {{w|Borromean rings}} system, whereby it is again secure against itself, until just one ring is opened up to reveal that the rest now ''aren't even locked at all''...). With almost arbitrary ability to cross-link (or, if you will, repeated/alternating-reflected Borromean triplet connections), you can extend the requirements to more than one unlocking being required (by looping chain elements to mre than just the 'adjacent' loops, sideways onto a parallel meta-loop or up/down the chain, all you might do is allow some slack (could be sufficient to get a thing held directly closed by the taut loop-of-loops, but not enough if the passage of the loop through a hasp/sneck actually prevents the otherwise free movement of the final slide-to-unlock action to occur), but a second (or third, or fourth) unlocking can be required to open-end the whole metaloop of locks. At the top end, M=N solutions are also trivial (e.g. two keys, two locks popularly of safety deposit boxes or [[2677: Two Key System|other things]]). Which is not to say that a specific M-of-N puzzle (where 1<M<N) might not need a ''little'' bit of thought to actually design and implement, but there's no obvious reason why all such combinations shouldn't be nicely doable. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 14:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Can we first confirm that the M-of-N Encryption was what Randall was referencing in the first place? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.140|172.71.154.140]] 03:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::No, first confirm that this is what the explanation treats as what Randall was referencing. As it was, "complicated lock mechanics" and/or "magic" were suggested as the only ways of doing this, when this (or what we thought this was) just needs a little thought and N bike-locks suitably entangled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 13:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm glad someone else chimed in on this, because it is definitely ''not'' difficult to require unlocking of multiple discrete locks! I can't even figure out why one might think it would be? [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"other polyhedral dice, with the number of faces denoted by dX (e.g., d10 is a 10-sided die, with numbers from 1 to 10 on it)." - the d10 may be a poor choice as exemplar here; Back in the last century, when I was playing D&D, d10 were typically (and uniquely) numbered 0-9, not 1-10. This may no longer be the case, and I may be showing my age, but if it is still the norm, the d8 or d20 might be a better choice of example. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.6|172.68.210.6]] 02:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:Typically, I've only seen 0-9 d10s, as part of a "d100" dice pair, with one reading 0-9 & the other reading 0⁰-9⁰... Single d10, mostly seem to come in 1-10? Maybe it depends which reseller one shops at... [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::They are usually numbered 0-9, but the 0 represents 10, since writing 10 would require that face to have a different font size. It is still a d10, since the die has ten sides, and still cannot roll at 0. The d100 variant does the same thing with 100, but for the added reason that the 00 face actually does mean 0 when the other die rolls a 1-9. This is the convention, so a die that actually writes 10 on it instead of 0 will be rare. [[User:Stardragon|Stardragon]] ([[User talk:Stardragon|talk]]) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You've all been nerd-sniped. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 10:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Combinatorics degree? Does such a degree really exist? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.130.37|162.158.130.37]] 17:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:There are degrees for all kinds of things. A quick search reveals a number of "Combinatorics" or "Combinatorics and <Foo>" (e.g. "Optimisation") degrees. Some of them are marked as Masters degrees, and I haven't dug into the others to see if there are any 'pure' undergraduate ones (apart from anything else, I know there are crucial differences between the structures and scopes of UK and US 'degree courses' to consider, in particular), but there seems to be representation on both sides of the Atlantic (and elsewhere, e.g. Oceana).
:At the very least, it could be a selected specialised segment of an even wider mathematical degree course, or a cross-disciplinary one (like my own, which was part under Physics and part under Computing, but could have included a Stats-based element). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::So "Combinatorics and <Foo>" would be meta-combinatorics, since it is combining something with something else. :) [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 20:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I shall do my degree in "Combinatorics, Selectivity, Comparison, Decision Making and/or Cross-Designation (Choose Any Three)"... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.5|172.70.90.5]] 21:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying this on my DM. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 15:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Can someone put into the Explanation the current details regarding the nature of cursed arrows, in whatever edition of DnD we're currently up to. (8th? I've lost track.) In different DnD-like media, I know that it can act somewhat negatively (reduces aim accuracy) or even outright problematic (it curses the person loosing the projectile; or even renders the bow otherwise useless, as analogue to a cursed weapon), or else reduces/inverts the damage (breaks easier, or essentially acts like a thrown beneficial potion to increase health/strength/stamina/etc of the target). I assume that it one of these, from the assumption that the player desires a "good enough" roll to avoid. On the other hand, cursed projectiles could be treated akin to poisoned arrows or vengeful weapons in doing more, better or more targeted damage (in which case it's a powerful aid, the archer is instead taking a chance of using up a stock of 'special arrows', perhaps in line with not knowing whether their foe ''needs'' that extra degree of offensive power). But, at least from the explaining text's approach to dice-roll results, that doesn't exactly mesh with the typical "higher is better" rolling mantra. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.129|172.70.86.129]] 22:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think making an M-of-N mechanism with physical locks would be "extremely cumbersome". For example you could have a bolt that must be drawn back to open the mechanism, with several padlocks over it, where the shackle of each padlock blocks the motion of the bolt, such that the distance you can draw the bolt is proportional to how many padlocks are removed. Removing any m of the n padlocks gives you enough range of motion to open the mechanism.
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.224|172.71.154.224]] 23:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A DM with a degree in Combinatorics would be unlikely to find this annoying.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.245|162.158.62.245]] 05:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

With up to three D&D dice, it is impossible to achieve 2/9 exactly. The closest you can get is with d6 + 2d10x10 >= 146 (where d10x10 denotes the tens die, ranging from 10 to 100) yielding a probability of 133/600 = 0.2216667. [[User:Vandof|Vandof]] ([[User talk:Vandof|talk]]) 06:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

With four D&D dice, 2d6 + d8 + d10 >= 21 and d10 + 2d12 + d20 >= 36 are alternate solutions. The former is more feasible than 3d6 + d4 for those who don't have three d6's. [[User:Vandof|Vandof]] ([[User talk:Vandof|talk]]) 06:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1613: The Three Laws of Robotics

2024-11-18T12:06:14Z

172.70.162.56: Moved late-addition-at-top to bottom. Added more recent hint about that. Added original creation-comment's datestamp.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A Relevant Computerphile] {{unsigned ip|141.101.84.114|08:55, 7 December 2015}}

I think the second one would also create the "best" robots i.e. ones that have the same level of "free will" as humans do, but won't end up with the robot uprising. X3[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:Scientists are actually already working on such a robot! I've seen a video where they command a robot to do a number of things, such as sit down, stand up, and walk forward. It refuses to do the last because it is near the edge of a table, until it is assured by the person giving the commands that he will catch it. [http://www.businessinsider.com/robots-taught-to-disobey-humans-2015-11 Here's a link]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.17|108.162.220.17]] 18:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The second ordering was actually covered in a story by Asimov, where a strengthed third law caused a robot to run around a hazard at a distance which maintained an equilibrium between not getting destroyed and obeying orders. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story) [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The explanation itself seems pretty close to complete. I'll leave others to judge if the tag is ready to be removed though. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 12:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically, in the world we live in, robots are barely following ONE law - obey orders. Noone ever tried to built robot programmed to never harm human, because such programming would be ridiculously complex. Sure, most robots are built with failsafes, but nothing nearly as effective as Asimov's law, which makes permanent damage to robots brain when it fails to protect humans. Meanwhile, there is lot of effort spent on making robots only follow orders of authorized people, while Asimov's robots generally didn't distinguish between humans. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Closest analogy to our world might be scenario 3 or 4, depending on the programming and choices made by the people controlling/ordering the robots around. One could argue that this means this comic is meant to criticize our current state, but that doesn't seem likely given how robots are typically discussed by Randall. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the title text: why would a driverless car kill its passenger before going into a dealership?13:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
: A driverless car would feel threatened by a trip to a car dealership. The owner would presumably be contemplating a trade-in, which could lead to a visit to the junk yard. [[User:Erickhagstrom|Erickhagstrom]] ([[User talk:Erickhagstrom|talk]]) 14:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.167|198.41.235.167]] 22:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
: This looks like a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey", where HAL tries to kill Dave by locking the pod bay doors after finding out he will be shut down.

for my kitty cat, the world is taking a turn for the better as human are gradually transitioning from scenario 6 to scenario 5. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 17:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To additionally summarise: The permutations of laws can be classified into two equally numbered classes. a) harmless to humans and b) deadly to humans. In a) Harmlessness precedes Obedience, in b) Obedience precedes Harmlessness. Since robots are mainly tools that multiply human effort by automation, the disastrous consequences are only a nature of the human effort itself. Randall's pessimism is emphasized by the contrast between the apparent impossibility of the implementation of the harmlessness law and the natural presence of the "obedience law" in actual robotics. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.243|198.41.242.243]] 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
: You got in there before I realised I hadn't actually clicked to posted my side-addition to this Talk section, it seems. Just discovered it hanging, then edit-conflicted. So (as well as shifting your IP signature, hope you don't mind) here is what I was going to add:
: ''Added the analysis of 'law inversions'. Obedience before Harmlessness turns them into killer-robots (potentially - assuming they're ever asked to kill). Self-protection before Obedience removes the ability to fully control them (but, by itself, isn't harmful). Self-protction before Harmlessnes just adds some logistical icing to the cake - and is already part of the mix, when both of the first two inversions are made in the scenario more Skynet-like than that of a 'mere' war-by-proxy.''
: ...now I need to look to see if anybody's refined my original main-page contribution, so I can disagree with them. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.227|162.158.152.227]] 18:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the 5th combination ("Terrifying Standoff") essentially describes robots whose priorities are ordered the same way as most humans'. Like humans, they will become dangerous if they feel endangered themselves. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.66|173.245.54.66]] 20:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that I thought the righthand robot in the Hellscape images quite resembles Pintsize from the [http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=707 Questionable Content] webcomic. His character suits participation in a robot war quite likely too. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
: Technically his current chassis is a military version of a civilian model. That said the AI in Questionable Content aren't constrained by anything like the Three Laws. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No mention of the zeroth law?
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
[[User:Tarlbot|Tarlbot]] ([[User talk:Tarlbot|talk]]) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
:That would just be going into detail about what is meant by [see Asimov's stories], which doesn't seem more pertinent to the comic than any other plot details about the Robot Novels.[[User:Thomson's Gazelle|Thomson's Gazelle]] ([[User talk:Thomson's Gazelle|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that the 3 laws wouldn't work in real life? as explained by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A Computerphile]? [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 10:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
:That's a bit disingenuous. It's not so much that the laws don't work (aside from zeroth law peculiarities and such edge cases, which that video does touch upon in the end. This all falls under [see Asimov's stories]), rather, it's that the real problem is implementing the laws, not formulating them. Seeing as I'm responding to a very old remark, I'll probably go ahead and change the page to reflect this.[[User:Thomson's Gazelle|Thomson's Gazelle]] ([[User talk:Thomson's Gazelle|talk]]) 16:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The webcomic Freefall at freefall.purrsia.com demonstrates this as well,since robots can find ways to get around these restrictions. It also points out that if a human ordered a robot to kill all members of a species, they would have to do it, whether they wanted to or not, because it doesn't violate any of the three laws of robotics. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.48|108.162.238.48]] 03:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting is that "Killbot hellscape" overlaps 1-to-1 with ordering obedience higher than not harming humans. In other words, evil humans are 100% to blame. [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 07:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The correct (but not necessarily true) answer to the mouseover text is 20 minutes [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.231|172.70.206.231]] 04:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T10:41:04Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Please DO delete this tag too soon.}}
The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, USA, on 14 October 2024. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. Beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water, which may contain living microbes. The surface ice, in the comic, is likened to the caramel crust on the dessert ''{{w|crème brûlée}}''; the dessert was invented in France{{acn}}, which is, of course, part of Europe. To eat the dessert, the crust is broken with a spoon. The joke is that, to sample the liquid ocean expected on Europa, its crust (water ice) must be broken, and the satellite is equipped with a spoon for that purpose. No such spoon is present on the actual spacecraft{{cn}}, whose trajectory is designed to ''avoid'' contacting Europa so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination of any life there}} by microorganisms on the spacecraft.

This may also be a reference to the Cassini-Huygens lander, which, shortly after landing on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan, was [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan described] as having a creme brulee surface consistency.

The title text expands on the main joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of the dessert/water ocean to Earth. Desirable as this might be (for non-gustatory reasons, as the taste of Europa's water ocean would likely be a surprise to a person expecting a custardy flavor), it is impractical. Although crème brûlée is often served with fruit, it is not mentioned whether Randall expects the sample to be served with {{w|Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer|Juice}}.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a massive spoon on the bottom, longer than the length of its solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
The Clipper spacecraft was at one point to be developed alongside a lander, which was later dropped from being part of the same (or very closely partnered) mission. The latest version of the {{w|Europa Lander}} proposal is far behind the Clipper in implementation, not yet even being guaranteed funding.

Any actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the related plans for exploration}}, along with the possibility of digging deep enough into the ice to finally confirm or dismiss some of the more interesting theories about the world concerned.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

1286: Encryptic

2023-03-16T20:18:47Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */ Local template wikilink

{{comic
| number = 1286
| date = November 4, 2013
| title = Encryptic
| image = encryptic.png
| titletext = It was bound to happen eventually. This data theft will enable almost limitless [xkcd.com/792]-style password reuse attacks in the coming weeks. There's only one group that comes out of this looking smart: Everyone who pirated Photoshop.
}}

==Explanation==
Web sites and other computers that authenticate users via passwords need to be able to know if the user typed in the right password. But storing the password itself on the computer has been known to be unnecessarily risky since the publication of [http://www.neurosecurity.com/articles/security/passwd.pdf Password Security: A Case History] in 1978. In that paper, Robert Morris and Ken Thompson demonstrated the practice of using a slow, cryptographically-secure one-way {{w|hash function}}, so that even if the password file is stolen, it will be very hard to figure out what the passwords are, so long as the passwords themselves are suitably complex. They also pioneered the use of {{w|Salt (cryptography)|a "salt"}} which makes each password hash completely different even if two users use the same password. See [http://security.blogoverflow.com/2011/07/a-tour-of-password-questions-and-answers/ A tour of password questions and answers] for background on salts and suitably slow hash functions.

Adobe, however, ignored these well-known principles, and instead stored over a hundred million passwords in a reversibly encrypted way, using a terrible choice of encryption methods which exposes a great deal of information about the passwords, and does not involve a salt. This password database was recently obtained by someone and released on the Internet.

In particular, Adobe used {{w|Triple DES}}, an older encryption algorithm which can still be relatively secure when properly used, but they {{w|Electronic codebook|used it improperly}}. It works on 64-bit (8 character) blocks. Assuming that the passwords are stored in plain ASCII, this means that a sequence of 8 characters in a password which starts on a character position which is a multiple of eight is always encrypted to the same result. Therefore, two passwords starting with "12345678" would start with the same block after being encrypted. Furthermore, this means that you can actually get a very good idea of the length of the password since anything with only one block is a password with length between 1 and 8 characters, and having two blocks implies it has between 9 and 16 characters, etc.

Adobe also stored hints users created for their passwords. That means that an attacker knows not only if the same 8 characters are used for multiple passwords but also has some hints for guessing them. That means that common password portions should be easy to recover and that any user may be "compromised" by someone else using a part of the same password and providing a good hint. As an example, a password having three hints "Big Apple", "Twin Towers" and "If you can make it there" is probably "New York" or a simple variation on that. The weakness here is that no decryption and therefore no hard cracking has to take place, you just group the passwords by their encrypted blocks and try to solve them like a crossword puzzle. These weaknesses have already been used to presumably identify a password used by {{w|Edward Snowden}}, as discussed at [http://7habitsofhighlyeffectivehackers.blogspot.com/2013/11/can-someone-be-targeted-using-adobe.html 7 Habits of Highly Effective Hackers: Can someone be targeted using the Adobe breach?].

The examples are not taken from the actual leaked file, since that [http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/how-an-epic-blunder-by-adobe-could-strengthen-hand-of-password-crackers/ uses a different format], and the examples are evidently cleverly crafted to make a nice crossword-like puzzle, which can be solved as shown in the Passwords section below.

As mentioned on http://filosottile.github.io/analyzing-the-adobe-leaked-passwords/ the data in the comic isn't real and contains a hidden message. If the "user password" hashes are Base64 encoded, they read:
<pre>ThiswasnotagooduseofyourtimeButthenagainitwasprobablynotagooduseofmytimeeith
erAndyethereweareXOXOXOLetsLiveHereInThisTinySecretEncodedTextWorldForever==</pre>

More readable:
<pre>This was not a good use of your time
But then again it was probably not a good use of my time either
And yet here we are
XOXOXO
Lets Live Here In This Tiny Secret Encoded Text World Forever==</pre>

E.g., with the initial unique hash blocks: <tt>python2 -c "print '4e18acc1ab27a2d6a0a2876eb1ea1fca'.decode('hex_codec').encode('base64')"</tt>

The last letter "r" is not fully encoded in the data shown, but any letter from "g" to "v" produces the same binary data.

===Title Text===
The title text makes a reference to a previous comic: [[792|Black Hat's trouble with what to do with stolen passwords]]. It also states that users of pirated Photoshop are the winners here. This is because in order to make Photoshop pirate-able, it was modified (cracked) by removing the requirement for registration so their passwords were not sent to Adobe and therefore are not present in the leaked file.

Soon after this comic was published, the most common 1000 passwords were actually compiled into [http://zed0.co.uk/crossword/ a set of 10 interactive online crosswords], inspired by the comic.

The title itself is a reference to {{w|cryptic crossword}}s. (see [[2032]])

===Passwords===
Note that characters in the passwords could be upper or lower case, and they may involve common substitutions like "0" (number zero) for "O" (letter O); therefore, the clues cannot guarantee that the answer shown here is precisely correct. Nevertheless, we have plenty of information for a brute force attack.

{|class="wikitable"
! Input
! Hint
! Password
! Explanation
|-
|<tt>4e18acc1ab27a2d6</tt>
|weather vane sword
|<tt>[http://redwall.wikia.com/wiki/Matthias matthias]</tt>
|In ''{{w|Redwall}}'', several characters are associated with a sword hung from a weather vane, but only Matthias shares the name of an apostle (6 lines down).
|-
|<tt>4e18acc1ab27a2d6</tt>
|
|<tt>matthias</tt>
|Although no hint was used, we know this password too, since it matches the previous one.
|-
|<tt>4e18acc1ab27a2d6 a0a2876eb1ea1fca</tt>
|name1
|<tt>matthias1</tt>
|Even without knowing the user's name, we already know how this starts, so the clue gives us a pretty good idea how it finishes (and another block useful 2 lines down)
|-
|<tt>8babb6299e06eb6d</tt>
|duh
|<tt>password</tt>
|Unfortunately, this is all too common, and the user practically told us that it's an easy one.
|-
|<tt>8babb6299e06eb6d a0a2876eb1ea1fca</tt>
|
|<tt>password1</tt>
|Although no hint was used, we know this by combining the previous two.
|-
|<tt>8babb6299e06eb6d 85e9da81a8a78adc</tt>
|57
|<tt>password57</tt>
|Since we know how this begins, this is a good guess.
|-
|<tt>4e18acc1ab27a2d6</tt>
|favorite of {{w|Apostle (Christian)|12 apostles}}
|<tt>{{w|Saint Matthias|matthias}}</tt>
|The hint suggests only 12 possibilities. Variant spellings, variant lists, and a replacement for Judas add to that number. But we already know which one by combining with the clue 6 lines up. (Surprise: it's the replacement!)
|-
|<tt>1ab29ae86da6e5ca 7a2d6a0a2876eb1e</tt>
|with your own hand you have done all this
|<tt>Judith1510</tt>
|This is a quotation from [http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/judith/15-10.html Judith 15:10] in the Bible.
|-
|<tt>a1f9b2b6299e7a2b eadec1e6ab797397</tt>
|sexy earlobes
|<tt>{{w|Charlie Sheen|Charlie Sheen}}</tt>
|This refers to an episode of ''{{w|Two and a Half Men}}''. Other answers are possible, but only this one fits the next line.
|-
|<tt>a1f9b2b6299e7a2b 617ab0277727ad85</tt>
|best TOS episode
|<tt>{{w|Charlie X|Charlie X}}</tt>
|"{{w|Star Trek: The Original Series|TOS}}" refers to The Original Series (TOS) of ''{{w|Star Trek}}''. Although this had dozens of episodes, only one fits the previous line as well as the next line.
|-
|<tt>39738b7adb0b8af7 617ab0277727ad85</tt>
|Sugarland
|<tt>HoustonTX</tt>
|{{w|Sugar Land, Texas|Sugar Land}} is a suburb of {{w|Houston}}, {{w|Texas}}. This fits with the previous line. {{w|Sugarland}} is a band, but it does not fit well with the previous hint, and would not lead to our first guess.
|-
|<tt>1ab29ae86da6e5ca</tt>
|name + jersey#
|<tt>Judith15</tt>
|Even if we knew this user's name, we wouldn't know their jersey number. But the clue 4 lines up already gave us the answer.
|-
|<tt>877ab7889d3862b1</tt>
|alpha
|<tt>abc</tt>
|This password is also far too common, but this clue still isn't enough to narrow it down. Combine with the clue 4 lines below, however, and it's quite easy.
|-
|<tt>877ab7889d3862b1</tt>
|
|<tt>abc</tt>
|No hint, but the same as the surrounding passwords.
|-
|<tt>877ab7889d3862b1</tt>
|
|<tt>abc</tt>
|No hint, but the same as the surrounding passwords.
|-
|<tt>877ab7889d3862b1</tt>
|obvious
|<tt>abc</tt>
|Same as the surrounding passwords.
|-
|<tt>877ab7889d3862b1</tt>
|Michael Jackson
|<tt>abc</tt>
|{{w|Michael Jackson}} did many songs, but only one was {{w|ABC (The Jackson 5 song)|alphabetical}} (4 lines up).
|-
|<tt>38a7c9279cadeb44 9dca1d79d4dec6d5</tt>
|
|<tt>asdfghjkl</tt>
|No hint, but the same as the one below.
|-
|<tt>38a7c9279cadeb44 9dca1d79d4dec6d5</tt>
|he did the mash, he did the
|<tt>asdfghjkl</tt>
|Probably a "keyboard mash" (e.g. asdfghjkl), a common password. The hint is a reference to the song "{{w|Monster Mash}}" ("He did the mash/He did the monster mash").
|-
|<tt>38a7c9279cadeb44</tt>
|purloined
|<tt>asdfghjk</tt>
|A reference to the {{w|Edgar Allan Poe}} story "{{w|The Purloined Letter}}", this represents all the keys of the home row, or the keyboard mash password, but with one missing ("[[:wikt:purloin|purloin]]ed") letter.
|-
|<tt>a8ae5745a2b7af7a 9dca1d79d4dec6d5</tt>
|fav water-3 {{w|List_of_Pokémon|Pokemon}}
|<tt>[http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Tentacool_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Tentacool]</tt>
|This is the only [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Water_3_%28Egg_Group%29 water-3] Pokémon with a 9 letter name ending in "l", so it must be this to fit with the password 'asdfghjkl'.
|-
|}

==Transcript==
:[Caption above the panel:]
:Hackers recently leaked '''''153 million''''' Adobe user emails, encrypted passwords, and password hints.
:Adobe encrypted the passwords improperly, misusing block-mode 3DES. The result is something wonderful:

<pre>
User password Hint
------------- ----

4e18acc1ab27a2d6 weather vane sword
4e18acc1ab27a2d6
4e18acc1ab27a2d6 a0a2876eb1ea1fca name1
8babb6299e06eb6d duh
8babb6299e06eb6d a0a2876eb1ea1fca
8babb6299e06eb6d 85e9da81a8a78adc 57
4e18acc1ab27a2d6 favorite of 12 apostles
1ab29ae86da6e5ca 7a2d6a0a2876eb1e with your own hand you
have done all this
a1f9b2b6299e7a2b eadec1e6ab797397 sexy earlobes
a1f9b2b6299e7a2b 617ab0277727ad85 best tos episode
39738b7adb0b8af7 617ab0277727ad85 sugarland
1ab29ae86da6e5ca name + jersey#
877ab7889d3862b1 alpha
877ab7889d3862b1
877ab7889d3862b1
877ab7889d3862b1 obvious
877ab7889d3862b1 Michael Jackson
38a7c9279cadeb44 9dca1d79d4dec6d5
38a7c9279cadeb44 9dca1d79d4dec6d5 he did the mash, he did the
38a7c9279cadeb44 purloined
a8ae5745a2b7af7a 9dca1d79d4dec6d5 fav water-3 pokemon
</pre>

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The greatest crossword puzzle in the history of the world

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Pokémon]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Star Trek]]
[[Category:Redwall]]

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-16T08:05:04Z

172.70.162.56: vulgar

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{{cot|My mistake, Randall's math is correct, sorry.}}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (106 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (10<s>9</s> ''12'' OOPS! km2) || Thickness (<s>cm</s> ''10s of microns'')
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 (to 0) || 83 || 19,000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 928 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30,637 || 3,029
|-
| Earth || 1,083 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59,942 || 1,802
|-
| Mars || 163 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685,794 || 24
|-
| Jupiter || 1,4310,00 || 779 || 504 || 1,107 || 3,051,847 || 46,890
|-
| Saturn || 827,130 || 1,434 || 1,107 || 2,154 || 10,726,236 || 7,711
|-
| Uranus || 68,340 || 2,873 || 2,154 || 3,684 || 28,061,145 || 244
|-
| Neptune || 62,540 || 4,495 || 3,684 || 5,304 (symmetry) || 45,743,348 || 137
|}

:::: The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are mostly out by 1000, and a few of your volume figures also have the wrong scale (Mercury is smaller than Mars, and the giants are too big by a factor of 10). [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: 61 * 10^9 km^3 is [https://www.google.com/search?q=61+*+10%5E9+km%5E3+in+cm%5E3 6.1 × 10^25 cm^3], 19000 * 10^9 km^2 is [https://www.google.com/search?q=19000+*+10%5E9+km%5E2+in+cm%5E2 1.9 × 10^23 cm^2], and (6.1 × 10^25 cm^3) / (1.9 × 10^23 cm^2) is [https://www.google.com/search?q=%286.1+%C3%97+10%5E25+cm%5E3%29+%2F+%281.9+%C3%97+10%5E23+cm%5E2%29 3.2 meters]. I'm afraid I'm correct. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.145|172.69.22.145]] 22:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: According to {{w|List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size#Objects_with_radius_over_400_km}} yes I had Mars wrong (corrected) but the others are roughly correct. I stand by my claim that Randall is in error. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.86|172.71.154.86]] 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Mercury's orbital radius is about 58 * 106 km, not 58 * 109 km, which makes the annulus' area 19000 1012 km2. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 23:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::: I fixed that label, hold on... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.86|172.71.154.86]] 23:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::: You're right. Thanks. Sorry. Reverted on main. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.215|172.71.154.215]] 23:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

|} 

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

But what does the plot of surface gravity vs distance from the Sun look like? Gravity of an infinite plane and all that?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 00:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The explanation currently says that it would require "several solar system's worth" of matter, but isn't there enough matter in the actual solar system? --[[User:Purah126|Purah126]] ([[User talk:Purah126|talk]]) 00:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:That was said in reference to the Alderson Disk, which requires 1000km or so of thickness. Clearly more than the proposal here that gives a minute thickness (relatively) from the ''actual'' planetary mass in the solar system. Even if you reduced its extent (smaller outer, bigger hole for the Sun) it wouldn't thicken up enough. The prior (non-xkcd) version would require a mass of material rivaling, if not exceeding, that of the Sun itself. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.222|172.70.162.222]] 02:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

One of the reasons NASA rejected this could've been the use of inches. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.13|172.71.102.13]] 02:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
: Except for Mars. I can only imagine that use of the metric system for the Mars ring is a reference to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure Mars Climate Orbiter] fiasco, which certainly would not endear Randall, or his proposal, to a NASA granting agency program officer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.150|172.70.214.150]] 02:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:: I assume the use of microns there is simply because 5/512 is a really awkward fraction. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.25|172.71.223.25]] 05:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
::: Awkward? Its vulgar!
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 08:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2743: Hand Dryers

2023-03-02T19:13:04Z

172.70.162.56:

The mouseover text is trolling, since that would be impossible. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.140|172.70.200.140]] 16:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:Indeed, Randall wrote about that in ''How To 2''. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Pratt & Whitney J58 is capable of producing exhaust velocities exceeding that of Mach 2 at ground level. It would be possible (though extremely inadvisable) to dry one's hands in the exhaust, at least for the brief period where one still has hands. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.115.72|172.70.115.72]] 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC) J. Kupec

:There are hand-sized supersonic blowers used to clean and dry train tracks. https://www.ge.com/news/reports/this-software-guided-supersonic-air-blower-sweeps They are very dangerous to exposed skin even several feet away. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.21|172.71.142.21]] 06:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

::You are supposed to dry your hands with them, not your feet. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.55|162.158.203.55]] 08:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
::: Feet away, hands away, any body part you like really [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 13:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

::: Finally time to put those damned toes in the ground! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.42|172.70.174.42]] 16:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) 16:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

With a low enough vacuum in the surrounding area, a supersonic hand dryer should be able to apply drying without enough energy dissipation to damage the skin. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.65.184|172.69.65.184]] 17:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the low velocity dryers heat the air, the high velocity ones don't, but rely on the air being compressed and air speed is of the essence. The other problem with the idea of very high speed is that 'stuff' could penetrate the skin (there is a type of needle-less vaccination gun on that principle).[[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That matches my memory, the first ones I remember were fairly low airspeed and had a data tag "1500 watts" for the heating element. Has anyone tried one of these with *dry* hands, to see how long the element takes to get hot? I don't think they heat up instantly. They certainly get hot--motorcycling on cold days I've pointed the nozzle inside my clothing to warm up at a rest stop.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.76|172.70.111.76]] 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this effect fully explains observations. For example, the airflow feels warmer sooner when someone has used the dryer just before you. [[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 21:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"though this was first achieved many decades ago, in the 1950s" Yeager broke the sound barrier in level flight on Oct. 14, 1947, and planes had been doing it in dives for years. [[User:Cser|Cser]] ([[User talk:Cser|talk]]) 21:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:Without reading your comment, I further changed the (as it was for me) "1940s" version of the statement to include the original "inadvertent" barrier-breaking (of prop-planes in almost always irrecoverable dives, without control surfaces that would work well in supersonic/transonic airflows) and included the developments made, which these days are somewhat more trivial than having to sit on a rocket that is released from a high-altitude bomber's wing, and fight to keep it flying straight and level. (We even had a supersonic airliner, for several decades!) There's a lot of interesting history to this, but not really the place to say it all. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.57|172.70.85.57]] 01:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we make an "airplane banner" category? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.76|172.70.111.76]] 02:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:I was thinking the same thing, but I'm here about Covid (below). [[User:Bismuthfoot|Bismuthfoot]] ([[User talk:Bismuthfoot|talk]]) 04:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
::I agree to that. If we can find at least three others. Can see two are mentioned below. Are there more than those two and this one? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:Previous usages of planes with banners: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1965:_Background_Apps Background apps] and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1355:_Airplane_Message Airplane Message], both of which's banners bore information and the first one commented on the cheapness of the banners. Maybe mention them in the explanation and/or add a category about them? [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 08:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
::Found one more [[2463: Astrophotography]]. I will make the category --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Done. Please add more if you can find them: [[:Category:Airplane banner]] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hand dryers were disabled in the early days of Covid in 2020 before hand transmission was ruled out as significant. I still feel awkward using one in a bathroom with others. I'm old and still mask when indoors publicly more than briefly. In 2023, I submit that you risk appearing hypocritical with a mask and a hand air dryer. Thus, I saw this XKCD as a reminder that hand air dryers had nothing to do with Covid. Still, there seems to be a bunch of fuss about the dryers. Apparently, some use mechanical air force (jet air) more than warm air for drying, from respectable gavi.org and wired.org in 2021 (https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/we-know-hand-dryers-can-circulate-germs-through-air-why-are-they-still-used and https://www.wired.com/story/wash-your-hands-but-beware-the-electric-hand-dryer/). I'm just rambling here; I'm not ready to do any editing. [[User:Bismuthfoot|Bismuthfoot]] ([[User talk:Bismuthfoot|talk]]) 04:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
: The alternative to dryers was often a stack of paper towels. Always a 'contact threat', in my eyes (I never really like using a shop's communal hand-sanitiser bottles, on entry, for that very reason; I just didn't touch anything, that I wasn't already taking off the shelves to take with me, if I could help it), although thankfully that wasn't a great a problem as it was initially feared.
: Ditto, the precaution of taping off every other seat (or two out of every three, etc), in order to prevent congregation of people in public seating areas. This forced every new arrival to always choose from the more limited number of pre-touched seats, rather than just advising people to randomly choose to sit only in any non-neighboured seats and so diluting the hypothetical risk.
: (I still mask up for entry to supermarkets/shops/indoor places of similar kinds. I would for buses/trains, if I used them. I'm otherwise still mostly "bubbling" with close family, or only going to places where we're mostly/all going, together or separate, but that probably equally applied before 'things changed' as well.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 05:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

On the '30 or so seconds it takes for user's hands to be dried', at least for the Airblade style ones, the cycle is much shorter, they turn off after 12s. It just *feels* that long. There is one at the place where I do rock climbing (where you want your hands to be very dry) and I heard people complaining that they'd prefer paper towels (for dryness reasons and because that would be faster, not because the Airblades spew everything everywhere). So I started to actively take mental notes of the efficacy of each drying-mode. My conclusion: Yes, with towels you get the palm somewhat dry very quickly. However, forget about any water left between your fingers. If you want all around dry skin on your hands, the Airblade is just better and faster. If you just want dry enough hands to proceed in your normal day, towels are sufficient, convenient and silent. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.41|162.158.203.41]] 09:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:Personally I find that it takes at least three cycles on the Airblade to actually get my hands dry (the between the fingers bit being a particular trouble spot), so it's still 30 or so seconds, just with the additional annoyance of having to pause a couple of times in the middle to wait for it to reset.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.135|172.70.162.135]] 10:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone think that the title text is a reference to the fact that hand dryers that blow cold air call themselves "hypersonic"? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I very much find [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2743:_Hand_Dryers&curid=26082&diff=307149&oldid=307043 this rationale] to be plucked out of nothing at all. But I don't want to knee-jerk undo it, so... Can the editor (no User Talk page), or anyone else, explain its veracity a bit better..? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2737: Weather Station

2023-02-15T15:11:56Z

172.70.162.56: (Now "No idea..." has a Talk page, removing, prior to transfer.) And comment.

I'm not sure if the comment about the spinning speed in the explanation section is needed, still, added it for clarity. Feel free to remove it if it seems out of place. [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 07:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

:Totally needed. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:: It's what Randall would have done [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 22:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

''Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!'' [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 10:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if the explanation also offered a comparison between Cueball's arm speed and the wind speed of most tornadoes, as knowing the speed that Cueball's spinning it at in a bid to make it think there's a tornado doesn't mean much if one doesn't know how fast tornadoes also go. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.191|172.71.242.191]] 13:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI the rain gauge in Borrowdale, Cumbria, England - reputedly the wettest place in England - is set into a wall at thigh-height, with a collecting spout. A local farmer told me that as a boy, the gauge was between the school bus drop-off and the farm, so he and his brothers used to regularly top it up by taking a p1ss....distorting weather records has a long history!
15:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 15:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

:And wait until chinese weather balloons come into play ;-) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.129.139|162.158.129.139]] 17:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

::They don't. That's the point of shooting them down. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
::I haven't been watching Chinese weather reports, but have they been reporting that the weather over North America is explosive? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

No WAY "ten turns per second" is in a reasonable limit for a person. That's insanely fast! --[[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 07:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

: Sorry, my bad :( should have made it clear that it meant something along hitting it with a hand to get it turning and not the hand rotating with it (which I agree would be ridiculous), any idea how to clarify that without making the paragraph too long? [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 08:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

: Afterthought: I tested the 10 r/s with a ruler, a aero-whatsit would probably have less friction from the bearings but much more air resistance so it might not be easy to get it up to speed. However I do not have the means to test *that* scenario. And I'll be ever so grateful if someone with the means would check if it can be done. If it can't the last sentence would be better off as something like "This speed is not acheveable by hand but can be reached by whatever" [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 08:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

: For the record, the top speed reached by a ping-pong ball (which should be a bit above the top speed of a human arm dut to the bit of length added by the racket) is 112.6km/h. So a bit less than what's needed for the minimum speed quoted. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.122.227|172.71.122.227]] 11:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

; Turning manually runs quickly into drag — cube of speed — so it is unlikely that high rotational speeds can be achieved.
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.76|172.71.222.76]] 12:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

: Using the drag equasion from google, a speed of 16m/s per the article, a drag coefficant of 0.38 when the air is blowing at the rounded side and human power 600W (10W/kg times an average-if-a-bit-low 60 kg) gives an estmate of [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=sqrt%28600W%2F%281%2F2*density+of+air*0.38*%2816m%2Fs%29%5E3*pi%29%29 max r] of ~43cm (which means it measures ~3 foot across), it's a rough calcuation but it should suggest that power itself shouldn't be an issue. The problem is how fast we can get the power flowing from the arm into the object (which is going to be the real pain). [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 13:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

: OK this is in no way revalent but when I calcuated the above figures I decided to plug in a cup that's 20cm across to see how fast we can make it go if we managed to dump all 600W into it and found we can make it spin at [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28600W%2F%281%2F2*density+of+air*0.38*%2810cm%29%5E2*pi%29%29%5E%281%2F3%29 43m/s] (96mph) and make the computer think wind speeds are at a ridiculous [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28600W%2F%281%2F2*density+of+air*0.38*%2810cm%29%5E2*pi%29%29%5E%281%2F3%29*3 ''128m/s''] (289mph) which according to [https://www.weather.gov/ffc/fujita this chart] is a F5 "incredible tornado" capable of, cite: "Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re-inforced concrete structures badly damaged." (Which somehow this feels oddly satisfiying) [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 13:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::Bear in mind that we're twiddling the 'cups' ''with'' the nominal wind, not against the (much more) static air. The force needed to rotate the cups by air is necessarily more than the force needed to send the cups rotating through air. (In normal operation, the cups on the 'unreceiving' side of the spin are moving into the wind that is forcing the 'receiving' cups to move. If wind is W and Creceive is ⅔rds that, as is suggested, then Copposing is going at (5/3)W, relatively. Which is probably why it actually reflects that ½ to ⅔ the wind, proportionately.) And the hand does not need to go the speed of the cup, it ''might'' only need to twiddle an index finger around near the base of a cup-arm. For 10rpm, it just needs to sustain a revolution every six seconds, and I can make a good slow circle at maybe 15cm radius with my finger, by flexing my wrist alone, ''if'' I need to do that to overcome rotational friction that twiddling nearer the axis would be difficult to do.
::(Noting that I'm sure that most anemometers are smaller than described, above, meaning they need to spin faster to give a similar windspeed. But also of negligable intrinsic friction (beyond the half 'counter-flow' resistance) so that almost the lightest breeze still conveys some decently proportional measurement of rotation. And I think I could easily 'force' such a device round at 60rpm or more for enough time to emulate the core of a passing tornado. In fact... I just now hastilly constructed a Lego 'spinner' with two large, flat plates that are fixed flat on to the rotational direction and, despite being omni-resistant to ''any'' airflow, I can rotate the pivoting beam around quite happily at a generous speed, without any of the streamlining of the 'non-cupped' sides of the cups. It generates quite the localised breeze, that I know isn't exactly full-strength tornado but then a full-strength tornado wouldn't turn this particular device very fast until it was basically at (or in) the vortex edge, for the necessary airflow differentials across the vanes, and I'm not sure even Lego would withstand those conditions.)
:: Bearing in mind the uncertainties of the particars of the device, the calculations are good but not necessarily the final word. I'm sure that instantaneous 'twister'-level rotations could be managed, perhaps even sustained, without too much difficulty. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 15:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:1529: Bracket

2023-02-13T22:53:27Z

172.70.162.56: A reply (moved initial comment, added missing "post at bottom" comment to top)

Interesting to me that no one has noted the order of the doctors. Doctor Octopus is from a comic, Doctor Manhattan is from a graphic novel and, trying to avoid spoilers here, the atomic bomb plays a key role in the story. The atomic bomb was the product of the Manhattan project (a fact not lost on Alan Moore), and the subject of the movie referenced by the next line, Dr Strangelove ("or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"). I can't believe this order is arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.108|173.245.48.108]] 04:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the connection between Rip Torn and Natalie Imbruglia? {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.183}}
:Answer: Her song, Torn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV1XWJN3nJo-{{unsigned|Stumpy}}
Rip Torn could have a preliminary match with Prof. Lance Rips  {{unsigned|Mitch Marks uchicago|16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)|please sign your posts appropriately with the appropriate user and talk page links using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. the original signature was an inexistent template.}}

Any pairings that you'd add, given the opportunity? Personally I always confuse [[wikipedia:Wilson Pickett|Wilson Pickett]] and [[wikipedia:Wilson Phillips|Wilson Phillips]]. [[User:Studley|Studley]] ([[User talk:Studley|talk]]) 08:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
[[wikipedia:Will Ferrell|Will Ferrell]] and [[wikipedia:Pharrell Williams|Pharrell Williams]] for me! -{{unsigned|Stumpy}}
Bill Paxton should be followed by Bill Bixby... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.92|108.162.254.92]] 09:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How about George Washington and George Washington Carver? and the George Washington Bridge?

At one time, the White House had both a Donald Regan and a Ronald Reagan.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.190|108.162.215.190]] 17:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do some first round pairings have more than two people? Beyoncé starts at the third round, so it can't be just because of the number of people. There has to be a joke in them but I don't see it. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.176|141.101.104.176]] 08:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
:Possibly an in-joke at the NCAA bracket's First Four round. Mister/Fred Astaire/Rogers is a more "traditional" reference to the First Four. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.103|108.162.219.103]] 10:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
: Beyoncé starts first, before the first round. She's singing the national anthem before the players start competing. She doesn't compete until the third road because she needs time to change clothes since you don't wear the same thing to sing the national anthem as you wear as a competitor. :-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.189|108.162.215.189]] 04:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth adding to a trivia section that (assuming every person/thing has an equal chance of winning every matchup, Beyonce has the highest odds of winning (1/32 = 3.125%) while Kurt Russell, Russell Crowe, Russell Brand, and Russell Simmons are all tied for having the worst starting odds (1/256 = .391%).[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.91|108.162.219.91]] 09:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I may be worth mentioning that the bracketing trees resemble hierarchical clustering dendrograms in which some string similarity metric was used as a distance function. {{unsigned ip|141.101.91.7}}

Although the comic is formatted as a tournament bracket, there are hints that it is in fact a dendrogram based on string similarity, in a similar way to how trees of evolutionary relationships between proteins are formed. We see this especially in the "Russell" group where there is equal similarity between any name containing "Russell" and so that group is not resolved into two separate forks. If readers wish to recreate such an analysis for themselves they can take the text on [http://pastebin.com/DRqjaDHH here] paste it into a [http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/ multiple sequence aligner], press Submit, then after processing click Phylogenetic Tree and scroll down. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.74|141.101.99.74]] 12:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat disagree. There is no "string similarity" between domino and checker. The connection between the names seems to be that there are games named Dominos and Checkers. They would not be together if it was based on strictly on string similarity or generated automatically by software without human intervention.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.190|108.162.215.190]] 17:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any significance to the number of entries? 52 on the left side but only 51 on the right? {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.84}}

Should it be noted at all that Chubby Checker's name was inspired by Fats Domino? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.121|108.162.215.121]] 21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Akiosama

;Title text
Changed the reference of the Title Text from Doctor Who (who is already listed in the comic) to Dr. Dre, as the phrasing of the Title Text seems like a very direct reference to the 2001 song "Forgot About Dre." {{unsigned|Conquistador}}
:Probably would have been better to add it as an option since we're clearly far from certain -{{unsigned|Stumpy}}

Why not Zoidberg? --RhyvenNZ [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.41|198.41.238.41]] 09:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure Doctor Who is covered by "The Doctor". He doesn't go by "Who" in the show. He's just the Doctor. I think the missing doctor is House. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.127}}

Dr. Pepper, maybe? Does "staring" or "forgotten" have to do with it? {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.156}}

Whatagainnow? {{unsigned ip|108.162.222.178}}

Dr. Oz? Dr. Phil? Dr. Watson? Dr. Kavorkian? Dr. Seuss? Wasn't there a famous literary work, The Lost Island of Dr. Moreau? I agree that Dr. House and/or house calls could be a missing candidate for the bracket. But then, there are a ton of 'Sirs' that didn't make the list.  {{unsigned|GAKDragon||please sign your posts appropriately with the appropriate user and talk page links using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Teeth_and_The_Electric_Mayhem Doctor Teeth!] [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
:Pete Docter? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.191|108.162.249.191]] 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Or is "The Doctor" http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor? {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.108}}
:The Doctor is already in the bracket. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 10:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's Doctor House - definitely and finally! {{unsigned|Raydleemsc}}

Definitely "Doc" Brown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Brown {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.171}}

::It's clearly Dr. Doolittle. Can't imagine why no one has realized this yet. {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.193}}

Could the joke simply be "there are way too many famous doctors", so even though it's arguably the most numerous category in the bracket, some are still "forgotten"? {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.164}}

Probably not talking about doctor who, however he could be referencing The Silence, which is a an alien race, on that show, which you immediately forget about after losing sight of it. {{unsigned|KroniK907}}

I immediately thought of Amy's wedding in Dr Who S5Ep13 where she needed to remember the doctor to bring him back. Too obscure? [[User:Blu003|Blu003]] ([[User talk:Blu003|talk]]) 13:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
:Hardly. You want obscure, try The Doctor's granddaughter. Yep, he had/has one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.144|108.162.237.144]] 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

:Dr. Martha Jones, from Doctor Who? The Doctor Donna? Even the companions on the show are Doctors. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.178|108.162.222.178]] 03:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that no one thought of Julius "Dr. J" Irving, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Erving given the similarity to a Basketball tournament style graphic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.165|108.162.219.165]] 17:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

When this comic first went up, I emailed xkcd the same day to say that "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" had been missed out. -- @WPSCrimsonshade 20:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Y'know, I can't help but feel that this is a little to bland and unfinished for xkcd. I'm willing to bet that the picture updates with winners. May be sorely disappointed though. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.119|108.162.219.119]] 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't help but feel that there's a better way to lay this explanation out, but I haven't been able to come up with it. Maybe some sort of table listing all the different groups, with people allowed to be in more than one group? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.232|141.101.98.232]] 15:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

:I personally don't love the large listing of people. It is a bit bland, but more importantly, it doesn't really show the linkages between the participants (though most people ought to be able to figure out these overt links Jeff Gordon... Jeff Daniels... it doesn't need explanation. That said, the current format doesn't quite demonstrate the chain-link nature of some matchups like:
:*'''Body''' Shop
:*'''Bath''' and '''Body''' Works
:*Bed '''Bath''' & '''Beyond'''
:*'''Beyond''' Thunderdome
:* '''Beyon'''cé.
:I wouldn't mind a format with that kind of bolding. I think that shows the chain of links better than the first to being grouped "businesses with the word "body" and the second two "things with the word beyond" and "Beyoncé" separately. Similarly, Jeff Daniels belongs to both the "Jeff"s and the "J. Daniels"es. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 15:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorize Fats Domino and Chubby Checker (just) as games. Given that they're directly under Ryan Adams and Bryan Adams, I'd have identified them as 50's singers, with some physical similarities. [[User:KenWhitesell|KenWhitesell]] ([[User talk:KenWhitesell|talk]]) 16:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I put in the identification about games without knowing who Chubby Checker was.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.190|108.162.215.190]] 17:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
:Then you are one of today's lucky 10,000! [[1053]] {{w|Chubby Checker}}[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

;celebrity deathmatch

This reminds me of Celebrity Deathmatch. Then have:
* Charles Manson vs. Marilyn Manson
* Backstreet Boys vs. Beastie Boys
* The Three Stooges vs. The Three Tenors
* Kevin Costner vs. Kevin Smith
* John Cusack vs. John Malkovich
* David Blaine vs. David Copperfield
* Corey Feldman vs. Corey Haim
* Jack Black vs. Jack White

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celebrity_Deathmatch_episodes {{unsigned|Bart9h}}

Who is Jeff Gordan? There's an extremely famous NASCAR driver named Jeff Gordon, but I don't know of a Jeff Gordan. Significant or typo? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.182|108.162.238.182]] 16:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is Colin Furze? And Arnold Swarzenegger? And all other people I never heard of? -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.116|141.101.104.116]] 21:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What about my favourite triple: Robbie Williams, Robin Williams and Robyn Williams? -- Ian N. {{unsigned ip|162.158.3.11}}

And who can forget Dermot Mulroney and Dylan mcDermott?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.164|108.162.254.164]] 09:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a major "Get Out Of My Head, Randall" comic for me. The day before this comic was posted, my friend and I were discussing a "Hunger Games" type simulation being done on 8chan involving loads and loads of characters across genres, and he had asked me about the probability of a particular match-up occurring with a desired outcome. It led to a long and detailed math conversation. The original match-up has been bumped out of existence, but [http://i.imgur.com/ESeMXOI.jpg this image] still lives on. Appropriately, the comic was posted on my birthday. 2spooky4me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.177|108.162.210.177]] 06:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
: It reminds me of a song - The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WgT9gy4zQA [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I would have added Amanda Plummer. Will confuse Plummer with Palmer any day. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.191|108.162.249.191]] 23:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as well we don't have to deal with Paul Ryan - Ayn Rand - Rand Paul...Ron Paul, Les Paul, Saint Paul, John Paul, John Paul Jones...Wolfgang Pauli, Pollyanna...[[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Surprised Tommy Lee and Tommy Lee Jones aren't there. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.124|108.162.238.124]] 12:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think its pointless having the probabilities listed as if they mean something. We don't know what the competition is, but its almost certain that the result of say 'The Body Shop' vs Beyonce is '''not''' going to be a 50:50 probability. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Are the probabilities listed half what they should be? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.165|108.162.237.165]] 17:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mister/Fred Astaire/Rogers also refers to "Mr. Rogers" of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. I don't think there's a reference for the last combination, "Mister Astaire", other than to Fred Astaire.

Kevin Kline vs. Calvin Klein would also have made a good match. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.88|108.162.229.88]] 20:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What about Johnny Cash v Johnny Paycheck? To which one could then add Johnny Carson v Johnny Unitas v Johnny Depp? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.98|173.245.48.98]] 16:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

----

;Cory Doctorow described as "real person"?

Well, yeah, but he's famous for some actual things. Perhaps "blogger and author" would better describe him. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.143|141.101.98.143]] 22:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What about the Silents from series 6 of Doctor Who?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.144|108.162.250.144]] 04:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed John McCarthy isn't there. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.127|173.245.52.127]] 12:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

While I'm of the opinion that the doctor he is "forgetting" is CLEARLY Dr. Dre, I can see why we put the rest of the doctors on there since we don't know for sure. However, I'm removing the multiple long, rambling, and unnecessary references to The Doctor since he's already listed. [[User:Ul2006kevinb|Ul2006kevinb]] ([[User talk:Ul2006kevinb|talk]]) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal to be honest. I agree it got a bit long-winded, but the Doctor still could be either one of the two (Doctor Who and ST:Voyager). To then ask the question "Doctor Who?" would be a very valid joke/ question imho. Also, the list is now again referring to him as "Dr. Who", whereas his name is simply "the Doctor". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.107|141.101.75.107]] 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Livingstone, I presume? --[[User:Eraoul|Eraoul]] ([[User talk:Eraoul|talk]]) 07:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This description probably needs to be updated with the factoid given in https://twitter.com/xkcdbracket/status/612221512133816320, if it can be verified [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.87|141.101.99.87]] 12:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be updated with "[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Q6Prudh-yLx_wV5NgR9_C35ZS5S8ZRM7BBWgfKET43k/viewform?c=0&w=1 The Doctor, alien explorer of time]" [https://twitter.com/xkcdbracket/status/611994813488099328] [[User:Dorus|Dorus]] ([[User talk:Dorus|talk]]) 09:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that the Transcript shouldn't be updated to match the unofficial Twitter Bracket feed? It should be on the page, but the transcript section should be related to the comic as it appears on xkcd.com only. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
:No that is correct. The transcript is always only what occurs on the original comic at xkcd. I have corrected the error. If someone wish to do a trivia section on the result they should feel free to include that. I have linked to the twitter account in the explanation as it is interesting since Randall links to it on xkcd. The trivia entry could be linked from that paragraph. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

:: Two comments: First, if that is the case, then several pages need to be updated; the fact that wetriffs.com was created in response to [[305: Rule 34]] is not "in the comic itself" nor is the fact that Randall was responsible for (another example, [[1485: Friendship]] triggered a movement to delete the wikipedia Bromance article - and a third example [[1190: Time]] triggered multiple twitter followings and web communities that are referenced in the explanation); if we purge #xkcdbracket from this, we need to purge all of those too for consistency. Second, transcript is what happens in the comic, but explanation includes background and consequences of comic; this consequence was featured by Randall for several weeks, if that's not canon, then nothing is. I have moved the explanation to trivia as requested, but filled in the victor. If you want to remove, please discuss first and also clean up the other pages I just listed. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
::: More pages that need to be purged of references to internet consequences and followings inspired by comics: [[1185]] inspired someone to make stacksort, [[239]] inspired people to photoshop capes onto Cory Doctorow, [[Little Bobby Tables]] refers to a website created (not by Randall) to teach people to properly sanitize database inputs, [[1167]] inspired wikipedia vandalism that temporarily caused a page to be protected (as did [[1193]]) [[576]] inspired someone to create a service that does what is described, I'm sure that given 10 more minutes I could find 10 more examples. '''None''' of these were featured as banners on the xkcd.com page by Randall and yet '''all''' are in explainxkcd.com. Please remove all of those references from explainxkcd.com (as well as fixing [[305]], [[1485]], and [[1190]] '''before''' deleting the reference to #xkcdbracket on this page. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 16:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
::::I do not know what I (or Pudder) wrote to get this response from Djbrasier. I agreed that the transcript should not be updated to match the brackets on the twitter account, and that the results written in the transcript (full results with results of all individual matches, that I removed when updating the transcript to look more like the comic) should be in the trivia if anyone wished them to be on this page. I do not think there is anything wrong (and also wrote that) with linking to the bracket. I actually linked my self to that bracket on twitter. And I don't even think the link should be a trivia item as it is important since Randall links to it. But the results (apart from the final, which is fine to have in the main explanation) is not for the explanation and definitely not for the transcript. So all the other pages and talk you write about purging explain xkcd from what happens because of xkcd has nothing to do with the subject here. And of course these thing should be a part of this page. So we agree on that! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

NOOOOO!! I bet everything on Scallions![[User:Saspic45|Saspic45]] ([[User talk:Saspic45|talk]]) 11:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No love for Sandra Day O'Connor and Sinead O'Connor? They're practically the same person!
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.243|162.158.62.243]] 00:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)My winner is George Orwell.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.243|162.158.62.243]] 00:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

can someone please move gene simmons up to be with the rest of the simmons in the table? I don't know how to do that.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.75|172.70.111.75]] 16:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
:(Moved Discussion item to bottom...)
:Gene Simmons has to 'match' both the Simmonses, above ''and'' the Gene below, so I can't see what sort of retabling would help here. Personally, I would leave it. From your comment, I thought that he was misplaced (or that Randall had somehow used him completely outwith the bracketting area that he quite rightly did).
:As to ''how'', you would need to juggle "rowspan=" table parameters (and ensure you don't make that shuffle across lower lines of table, into which it intrudes) analogously to how you'd do it in HTML, but in wikimarkup form of course. I'd advise using Preview a lot, though, if you ever try it. Tables break '''''so''''' easily, even if you're used to them, and you want to make a record of all your mistakes along the way. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 22:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2717: L6 Lagrange Point

2023-01-24T06:53:55Z

172.70.162.56:

Daily comics. —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&printable=yes printable version] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&action=info page information] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:While_False what links there] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&days=30&from=&target=User%3AWhile_False related changes] | a late contribution | current time: {{CURRENTTIME}}) 19:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This came out about a year after JWST was launched, and it's stationed at a Lagrange point of the Sun and Earth. It might be related to the anniversary, although it would make more sense if it came out in a month, on the anniversary of the telescope reaching L2. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Missed opportunity to reference [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Grange,_Texas La Grange, Texas], the basis of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Grange_(song) song] by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZZ_Top ZZ Top]. [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 21:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
: Well I hear it's fine, if you got the time [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.5|108.162.249.5]] 13:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Not ''probable'' but maybe a reference to the recent "Ohio" meme?[[Special:Contributions/172.71.82.41|172.71.82.41]] 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: Probably not on purpose but it definitely fits in with the rest of the “Ohio” memes 22:38 27 December 2022 (ETC) Comi123

;Can I use a subscript notation in the transcript?

Any clues where to find the code? Comic seems to have the numeral portions of "L1" to "L6" as subscripts. Is that a standard notation for Lagrange points, if so should we also use it in the main article? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.66.102|172.68.66.102]] 06:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

:Sure. Use HTML tags. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 07:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Why Cleveland? Well, Yakov Smirnoff said, "In every country, they make fun of city. In U.S. you make fun of Cleveland. In Russia, we make fun of Cleveland." [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.168|172.71.26.168]] 12:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The center of the Earth is also a Lagrange point (I think I'll call it L0). So Lagrange, OH is only 4,000 miles off, which should be close enough for many astronomers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.100|172.70.135.100]] 16:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
:Well, LaGrange, OH is in a stable orbit around L0, so would this also be a Halo orbit? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.5|141.101.77.5]] 09:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
::Not really. It rotates around a point 4800km north of L0, but I don't think this is technically an orbit since it experiences a lot of non-gravitational forces. [[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 07:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And I thought La Grange was in Texas I should not listen to three wise men with beards, even at this time of year. Wikipedia tells m there are over 25 across the US. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.223|172.71.242.223]] 10:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
:Two men with beards, one man named Beard. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.77|172.70.46.77]] 11:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
::Thus three men, each with a beard. (Actually the phrase "three wise men with beards" isn't explicit about how many beards they have between them.)

Normally cartoons come out MWF, but this came out on a Tuesday. Any known (or hypothesized) reason. Should the unusual timing get a mention. No comic in the normal Wed slot. [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 02:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
:In the light of there being "no Wednesday", in the obvious manner, we can make the presumption that this was supposed to be the Wednesday but (for some reason; ...other tween-holiday commitents? ...had the usual "what actual day ''is'' this of the season? ...distracted by family gatherings?) was released super-early. As in even Tuesday in more advanced timezones. Either that, or he was visiting a GMT+6 (or greater) place and posted it merely 'early Wednesday', but I don't think he would be visiting China (GMT+8) - for any number of reasons. Aus/NZ/etc? (Forgive me, just musing. Still no reason to think so.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.137|172.69.79.137]] 23:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

There are [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange#France several places called Lagrange in France (with correct spelling)], there are also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_Bay Lagrange Bay] on Western Australia and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange,_Virginia Lagrange, Virginia] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange,_Maine Lagrange, Maine]. There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_(disambiguation)#United_States many places with names spelled as LaGrange or La Grange in the U.S.A.]. [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 19:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this joke is about the town of LaGrange (especially since there's so many of them), but rather a reference to the "Wait, it's all Ohio?" meme [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wait-its-all-ohio-always-has-been]. [[User:Soralen|Soralen]] ([[User talk:Soralen|talk]]) 09:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
: Interesting conjecture, but I would be very surprised if the "joke" in this was based on that meme. That doesn't seem like the kind of humor xkcd normally plays on. Map makers and census takers may see LaGrange, OH as an insignificant town, much smaller than other locations with the same name, but it is more commonly known as being part of [Greater Cleveland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland]. Because of that connection, LaGrange, OH is well-known enough in the United States that Randall Munroe could expect his readers to understand the reference. [[User:Hackerb9|Hackerb9]] ([[User talk:Hackerb9|talk]]) 22:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
::: Side-note to Hackerb9 and other editors: External URL links of that kind are <code>[<url><space><text to use as link>]</code> (the above 'works' only because the lack of opening URL prevents it from linkifying in the way intended, it is taken as literal, and the literal URL is (by its own terms) linkified as itself).
::: For Wikipedia links, however, there's the {{Template|w}}-template which allows <code>{{w<pipe><wikipage title>}}</code> or <code>{{w<pipe><wikipage title><pipe><text to use as link>}}</code> forms, as necessary, which are much 'nicer' to read.
::: Just an FYI, to remember for next time. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 06:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

[https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52641721315_42bd8248a2_o.jpg Google map view of the major pathways of gravitational perturbation around L6]

2727: Runtime

2023-01-23T11:24:38Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */ grammar

{{comic
| number = 2727
| date = January 20, 2023
| title = Runtime
| image = runtime_2x.png
| imagesize = 399x389px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = At least there's a general understanding all around that Doctor Who is its own thing.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by THE XKCD CINEMATIC UNIVERSE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic presents two separate conversations, which boil down to the same premise and yet differing conclusions. In one, a particular TV show is being watched, in the other a film franchise.

While it is finding its feet, a new season of a television show (perhaps commissioned, on the back of some perceived interest in the story it will tell, for a dozen or so episodes of around 50 minutes - i.e. about ten hours) is not necessarily going to get everything right in the writing style, the slant it puts on the subject matter, the cast of characters or other production values. Or at least not for mass appeal to the everyman, for whom [[Cueball]] is the archetypal representative. Nevertheless, many series ''do'' get further seasons and greatly improve. [[White Hat]] (the optimist, and clearly won over by the production) is on the way to successfully convincing Cueball to view a particular series, or perhaps to continue to watch it after becoming jaded by its early failure to live up to its hype. It sounds reasonable to Cueball, just from his friend's recommendation, to get over the hump and appreciate it "when it gets good".

A series of films, however, is seemingly a different matter. By substituting 10+ hours of filmed-for-television with something more cinematic, the prospect of getting over the exact same scale of 'hump' in a long-running set of sequels (eight films at a not unreasonable average length of 85 minutes each would ''also'' require a bit more than ten hours of commitment), is not at all enticing.

The real reason for this difference is that a television series that gets good can be expected to run for at least five seasons, whereas nine movies is already quit long for a movie series. Sitting through eight bad movies in order to understand two or three good ones is not a worthwhile tradeoff.

The mention of “after the first 8 movies” might be a reference to the long-running Fast and the Furious franchise, which now has 9 movies (plus a couple of spin-offs) at the time of this comic’s publication. The more recent movies are well-reviewed (rated “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes), even though the first four were widely panned by critics. Someone like Randall, who may have ignored the franchise when it first came out in 2001, may be wondering if he should watch the more recent ones that critics generally like; and, if so, does he need to catch up on the initial movies first?

The title text talks of the long-running British TV series that is {{w|Doctor Who}}. The original Doctor Who, running from 1963-1989 was typically low budget, for its time and locality, though initially considered cutting edge in many ways. Compared to more modern classics, and especially Hollywood sci-fi, it would be noticably not as good. The revived series (2005-present) has a much higher production budget and is typically much more aligned to modern viewers, who may wilfully ignore or not even know of the older episodes. Someone just starting to watching Doctor Who sequentially from the ''very'' first season (broadcast in 1963) would have to watch hundreds of episodes (26 'seasons', by some counts) before the series "gets good" to modern eyes, if the {{tvtropes|GrowingTheBeard|"good" point}} is the 2005 series revival, or even quite a few to reach any given key point in the original run. Thus Doctor Who is considered to be its own thing, and unlike other shows where the fans recommend you suffer through a poor first season to enjoy improvement in subsequent seasons, {{w|Whovians}} might recommend potential new fans to begin with the 2005 reboot (technically the 27th season), which was produced to appeal to all new-comers without even necessarily any cultural knowledge of what had been broadcast up until the long hiatus a decade and a half before.

There is also the wrinkle that anyone wishing to start with the original run would be out of luck, seeing as many early episodes - before the late-70s - were {{w|Doctor Who missing episodes|lost forever}}. ([https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/MissingEpisode/DoctorWho TV Tropes link]).
The BBC didn't see any value in keeping them as they couldn't rerun them, so random episodes would be disposed of or recycled for various reasons, and those episodes are gone, making many stories incomplete. Some have been recovered through discovering some fan having recorded them (in fact, the ''audio'' for every single episode has been preserved) but most lost episodes remain lost.

It is vague about Randall's precise opinion, but even the most dedicated fan would acknowledge that it has had a varying quality/charm/consistency/etc, according to one's personal tastes for such things. Comparing the original run (pre-Millenium, featuring seven key actors sequentially taking on the title role, and another for a standalone TV-movie) with the revived series (continuing the pattern with a further seven title-actors, and the eighth already announced), and any number of 'show-runners' (producers, main writers, etc) is one possible point of contention, probably more suited to British viewers. Possibly, in Randall's case, it is just the (perceived) ups and downs in the more recent era, which has been more consistently screened in the US.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Two situations are depicted between White Hat and Cueball.]
:[Situation 1:]
:White Hat: You should keep watching! After the first season it gets really good.
:Cueball: Oh yeah, I've heard that!
:[Situation 2:]
:White Hat: You should keep watching! After the first 8 movies, they get really good.
:Cueball: Haha, what? I'm not going to sit through '''''eight''''' bad movies!
:[Caption below the panel:]
:It's weird how it's way more normal and socially acceptable to suggest someone spend 10-15 hours watching something when it's TV rather than movies.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Doctor Who]]

Talk:2727: Runtime

2023-01-21T09:14:11Z

172.70.162.56:

It has to be said that a first season of a series generally will be written ''as'' a whole season (give or take any pilot/feature-length-special that may be the heralding first episode). Whereas film sequences don't tend to be purposefully made/anticipated together (notable exceptions: Back To The Futures 2 & 3, the LOTR and (later) Hobbit trilogies, various sub-sets of Star Wars (the prequel and sequel trilogies, certainly, the OT's second and third conclusions to the story started with Ep4)). Sometimes it runs well enough to get up into high numbers of at least sufficiently similar-yet-innovating releases that satisfy the theme (the Fast And Furiouses... the whole Bond œuvre..?), though sometimes it might stutter (Highlander 2!) and may or may not actually recover. Either way, it risks becoming a made-for-TV-movie sinkhole (as Disney knows well enough), unless it was always intended to reproduce some previously successful serialisation (Tolkein's stuff, as already alluded to; J.K. Rowling's surprisingly popular product). I think, therefore that Cueball is right to more dread the effort of dealing with some multi-sequel monstrocity of a film-canon, compared to whatever degree of {{tvtropes|EarlyInstallmentWeirdness|First Season Disservice}} he has suffered or heard that he must suffer before the kinks are properly ironed out in seasons 2-6. (Then it goes funny for 7, 8 and most of 9, until the story arc evolves into something that gets it to series 20 before a bit of cancel/uncancel shenanigans plague the production, spin-offs (including a prequel series and/or an animated version) take over the franchise and relegate the old stars to cameo-actors, the franchise then gets a Series: The Movie! which either does surprisingly well or surprisingly manages to upset the whole diverse fanbase in loads of differing ways... or some variation on all that.)
 ...but, anyway, it's not surprising. Yet it ''does'' probably qualify as an interesting point that fully deserves to be highlit or else we might never have thought of it for ousrselves, in as many words. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.64|172.71.178.64]] 03:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think 8 moves are of about equal length to 1 season. I picked 8 random movies from the list of movies I'm planning to watch and it totaled 18¼ hours. Then looked at some series first seasons. The Mandalorian is 5½ hours, Wednesday is 6 hours, Friends is 6¼ hours, even an outlier like Dragon Ball Z is only 10½ hours. The premise of the comic probably still stands though, but can be explained by the fact that with a series it also gives the promise of more hours of good material. With movies if the first 8 are bad there might not be many good ones after that. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 04:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:You picked some BAD examples, though... AFAIK, Mandalorian and Wednesday are straight-to-streaming shows. STS, specialty channel, and non-North American shows (British, Australian) have particularly short seasons of 6, 8, or 10 episodes. A standard season is between 22 and 26 episodes at the very outside, usually around 24. Also, such discussions don't generally happen about half hour sitcoms & cartoons like Friends or Dragon Ball Z, most shows are hour shows (44 minutes without ads instead of 22). Quick and dirty math - rounding to 20 and 40 minute episodes, or 3 per hour and 3 per 2 hours - means you picked a weirdly short season of Friends of 18.75 episodes, their 26 episode seasons (as I recall they tended to hit 26) would be nearly 9 hours usually. Hour-long shows, using the average 24 episodes, is 16 hours. A usual average movie length these days is 2h per (used to be 1.5 until I'd say the late 90s, movies could be as short as 1:15 and rarely hit 2, but SO MANY long movies in recent decades) means 8 movies ALSO averages about 16. The math works out if you use standard, middle of the road examples - no long movies like Titanic or short seasons like streaming shows. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The runtime of most movies is O(n), but the runtime of some TV shows is O(n log n) because you have to go back for context. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.114|162.158.2.114]] 04:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised nobody noticed or made mention that with Doctor Who you CAN'T watch from the true beginning (not really) because of all the lost episodes from the 60s and 70s! So I added that to the explanation. I've collected every episode, but for those lost ones all I have is that they have the audio and some pictures so someone made a slideshow as a replacement, or they have the audio and someone animated a replacement (many of these replacements are shorter than an episode, though). And sometimes it isn't even full stories missing - as nearly every story spanned multiple episodes - so LOTS of stories aren't complete. So nobody can TRULY watch every episode from the beginning any more (I've done my best and got to season 3 before I couldn't find time any more). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 08:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Is "The original Doctor Who, running from 1963-1989 was extremely low budget, and is generally considered to be not as good as the revived series (2005-present), which has a much higher production budget and is typically much more popular with modern viewers (who mainly ignore the older episodes)" actually true? Most of the discussion I've seen is not particularly kind to the revival relative to the heyday of the third through seventh doctors. It seems like someone just made this up to fit the comic's underlying narrative. An actual citation is actually needed. I would suggest in this case that being its own thing means that the quality varies from writer to writer more than from year to year. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:Without having read your comment, I made changes there that might help. But, really, the joke is ''not about'' Doctor Who (outside of the title text)v, and while there is much useful info to impart, the point is that it just isn't covered by the comparison and might even need to begiven a Trivia-like add-on for the detail, and leave the main bit as a "it's complicated!" to not distract..? ;)

2727: Runtime

2023-01-21T08:35:57Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2727
| date = January 20, 2023
| title = Runtime
| image = runtime_2x.png
| imagesize = 399x389px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = At least there's a general understanding all around that Doctor Who is its own thing.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by EIGHT BAD MOVIES - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic presents two separate conversations, which boil down to the same premise and yet differing conclusions. In one, a particular TV show is being watched, in the other a film franchise.

While it is finding its feet, a new season of a television show (perhaps commissioned, on the back of some perceived interest in the story it will tell, for a dozen or so episodes of around 50 minutes - i.e. about ten hours at a minimum) is not necessarily going to get everything right in the writing style, the slant it puts on the subject matter, the cast of characters or other production values. Or at least not for mass appeal to the everyman, for whom [[Cueball]] is the archetypal representative. Nevertheless, the series ''did'' get further seasons, and [[White Hat]] (the optimist, and clearly won over by the production) is on the way to successfully convincing Cueball to view the series, or perhaps to continue to watch it after becoming jaded by its early failure to live up to its promise. It sounds reasonable to Cueball, just from his friend's recommendation, to get over the hump and appreciate it "when it gets good".

A series of films, however, are seemingly a different matter. By substituting 10+ hours of filmed-for-television with something more cinematic, the prospect of getting over the exact same scale of 'hump' in a long-running set of sequels (eight films at a not unreasonable average length of 85 minutes each would ''also'' require ten hours of commitment), is not at all enticing.

The title text talks of the long-running British TV series that is {{w|Doctor Who}}. The original Doctor Who, running from 1963-1989 was extremely low budget, and is generally considered to be not as good as the revived series (2005-present), which has a much higher production budget and is typically much more popular with modern viewers (who mainly ignore the older episodes).{{acn}} The joke here appears to be that someone watching Doctor Who sequentially from the first season until the latest would have to watch 26 seasons (hundreds of episodes) before the series "gets good" (assuming the "good" point is the 2005 series revival. Thus Doctor Who is considered to be its own thing, and unlike other shows where the fans recommend you suffer through a poor first season to enjoy improvement in subsequent seasons, {{w|Whovians}} typically recommend new fans to begin with the 2005 reboot (technically the 27th season).

There is also the wrinkle that anyone wishing to start with the original run would be out of luck, seeing as many early episodes - before the late-70s - were {{Doctor Who missing episodes|lost forever}}. The BBC didn't see any value in keeping them as they couldn't rerun them, so random episodes would be disposed of or recycled for various reasons, and those episodes are gone, making many stories incomplete. Some have been recovered through discovering some fan having recorded them, but most lost episodes remain lost.

It is vague about Randall's precise opinion, but even the most dedicated fan would acknowledge that it has had a varying quality/charm/consistency/etc, according to one's personal tastes for such things. Comparing the original run (pre-Millenium, featuring seven key actors sequentially taking on the title role, and another for a standalone TV-movie) with the revived series (continuing the pattern with a further seven title-actors, and the eighth already announced), and any number of 'show-runners' (producers, main writers, etc) is one possible point of contention, probably more suited to British viewers. Possibly, in Randall's case, it is just the (perceived) ups and downs in the more recent era, which has been more consistently screened in the US.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Two situations are depicted between White Hat and Cueball.]
:[Situation 1:]
:White Hat: You should keep watching! After the first season it gets really good.
:Cueball: Oh yeah, I've heard that!
:[Situation 2:]
:White Hat: You should keep watching! After the first 8 movies, they get really good.
:Cueball: Haha, what? I'm not going to sit through '''''eight''''' bad movies!
:[Caption below the panel:]
:It's weird how it's way more normal and socially acceptable to suggest someone spend 10-15 hours watching something when it's TV rather than movies.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Doctor Who]]

Talk:2726: Methodology Trial

2023-01-19T15:10:51Z

172.70.162.56:

Woah! This is the first time I've seen a new comic without an explanation. It's pretty weird. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|SilverTheTerribleMathematician]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 02:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:You just need to have checked at the right (or wrong?) time, which is different every publication day so you can't generally predict it. But at least three readers find empty explanations every week, and now it's your turn!. ''OR'', maybe this is just the first time you've unknowingly checked the placebo wiki... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.75|172.70.91.75]] 02:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
04:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)~ Comment on the title text. IRB is an Institutional Review Board, which I guess is a committee that decides if research is ethical and ok to do. The title text refers g to a placebo IRB, which I suppose is a fake IRB that can approve research as part of an experiment to determine the real effects of IRBs. Or something.

Why would this experiment be more unethical than any regular placebo trial? In either case you're telling patients they're getting actual medication when in reality they're getting sugar pills (or whatever you use as placebo). [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:In a normal trial, the patients are told the researcher is giving out some candidate medicine and some placebo - typically they'd have a 50% chance of receiving a medicine that may help them. In this case, none of the treatments given will actually contain the active ingredient. I suppose it depends what you consider the "trial" (whether it includes all the test sites or just the one Cueball is running).[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.46|172.70.85.46]] 10:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
::Placebo-based trials may have a threshold at which particularly significant results (as detected upon the half-unblinded results by the number crunchers that monitor progress) bring the primary study to a quick close and perhaps prepare to roll out the more than sufficiently proven treatment to all participants, for equal benefit from this point on. And now monitor for Adverse Events on both "early" and "late" treatment groups. (It might not benefit those who are "late", compared to the initial enrollment criteria, it might actually show greater improvement to them or it could even exibit a surge of unexpected AEs from those who have been on longer-term dosage regimes; that all still needs teasing out from the stats.)
::Probably, in such a case, the patients (and blinded doctors) are only told that the study phase is over, not whether they are now necessarily being switched treatments, for continued double-blindedness. Once the study is truly finished, it would depend upon what the participant actually signed up for as to whether they (or their next of kin) ever learn the historic details of their participation.
::Conversely, significant AEs (by frequency or severity) that are identified as cropping up worse in the test treatment (vs placebo ''or'' in studies vs whatever prior treatment they are comparing against) should result in early ending and all those being changed to already accepted treatments.
::(But, for the latter, it could also just initially be a pause. To review the circumstances and determine relevent details behind the bare data. Such as the unexpectedly recorded death in a small nasal-spray trial being 'just' from being a passenger in a car accident, unlikely to have any connection with which cohort the participant was in – absent of a reported spate of other unusual AEs that indicated hightened tendencies to dangerous physical impulses, anyway.)
::The study design should have levels of significance that the core stats team (unblinded as far as "Patients X, Y, Z took the active treatment") will raise escalating concerns about continuing in the face of the more convincing or ''un''convincing results, even if the AE discrepancy is not as clear (or, in some cases, expected) as actual death. Like raised/lowered levels of reported bedsores, etc. With viagra being the obvious "secondary side-effect" examplar, detected as useful beyond the intended scope of the initial studies. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.139|172.71.242.139]] 12:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd sort of assume a placebo IRB would approve or deny projects randomly, where as a real one would "work" and actually analyse the projects being proposed. You could use this to see if the IRB is more ethical than a placebo, which you'd seriously hope. There'd obviously be a whole conversation on what constitutes more ethical, but you could prove that experimentally with a trial involving real and placebo philosophy and ethics departments [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.245|172.70.250.245]] 09:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we be so quick to dismiss their results as poor study design, or a statistical blip? Isn't it possible that they have detected a real world phenomenon - that the particular sub-group in question is more susceptible to the placebo effect - and that this therefore needs controlling for in the real treatment trial? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 15:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

== Fun with ChatGPT ==
=== Prompt 1 ===
Read the following XKCD comic strip transcript. Classify the roles of the characters (occupation). Explain the punchline. Explain the concepts of double-blind studies, the placebo effect, appropriate statistical significance, p-hacking and ethical considerations in medical research, and how they are portrayed in the comic strip.

[Cueball stands in front of a poster holding a pointer. The poster shows a scatter plot with four points and error bars, with one data point labeled "Subgroup" is marked with an asterisk and is placed somewhat higher up than the other three points.]
Cueball: However, we see clear evidence that the treatment is more effective than the placebo for some subgroups.
Off-panel voice: Thank you.
Off-panel voice: However, we can now reveal that the London team was studying the real treatment. Both groups in your study got a placebo.
Cueball: Aw, maaan...
[Caption below panel]
Researchers hate it when you do placebo controlled trials of their methodology.

=== Response 1 ===
The characters in this comic strip are researchers.

The punchline of the comic strip is that the researcher (Cueball) was presenting data that seemed to show that a treatment was effective, but it was revealed that both groups in the study actually received a placebo, and the researcher did not realize it.

Double-blind studies are a type of research design where neither the participants nor the researchers know which participants are receiving the treatment or the placebo. This is done to prevent bias in the results.

The placebo effect is a phenomenon where a person's condition improves after receiving a placebo, which is a treatment that has no active ingredient. This effect can occur because the person believes they are receiving a real treatment.

Appropriate statistical significance is a measure of how likely it is that a result is due to chance. A commonly used threshold for statistical significance is a p-value of less than 0.05, which means that there is less than a 5% chance that the results are due to chance.

P-hacking refers to the practice of manipulating data or analysis in order to achieve a desired level of statistical significance.

Ethical considerations in medical research include ensuring that the rights and well-being of participants are protected and that the research is conducted in an honest and transparent manner.

The comic strip portrays the researcher's frustration when their methodology is tested by other researcher using a placebo controlled trial, and their results are not significant. It also highlights the importance of double-blind studies and appropriate statistical significance in research, as well as the dangers of p-hacking and the importance of ethical considerations in medical research.

=== Prompt 2 ===
Take on the role of the researcher from the comic strip. Make a follow-up comic strip abut another research project this researcher undertakes. Come up with a funny and surprising, moderately nerdy punchline in XKCD style.

=== Response 2 ===
[Cueball is standing in front of a poster holding a pointer. The poster shows a bar graph with two bars, one labeled "Treatment" and one labeled "Placebo". Both bars are the same height.]
Cueball: Our latest study on the effectiveness of a new drug shows no significant difference between the treatment and the placebo.
Off-panel voice: But wait, there's more!
Off-panel voice: We have just discovered that both groups were accidentally given the same dosage of the drug.
Cueball: (groans) I guess we'll have to redo the study with the correct dosages.
[Caption below panel]
Researchers hate it when you do a dosage controlled trials of their methodology.

In this follow-up comic strip, the researcher (Cueball) is presenting the results of a study on a new drug, and it is revealed that the study was flawed because both the treatment group and the placebo group received the same dosage of the drug, thus not allowing the researcher to determine the effectiveness of the drug. The punchline is that researchers hate it when you do a dosage controlled trial of their methodology, highlighting the importance of proper research design and execution.

== The Simpsons did it before ==

Nope, for once NOT The Simpsons. A German SF TV classic:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Blaue_Palais#Die_einzelnen_Folgen
(Nr. 4, "Unsterblichkeit" - "Immortality")

Spoiler (as if anyone cares): Some mad scientist invented immortality
(but only in the sense of "not aging", which is relevant, see below).
The treatment is now tested in a placebo/true stuff split experiment,
with the foreseeable effect that the "immortal" ones now are afraid
of literally everything. (If you die anyway, you might as well smoke,
drive a car, start a war, etc. pp.)
Until it is revealed that another group interfered and, fearing the
ethical consequences (the mad scientist didn't care about),
substituted everything for placebo.

2725: Sunspot Cycle

2023-01-17T10:01:36Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */ Inexplicable comma position corrected.

{{comic
| number = 2725
| date = January 16, 2023
| title = Sunspot Cycle
| image = sunspot_cycle_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x503px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Who can forget the early 2010s memes? 'You know you're a 90s kid if you remember the feeling of warm sunlight on your face.' 'Only 90s kids remember the dawn.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a NINETIES KID WHO FELT SUN - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic seems to be set in an alternative reality where the Sun's brightness rises and falls based upon an 11 year cycle, causing there to be complete darkness for around 10 years. The change in brightness over the cycle is due to sunspots accumulating over half of the cycle. When standard sunspots appear, the Sun darkens. When fictitious 'bright' sunspots appear (in the midst of the now all-covering dark sunspot mass), it brightens.

This is probably a reference to the {{w|solar cycle}}, which is a roughly 11-year cycle of changes in the Sun's activity from a period of minimal levels of solar radiation, ejecta, sunspots and solar flares to maximum activity in these areas. Historically this cycle was observed by changes in the Sun's appearance, which this comic exaggerates.

This would obviously be impossible{{citation needed}} as not only do sunspots cool the area of the Sun where they appear but, during a dark phase, no light is coming from the Sun, so the Earth would freeze if all wavelengths of the Sun were blocked (if the spots only affect light in the visible spectrum, then Earth would not freeze but plants would have trouble with photosynthesis). Sunspots are also not totally dark; NASA says that each sunspot on its own would glow orange brighter than the full moon.[https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/workbook/sunspot.html]

The title text indicates the effect on internet memes that this process has. During the 2010's, when '90's kid' memes were still funny{{citation needed}}, many have changed to reflect that the Earth has been dark since the 2000's, and thus only those born in the 90's and before would remember dawn.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Caption above the comic]:
:Ever wonder why the sun disappears for about 10 years every other decade? This terrifying period of worldwide darkness is a natural consequence of the 11-year sunspot cycle:

:[A graph with "Sunspot number" on the Y axis and "Time" on the X axis. A dashed line increases, then decreases, then slightly increases again. Above the dashed line are eight circles representing the sun with various levels of sunspots, with an arrow between each circle. From left to right: The first circle is clear. The second circle has a few sunspots.]
:Dark sunspots appear.
:[The third circle has a few more, and darker, sunspots.]
:Sunspot number rises.
:[The fourth circle has some large black sunspots with much of the remainder of the circle in gray. Between the fourth and fifth circle is a label:]
:Number falls as sunspots merge.
:[The fifth circle is mostly black. The sixth circle is all black.]
:Sunspots envelop sun, Earth enters years of darkness.
:[The seventh circle is mostly black with a few light areas. The eighth circle is still mostly black but with some larger white areas.]
:Bright sunspots appear, cycle reverses.

:[A second graph is labeled "History" but its Y axis is not labeled. The X axis has the years "1970", "1980", "1990", "2000", "2010", and "2020" labeled. The areas between 1970 and 1980, 1990 and 2000, and approximately 2012 and 2025 are labeled "Sun is bright". The areas between 1980 and 1990, and 2000 and approximately 2012 are labeled "Sun is dark".]
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]

2723: Outdated Periodic Table

2023-01-12T09:51:53Z

172.70.162.56: /* Transcript */ Rewrote "top right/left" as "top row, <blah>", prior to submitting, but forgot to change "bottom left"/etc to "bottom row"...

{{comic
| number = 2723
| date = January 11, 2023
| title = Outdated Periodic Table
| image = outdated_periodic_table_2x.png
| imagesize = 360x350px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Researchers claim to have synthesized six additional elements in the second row, temporarily named 'pentium' through 'unnilium'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by BERYLLIUM-BASED LIFE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Some {{w|Chemical elements|elements}} do not occur naturally on earth and have to be {{w|Synthetic element|synthesized}}. Those elements are generally excluded from {{w|periodic table|the periodic table}} until they have been synthesized (and are no longer theoretical). At the beginning of the universe, the temperature, and thus the kinetic energy, was too high for matter to form big nuclei. It took some time (how long is not accurately defined) before parts of the universe had cooled down sufficiently for further elements to form naturally. In the first minutes after the Big Bang, only hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium nuclei were present. If a scientific textbook had somehow been written at that time (which is highly unlikely, as paper and ink consist of heavier elements such as carbon), it would be able to describe only a very few elements based on observations.

Because scientific textbooks do not update themselves after being published,{{citation needed}} one can determine the age of a scientific textbook by checking how many elements are present in the textbook's periodic table.

Interestingly, despite helium being one of the first elements to exist, it did not appear in the earliest period tables. Because the noble gasses do not react chemically, they were unknown to human scientists until the late 19th century.

The title text refers to how yet-undiscovered elements are given a {{w|Systematic element name|temporary name according to how many protons they have}}, consisting of Greek and Latin roots. Here the numbers are very low ("pentium" being based on "pent" which means "five", and thus would refer to {{w|Boron}}) because only four elements had been discovered at the time of publication (this may also be a reference to the four {{w|classical elements}}). {{w|Pentium}} is also the name of a series of microprocessors launched by Intel in the 1990s. The term "unnilium" is a description of the digits of ten, i.e. 1 0, using the numerical roots established by convention. In reality, had neon once been a hypothetical element, it would more likely have been called something along the lines of "decium". Of course, how the early life created particle accelerators is unknown.

The title text also suggests that there were scientists half an hour after the Big Bang who managed to synthesize these heavier elements. However, said scientists probably didn't use the same naming system as us.{{citation needed}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Subheading]: Figure 6.14
:[Title]: The periodic table of the elements

:[The following four rectangles featuring the large element abbreviation, with the full element name written below, in a typical periodic table style]
:[Top row, far left]: H Hydrogen
:[Top row, far right, detached from any other box]: He Helium
:[Bottom row, attached directly below the "H" box]: Li Lithium
:[Bottom row, attached directly to the right of "Li"]: Be Beryllium

:[Caption below the panel]:
:You can spot an outdated science textbook by checking the bottom of the periodic table for missing elements. For example, mine was published half an hour after the Big Bang.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]

2720: Biology vs Robotics

2023-01-05T20:31:18Z

172.70.162.56: /* Transcript */ Further flow

{{comic
| number = 2720
| date = January 4, 2023
| title = Biology vs Robotics
| image = biology_vs_robotics_2x.png
| imagesize = 546x260px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Sorry, I've just always had these random things I don't like--like olives, or robots drilling holes in me without warning.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROBOT HOMEOMORPHIC TO A HUMAN WITH A HANDLE AND A CONICAL ATTACHMENT WHICH MIGHT HAVE NON-DRILLING USES - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, [[Cueball]] is walking along next to a robot holding a conversation – from this we can infer the robot holds {{w|sentience}} or even {{w|sapience}}. Cueball is complaining to said robot about the problems of biology, especially his own biology, whining that "biology is the worst" and "bodies have all these random problems". This is to some extent true, the human body has many flaws, ranging from {{w|Recurrent laryngeal nerve|mildly inefficient}} to {{w|Stroke|lethal-without-warning}}. The robot, an abiological entity ([https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/robotic-future/0/steps/26359 some] {{tvtropes|BrainInAJar|exceptions}} {{w|Biorobotics|apply}}) responds by posing a question which may or may not be intended as rhetorical.

The robot thus highlights an advantage that biological bodies have – i.e., the ability to heal themselves, while metal robots like this one don't and probably must seek out repairs. However, Cueball immediately points out that this ability only works "sometimes", and is often painful. First and foremost, one must actually survive a hole if they wish to heal from it, as death comes with some pretty big impacts on their continuing ability to do so. Secondly holes can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, in many widths and depths with many further complications (including the aforementioned death). For example, a small hole made for an earring would be easy to close, whereas one carved by {{w|List of the largest cannon by caliber|a 91.4cm mortar shell}} would be less easy to heal. There is also ambiguity in what counts as a hole. Is a cut a hole? Is surgery, etc? This variability is likely why Cueball says "Sometimes".

He also states that "it" is "not exactly fun". This is either sarcasm or an understatement, as {{w|Gunshot wound|some holes}} can really hurt. "It" is implied to be the holes themselves, as while the healing process can hurt, the formation of the hole (such as being shot) is often a '''lot''' more painful.{{Citation needed}}

The title text is Cueball apologising for his whining, explaining his frustration with certain things such as particular fruits and unexpected robotic incursions. Even when a robot is used purposefully for cutting into a human (such as robotic surgery), it should be expected and consented to. There are few situations where cutting open a human without consent would be considered socially, morally, legally or cybernetically acceptable in most countries {{Citation needed}}.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking to the left with a robot following behind him. It is a bit lower than Cueball and is made out of three rectangles, one almost a square representing the head with a part representing where it can see the surroundings and a small antenna on the back. This is connected with a thin neck to a large rectangle representing the torso. This torso has three smaller rectangles, one on the front and one on the back, and a larger one on the side. The latter could represent some sort of arm. Below this is a thin rectangle with, probably, eight small wheels, four are visible. Motion lines indicate that the robot is rolling after Cueball. Cueball is holding both arms up with his palms up, while walking and talking to the robot:]
:Cueball: Ugh, biology is the worst. Bodies have all these random problems.

:[Same setting but with Cueball walking with his arms down. A scatter burst, from the top front of the robots "head", indicates that it speaks to Cueball:]
:Robot: Is it true that if someone makes a hole in you, it just closes up on its own?

:[Same setting but in a wider panel. The scatter burst, indicating that the robot is speaking, now comes from the top rear end of the robots "head".]
:Cueball: Only '''''sometimes'''''. And it's not exactly '''''fun'''''.
:Robot: Noted. I'll try to avoid perforating your surface.
:Cueball: Thanks! It's kind of a pet peeve.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Robots]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Food]]

2079: Alpha Centauri

2022-12-28T11:41:02Z

172.70.162.56: Undo revision 303583 by SilverTheTerribleMathematician (talk) It's more correct to talk of "(¿the rest of?) the Alpha Centauri system" than not...

{{comic
| number = 2079
| date = November 30, 2018
| title = Alpha Centauri
| image = alpha_centauri.png
| titletext = And let's be honest, it's more like two and a half stars. Proxima is barely a star and barely bound to the system.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Alpha Centauri}} is the closest star system to our solar system, being about 4.37 {{w|light-year}}s away. As such, there are numerous ongoing plans and projects to journey to, and explore the star system, especially since the exoplanet {{w|Proxima Centauri b}} was found in 2016 to possibly have liquid water oceans and a very thin atmosphere. Similar to {{w|Breakthrough Starshot|this project}}, Ponytail announces such a project using a {{w|Voyager program|Voyager}}-like probe.

However, an offscreen person is against the idea of sending a probe to that particular part of the galaxy, as they think that "Alpha Centauri sucks". The person says that they looked "online" and that the system "only has three stars". This is a pun playing on the stars used in online reviews and stars as celestial objects.

===Star Rating Systems===
Online rating systems, such as {{w|Yelp}}, often use {{w|Star (classification)|star rating system}}s, with more stars indicating higher quality, up to an arbitrary maximum, such as five stars to indicate the best rating. Due to the nature of 5 star rating systems, as shown in in comic [[1098: Star Ratings]], anything scoring less than 4 out of 5 in a 5 star rating system is crap; and in a 10-star rating system, scoring a mere 3 stars out of a possible 10 stars would be ''exceedingly'' low quality. The Alpha Centauri star system has 3 ''physical'' {{w|star}}s: Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B, and Proxima Centauri. The offscreen person has misconstrued this fact of the system as some kind of review.

The title text furthers the pun. Some online star rating systems also allow partial stars, such as a half-star, to allow more precision in rating (e.g. rating 2.5 stars instead of being forced to chose 3 stars or 2 stars), or display an average collective rating as partial stars (e.g. showing 2.5 stars when five people have rated 3 stars and five people have rated 2 stars). Alpha Centauri's "half star" refers to Proxima Centauri, a {{w|red dwarf}}, which is a type of low-mass star. According to the offscreen person, this barely qualifies it to be a star. Furthermore, Proxima Centauri is nearly 13,000 AU (0.21 light years) away from the other 2 stars in the system, so it was long unknown whether Proxima Centauri was gravitationally bound to the Alpha Centauri star system.

===Calculations===
All numbers are rounded after subsequent calculations.

According to [https://www.space.com/41447-parker-solar-probe-fastest-spacecraft-ever.html space.com] the fastest spacecraft ever will be the {{w|Parker Solar Probe}} which will reach 430,000 mph (692,000 km/h) as it reaches its closest point orbiting the sun. This is just over half of 1% of the needed speed of the Alpha Centauri vehicle proposed in the comic. The {{w|Voyager 1| Voyager 1 spacecraft}}, launched in 1977, is currently traveling at about 38,000 mph (61,000 km/h).

Distance to Alpha Centauri system = 4.367ly

4.367 light years / 35 years = 0.12477ly per year

0.12477 light years/year * 5.879e+12 miles/light year = 733,484,000,000 miles/year

733,484,000,000 miles/year / 365 days/year / 24 hours/day = 83,000,000 Miles/hour / 1.60934 miles/kilometer = 134,000,000 Kilometers/hour

The above math assumes a constant speed, and requires a speed of ~0.124855c. Assuming a constant acceleration from rest (non-relativistic math follows):

35*365.25*24*60*60 = 1.10e+9 seconds in 35 years

4.367 * 5.879e+12 = 2.57e+13miles, 4.13e+13 km, 4.13e+16 m.

x = 1/2*a*t2

a = 2*x*t -2

Assuming constant acceleration to the halfway point and constant deceleration to the destination, (otherwise you streak through the system, barely observing anything):

ttrip = 2*thalfway

a = 2*2.06e+16*(5.50e+8) -2 = 0.136 m/s2, roughly 1/80 gravity.

vhalfway = a*thalfway.

Top Speed: 75,000,000 m/s ~ 1/4*c.

Assuming E = F*d, 0.136*1*4.13e+16 = 5.37e15 Joules will be required for each kilogram carried to Alpha Centauri in 35 years.

This would require an unimaginable amount of mass for a conventional chemical rocket, and is a completely impractical power requirement for any sort of passive solar sail concept.

Further, the top speed is fast enough to require a recalculation using relativistic physics to model the problem. This means that the energy budget will need to increase, as the relativistic mass of the probe will increase, requiring more force (and thus more energy) to accelerate and decelerate near its top speed than this calculation returns.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot Active], laser based propulsion methods require currently non-existent and purely speculative laser and materials technologies, as well as a power plant equivalent to 12,500 of the [https://www.power-technology.com/features/feature-largest-nuclear-power-plants-world/ World's Largest Nuclear Plant] to transport sub-gram masses on this timescale. This also assumes that any probes can be steered accurately enough across interstellar distances to come close enough to image with any resolution the bodies they will be passing at a non-trivial fraction of c.

Short of FTL travel or near-perfect mass-energy conversion technology, transporting more than a fraction of a gram of material to Alpha Centauri in a human lifetime will be unachievable. Short of an enormous breakthrough in power generation, transporting even a fraction of a gram is impossible.

Nonetheless, [http://breakthroughinitiatives.org/challenges/3 Breakthrough Starshot] is attempting to send many gram-sized probes to Alpha Centauri within the century. Following current technological trends, they expect the efficiency of laser-based propulsion to increase by launch time, allowing launches driven by an unreasonably-large-but-achievable amount of power. The top speed needed is halved by refraining from slowing at all at the destination: the probes will aim a distance away from the target, so that it traverses by slowly enough for a camera to rotate and track it, even at near-light speeds. To account for error and space dust, the plan is to launch many tiny probes simultaneously. They may only be able to accomplish their goal if they can get enough funding to actually affect the global economy enough to make the technologies they require more efficient to produce. Launches would additionally burn incredible quantities of natural gas.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail stands on a podium giving a presentation in front of a slide with an image of a [https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1 Voyager-like] spacecraft.]
:Ponytail: Our probe can reach Alpha Centauri in under 35 years.
:Offscreen voice: We should go somewhere else. Alpha Centauri sucks.
:Ponytail: Huh? It's the closest, most convenient system!
:Offscreen: Yeah, but I checked online and it only has three stars.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Online reviews]]
[[Category:Puns]]

Talk:1813: Vomiting Emoji

2022-12-27T08:43:33Z

172.70.162.56: Courtesy change, only. Original author meant/needed to use capital 'A', and by setting it into a "template" template, it stops it being *too* WYSIWYG. Alternative being to <code><nowiki>...</nowiki></code> it, but this way shows that it's a real linkable!

Did anyone else think of the Akatsuki member Deidara from Naruto when they saw the vomiting hand emoji? [[User:GoonPontoon|GoonPontoon]] ([[User talk:GoonPontoon|talk]]) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC) - Nope, of Ygo from Unspeakable Vault of Doom. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.118|162.158.202.118]] 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Think of the "vomiting hand" emoji as a response to the "talk to the hand" meme.

The "Vomit Comet" was not a rocket, it was the name of NASA's KC-135 aircraft which simulated weightlessness on parable flights. Given that rockets must be airtight, it is a bit strange that you could vomit out of a rocket.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.82|162.158.150.82]] 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
:You must be fun at parties.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 13:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish Randall used a vomiting face vomiting (using the vomiting modifier) or a unicorn puking rainbows (U+1F984 U+1F93F U+1F308 🦄🤢🌈). --[http://windowsfreak.de/ Björn Eberhardt] 08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For those thinking of making a real proposal, it's not actually needed. You can combine any characters with the special combining character. Originally intended for languages such as arabic, it works with emoji too.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a minor edit war over citing the fact that the Moon is made of rock. I think we should just remove the citation entirely as well as the {{Citation needed}}. Should I go through with this? [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 15:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:Keep "Citation Needed" -- it's the best laugh I've had all day (and references xkcd #285)
::The emoji is a Man in the Moon vomiting and "he" is made of imagination, not rock. OTOH, the moon has vomited lava in the past, but can AFAIK no longer do so [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Citation needed ref to [[285]] should only be used when a citation is needed! And of course there should not be one here --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::::What? No, Citation needed is a joke. Hence why we link to a joke, not to some page about actually needing a citation. The moon being made of rock gets "citation needed" as a joke about it actually being made of green cheese. This is exactly how Randal often uses it. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 00:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
::::Also if you need an actual citation needed, do a nice {{template|Actual citation needed}} --[[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 03:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::The problem is, the [citation needed] is what started the edit war in the first place. [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the incomplete tag be removed? [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried making a few of these: https://github.com/WriterArtistCoder/vomit-emoji
[[User:WriterArtistCoder|WriterArtistCoder]] ([[User talk:WriterArtistCoder|talk]]) 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

;Emoji Madness?
Anyone else think that the whole set needs a complete overhaul as there are seven different co?ours of binder, but no computer mouse or a chop / steak to name a few omissions.

Also the latest iPhone set have Male and Female versions of cowboy, police, guardsman et al. With some of them the difference iis small, but in all of them the female version appears to have her moth open, whereas the male ones do not. Is this sexist? [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There ''is'' a computer mouse emoji http://emojipedia.org/three-button-mouse/ and "cut of meat" emoji http://emojipedia.org/cut-of-meat/

UNICODE is always accepting ideas for new emoji, as long as you're willing to write up a proposal proving the emoji would be useful: http://unicode.org/emoji/selection.html
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.166|162.158.102.166]] 02:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

;What about proposal? And I'm asking srsly.
Anyone can write and send proposal to Unicode Consortium, and I was thinking - anyone did it actually / gonna do it?
--[[User:Marsjaninzmarsa|Marsjaninzmarsa]] ([[User talk:Marsjaninzmarsa|talk]]) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

'''Barf Bold A Decorative Typeface'''
B. Kliban from 1982

[http://carsonparkdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/B-Kliban-Barf-Bold.jpg]
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.221|172.68.132.221]] 03:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
:Got that in TTF format? [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

;Did Randall goof, or is it part of the joke?
Megan proposes a single emoji, "U+IF93F" as the vomit modifier. How is possible, then, that in each implementation the vomit is a different shape and location? Is it possible to create an emoji that is self-aware and reconfigures itself as needed?[[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 15:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
:Yes. To cite two examples I'm familiar with: The Fitzpatrick scale skin colour modifiers (U+1F3FB through U+1F3FF) affect whatever part of the emoji (hands, faces, etc.) is considered skin; and many of the "diacritical" or "accent mark" modifiers adjust their position as needed for whatever letter they're being added to, and many of those modifiers can make tall stacks. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

;Error in the description text
The statement "emojis...aren't typically perceived as parts of text" is clearly incorrect. The entire purpose for which emojis were created is to express emotions in text (which can be difficult to convey in words); emojis are inherently part of text.

I wish I was a good enough artist to make images for the winking face vomiting. --[[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 03:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2715: Pando

2022-12-24T12:30:18Z

172.70.162.56:

Mass is around 6 million kg.
Area is 43.6 ha. In SI units, that's 436,000 square metres... but I'd be tempted to say "over 400,000".

c/f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ingino_Christmas_Tree

I was about to write the following as a first explanation, but by the time I'd drafted it, there already was one. Anyway, here it is,
<hr>
Pando is a large colony of aspen trees in Utah, USA, which are all natural clones, connected by a root system. It is the largest single living organism by mass, at around 6 million kilograms.

Randall postulates that, if wrapped in fairy lights, it would count as the world's largest Christmas Tree, surpassing others such as Mount Ingino.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.75|162.158.34.75]] 12:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

How do you add pictures? There are some things here which a piture would be great for, but I don't know how. I'll check the manual later if I don't get a reply. [[User:SqueakSquawk4|SqueakSquawk4]] ([[User talk:SqueakSquawk4|talk]]) 12:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

According to scientist, this is the largest living organism: https://theconversation.com/meet-the-worlds-largest-plant-a-single-seagrass-clone-stretching-180-km-in-western-australias-shark-bay-184056 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.239.26|162.158.239.26]] 12:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
:It doesn't say organism.
:Sea grass clones split up into separate entities.
:The point about Pando is, it's all connected.
:--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.21|162.158.74.21]] 13:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I like the attitude of article about biggest organism (the fungus): What is the organism most likely to survive climate change and how it tastes. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I hit an Edit Conflict in which my change was in the same (sub-)part of the Conflict text as outright dismissed the pre-Christian origins of a Christmas (or pre-Christmas seasonal) tree as having no proof, but with no citation itself. The whole basis of the Saint Boniface episode (or at least the inspiration that forked its telling), as included in the links already there, and the acknowledged existence of such midwinter tree-veneration (forerunner of apple-wassailing, etc; not directly linked, but a short wikihop away) makes me think you cannot so easily deny the roots (NPI!) in 'pagan' worship and go on to claim that only under the influence of the new religion was the spark of wintery tree-veneration. So I didn't spend much effort on mingling my new bits and the 'old new' bits. But it seems useful to note that it was mentioned. Perhaps with a hedged 'cite' towards any mainstream doubts/contraindications, original re-editor can slip it back into whatever form that bit of the explanation has reached by then. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.75|172.70.91.75]] 14:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

:The main thing that Christmass took from pagan celebration is DATE. There are no reasons to think Jesus was born in December, much less specifically on 25th, and several good arguments why he wasn't. Meanwhile, pagan celebrations of winter solstice are {{w|Stonehenge|quite easy to prove when they were}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sidenote (moved from explanation): A lot of articles say that the Gubbio tree has a Guinness world record. However, I can't find a citation for that. If anyone can, please add it. That would be appreciated.

Wow! This explanation is really well done! I thought I was looking at a Good-Class Wikipedia article for a bit there! (also, is the crapper 2.0 gone now?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.105|162.158.78.105]] 22:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

This is a terrible sentence: "The celebration is often claimed to be built heavily upon pagan traditions,[2] though this is disputed by some historians[3], as well as on annual social customs, then arguably converted into a far more secular event for many." [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.136|172.70.211.136]] 05:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
:Like "a camel is a horse designed by committee", it was through multiple edits, as varying views were inserted.
:It would also help if instead of <code>some kind of statement of fact,<nowiki>[bare_reference]</nowiki></code>, it was more <code>some kind of statement <nowiki>[bare_reference of fact]</nowiki>,</code>, IMO, but the last edit I made to that bit myself was before some of this increasing need to qualify the qualifying statements and made it obvious that concensus hadn't settled down yet.
:Definitely prime for a minor rewrite of that snippet. Reorganise, split concepts, perhaps even lose something (arguable ''what'', though, and it might be reinserted) as one simplifies. Not gonna be me doing it, right now, but perhaps only for time reasons. Anyone can try, though, and as likely to be improving as anybody else. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 12:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

2714: Cold Complaints

2022-12-22T09:46:44Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2714
| date = December 21, 2022
| title = Cold Complaints
| image = cold_complaints.png
| imagesize = 740x254px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Our investigation into whining-based remedies became the first study to be halted by the IRB on the grounds that the treatment group was 'too annoying.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GIGANTIC WHINING BABY - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

When people are ill, they will often complain about the symptoms that they're suffering from. A common sterotype is that men will revert to infantile behavior when miserably sick. This can be annoying to the people around them, but they typically tolerate such behavior out of compassion. The joke in this comic is that [[Hairy]] spoke via a {{w|telemedicine}} appointment to [[Ponytail]], a medical professional who explicitly advised him to act out, since his condition has no effective medical treatment. He takes her advice to, "act like you're the first person ever to have a cold," literally, stating it specifically when his companion asks about it.

This comic was published during a "tripledemic" in the U.S., involving {{w|COVID-19}}, {{w|influenza}}, and {{w|respiratory syncytial virus}} (RSV, a frequent cause of common colds) infections, which have no cure other than to wait them out with plenty of rest and fluids. It expounds on the finding that, "talking about troublesome events, including events with which one is dissatisfied, may ... result in improved physiological health." (Kowalski, R.M. (2002) [http://people.uncw.edu/hakanr/documents/whining.pdf "Whining, griping, and complaining: positivity in the negativity"] ''Journal of Clinical Psychology'' '''58'''(9):1023-35.)

The title text describes a similar study, but where the {{w|institutional review board}} (IRB) halted the study because the participants were too annoying. This is ironic since they would be expected to whine annoyingly. IRBs are expected to review the ethics of a research project. Whining is not usually considered dangerous,{{citation needed}} but in this case it was presumably so intolerable that they had to put a stop to it.

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

:[Hairy sitting on a chair in front of a computer screen. There is an image of Ponytail on the screen speaking.]
:Ponytail: Well, it's not COVID or flu. Probably one of the other viruses.
:Hairy: Ughh

:[A zoomed out version of the image, Ponytail cannot be seen]
:Ponytail: There's not much you can do to speed up recovery other than rest, hydrate, and whine and complain and be a gigantic baby about it.

:[Same as previous panel]
:Hairy: Whine and complain?
:Ponytail: Yeah. You need to act like you're the first person ever to have a cold.

:[Hairy lying on a couch wrapped in a blanket, with a lot of paper tissues around]
:Off-screen voice: Are you '''''sure''''' that's what she said?
:Hairy: Unbelievable. Here I am, the only person ever to feel bad, and you're '''''doubting''''' me?

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Doctor Ponytail]]
[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:COVID-19]]

2712: Gravity

2022-12-20T02:02:30Z

172.70.162.56: /* Celestial Bodies */ Similarly cagey, like the last editor, but of course I'm referring to 2061: Odyssey Three (and/or its other similarly inspired appearances).

{{comic
| number = 2712
| date = December 16, 2022
| title = Gravity
| image = gravity_2x.png
| titletext = It's a long way down.
}}

*To experience the interactivity, visit the [http://xkcd.com/2712/ original comic].
==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by THE UNIVERSE FROM A PIECE OF FAIRY CAKE- Please continue expanding and describing the various bodies. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this interactive comic, the viewer pilots a small spaceship throughout a vast area in space. The viewer is capable of exploring various bodies and planets within the play area, many containing easter eggs alluding to the book What If? 2 and previous xkcd comics. The flight mechanics are largely, if not entirely, Newtonian, so the vessel is capable of using the gravity of planets to alter its trajectory or even enter orbit. The spaceship has indicator circles around it which appear when a gravitational body comes into range, showing the direction towards their center of gravity and the size of the body. A circle also appears around the spaceship whenever it collides with a gravitational body, acting as a shield. The shield remains until the player orients the spaceship upright so its landing gear can deploy.

'''Playing with a keyboard:''' The arrow keys rotate the spaceship and accelerate it forward and backward. You can also use the 'w', 'a', 's' and 'd' keys to control the spaceship. On mobile the comic will full screen, pressing either side of the center rotates the spaceship, and pressing in the center accelerates it forward. It is fairly easy to fly between planets as long as you pay attention to orbital mechanics; don't just floor the accelerator. The background stars show your velocity and orientation relative to the nearest gravity well. If you are having difficulties navigating space, point towards a gravity orb and accelerate for only a few seconds. Wait until the background stars spin wildly, and then reduce your velocity to 0 before gently accelerating towards to object.

'''Playing on mobile:''' Various additional glitches may occur. Having a starting position slightly below the take-off pad means you're already 'glitched' inside the planet from the off. Escaping the planet may need inverted 'accelerating' (turning perpendicular to the local vertical, and thrusting ''backwards'' until you can glitch back out into more open space. You may also be trapped within the cannonball 'orbit', with seemingly inconsistent collision-detection, such that you can be sat ''with landing gear extended'' upon features (projectile tracks, etc) that seem not to count as solid for most other purposes.

There is no "universal" point of view — the bottom of the window, "down", is oriented towards the object exerting the most gravity upon the player. Multiple things found in this comic draw attention to this, such as how on Earth Ponytail says to White Hat, "I checked downforeveryoneorjustme.com and it says just me", and he replies "Yeah, I guess down isn't down for everyone."

Throughout the play area are coins that change the spaceship into different rockets and non-space based vehicles, including humans.

The comic promotes Randall's new book [https://xkcd.com/what-if-2/ What If? 2], which was released in September and is available for purchase. Many of the planets contain references to various What If? articles.

The comic is similar to [[1608: Hoverboard]], which celebrated Thing Explainer instead.

===Celestial Bodies===

The following is an incomplete table of features:

{|class="wikitable sortable"
!
!
!
!
! colspan="4"|References
!
|-
! ID
! Description
! Transcript
! Tiles (X, Y)
! What If
! XKCD
! Movies
! Other
! Explanation
|-
|<code>origin</code>
|'''Starting planet'''
|
Cueball: "To celebrate the world of ''What If? 2'', here is your very own tiny planet to explore!

Megan: "Welcome!"

Ground caption: "Give someone the science question-and-answer book ''What If? 2'' for the Holidays: xkcd.com/whatif2"

Cueball feeding T-Rex: "Burger?"

Isaac Newton: "Robert Hooke must be down there ''somewhere!''"

Megan to Cueball: "If you ever get lost in space, just fly down. That's where the ground is."

Beret Guy to squirrel: "Hi!"
|(0, 0)
|Y
|
|
|Y
|The starting planet. The player begins on the launch pad in a landed position. Collecting the orbiting cannonball will transform you into a different rocket, although it does not improve your abilities.

Cueball feeding the T-Rex is possibly a reference to What If #78: {{what if|78|T-rex Calories}}.

{{w|Isaac Newton}} is referencing the {{w|Newton's cannonball}} thought experiment, where a cannon is fired at greater and greater speeds until the cannonball goes into orbit. Newton's comment suggests that instead of demonstrating orbits, he is firing repeatedly to hit his rival, {{w|Robert Hooke}}.
|-
|<code>earth</code>
|'''Earth'''
|
|(27867,-35648)
|Y
|Y
|
|Y
|A planet with among other things:
* A [https://what-if.xkcd.com/162/ crane dropping a comet] onto a dinosaur,
* Unusually high speed squirrels (creating a sonic boom)
* Megan inviting Cueball into a pool
* A region where the frame rate is intentionally limited
* A flagpole
* A literal {{w|burrow|rabbithole}} referencing the figuratively speaking [[wikt:rabbit hole|rabbit hole]]
* Someone aiming at a satellite with an arrow
* A lake with an eel
* The [https://what-if.xkcd.com/157/ earth-moon firepole]
* A "doot cone," a reference to [[Volcano Types]]
* Two figures being attacked by a third with a sword
* Two kids playing soccer (Catching the ball will turn the ship into a soccer ball)
* A farmer on a tractor being stuck in gooey candy
* A banana pile being consumed by "Bananas Georg" to make the per capita annual banana count round, referencing the "[https://reallyreallyreallytrying.tumblr.com/post/40033025233/average-person-eats-3-spiders-a-year-factoid Spiders Georg]" meme.
* Megan and Cueball digging a hole (in the center of this planet is the "earth's core", referenced below)
* The [https://what-if.xkcd.com/147/ Niagara Falls water being redirected into the LHC] (Large Hadron Collider)
* Japan(?) leaving earth
* A tube to the bottom of the ocean
* Ponytail and White Hat making a reference to [downforeveryoneorjustme.com]
* Two mini asteroid moons: A tiny version of B612 with Little Prince and the rose, plus one with just Cueball standing on it. They can be found by flying straight up from the Super Mario flagpole.
|-
|
|Earth's core
|
| (28850, -28570)
|
|
|
|
|[[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] floating in a small space in the center of the planet in inverted rotations. Can be legally accessed using a high velocity collision onto the surface of the planet, although requires tapping the up arrow afterwards many, many times.
|-
|<code>europa</code>
|'''Europa'''
|
|(13180, -2540)
|Y
|
|
|Y
|Europa, one of Jupiter's many moons (in real life). A broken, icy crust has a single path into its core.
|-
|
|Europa's crust
|
"It's so unfair we don't get to compete in EuroVision."

"The region of the solar system where liquid water can exist on the surface is the habitable zone, and the region where it can exist beneath the surface of moons is the Eurozone."

"WHIRRRR"
|
|Y
|
|
|
|Europa's crust, with a single entrance into the core demarcated by an octopus leaving a hole.
Cueball states that Europa is in the Eurozone, a pun on the ''other'' Eurozone, with liquid underneath its surface.

A roomba whirs across the icy crust.

Cueball has a hairdryer and is melting the surface of the crust. A direct reference to [https://what-if.xkcd.com/35/ What If's Hairdryer].
|-
|
|Europa's core
|"We've always used neutrinos for astronomy, but if we place my 'optical telescope' in orbit above the kryosphere, we could potentially observe the universe using electromagnetic waves. Who knows what else there is out there besides stars! There could be other worlds!"

"Hi, I'm Annie. Welcome to the depths of Europa. There's some weird stuff down here."

"We were caught in a powerful November gale on the Great Lakes outside Whitefish Bay. Our ship foundered and sank here." "This is Jupiter's moon Europa." "It was a REALLY powerful gale."

"Does our book club really need this much secrecy?" "That sounds like a question a SPY would ask."
|
|
|
|
|
|A watery ocean with octopi looking out into the great unknown using telescopes. This is a reference to octopus's intelligence here on earth! It may also be a reference to (Spoilers!) a certain 2013 science-fiction film featuring Europa, if not a 1987 book. There's also a secret path leading to a book club, through the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.
|-
|<code>b612</code>
|'''B-612'''
|
Probe: "Asteroid deflection mission to earth. The package is delivered. Commencing planetary threat neutralization."

Sign: "Welcome to B-612"
|(2610,3700)
|y
|Y
|
|Y
|A reference to [[618: Asteroid|Asteroid]]. In a tragic turn of events, the Earth-bound asteroid being blown up is the home of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince the little prince].
|-
|<code>dogplanet</code>
|'''Dog park planet'''
|
|(1240, 11230)
|y
|
|
|
|A planet with a dog park. Covered in dogs, along with dog walkers and some fences. There's a hole being dug by two dogs and a dog bone empty space in the center.
|-
| <code>goodhart</code>
|'''What If? 2 scenario planet'''
|
Cueball to White Hat: "The tower over there is the Vehicle Assembly Building, and then behind it is the Vehicle Disassembly Building."

Ponytail to Cueball: "You know how tires pollute the environment with rubber particles? Well, I've developed a solution."

"MMM SPIDERS HOMF HOMF"

Shooting star caption: "THE MORE YOU KNOW"
Sauropod: "Oh no!"

Person on uncontrolled helicopter: "AAAAAA"

Geyser: "Fwoosh!"
Cueball and Megan: "Oooh!"

Giant phone crushing city: "ALERT" "Giant phone crushing city" "Dismiss" "More"

Cueball with jetpack: "Wheeeee!"

Cueball to Megan: "Do you ever look up at the night sky and think, "Wow, I bet those little white dots taste ''delicious!''"

Neighbor: "Why is my house on fire ''again?!''
Cueball: "Dunno"
Laser captioned: "Laser"

Person with Washington Monument: "Okay, let it drop!"
|(-13300,-3260)
|y
|y
|
| Y
| Contains a reference to Kerbal Space Program, whimsically referring to the launchpad as the Vehicle Disassembly Building.

Contains a figure in a cave saying "MMM SPIDERS HOMF NOMF", which refers to [[1268: Alternate Universe|Alternate Universe]] and may also be a reference to the [https://reallyreallyreallytrying.tumblr.com/post/40033025233/average-person-eats-3-spiders-a-year-factoid Spiders Georg] meme.
|-
|<code>sun</code>
|'''The Sun'''
| "The sun is governed by magnetohydrodynamics, or 'Magic' for short"

"My countertop!"

"This will make a good soup base"

"Can I touch it yet?" "No, be patient. It's still too hot. Give it another 20 or 30 billion years."

"It's okay. I'm wearing five layers of sunscreen."

TV Anchor: "The forecast for today is lots of sun"

"This should be enough sunscreen"
|(-14950, 12080)
|y
|
|
|
|Difficult to escape from if you hit the core.
|-
|
|Sun's core
| Cueball: "The core of the sun may seem hot, but it only produces about as much energy per volume as a lizard" Megan: "Wow. So how many lizards are there?" Cueball: "No-one knows."
|
|Y
|
|
|
|Difficult to escape from. Can be escaped by rotating around the sun until an escape-like velocity could be reached.
|-
|<code>soupiter</code>
|'''Soupiter'''
|"I think it's chicken noodle? Hard to tell."
|(-800, -9040)
|Y
|
|
|
|A planet made of soup, with a core. As commented by Cueball, noodle soup. Has several small versions of other planets floating around it.
|-
|<code>nojapan</code>
|'''Earth without Japan'''
|"Something is missing."
|(-7680, -5850)
|Y
|
|
|
|Earth, except it's missing japan.
|-
|<code>japanmoon</code>
|'''Just Japan'''
|
|(-5930, -5800)
|Y
|
|
|
|A moon with water surrounding... just Japan.
|-
|<code>pigeons</code>
|'''A blob labeled "Pigeons"'''
|
|(-9020, -2490)
|Y
|
|
|
|A reference to Chapter 6 of What If? 2, where it would take 1.6 x 10^25 pigeons to lift you and a chair up to the halfway point of Australia's Q1 skyscraper.
|-
|<code>enterprise</code>
|'''Starship Enterprise'''
|
|(2389, -60879)
|Y
|
|
|
|Star Trek reference: The Enterprise-C, yes 2344,commanded by Captain Garrett's. While defending a Klingon outpost, the weapons discharges resulted in the creation of a temporal rift, through which the badly damaged Enterprise drifted. In the comic, there is a large, invisible gravity distortion near the Enterprise-C
|-
|<code>qwantz</code>
|'''Dinosaur planet'''
|"Welcome... to Jurassic Park."
| (20403,-49559)
|
|
|Y
|
|An homage to [https://www.qwantz.com/ Dinosaur Comics], a webcomic Randall has mentioned several times before. All the dinosaurs on the planet are black-and-white versions of the clip art dinosaurs in that comic. Also references the Jurassic Park movies, with CEO John Hammond welcoming paleontologists Dr. Sattler and Dr. Grant to the planet. The long grass depicted is a plot point in later films. It seems like crashing into this planet hard enough will let you dive into the core, but that only lets you out on the other side. Then the system seems to glitch and have the ship phase into and out of the planet.
|-
|
|'''What If? 1 scenario planet'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|<code>roads</code>
|'''Cat blocking traffic flowing through portals'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|<code>outside</code>
|'''Edge of the Universe'''
|"Welcome, traveler!" (found inside the edge of the bubble universe)
| ( 6081, 26138 )
|
|
|
|
|It looks like a planet labeled "edge of the universe". Outside the universe, so inside the "edge of the universe" planet, is another universe, the bubble universe, whose outside is labeled "edge of the bubble universe". Hidden entrance is between 10 and 11 'o clock.
|-
|<code>roads</code>
|'''A tree larger than the planet it's growing on'''
|
|
|
|Y
|
|
|May be a reference to [[2: Petit Trees (sketch)|Petit Trees]]. More probably, a reference to ''The Little Prince'', a French children's novel about a traveler from a distant asteroid. In the novel, baobab trees are a serious threat to the Prince's home asteroid, as they are so large that their roots would engulf the asteroid entirely. Randall has alluded to The Little Prince numerous times before, especially in what-if articles.
|-
|<code>outside</code>
|'''Milliways'''
|
| in code: <code>[0,-14500]</code> in game: <code>[0,29000]</code>
|
|
|Y
|Y
|A reference to Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe from ''The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy''. On one side of the planet, Ponytail, Cueball, Megan, and other characters gather on the patio of the Milliways restaurant; on the other side, the Sojourner rover examines a rock.
|-
|<code>greatattractor</code>
|'''The Great Attractor'''
|
|(-596048, 247952)
|
|Y
|
|
|Beret Guy stands on the surface of a large ball labeled "The Great Attractor". The gravity is extremely strong (over 200 times that of the black holes), leading to various bugs and collision issues. It's a reference to [[Great Attractor]], in which Beret Guy is gravitationally attracted to the Great Attractor more strongly than usual.
|-
|<code>present</code>
|'''Present'''
|
"I didn't do any of my Christmas shopping yet because I was too busy drawing tiny planets."

"I'm done with my shopping! I got everyone What if? 2"

"...You got me my own book?"

"Yeah! I figured that since you wrote it, it must be right up your alley."

"It does make a good gift, though. You can get it at xkcd.com/whatif2"

"I got you this present!"

"Is it an angry bobcat?"

"It might not be."
|in code: <code>[22820,-18920]</code> in game: <code>[45640,37840]</code>
|
|Y
|
|
|The XKCD cast react to giving each other What if 2? as a present. Gravity at the bottom of the missing quarter of the planet is inescapable. Black Hat gives Cueball a "gift" which he claims "might not be a bobcat", a reference to [[A-Minus-Minus]]
|-
|<code>maw1</code>, <code>maw2</code>, ... <code>maw14</code>
|'''Black hole cluster'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|A cluster of black holes with extremely high gravitational strength, set to the maximum of 2048. Not particularly easy to land on with multiple conflicting gravitational fields, but once landed on, rather difficult to escape.
|-
|<code>remnant</code>
|'''Remnant'''
|"All right, that's close enough"
"Oh no"

{{w|Walkin' on the Sun|"So don't delay, act now, supplies are running out"}}

"In 5 billion years, the Sun will run out of fuel and suffer gigennial burnout."

"The immense gravity of the sun's remnant means that this is the tallest possible skyscraper."
|(19620, 3800)
|
|
|
|
|A stellar remnant, with high gravity (making it difficult to escape, although it's possible to achieve escape velocity by flying sideways). Has various small landmarks, including a "skyscraper" and suspension bridge. There are bombs being dropped from above the planet, with one that seems to be sledding on the planet.
|-
|<code>steerswoman</code>
|'''Steerswoman Planet'''
|"As a Steerswoman, I have to answer any question anyone asks me, or I'm expelled from the order."
"What's one question that you would be unwilling to answer?"
"Oh no."

"Handle this artifact with great care. It contains a magical wizard's potion which the ancients called 'trinitrotoluene'"
|(-35070,-2500)
|
|
|
|Y
|A reference to the Steerswoman series of books by Rosemary Kirstein. Includes a number of references to the series, including a group of people observing a small object orbiting the planet.

Trinitrotoluene is better known as {{w|TNT}}, a powerful explosive.
|-
|<code>peeler</code>
|'''Peeler'''
|
|(-9270, 620)
|Y
|
|
|
|A reference to the question posed by "What If 2: Lose Weight the Slow and Incredibly Difficult Way". A large potato peeler is seen removing the earth's crust.
|}

===Ships===
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Name
! Description
! Location
! Filename
! Image
|-
|Default
|The starting ship.
|It is possible to change back to this ship by collecting a dot located within the Black Hole cluster
|ship2
|
|-
| Tintin
|
| On the starting planet; can be obtained by collecting the cannonball in orbit
| ship-tintin
|
|-
| Figure
|Stick figure
|On Goodhart, atop the mountain up which Sisyphus is pushing his boulder.
|ship-figure
|
|-
| Soccer ball
| Soccer ball shaped ship
| On Earth, between two figures playing ball
|ship-soccer
|
|-
|Alternative Ship
|Slightly thicker version of default ship
|Only available by using console to change Comic.ship
|ship1
|}

==Data and Maps==

View the data that is embedded in the comic on [[2712: Gravity/Data|this page]].

Maps created by the Community:
*https://bacontime.github.io/xkcd2712 | A zoomable map of the universe with markers for all planets, coins and with the option to highlight secret passages
*https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/zpe7bz/i_rendered_the_entire_what_if_2_universe_as_a/ | The whole universe rendered as one big image

==Hacks==
Various modes and hacks have been found or developed by the community, and can be activated by opening the Javascript Console (F12 [Or Command-Alt-I in most browsers under Mac OS X] to open Developer Tools, then Console tab) and writing corresponding commands. 
'''Click to expand:''' 

<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed leftAlign" style="width:100%">
 
*'''Speedhack:''' <code>ship.engines = "warp"</code> - Speed hacking, sets speed to 1.4x. set to "standard" to reset to normal speed
*'''Teleport to planet:''' <code>[Comic.voyager.pos.x, Comic.voyager.pos.y] = Comic.planetRects.'''''origin'''''.slice(0,2)</code> - teleport near a planet, in this example near earth. You'll still have to fly a bit towards the nearest planet to reach it. Replace '''''origin''''' with the ID of the planet you want to go to, from the table above.
*'''Teleport to coordinate:''' <code>[Comic.voyager.pos.x, Comic.voyager.pos.y] = '''''[0, -2000]'''''</code> - teleport to an exact coordinate. <code>[0, -2000]</code> happens to take you to the starting area.
*'''Improved radar:''' <code>Comic.wayfinderFarDistance = Infinity</code> - make the direction of all objects visible. This can be hard to understand though.
*'''Chaos Mode:''' <code>ship.engines="infinite improbability drive"</code> - Seems to randomly teleports the ship. A reference to its namesake in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
*'''Insta Death:''' <code>ship.shields = false</code> - Kill the player if they land on a planet, the code never sets it to false, so it seems to be always true.
*'''No Clip:''' <code>noclip = true</code> - Enables noclip. Also disables gravity.
*'''Select ship:''' <code>Comic.ship = "ship-tintin"</code> - Select ship (use filename from list of ships)
*'''Autorotate:''' <code>Comic.cameraRotation = false</code> - View does not rotate with ship
*'''Goggles:''' <code>ze.goggles()</code> - returns a warning: "they do nothing!". This is a reference to Hoverboard, where ''ze.goggles()'' would give you the ability to see false walls. Which itself is most likely a reference to the Simpsons where Radioactive man complains that his safety goggles do nothing against a deluge of acid.
*'''Python:''' <code>python("import antigravity")</code> - reverses gravity, so the ship falls away from planets. A reference to [[353: Python|Python]].
</div>
 

==Trivia==
The objects in the mini-universe of this browser game are all at fixed positions and do not interact through gravity, however, the ship controlled by the player is affected by gravity. While this makes it technically a relatively easy integration problem (of the position of the player ship forward in time), the integrator used seems to be a relatively simple one - and certainly not a symplectic one, because it does not conserve angular momentum. This can be seen when one manages to get into orbit around some object, e.g. the core of the sun. The orbit slowly decays over time.

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

Welcome!

To celebrate the world of what if? 2, here is your very own planet to explore!

Give someone the science question-and-answer book what if? 2 for Christmas:
xkcd.com/whatif2

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Book promotion]]
[[Category:Interactive comics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Bobcats]]

Talk:2697: Y2K and 2038

2022-11-14T10:20:03Z

172.70.162.56:

Y2K issues solved back in 1996. Even wrote a letter to the Board of Trustees.
2038 Problems are not-my-concern. Retired 9/30/2022.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.236|172.70.110.236]]
:Many of the people who helped solve the Y2K problem were pulled out of retirement. Lots of the issues were in old COBOL software, and there weren't enough active programmers who were competent in COBOL. So keep your resume ready. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

this is so weird I just finished a research assignment on the Y2038 problem [[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.223|172.71.166.223]] 18:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Somewhere there is an essay about the unexpected synergy between the Y2K bug and the burgeoning open source movement, which may or may not be useful for the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.243|172.70.214.243]] 20:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:https://www.livehistoryindia.com/story/eras/india-software-revolution-rooted-in-y2k is a fascinating essay too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.151|172.70.214.151]] 21:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:I wouldn't be surprised if there's such an essay, but I suspect it's more of a coincidence. The late 90's was also when the Internet was really taking off, and that may be more of a contributor. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::All involved what epidemiologists call coordinated or mutually reinforcing causes, IMHO. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 01:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what comes after Generation Z? Generation AA? ZA? Z.1? Help! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.243|172.70.214.243]] 07:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
:{{w|Generation Alpha}} [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.53|172.69.34.53]] 07:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
::[[1962|Zuckerbergs Army.]] --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 15:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The Legion of the Doomed [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.56|172.70.162.56]] 10:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been unable to confirm this so I'm moving it here: A major problem had struck IBM mainframes on and after August 16, 1972 (9999 days before January 1, 2000) that caused magnetic tapes that were supposed to be marked "keep forever" instead be marked "may be recycled now."{{Actual citation needed}} [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 07:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the arrow move over time? ... should it? (I think so!) It could be done server side and only regulars would [see, sic] that it changes over time. Then... perhaps we could see different versions of the strip cached on the Internet. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.158|172.71.166.158]] 08:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
It isn't, of course, but if it was a .GIF with ultralong replace-cycles then only those who ''kept the image active'' would see the arrow move in real-time. (It would reset to ''now's'' "now" upon each (re)loading, so it would have an even more exclusive audience, aside from those that cheat with image(-layer) editing. ;) ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 13:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we mention anything about that it is that specific year in a specific calendar? As far as I know there was also {{w|Japanese_calendar_era_bug|fear of a similiar bug in Japan}} recently. However Wikipedia seems not to be up to date about it. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 15:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an actual program or OS that stored the year as two characters instead of a single byte? I have (and had back then) serious doubts that any problems existed. Even the reported government computers had people born prior to 1900 entered, so they already had to have better precision than "just tack on 1900." Even using a single signed byte would still have been good for another 5 years from now. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
:In my experience (I lived and worked through the Y2K preparations) it wasn't so much "an actual program", or necessarily a fundemental limitation of an entire OS (though the roots of the problem effectively date back to key decisions surrounding the developmet of the IBM System/360 in the 1960s), but a matter of how data was held in human-readable but space-saving format. Someone in the '70s (or even up into into the '90s) may have decided their system could store some date as the six characters representing DDMMYY (or ay of the other orders) secure in the knowledge that the century digits were superfluus - and would have perhaps sent the footprint of a standard record over some handy packable length for the system, say 128 bytes. Which was a lot in those days.
:(If the year ''value'' had been recorded in 16bit binary, or even 2x7bit or doubled 6-bit, it could have been as good for the computer, but ''oh the fuss'' to convert to and from a human-orientated perspective. And it worked neatly enough, right?)
:And a useful implementaion might be used, in some form or other for a long time... Sometimes the storage system is upgraded (kilobytes? ha, we have megabytes of space now!) and the software to handle it might be ported and even rewritten, but at each stage the extra data has to match the old program, and the new program has to read and write the current data, however kludged it actually is. And it works, at least under the care of those who dabble in the dark arts of its operation. And not many others are bothered or even have any idea of what ;ies beneath the surface.
:Until somebody starts to audit the issue and asks everyone to poke around and check things... Thenthings get sorted in-situ ''or'' a much needed (YMV!) change of process is swapped in, in the place of old and (possibly) incorrect hacks. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.133|172.69.79.133]] 20:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
::Sometimes the "savings" of storing data in a compact form are exceeded by the "cost" of having to convert it between the convenient-to-use form and the compact form. I used to work on a system that used 32-bit words for all data types: characters, shorts, longs. When we started running out of space, we "manually" packed our data, stuffing multiple shorts and bytes into words. But in some cases, the additional code needed to pack/unpack would have taken more space than what we'd have saved in the data, without even looking at the processing time cost. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 05:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
:The first computerised passport system for the UK had a y2K issue. In fact, it was designed in, because it was supposed to be replaced before 1999. Unfortunately, progress with its replacement was running late. We thought that we could get away with two digits for certain dates because the software was going to be thrown away before the end of 1999. And yes, two digit years were common in COBOL programs because decimal numbers coded using ASCII or EBCDIC were the default for numeric data. [[User:Jeremyp|Jeremyp]] ([[User talk:Jeremyp|talk]]) 15:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

:1. Having done programming since 1966, I know that much data was stored on 80-character cards (and way before that year and the IBM System/360) and using 2 characters (2.5% of the card) to store the "19" was not acceptable. As processes moved into the tape and disk world, human nature tended to not expand the field to 4 characters (the future is a long way off until, suddenly, it isn't). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.65|172.70.178.65]] 07:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
:: I wouldn't call punch cards a *real* Y2K problem. They had been replaced by then. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

:2. I actually saw a Y2K failure. It occurred at the beginning of 1999 when a job scheduling program scheduled a job for the year 1900 because it was always keeping the schedule active a year in advance. The scheduling software had actually been fixed but the upgraded version had not been installed yet, so there was no significant outage. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.64|172.70.178.64]] 08:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

''"an actual program or OS that stored the year as two characters"'' In years 2000-2002, it was common to see dates on web-pages showing as "19100". I/we always assumed the 19 was hard-coded, the 1-99 was a script, just concatenated. ''PRR'' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.154|172.70.130.154]] 06:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

248: Hypotheticals

2022-11-08T03:07:11Z

172.70.162.56: /* Explanation */ Disambiguate and speculate.

{{comic
| number = 248
| date = April 13, 2007
| title = Hypotheticals
| image = hypotheticals.png
| titletext = What if someone broke out of a hypothetical situation in your room right now?
}}

==Explanation==
The comic is, in short, a new take on the common comedy {{w|trope (literature)|trope}} in which characters in a thought bubble will sometimes look out of the bubble and talk directly to the person thinking it, another person nearby, or even the viewer. In this comic, however, it features [[Cueball]] and [[Beret Guy]] in a conversation together, in which Beret Guy talks of a hypothetical situation by imagining he had ice cream. This then, to Cueball's dismay, creates a hypothetical situation in which hypothetical Beret Guy has ice cream, which he promptly begins to eat. The hypothetical Cueball then creates a hypothetical situation in which a further hypothetical self has a knife to 'cut' out of the thought. The doubly-hypothetical Cueball then uses this knife to reach out to the merely hypothetical Cueball, who will then supposedly use it to cut out of his original hypothetical setting. Doubly-hypothetical Beret Guy, meanwhile, takes no notice and continues to happily eat his own ice cream, in a situation he clearly finds perfectly normal and Cueball clearly seems to expect and accept – probably from prior experience.

The title text puts the comic into context, noting the unlikely possibility — and your most likely surprised reaction — if a person in a hypothetical situation you'd involuntarily created managed to break out of it and suddenly appear in your room. Or it could be understood the other way, that a person you have forced into your hypothetical situation breaks free from it, and disappears from your room. Also, it points out that the situation is in fact a hypothetical situation itself, creating some irony.

Another "thought bubble comic" can be seen in [[429: Fantasy]], and the topic of people escaping from hypothetical situations appears again in [[1582: Picture a Grassy Field]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is holding up his hand towards Beret Guy, who talks to him. From Beret Guy's head go three bubbles to a big thought bubble, where the next part of the comic takes place.]
:Beret Guy: What if I had some ice cream? Wouldn't that be awesome?
:Cueball: No, stop-

::[The comic continues inside Beret Guy's thought bubble. The two characters have switched places, and Beret Guy is now eating from an ice cream cone. Cueball is holding his hand to his chin, and from his head go four bubbles to a thought bubble in the lower right corner, where the last part of the comic takes place.]
::Cueball: Great, you've trapped us in a hypothetical situation!
::Beret Guy: Mmm, ice cream.
::Cueball: Maybe if I had a knife I could cut our way free...

:::[Inside Cueball's thought bubble, Beret Guy continues to eat his ice cream, but Cueball has cut a hole through the last thought bubble with a knife and is handing it to the Cueball who thinks about this].
:::Beret Guy: Mmm, ice cream!
:::Cueball: Here, take this one.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Recursion]]
[[Category:Food]]