explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-16T13:35:23Z

172.70.162.58:

Shouldn't "Anachronym" be "Anachronism"? The listed items aren't archaic acronyms. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.83|162.158.63.83]] 17:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:No, "-nym" means name, so this is names that are outdated [[Special:Contributions/104.23.190.60|104.23.190.60]] 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:: (The OP) Ah, I see now. An anachronym is a term used in an anachronistic way (like tin foil which isn't made of tin anymore), where an anacronym is an word that started as an acronym but is now treated as a word (people no longer think of it as an acronym). Neither term being in common parlance, and being only one letter different, my search for a definition got them confused.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.94|172.70.35.94]] 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he should be paying with paper money. He can easily pay by credit card ... using virtual debit card on his phone. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 17:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
: Paper money might not be made from paper anymore - at least, it isn't in NZ, where I live. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.130|172.69.0.130]] 17:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::I think “paper money” is about paper no longer being made from papyrus. US bank notes are printed on rag paper, which is indeed a kind of paper despite containing little or no wood pulp.--[[User:Seakingsoyuz|Seakingsoyuz]] ([[User talk:Seakingsoyuz|talk]]) 18:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Rag paper is not just "a kind of paper", it's the original kind of paper (papyrus is not paper in any usual sense, because it is not made from pulped fibers). When paper was invented in China, it was made from rag fibers, and it was still made like that when it was first produced in Europe.
:: I don't think 'paper money' should be designated as being made of paper here. Everyone knows that paper money doesn't feel or act like paper. It's incredibly hard to rip. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::: Being Canadian, I thought the reference here was to what's described at Wikipedia as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_banknote Polymer banknotes]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:The "card" in credit card seems to come from Latin and Greek for a piece of paper or papyrus. So a credit card, now made of plastic, metal, semiconductors, etc. might be considered an anachronym. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think anybody's made sense of or convincingly explained the title text. Paper money actually is basically made of paper. Maybe that's the joke and why it's in the title text. Is there anywhere teaching that paper money isn't made of paper? Maybe it used to be made of the same paper we use for writing on, like IOUs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.93|162.158.158.93]] 21:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think I figured it out. The article focuses heavily on actual production, but Randall doesn't mean that the original products no longer exist, he means that they aren't what stores are selling. Thinking on this I realized that paper money is like that too -- it's no longer backed by gold or silver. I added a sentence to the article to say this using the concept "fake" like "imitation porcelain". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.135|162.158.159.135]] 21:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:The same person (me) wrote both of these posts but the IP addresses are changed by the server. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.16|162.158.158.16]] 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::It's not the server, it's the Cloudflare gateway. Don't worry about it. Even if it wasn't the Cloudflare gateway's IP that you were getting, there's a good chance that your ''actual'' IP, via your actual ISP, is not static enough to be guaranteed the same from one post to another. If you want to state your continuation (and not get a named account to do so...) just say "Hi, it's IP <1.2.3.4> again..." or whatever you need to do. But (as with me) you seem not to have a driving wish for continuity of self so... don't worry about it. Ok? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 23:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:After thinking on this further I am no longer convinced by this explanation either. It's possible.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.16|162.158.158.16]] 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:He could pay with any form of contactless, given that pretty much everybody seems to touch whatever they're paying with against the sensor.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 13:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Adults who "enjoy" rubber ducks include programmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.27|172.71.95.27]] 18:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The word money came from words that meant coin. The word coin evidently came from wedge shaped. Not quite anachronym, though somewhat anachronism. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Surprised "lead pencil" didn't make the list [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.109|172.68.12.109]] 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:Not quite the same category. The core of wooden pencils never contained lead, that was always a misnomer by people who didn't know it was actually carbon. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::I thought soft metals like lead did work for writing with though, functioning similarly to the graphite in a pencil but possibly needing a rougher surface like chalk does. I'm surprised the name isn't from actual use as I had informally learned it was. I think I tested it by writing with lead solder. In ancient Rome people would write on rougher slate, not sure what they used to write on the slate with though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Duck Tape is no longer made from ducks! [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:It Actually got its name from being made from "duck fabric," a kind of heavy very tightly woven cotton fabric. Then there was confusion by a brand putting a picture of a duck on the label, and people using it to join segments of heating ducts together, making people falsely think it was originally called "duct tape," with duck being a fanciful brand name. Originally though it was developed for the military in WW1 to seal ammunition boxes in a waterproof way, but due to widespread improvised uses by soldiers, post war they decided to market it to civilians.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.255.102|172.71.255.102]] 17:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::What your thinking about is "fabric tape" or "gaffer's tape". What people call "duck tape" is actually called "duct tape," as in the tape you would use on air ducting. Many people misheard and dropped the final "t", and of course the Duck brand didn't help. --[[User:Mblumber|Mblumber]] ([[User talk:Mblumber|talk]]) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::With both terms "duck tape" and "duct tape", there's valid (if false) etymologies. Being somewhat waterproof (the fabric being at least water-resistant and the adhesive being good even on damp surfaces) it being a "duck" material is fairly relatable. With it having a degree of air-tightness and some degree of heat-resistance, it's also trivially useful for sealing ambient-temperature ducting gaps (though you really need the metal-foil types for ducts with high or variable temperature airflows passing through them). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 23:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Doing further research, the "duck" naming came first, due to it being made using duck fabric. Though there was some tape using it beforehand, it seems it first became widespread with something close to what we know today in WWII, intended for sealing ammunition boxes, but saw widespread other use by soldiers. Afterwards it was sold in hardware stores for household repairs, and made to be more heat tolerant to be good for use on heating ducts, also colored to match the tin typically used to make the ducts, and people started calling it "duct tape" in the 50's. Later, in the 70's, a company decided to market their brand by bringing back the original "duck" name, with a cartoon duck logo, though many people didn't realize that was the original name of that kind of tape, and thought they were just making a pun on "duct."--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.77|172.69.6.77]] 00:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Duck/duct is one of my go-to examples of folk etymology and misplaced language-snobbery. "''Actually'', it's..." type behaviour concerning "duct" tape has historically been in the direction of "duck is the misnomer, based on mishearing". And thats wrong. It was duck,but people thought it couldn't be duck because why the hell would it be duck, what the hell does duck mean when it's tape? OHHHH! It must be duct because people tape ducts with it. But no. It was duck. It became duct. It became duck again. It ''was'' all these things, because the only true arbiter of correct usage is common usage...but saying (knowingly, with an air of superiority) that it was originally duct is fundamentally incorrect. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"digital money" shouldn't be listed as what "paper money" is actually made out of. Nobody would say "I'm paying with paper money" if they are paying with some digital currency. The anachronism is "paper money" being actually made of linen or whatever hi-tech fibers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.211|172.70.254.211]] 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC) anonymous user
:Not even ''fibers''. Sheet-polymers (with loads of complex embedded and pressed-in features) are becoming the new go-to for banknotes, in a number of countries. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My wife suggests that this is much easier if you are tech shopping: Apple, Mouse, Spam, Phish, Cookies.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.225|162.158.78.225]] 20:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Click mouse to accept cookie" meme - featuring rodent and confection. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/06/e6/7d/06e67d6ee5a2afa112bf548463e97125.jpg [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.94|172.70.35.94]] 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:That's not in the same category since computer mice were never ''made of'' actual mice{{cn}}. Anyway, I'm sure there are some examples in tech: '''compressed air''' (gas duster) cans do not actually contain nitrogen or oxygen but a mixture of hydrocarbon gases that can be liquified at pressures obtainable in a cheap can to drastically increase the volume ratio, but I can imagine people might have used actual pressurized air containers for dusting at some point (though likely not commercially). [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why "sidewalk chalk" on there and who decides that calcium carbonate is allowed to be called chalk, but calcium sulphate is not. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.196|108.162.216.196]] 05:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I came here wondering why it was on the list, but for a different reason: It's never been made from sidewalks. Yes, I actually needed to read the list to clear up the misconception. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::Because, other than the use we give it as "thing you write on blackboards with", chalk is originally a stone made of relatively loose calciulm carbonate (limestone mostly made from foraminifers), which is what was used to write on slate blackboards before we started making them out of pressed gypsum. --[[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.130|172.64.238.130]]

You can still buy solid cast-iron irons. Although I doubt anyone actually uses them for smoothing clothes, more for decoration. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 16:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
: If you can still buy _new_ ones update the article! People likely use the old ones in traditional communities though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

When I typed started typing "silverware made" into Google, it suggested "silverware real silver", which brought up a very ad-heavy results page. A few of them were re-selling vintage silverware, but most seemed to be offering "new" designs. I had to scroll down several pages before I found stuff that looked even like a catalog, rather than an ad for one particular possible purchase.

But since it seems like a competitive market, and I wasn't patient enough to look for an informational marketing page, I don't feel comfortable picking one (or several) particular ads as the citation.

Perhaps someone else does. Or perhaps a screenshot archived somewhere. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 18:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:Since when are ads considered reliable sources? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::Since they indicate what's popular, what's commonly seen and commonly used. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Steel
{{w|Stainless steel}} ''does'' contain Fe, so "iron" ain't ''that'' "wrong". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.95|172.70.35.95]] 05:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:We have long made a distinction between "iron" and "steel", not to mention that, while stainless steel has about 1% carbon by weight (give or take: sometime more, sometimes less), since carbon is over 4 times lighter than iron, that makes about 4% (and up to 10%) of the atoms carbon, not to mention that, to be stainless, it has to either have a by weight composition of either over 10% chromium or over 8% nickel, which are almost the same weight as iron (a difference of around 5%, lower for chromium, higher for nickel). Given that the average stainless steel has a 18% by weight of chromium, adding that with the carbon means that only 3 out of 4 atoms are iron, and if you have copper and tin or copper and tin in that same ratio, it would long have surpassed the line to be called "bronze" or "brass", respectively. "Having iron atoms" is not the same as "made of iron", mainly when it originally was indeed made out of (wrought) iron. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.245|188.114.111.245]]
::99% is a way higher percentage than say, the amount of nickel in nickels ($0.05 coins): 25% ({{w|Nickel (United States coin)|US}}) or 2% ({{w|Nickel (Canadian coin)|Canadian}}). The latter might qualify for this list because it actually used to be made of near-pure nickel, while the US coin's composition never changed since the first (1866) version that became known as the "nickel". [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::Steel (stainless or otherwise) does not occur naturally. It has to be made. By humans. Out of iron. So in this case 'having iron atoms' DOES mean 'made of (as a synonym of 'from') iron'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.129|172.70.86.129]] 04:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::Bronze contains mostly copper. So I assume you would call it copper, too. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.130.67|162.158.130.67]] 11:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

"Cutlery" specifically refers to metallic implements with a cutting edge. Knives, scissors, and swords are cutlery; Spoons and forks are not cutlery. Table knives, forks, and spoons, collectively are "flatware". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.155|162.158.164.155]] 10:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I was really hoping to re-edit that element, anyway. The comic says "silverware" which can relate to cutlery/other food-implements or to the plates or candlesticks or even ''trophies''. Someone assumed that meant cutlery(+dining implements in general). As well as other improvable writing about the assumption they went with. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.49|172.70.58.49]] 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I assume the confusion comes from the respecive British and American terms for a collection of forks, knives, and spoons. British English calls these things "cutlery" even if they don't have a cutting edge. American English commonly refers to these as "silverware," especially when made with stainless steel, although I have also heard the term "plastic silverware" or "wooden silverware" when "flatware" would probably have been a more accurate generic term. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.35|172.70.163.35]] 18:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC) (an American expat)
::While its etymology indicates cutting edges, is "cutlery" actually ''used'' to mean "bladed items" anywhere? In UK English, it exclusively means eating irons, and is the standard, unremarkable, everyday term. In the places that don't refer to their knives, forks and spoons collectively as "cutlery", do they really use the word at all? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Paper
I just want to point out that paper made from cotton fibers instead of wood pulp ''is still paper''. You can buy it in the store. There are non-paper banknotes now, but not in the U.S., and I'd be surprised if polymer banknotes were ever called "paper money". [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 12:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:Be surprised. That's what they're usually called in Canada. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.164|162.158.127.164]] 18:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::And anywhere with polymer bills. "Paper money" = bills. Still, it's true that cotton-linen paper is still paper, so is hemp paper and any other paper made from cellulose fibers (paper can be categorized by cellulose source, average fiber length, thickness, impurities and papermaking method). You can even make paper out of old clothes made from vegetable textiles (like blue jeans, cotton T-shirts or hemp pants). As a weird side note, there are non-cellulose papers, like silk paper, but they are made in the same way as regular paper (which is not how plymer bills are made, to my understanding)--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.245|188.114.111.245]]
:::Yeah, I've always heard of it as "paper money" --[[User:Xnerkcd|xnerkcd]] ([[User talk:Xnerkcd|talk]]) 07:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-16T13:24:30Z

172.70.162.58:

Shouldn't "Anachronym" be "Anachronism"? The listed items aren't archaic acronyms. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.83|162.158.63.83]] 17:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:No, "-nym" means name, so this is names that are outdated [[Special:Contributions/104.23.190.60|104.23.190.60]] 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:: (The OP) Ah, I see now. An anachronym is a term used in an anachronistic way (like tin foil which isn't made of tin anymore), where an anacronym is an word that started as an acronym but is now treated as a word (people no longer think of it as an acronym). Neither term being in common parlance, and being only one letter different, my search for a definition got them confused.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.94|172.70.35.94]] 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he should be paying with paper money. He can easily pay by credit card ... using virtual debit card on his phone. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 17:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
: Paper money might not be made from paper anymore - at least, it isn't in NZ, where I live. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.130|172.69.0.130]] 17:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::I think “paper money” is about paper no longer being made from papyrus. US bank notes are printed on rag paper, which is indeed a kind of paper despite containing little or no wood pulp.--[[User:Seakingsoyuz|Seakingsoyuz]] ([[User talk:Seakingsoyuz|talk]]) 18:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Rag paper is not just "a kind of paper", it's the original kind of paper (papyrus is not paper in any usual sense, because it is not made from pulped fibers). When paper was invented in China, it was made from rag fibers, and it was still made like that when it was first produced in Europe.
:: I don't think 'paper money' should be designated as being made of paper here. Everyone knows that paper money doesn't feel or act like paper. It's incredibly hard to rip. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::: Being Canadian, I thought the reference here was to what's described at Wikipedia as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_banknote Polymer banknotes]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:The "card" in credit card seems to come from Latin and Greek for a piece of paper or papyrus. So a credit card, now made of plastic, metal, semiconductors, etc. might be considered an anachronym. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think anybody's made sense of or convincingly explained the title text. Paper money actually is basically made of paper. Maybe that's the joke and why it's in the title text. Is there anywhere teaching that paper money isn't made of paper? Maybe it used to be made of the same paper we use for writing on, like IOUs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.93|162.158.158.93]] 21:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think I figured it out. The article focuses heavily on actual production, but Randall doesn't mean that the original products no longer exist, he means that they aren't what stores are selling. Thinking on this I realized that paper money is like that too -- it's no longer backed by gold or silver. I added a sentence to the article to say this using the concept "fake" like "imitation porcelain". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.135|162.158.159.135]] 21:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:The same person (me) wrote both of these posts but the IP addresses are changed by the server. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.16|162.158.158.16]] 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::It's not the server, it's the Cloudflare gateway. Don't worry about it. Even if it wasn't the Cloudflare gateway's IP that you were getting, there's a good chance that your ''actual'' IP, via your actual ISP, is not static enough to be guaranteed the same from one post to another. If you want to state your continuation (and not get a named account to do so...) just say "Hi, it's IP <1.2.3.4> again..." or whatever you need to do. But (as with me) you seem not to have a driving wish for continuity of self so... don't worry about it. Ok? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 23:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:After thinking on this further I am no longer convinced by this explanation either. It's possible.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.16|162.158.158.16]] 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:He could pay with any form of contactless, given that pretty much everybody seems to touch whatever they're paying with against the sensor.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 13:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Adults who "enjoy" rubber ducks include programmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.27|172.71.95.27]] 18:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The word money came from words that meant coin. The word coin evidently came from wedge shaped. Not quite anachronym, though somewhat anachronism. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Surprised "lead pencil" didn't make the list [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.109|172.68.12.109]] 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:Not quite the same category. The core of wooden pencils never contained lead, that was always a misnomer by people who didn't know it was actually carbon. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::I thought soft metals like lead did work for writing with though, functioning similarly to the graphite in a pencil but possibly needing a rougher surface like chalk does. I'm surprised the name isn't from actual use as I had informally learned it was. I think I tested it by writing with lead solder. In ancient Rome people would write on rougher slate, not sure what they used to write on the slate with though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Duck Tape is no longer made from ducks! [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:It Actually got its name from being made from "duck fabric," a kind of heavy very tightly woven cotton fabric. Then there was confusion by a brand putting a picture of a duck on the label, and people using it to join segments of heating ducts together, making people falsely think it was originally called "duct tape," with duck being a fanciful brand name. Originally though it was developed for the military in WW1 to seal ammunition boxes in a waterproof way, but due to widespread improvised uses by soldiers, post war they decided to market it to civilians.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.255.102|172.71.255.102]] 17:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::What your thinking about is "fabric tape" or "gaffer's tape". What people call "duck tape" is actually called "duct tape," as in the tape you would use on air ducting. Many people misheard and dropped the final "t", and of course the Duck brand didn't help. --[[User:Mblumber|Mblumber]] ([[User talk:Mblumber|talk]]) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::With both terms "duck tape" and "duct tape", there's valid (if false) etymologies. Being somewhat waterproof (the fabric being at least water-resistant and the adhesive being good even on damp surfaces) it being a "duck" material is fairly relatable. With it having a degree of air-tightness and some degree of heat-resistance, it's also trivially useful for sealing ambient-temperature ducting gaps (though you really need the metal-foil types for ducts with high or variable temperature airflows passing through them). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 23:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Doing further research, the "duck" naming came first, due to it being made using duck fabric. Though there was some tape using it beforehand, it seems it first became widespread with something close to what we know today in WWII, intended for sealing ammunition boxes, but saw widespread other use by soldiers. Afterwards it was sold in hardware stores for household repairs, and made to be more heat tolerant to be good for use on heating ducts, also colored to match the tin typically used to make the ducts, and people started calling it "duct tape" in the 50's. Later, in the 70's, a company decided to market their brand by bringing back the original "duck" name, with a cartoon duck logo, though many people didn't realize that was the original name of that kind of tape, and thought they were just making a pun on "duct."--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.77|172.69.6.77]] 00:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Duck/duct is one of my go-to examples of folk etymology and misplaced language-snobbery. "''Actually'', it's..." type behaviour concerning "duct" tape has historically been in the direction of "duck is the misnomer, based on mishearing". And thats wrong. It was duck,but people thought it couldn't be duck because why the hell would it be duck, what the hell does duck mean when it's tape? OHHHH! It must be duct because people tape ducts with it. But no. It was duck. It became duct. It became duck again. It ''was'' all these things, because the only true arbiter of correct usage is common usage...but saying (knowingly, with an air of superiority) that it was originally duct is fundamentally incorrect. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"digital money" shouldn't be listed as what "paper money" is actually made out of. Nobody would say "I'm paying with paper money" if they are paying with some digital currency. The anachronism is "paper money" being actually made of linen or whatever hi-tech fibers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.211|172.70.254.211]] 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC) anonymous user
:Not even ''fibers''. Sheet-polymers (with loads of complex embedded and pressed-in features) are becoming the new go-to for banknotes, in a number of countries. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My wife suggests that this is much easier if you are tech shopping: Apple, Mouse, Spam, Phish, Cookies.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.225|162.158.78.225]] 20:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Click mouse to accept cookie" meme - featuring rodent and confection. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/06/e6/7d/06e67d6ee5a2afa112bf548463e97125.jpg [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.94|172.70.35.94]] 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:That's not in the same category since computer mice were never ''made of'' actual mice. Anyway, I'm sure there are some examples in tech: '''compressed air''' (gas duster) cans do not actually contain nitrogen or oxygen but a mixture of hydrocarbon gases that can be liquified at pressures obtainable in a cheap can to drastically increase the volume ratio, but I can imagine people might have used actual pressurized air containers for dusting at some point (though likely not commercially). [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why "sidewalk chalk" on there and who decides that calcium carbonate is allowed to be called chalk, but calcium sulphate is not. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.196|108.162.216.196]] 05:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I came here wondering why it was on the list, but for a different reason: It's never been made from sidewalks. Yes, I actually needed to read the list to clear up the misconception. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::Because, other than the use we give it as "thing you write on blackboards with", chalk is originally a stone made of relatively loose calciulm carbonate (limestone mostly made from foraminifers), which is what was used to write on slate blackboards before we started making them out of pressed gypsum. --[[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.130|172.64.238.130]]

You can still buy solid cast-iron irons. Although I doubt anyone actually uses them for smoothing clothes, more for decoration. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 16:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
: If you can still buy _new_ ones update the article! People likely use the old ones in traditional communities though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

== Steel ==

{{w|Stainless steel}} ''does'' contain Fe, so "iron" ain't ''that'' "wrong". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.95|172.70.35.95]] 05:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:We have long made a distinction between "iron" and "steel", not to mention that, while stainless steel has about 1% carbon by weight (give or take: sometime more, sometimes less), since carbon is over 4 times lighter than iron, that makes about 4% (and up to 10%) of the atoms carbon, not to mention that, to be stainless, it has to either have a by weight composition of either over 10% chromium or over 8% nickel, which are almost the same weight as iron (a difference of around 5%, lower for chromium, higher for nickel). Given that the average stainless steel has a 18% by weight of chromium, adding that with the carbon means that only 3 out of 4 atoms are iron, and if you have copper and tin or copper and tin in that same ratio, it would long have surpassed the line to be called "bronze" or "brass", respectively. "Having iron atoms" is not the same as "made of iron", mainly when it originally was indeed made out of (wrought) iron. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.245|188.114.111.245]]
::99% is a way higher percentage than say, the amount of nickel in nickels ($0.05 coins): 25% ({{w|Nickel (United States coin)|US}}) or 2% ({{w|Nickel (Canadian coin)|Canadian}}). The latter might qualify for this list because it actually used to be made of near-pure nickel, while the US coin's composition never changed since the first (1866) version that became known as the "nickel". [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Steel (stainless or otherwise) does not occur naturally. It has to be made. By humans. Out of iron. So in this case 'having iron atoms' DOES mean 'made of (as a synonym of 'from') iron'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.129|172.70.86.129]] 04:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Bronze contains mostly copper. So I assume you would call it copper, too. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.130.67|162.158.130.67]] 11:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

"Cutlery" specifically refers to metallic implements with a cutting edge. Knives, scissors, and swords are cutlery; Spoons and forks are not cutlery. Table knives, forks, and spoons, collectively are "flatware". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.155|162.158.164.155]] 10:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I was really hoping to re-edit that element, anyway. The comic says "silverware" which can relate to cutlery/other food-implements or to the plates or candlesticks or even ''trophies''. Someone assumed that meant cutlery(+dining implements in general). As well as other improvable writing about the assumption they went with. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.49|172.70.58.49]] 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I assume the confusion comes from the respecive British and American terms for a collection of forks, knives, and spoons. British English calls these things "cutlery" even if they don't have a cutting edge. American English commonly refers to these as "silverware," especially when made with stainless steel, although I have also heard the term "plastic silverware" or "wooden silverware" when "flatware" would probably have been a more accurate generic term. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.35|172.70.163.35]] 18:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC) (an American expat)
::While its etymology indicates cutting edges, is "cutlery" actually ''used'' to mean "bladed items" anywhere? In UK English, it exclusively means eating irons, and is the standard, unremarkable, everyday term. In the places that don't refer to their knives, forks and spoons collectively as "cutlery", do they really use the word at all? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

== Paper ==

I just want to point out that paper made from cotton fibers instead of wood pulp ''is still paper''. You can buy it in the store. There are non-paper banknotes now, but not in the U.S., and I'd be surprised if polymer banknotes were ever called "paper money". [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 12:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:Be surprised. That's what they're usually called in Canada. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.164|162.158.127.164]] 18:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::And anywhere with polymer bills. "Paper money" = bills. Still, it's true that cotton-linen paper is still paper, so is hemp paper and any other paper made from cellulose fibers (paper can be categorized by cellulose source, average fiber length, thickness, impurities and papermaking method). You can even make paper out of old clothes made from vegetable textiles (like blue jeans, cotton T-shirts or hemp pants). As a weird side note, there are non-cellulose papers, like silk paper, but they are made in the same way as regular paper (which is not how plymer bills are made, to my understanding)--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.245|188.114.111.245]]
:::Yeah, I've always heard of it as "paper money" --[[User:Xnerkcd|xnerkcd]] ([[User talk:Xnerkcd|talk]]) 07:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

== silverware made of silver ==

When I typed started typing "silverware made" into Google, it suggested "silverware real silver", which brought up a very ad-heavy results page. A few of them were re-selling vintage silverware, but most seemed to be offering "new" designs. I had to scroll down several pages before I found stuff that looked even like a catalog, rather than an ad for one particular possible purchase.

But since it seems like a competitive market, and I wasn't patient enough to look for an informational marketing page, I don't feel comfortable picking one (or several) particular ads as the citation.

Perhaps someone else does. Or perhaps a screenshot archived somewhere. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 18:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Since when are ads considered reliable sources? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::Since they indicate what's popular, what's commonly seen and commonly used. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-16T13:20:21Z

172.70.162.58: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3075
| date = April 11, 2025
| title = Anachronym Challenge
| image = anachronym_challenge_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x404px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I have to pay with paper money.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The table is incomplete. Also, need to add the missing categories.}}

[[Cueball]] is reading from a shopping list while shopping for groceries. The items on the list are all [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anachronym anachronyms]. The names of the items indicate their material, but they are no longer made from that material.

A number of manufactured objects were named for (or at least had names that refer to) their primary materials of construction. With time and advancing technology, it's not uncommon for alternate materials to become available that are one or more of more suitable, less expensive, and/or easier to manufacture, and so the materials of construction change. Names, however, become ingrained in the public consciousness, and can be more difficult to change than a manufacturing process, which leads to the disconnect in this strip: objects that named for the materials they ''used'' to be made of, but are now made of something different.

When these items were originally sold with different materials they may have been seen as "fake". Paper money has also been seen as fake, as its value is written on its face and proposed by a government rather than held in its material such as gold or silver coins.

It should be noted that many of the objects listed on Cueball's shopping list are still sometimes made with the materials that they are named after, they've just been supplanted by alternate materials for the mass market. Silverware can be made of sterling silver, especially in the cutlery of high-end establishments{{acn}}, but, unlike steel, traditional pure silver requires regular polishing to retain its finish. Cleaning sponges made of sea sponges are expensive, but can be [https://tofinosoapcompany.com/products/natural-sea-sponge-sustainably-harvested purchased]. Linens made from flax are available; and some people consider it [https://www.roughlinen.com/en-ca/blogs/newsletters/linen-vs-flax to be the better material], but that's a clear minority of the modern market. Some wood clubs are still made from wood, specifically {{w|persimmon}}. {{w|Banknotes of the Japanese yen}} are [https://www.npb.go.jp/en/products/intro/tokutyou.html still made] from wood fiber from ''E. chrysantha'' and abaca pulp. Most of the traditional items can be found in antique sales at least occasionally, and some people still use them such as in communities that have separated from modern industry.

Where items named for "iron" are now made with steel or stainless steel, they are still technically made from iron, since steel is an alloy largely consisting of iron as an element (98% or more iron for regular steels, and ~66-75% iron for stainless steel). In common conversation, however, iron is usually used to refer to unalloyed cast or wrought iron, not steel.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-left:0px"
|-
! Item !! Original material !! Original still produced and sold in industrial cultures?!! Actually made with !! class="unsortable"| Explanation
|-
! {{w|Aluminium foil|Tin foil}}
| {{w|Tin}}
| {{Yes|[https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/044154.RG Yes]}}
| Aluminum
| Formerly "tin foil" was made of the metal tin, but aluminum supplanted tin in the early-to-mid 20th century, as aluminum is cheaper and more durable. Foils of all metals are available for industrial and laboratory purposes, but one no longer sees tin foil marketed or sold for common home use, possibly due to health concerns.
|-
! {{w|Sponge (tool)|Sponges}}
| {{w|Sponge|Sea sponges}}, i.e., marine invertebrates in the phylum Porifera
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Polyester, polyurethane, cellulose
| An item commonly used in the kitchen to soak up water. Or bathrooms to wash yourself.
|-
! {{w|Silverware}}
| {{w|Silver}}
|{{Yes|Yes, though at greater expense than silverplated or silver-like}}
| Stainless steel
| Covers eating utensils, plates and dishes, candlesticks and trophies, which may all these days be electroplated, cupro-nickel alloys or stainless steel.
Likely intended to only refer to knives, forks and spoons, which may be found in family heirloom cutlery collections.
|-
! {{w|Linens}}
| {{w|Flax}}
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Cotton, hemp, polyester
| Commonly in the form of sheets and blankets.
|-
! {{w|Clothes iron|Clothes iron}}
| {{w|Iron}}
|{{No|No}}
| Aluminum, stainless steel & plastics
| A device to remove wrinkles in clothing by applying a hot, smooth surface. Early irons were simply flat slabs of iron with handles attached, which had to be manually heated on a stove or fire, or by placing hot coals or similar on the upward face of the iron. These can be found among antique collections. Modern irons are nearly always electric, and generally use a stainless steel face and plastic housing (which holds the wiring and other components, as well as acting as the handle.)
|-
! {{w|Ironing board|Ironing board}}
| Wooden board
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Metal, fabric cover
| Flat surface for ironing clothes. Wooden boards have largely been supplanted by light but rigid steel sheets with a thin cover of foam and fabric.
|-
! {{w|Corrective_lens#Reading_glasses|Reading glasses}}
| {{w|Glass}}
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Optical plastics
| Used to assist farsighted people with focusing on things up close. Glass lenses have typically been replaced by {{w|CR-39}} plastic due to glass's danger of shattering and higher weight.
|-
! {{w|Iron (golf)#Short irons|9 iron}}
| Iron
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Cast {{w|stainless steel}}, {{w|carbon steel}}
| A type of golf club.
|-
! {{w|Wood (golf)|3 wood}}
| Wood
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Titanium, carbon fiber
| A type of golf club.
|-
! {{w|Sidewalk chalk|Sidewalk chalk}}
| {{w|Calcite}} chalk
|{{No|No}}
| Calcium sulfate ({{w|gypsum}})
| Used for making marks on pavement or rocks (e.g., for entertainment, for temporary signs or indicators).
|-
! {{w|Rubber duck|Rubber duck}}
| {{w|Rubber}}
| {{Yes|[https://heveaplanet.com/products/kawan-rubberduck-1x1 Yes]}}
| Vinyl plastics
| A children's bath toy. Also used in {{w|Friendly Floatees spill| science}}, {{w|Rubber duck race|racing}}, and {{w|Rubber duck debugging| programming}}.
|-
! {{w|Paper money|Paper money}} (title text)
| Paper
|{{Yes|Yes, but usually {{w|cotton paper}}}}
| Cotton, linen fibers (U.S. note), polypropylene.
| Currency issued by banks in the form of promissory notes.
|}

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

:[Cueball is looking at a phone, or perhaps a piece of paper, in his hand while holding his other hand on the handle of a shopping cart. Above the shopping cart, an underlined header and a bullet list are shown:]
:Shopping List
:* Tin Foil
:* Sponges
:* Silverware
:* Linens
:* Iron & Ironing Board
:* Reading Glasses
:* 9 Iron & 3 Wood
:* Sidewalk Chalk
:* Rubber Duck

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I'm trying to do a shopping trip where I only buy stuff that's no longer made from the material it's named after.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Language]]

3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-16T13:19:52Z

172.70.162.58: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3075
| date = April 11, 2025
| title = Anachronym Challenge
| image = anachronym_challenge_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x404px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I have to pay with paper money.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The table is incomplete. Also, need to add the missing categories.}}

[[Cueball]] is reading from a shopping list while shopping for groceries. The items on the list are all [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anachronym anachronyms]. The names of the items indicate their material, but they are no longer made from that material.

A number of manufactured objects were named for (or at least had names that refer to) their primary materials of construction. With time and advancing technology, it's not uncommon for alternate materials to become available that are one or more of more suitable, less expensive, and/or easier to manufacture, and so the materials of construction change. Names, however, become ingrained in the public consciousness, and can be more difficult to change than a manufacturing process, which leads to the disconnect in this strip: objects that named for the materials they ''used'' to be made of, but are now made of something different.

When these items were originally sold with different materials they may have been seen as "fake". Paper money has also been seen as fake, as its value is written on its face and proposed by a government rather than held in its material such as gold or silver coins.

It should be noted that many of the objects listed on Cueball's shopping list are still sometimes made with the materials that they are named after, they've just been supplanted by alternate materials for the mass market. Silverware can be made of sterling silver, especially in the cutlery of high-end establishments{{acn}}, but, unlike steel, traditional pure silver requires regular polishing to retain its finish. Cleaning sponges made of sea sponges are expensive, but can be [https://tofinosoapcompany.com/products/natural-sea-sponge-sustainably-harvested purchased]. Linens made from flax are available; and some people consider it [https://www.roughlinen.com/en-ca/blogs/newsletters/linen-vs-flax to be the better material], but that's a clear minority of the modern market. Some wood clubs are still made from wood, specifically {{w|persimmon}}. {{w|Banknotes of the Japanese yen}} are [https://www.npb.go.jp/en/products/intro/tokutyou.html still made] from wood fiber from ''E. chrysantha'' and abaca pulp. Most of the traditional items can be found in antique sales at least occasionally, and some people still use them such as in communities that have separated from modern industry.

Where items named for "iron" are now made with steel or stainless steel, they are still technically made from iron, since steel is an alloy largely consisting of iron as an element (98% or more iron for regular steels, and ~66-75% iron for stainless steel). In common conversation, however, iron is usually used to refer to unalloyed cast or wrought iron, not steel.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-left:0px"
|-
! Item !! Original material !! Original still produced and sold in industrial cultures?!! Actually made with !! class="unsortable"| Explanation
|-
! {{w|Aluminium foil|Tin foil}}
| {{w|Tin}}
| {{Yes|[https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/044154.RG Yes]}}
| Aluminum
| Formerly "tin foil" was made of the metal tin, but aluminum supplanted tin in the early-to-mid 20th century, as aluminum is cheaper and more durable. Foils of all metals are available for industrial and laboratory purposes, but one no longer sees tin foil marketed or sold for common home use, possibly due to health concerns.
|-
! {{w|Sponge (tool)|Sponges}}
| {{w|Sponge|Sea sponges}}, i.e., marine invertebrates in the phylum Porifera
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Polyester, polyurethane, cellulose
| An item commonly used in the kitchen to soak up water. Or bathrooms to wash yourself.
|-
! {{w|Silverware}}
| {{w|Silver}}
|{{Yes|Yes, though at greater expense than silverplated or silver-like}}
| Stainless steel
| Covers eating utensils, plates and dishes, candlesticks and trophies, which may all these days be electroplated, cupro-nickel alloys or stainless steel.
Likely intended to only refer to knives, forks and spoons, which may be found in family heirloom cutlery collections.
|-
! {{w|Linens}}
| {{w|Flax}}
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Cotton, hemp, polyester
| Commonly in the form of sheets and blankets.
|-
! {{w|Clothes iron|Clothes iron}}
| {{w|Iron}}
|{{No|No}}
| Aluminum, stainless steel & plastics
| A device to remove wrinkles in clothing by applying a hot, smooth surface. Early irons were simply flat slabs of iron with handles attached, which had to be manually heated on a stove or fire, or by placing hot coals or similar on the upward face of the iron. These can be found among antique collections. Modern irons are nearly always electric, and generally use a stainless steel face and plastic housing (which holds the wiring and other components, as well as acting as the handle.)
|-
! {{w|Ironing board|Ironing board}}
| Wooden board
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Metal, fabric cover
| Flat surface for ironing clothes. Wooden boards have largely been supplanted by light but rigid steel sheets with a thin cover of foam and fabric.
|-
! {{w|Corrective_lens#Reading_glasses|Reading glasses}}
| {{w|Glass}}
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Optical plastics
| Used to assist farsighted people with focusing on things up close. Glass lenses have typically been replaced by {{w|CR-39}} plastic due to glass's danger of shattering and higher weight.
|-
! {{w|Iron (golf)#Short irons|9 iron}}
| Iron
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Cast {{w|stainless steel}}, {{w|carbon steel}}
| A type of golf club.
|-
! {{w|Wood (golf)|3 wood}}
| Wood
|{{Yes|Yes}}
| Titanium, carbon fiber
| A type of golf club.
|-
! {{w|Sidewalk chalk|Sidewalk chalk}}
| {{w|Calcite}} chalk
|{{No|No}}
| Calcium sulfate ({{w|gypsum}})
| Used for making marks on pavement or rocks (e.g., for entertainment, for temporary signs or indicators).
|-
! {{w|Rubber duck|Rubber duck}}
| {{w|Rubber}}
| {{Yes|[https://heveaplanet.com/products/kawan-rubberduck-1x1 Yes]}}
| Vinyl plastics
| A children's bath toy. Also used in {{w|Friendly Floatees spill| science}}, {{w|Rubber duck race|racing}}, and {{w|Rubber duck debugging| programming}}.
|-
! {{w|Paper money|Paper money}} (title text)
| Paper
|{{Yes|Yes, but usually {{w|cotton paper}}}}
| Cotton, linen fibers (U.S. note), polypropylene.
| Currency in the form of promissory notes.
|}

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

:[Cueball is looking at a phone, or perhaps a piece of paper, in his hand while holding his other hand on the handle of a shopping cart. Above the shopping cart, an underlined header and a bullet list are shown:]
:Shopping List
:* Tin Foil
:* Sponges
:* Silverware
:* Linens
:* Iron & Ironing Board
:* Reading Glasses
:* 9 Iron & 3 Wood
:* Sidewalk Chalk
:* Rubber Duck

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I'm trying to do a shopping trip where I only buy stuff that's no longer made from the material it's named after.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Language]]

User talk:Xnerkcd

2025-04-15T15:25:24Z

172.70.162.58: /* Creating pages. */ ...see, even I make mistakes! :p

So originally, this had just been flooded with me trying to tell people wrong information, and then telling them stuff that they already knew. So I've decided to just start over again. If your comment(s) were deleted, I don't mean any offense, I just wanted to start over again.

So, with that over, welcome to my talk page! You can ask me any questions or whatever, just use it as a normal discussion page. --[[User:Xnerkcd|xnerkcd]] ([[User talk:Xnerkcd|talk]]) 07:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

== Creating pages. ==

Hi again (and, as someone who was deleted in your start-over, yup, that was fine...). Just want to repeat (then exand upon) something I said on a User page that you created. i.e. that anybody who hasn't got a User page, and has been around a while, ''probably'' isn't looking to get one. And, as you have discovered, anyone too new to create their own can always ask for it. It is good that you're now have page-creation rights, but best not to do that too much (if at all) until you have a bit more experience behind you. There are many cases where pages have to be marked for deletion (not that they get deleted very quickly, but the intent is valid) that might have been better not to have been made real in the first place.
 If in doubt, you could always ask. But, as far as User (and User Talk) pages, there's nothing wrong with redtext links in Talk comment signatures.
 Elsewhere, the problem is probably with the link being wrong, if red, but it's also usually not a good reason to create a page 'begging' to exist in this way. Best to suggest something new (e.g. a new comic category), rather than add its markup and create the page from there. Get to know the standards and conventions a bit more. There are plenty of regular long-term users who can either advise you or even do the job in a way that works both for you and how things work. Counting just the ''named'' ones, that is, as I (nameless IP) can only do the advising bit, like now... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 15:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3073: Tariffs

2025-04-10T08:43:30Z

172.70.162.58:

{{notice|This comic and explanation is about present-day politics and {{w|Donald Trump|Donald Trump, the current President of the United States}}. Additionally, the comic is about a political policy point that has disparate viewpoints which are both backed by extensive study and rarely implemented well. Please {{w|WP:DFTT|don’t feed the trolls}}, meaning that you don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, {{w|WP:RBI|revert, block and ignore}}. If you are not an admin and need assistance in blocking someone, send a message to [[User:Kynde]] or [[User:Theusaf]]. As with these contentious topics, please do not edit if you believe you have a conflict of interest or might be writing in a biased and slanted manner (in regards to both major American political parties). Be {{w|WP:BOLD|bold}}, but not reckless. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t {{w|WP:CIVIL|attack people}}, and always {{w|WP:AGF|assume good faith}}. Thanks, '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Uh, still no April fools [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 23:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
:The April fools is the president the U.S. Elected. (note: I am Usanian)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.232|172.70.214.232]] 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I have good news [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I felt like using all caps is a good idea for explanations, since the comic itself is all caps [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 00:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
: Please don't. If you did that, then all of the other explanations and transcripts would have to be edited to all-caps, which makes it harder to read. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Doesn't just about ''every'' xkcd comic use all-caps? That would make pretty much the entire wiki unreadable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.35|172.71.155.35]] 04:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::Plus, there are very few uses of lowercase letters. It just doesn't make sense. [[User:Whoa|Whoa]] ([[User talk:Whoa|talk]]) 21:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with the explanation? It's showing this weird string of letters: expDia thud enzo Isla idiosyncrasies talk 3totheaudienceandtheotherswhoareyouheresoearlyinthedayafterMittenslefttodois sign up for both ofuscan'twaitforthemostparttobeabrightandwarmwelcomeandIhopethatyouwillfindapenthatwillOrbitz pap [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23 7 April 2025 EST
: Vandals --[[User:Btx40|Btx40]] ([[User talk:Btx40|talk]]) 00:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::I'm getting a few Cloudflare messages that the server isn't responding. I'm used to explainxkcd giving straight 503s, etc, but this is the kind of thing (code 522, in at least one case) that you get only when an active pressure (crap-spamming, etc) is being applied. I'm wondering if there's some pushback from the pro-tariff (or at least 'pro-Donald') online community. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 11:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, just HOPEFULLY, we can prevent the comment section from devolving into insults like https://xkcd.com/1756/: I'm With Her. [[User:Thehydraclone|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone|talk]]) 01:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I concur, though I want to stress that I think it's very important that we try to make this comic explanation as neutral as possible. Is it possible to not show a bias towards either side of the issue? Randall's comic obviously has a point of view, but perhaps the explanation on this site can be a little bit more neutral. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 11:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:You stink! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.181|172.70.91.181]] 13:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comic [[2566]] was supposed to be a joke... --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.175.87|172.68.175.87]] 03:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"venmo" needs explaining. Apparently it's some sort of USAian proprietary payment system? And I think Ponytail's company is providing a service (which the USA exports of lot of), rather than selling equipment - services usually not being captured by simple trade figures for goods. And in order to post here I have to identify features of foreign street scenes in order to train a monopolist's proprietary image recognition system. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.115|162.158.216.115]] 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Ah, didn't read this first, but I ''just'' put a link in for that (slightly awkwardly, but best I could - expecting a later editor to better phrase/place it). Hadn't heard of it, myself. Presumably Leftpondians know about it a lot more, perhaps most do, given how much business it gets/facilitates ''only'' in the US. Anyway, consider me one of those that learnt something new today! (Not that I can, or would, use it, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.71|172.70.163.71]] 13:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added this comic as an answer to a Politics.SE question. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/60191/does-it-make-sense-to-treat-trade-deficit-as-tariffs/60229#60229 [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This is unironically the best explanation of Trump's tariffs I've seen --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.171|162.158.212.171]] 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I had a Facebook friend post almost the exact same analogy the day before this comic was released. So it is an idea that is out there. But since Trump do not care for the people who elected him, it is not his problem that everything gets more expensive in the US --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Midwit take from Randall that fundamentally misunderstands that the goal is to bring back manufacturing capability to the USA. Warren Buffett proposed these exact tariff measures 20 years ago and is only now saying they're bad because Orange Man Bad Amirite. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.75|16:43, 8 April 2025}}
:I've just read the paper you linked, which suggests issuing tradable / saleable import certificates to create a liquid market incentivizing a trade balance, one which is not country or industry directed at all and has, basically, nothing to do with Trump's "plan." They are not "the exact same" at all, and I'm not surprised that someone using "orange man bad" language is engaging in deception. {{unsigned ip|172.69.214.221|17:24, 8 April 2025}}
:Are you even sure you *want* to bring back manufacturing of all kinds to the USA? Do you understand what that entails? Every single sane economist on earth has been telling Trump from the start that this is an astonishingly bad idea, but he refuses to listen. Then again, every single sane climate scientist has been doing the same thing, and nobody listens to them either. All fitting, then.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.136|172.70.243.136]] 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:And what exactly is wrong with domestic manufacturing? Don't get me wrong, I don't consider (R) good, but the concept of "they're all just stupid" doesn't explain anything in the real world. {{unsigned ip|162.158.103.81|10:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}
::Well. It makes as much sense for the USA to manufacture iPhones domestically as it does for you to grow your own wheat and sunflowers and gather rock salt and process all that to bake bread. The world economy works by distributing work and relying on specialization. Doing everything on your own is grossly inefficient and it's simply impossible to keep up your standard of living that way.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.178|172.71.172.178]] 10:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Another response is that if you're determined to prove that your country doesn't need to trade with the rest of the world (at an extreme, what NK is trying to do, though majorly propped up by China despite this), the rest of the world might decide that it doesn't need to trade with you.
::The US has been (successfully) pursuading much of the world that it is a vital part of the world economy for a long time, and benefited more from it than cold, hard balance sheets could ever show. (Even in 'not friendly' nations, there has been cultural soft-power arise from the value of american denim jeans or records or even just the idea that there are more ways to do things than their current despotic ruler would openly admit to.) You could always find places to spend black-market dollars in Moscow, Havana or any place in any "Democratic Republic" (that's neither democratic nor strictly a republic) you could mention, and to the overall net benefit of the US. As well as being friendly to friendly countries, it has been insidious to those less than amicable (at a governing level).
::There's probably something to be said for not ''entirely'' relying upon third party countries (or at least not entirely upon ''singular'' third party countries, or entire political blocks/'blocs') that could suddenly put you under pressure regarding vital resources and components. Look at the hoops that Russia had to jump through, dependant upon China (and even NK!) for resources it was suddenly in need of. But the US was already in the position to be trading with any and all parts of the world (that it chose to), the ''cost'' was that maybe it couldn't sell quite as much worth in the form of cadillacs to a small group of islands that provided it with a given value of fish, but the value is that they'll ''keep on'' preferentially selling fish (that obviously the US can make use of).
::Now... Well, such fish that may be caught might go elsewhere, the world markets shuffle about, perhaps China gets more fish (perhaps NK does?) if it has demands for them, or perhaps it no longer seems worthwhile fishing so much from those islands. If there's nothing else for fishermen to do, maybe they'll go elsewhere to find something, but don't expect them to immigrate to the US and fish there, 'internally'. Not with the recent policies on immigration. So, the US probably has fewer fish, China has more soft-power (and probably hard-power, too) and the world adjusts to a state where in trying to win 'trade wars' against the whole world, the US has surrendered most of its trading power to the kind of countries that were previously trying hard to become its equals (and now become its superiors).
::If the current guy was ''really'' serious about "Gina" being his trading opponent, he'd work specifically against their influence, not actually make it more likely to increase. And that doesn't fit well with trying to split China and Russia again (even if he's making Russia and the US comrades in arms, again, in a separate deal).
::Before anyone points at the ungainly notice about bias/slanted opinion, I'm just outlining an interpretation here that shows contradictions in the scheme of the ultimate "re-on-shoring of ''everything''" drive being nothing but good. There's probably a better balance. Possibly not a guaranteed win:win, but at worst a lose-least:lose-least one. But such a Prisoner's Dilemma situation can't happen when one of the prisoners seems to only believe in win:lose results, so that they always aim (however wrongly) only for a maximised return on their side, resulting in an unsatisfactory lose:lose (or even lose:gain, to their own disadvantage) outcome. Also, I'm not 'Merkin myself. I'd ''rather'' a stronger US than various other nations getting stronger, actually, and that's why I'm worried that the world may pivot in ways that (openly, at least) the current US Administration don't actually want.
::But global trade is hard. "Who would have though it to be so hard..." Who knows where this will lead (especially if it strays out of the purely financial sphere, which of course it is already doing). Simply restoring manufacturing to the US is not the simple panacea that some might suggest. Aluminium (yeah, I know, but that's my spelling) can be made far cheaper in Canada than in the US and that's not going to change within four years (maybe not fourteen, could take more than forty!) and this and all the other supply-ripples won't happen fast enough (especially with far too much stick and practically no carrot) to fulfil the aspirations being espoused. So you absolutely can't take the current plans at face value. I'd be surprised if most of the ones touting them even believe them, and there must actually be more ulterior motives behind the wrecking-ball that's being unleashed, to which they're in more of a position to benefit from. (Time will tell, maybe. Perhaps it'll all work like a charm, but I'd heavily bet against it if I actually had the resources to significantly benefit out of the future failure, and yet couldn't do anything to reverse it.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.110|172.71.241.110]] 11:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There should be a "don't feed the trolls" banner at the top of the discussion. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:There's already a "Don't be a jerk!" rule noted at the bottom. Could just move it to the top, I suppose. (Or better, just move it to the top only for topics that are likely to lure people into acting like jerks. Good way to tell whether a given strip is going to upset a lot of people...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.96|172.70.42.96]] 22:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::made a notice about it up top '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::TORI! YOU'RE BACK! [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm from Germany, with the opposite issue. I never understood why having an export surplus should be a good thing. Let's make a bilance. OUT: Cars, machines, chemicals,... IN: Little printed paper snips (or little bytes if paid more modern). Sounds like a bad swap to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.186|162.158.112.186]] 07:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Former Financial Times and World Bank economist Tim Harford's "Undercover Economist" pop-econ books explain this quite well. (I don't think I can do Harford's explanation justice here but I shall try; any mistakes are my own) Germany wants to trade (for example) oil with OPEC, but all it has to trade are (for example) BMWs and OPEC doesn't want enough BMWs relative to how much oil Germany wants. So, Germany sells the extra BMWs to America in return for US dollars (the international currency for oil trading) and uses the US dollars to buy the oil. Economically, a BMW factory is basically a machine that converts steel into petrol via a really roundabout process. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 18:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Randall saw the most recent video from StandUpMaths. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.161|16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure if it was actually intended, but it seems that everyone missed the potential second meaning in the last frame. It's possible that Ponytail was referring to lidar diodes as a heat source used to cook the pizza, and Cueball either mistakenly or sardonically responded as if the mentioned diodes was instead suggested as a topping. That might also be a jab at political discussion, which is often full of spirited rebuttals based on misinterpretations of the opposing side's comments. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to lock comment sections? I feel like it would be especially helpful in comics like these. And while Reddit is usually not a good example for anything them locking the comments for contentious content (hehe) is actually a really good idea. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.75|172.68.12.75]] 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:The talk page ''could'' be semi-protected (to various degrees: admin-only editing, autoconfirmed-only editing) by an admin (your best bet would be to ask [[User:Kynde]]). I would recommend against such drastic moves for the moment, as the vandalism and trolling isn’t that bad (''yet''). If it does get worse, I’ll make sure to send a message to Kynde. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Fair enough, haste never gets anyone anywhere and it'd appear unjustified to do something that severe if it isn't that bad enough. But if it gets to the level of the I'm With Her comment section and nobody has asked for it to be locked, I'll ask Kynde like you asked. In any case, I'll wait. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.147|172.71.223.147]] 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I cannot agree that Reddit (or any site's) locking of comments is a good idea; it's a declaration of failure better dealt with by not having anything there at all except a statement that the topic is outside the scope acceptable by one's site. Even worse though, ''removing'' comments that are not abusive, promoting harm, etc, while leaving others that may be either similar or inverse, ''especially'' for difficult topics, is UNACCEPTABLE from any forum hoping to host discussion of anything the least bit controversial. '''Removing non-violating comments is even worse than locking threads, which is also bad.''' I'm outta here & probably won't be back; unhealthy moderation practices make for unhealthy discussions. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Eh? There don't appear to have been any comments removed so far, and the discussion above leans towards ''not'' doing anything if possible. So you're leaving because people aren't doing things you don't want them to do? Seems... odd. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 08:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, explainxkcd has gone off the cliff, and not just on this particular article, but repeatedly, and it’s getting worse and worse. I'm not going to edit it myself, but might I suggest a rule of thumb? If it isn’t necessary to help some understand the COMIC, then don’t put it in there in the first place! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.176|172.69.23.176]] 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Repeatedly"? By what criteria? Obviously in your opinion, anyway, and I'm not going to tell you what to think (or try to guess what you're thinking), but I believe you're being subjective. Nice to hear from you, though. Please do come by again some time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.226|141.101.98.226]] 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Seconded. This really should be the policy. I have strong political opinions like just about everyone (and like everyone, I certainly think that my views are logically derived from cold hard objective facts), but I have refrained from editing this page because I am VERY aware that it would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, and detract from the purpose of this website. "Explain xkcd" is for explaining xkcd, it's not a a platform to persuade the internet to adopt your political opinions. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 20:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:I really don't know what you guys are talking about, at least regarding the explanation for this specific comic. I believe the contributors have done a pretty good job keeping the explanation pretty close to neutral, except maybe it might be just a little opinionated in one paragraph. Most of the "extra" explanation in there provides some necessary background that may not be quite as obvious to future readers. Any leaning toward one opinion or another is mostly an explanation of the leaning attributed to the characters by the author himself. If you have a specific rebuke against a portion that seems more opinionated or subjective, either tag it in the explanation without changing the explanation itself, or bring up the specifics in this discussion. Please try not to bash this whole site and the contributors because of your own opinions. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 00:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how best to integrate it into the explanation, but I think https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations should be cited somewhere in the article, and I think it should be stated in more explicit terms that Trump's reciprocal tariffs are based on what is effectively a calculation of the United States' trade deficits with other countries. I think the article would benefit from more explicit descriptions and coverage of the tariff announcement for posterity, as I can imagine someone being really confused about this 10 years from now. I think reactions and backlash should be mentioned to provide context, but the article shouldn't get too detailed with any justifications for said reactions, so as not to take a side. Right now I feel that the article is a bit too in-the-weeds with explaining exactly what tariffs are and what a trade deficit is without providing context for why the comic is politically relevant, which I think is necessary to understand the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.166|162.158.62.166]] 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

At the moment the article says that "Donald Trump claimed that if the U.S. has a trade deficit with another country, then the U.S. is getting ripped off." This claim seems pretty ridiculous, but I have no idea whether it is what Mr. Trump said. Since the whole cartoon seems based on this premise, I think it would help to have a citation to make this clearer for posterity. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.109|172.71.150.109]] 05:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:It's pretty much his whole schtick on this. Googling gives numerous direct reports or videos of his rhetoric where he says, often visible in the summary (or, with videos, subtitle/surtitles on the thumbnail view). I included an actual quote, thought that better than linking to BBC News (annoying those who don't trust the BBC as a source), Fox News (annoy those who don't trust Fox as a source), etc... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.42|172.71.26.42]] 08:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::It would be better to link it to a source though, rather than just leaving it as an unevidenced quote.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 08:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3073: Tariffs

2025-04-10T08:29:29Z

172.70.162.58:

{{notice|This comic and explanation is about present-day politics and {{w|Donald Trump|Donald Trump, the current President of the United States}}. Additionally, the comic is about a political policy point that has disparate viewpoints which are both backed by extensive study and rarely implemented well. Please {{w|WP:DFTT|don’t feed the trolls}}, meaning that you don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, {{w|WP:RBI|revert, block and ignore}}. If you are not an admin and need assistance in blocking someone, send a message to [[User:Kynde]] or [[User:Theusaf]]. As with these contentious topics, please do not edit if you believe you have a conflict of interest or might be writing in a biased and slanted manner (in regards to both major American political parties). Be {{w|WP:BOLD|bold}}, but not reckless. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t {{w|WP:CIVIL|attack people}}, and always {{w|WP:AGF|assume good faith}}. Thanks, '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Uh, still no April fools [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 23:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
:The April fools is the president the U.S. Elected. (note: I am Usanian)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.232|172.70.214.232]] 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I have good news [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I felt like using all caps is a good idea for explanations, since the comic itself is all caps [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 00:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
: Please don't. If you did that, then all of the other explanations and transcripts would have to be edited to all-caps, which makes it harder to read. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Doesn't just about ''every'' xkcd comic use all-caps? That would make pretty much the entire wiki unreadable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.35|172.71.155.35]] 04:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::Plus, there are very few uses of lowercase letters. It just doesn't make sense. [[User:Whoa|Whoa]] ([[User talk:Whoa|talk]]) 21:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with the explanation? It's showing this weird string of letters: expDia thud enzo Isla idiosyncrasies talk 3totheaudienceandtheotherswhoareyouheresoearlyinthedayafterMittenslefttodois sign up for both ofuscan'twaitforthemostparttobeabrightandwarmwelcomeandIhopethatyouwillfindapenthatwillOrbitz pap [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23 7 April 2025 EST
: Vandals --[[User:Btx40|Btx40]] ([[User talk:Btx40|talk]]) 00:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::I'm getting a few Cloudflare messages that the server isn't responding. I'm used to explainxkcd giving straight 503s, etc, but this is the kind of thing (code 522, in at least one case) that you get only when an active pressure (crap-spamming, etc) is being applied. I'm wondering if there's some pushback from the pro-tariff (or at least 'pro-Donald') online community. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 11:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, just HOPEFULLY, we can prevent the comment section from devolving into insults like https://xkcd.com/1756/: I'm With Her. [[User:Thehydraclone|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone|talk]]) 01:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I concur, though I want to stress that I think it's very important that we try to make this comic explanation as neutral as possible. Is it possible to not show a bias towards either side of the issue? Randall's comic obviously has a point of view, but perhaps the explanation on this site can be a little bit more neutral. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 11:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:You stink! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.181|172.70.91.181]] 13:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comic [[2566]] was supposed to be a joke... --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.175.87|172.68.175.87]] 03:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"venmo" needs explaining. Apparently it's some sort of USAian proprietary payment system? And I think Ponytail's company is providing a service (which the USA exports of lot of), rather than selling equipment - services usually not being captured by simple trade figures for goods. And in order to post here I have to identify features of foreign street scenes in order to train a monopolist's proprietary image recognition system. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.115|162.158.216.115]] 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Ah, didn't read this first, but I ''just'' put a link in for that (slightly awkwardly, but best I could - expecting a later editor to better phrase/place it). Hadn't heard of it, myself. Presumably Leftpondians know about it a lot more, perhaps most do, given how much business it gets/facilitates ''only'' in the US. Anyway, consider me one of those that learnt something new today! (Not that I can, or would, use it, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.71|172.70.163.71]] 13:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added this comic as an answer to a Politics.SE question. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/60191/does-it-make-sense-to-treat-trade-deficit-as-tariffs/60229#60229 [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This is unironically the best explanation of Trump's tariffs I've seen
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.171|162.158.212.171]] 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I had a Facebook friend post almost the exact same analogy the day before this comic was released. So it is an idea that is out there. But since Trump do not care for the people who elected him, it is not his problem that everything gets more expensive in the US --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Midwit take from Randall that fundamentally misunderstands that the goal is to bring back manufacturing capability to the USA. Warren Buffett proposed these exact tariff measures 20 years ago and is only now saying they're bad because Orange Man Bad Amirite. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.75|16:43, 8 April 2025}}
:I've just read the paper you linked, which suggests issuing tradable / saleable import certificates to create a liquid market incentivizing a trade balance, one which is not country or industry directed at all and has, basically, nothing to do with Trump's "plan." They are not "the exact same" at all, and I'm not surprised that someone using "orange man bad" language is engaging in deception. {{unsigned ip|172.69.214.221|17:24, 8 April 2025}}
:Are you even sure you *want* to bring back manufacturing of all kinds to the USA? Do you understand what that entails? Every single sane economist on earth has been telling Trump from the start that this is an astonishingly bad idea, but he refuses to listen. Then again, every single sane climate scientist has been doing the same thing, and nobody listens to them either. All fitting, then.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.136|172.70.243.136]] 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:And what exactly is wrong with domestic manufacturing? Don't get me wrong, I don't consider (R) good, but the concept of "they're all just stupid" doesn't explain anything in the real world. {{unsigned ip|162.158.103.81|10:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}
::Well. It makes as much sense for the USA to manufacture iPhones domestically as it does for you to grow your own wheat and sunflowers and gather rock salt and process all that to bake bread. The world economy works by distributing work and relying on specialization. Doing everything on your own is grossly inefficient and it's simply impossible to keep up your standard of living that way.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.178|172.71.172.178]] 10:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Another response is that if you're determined to prove that your country doesn't need to trade with the rest of the world (at an extreme, what NK is trying to do, though majorly propped up by China despite this), the rest of the world might decide that it doesn't need to trade with you.
::The US has been (successfully) pursuading much of the world that it is a vital part of the world economy for a long time, and benefited more from it than cold, hard balance sheets could ever show. (Even in 'not friendly' nations, there has been cultural soft-power arise from the value of american denim jeans or records or even just the idea that there are more ways to do things than their current despotic ruler would openly admit to.) You could always find places to spend black-market dollars in Moscow, Havana or any place in any "Democratic Republic" (that's neither democratic nor strictly a republic) you could mention, and to the overall net benefit of the US. As well as being friendly to friendly countries, it has been insidious to those less than amicable (at a governing level).
::There's probably something to be said for not ''entirely'' relying upon third party countries (or at least not entirely upon ''singular'' third party countries, or entire political blocks/'blocs') that could suddenly put you under pressure regarding vital resources and components. Look at the hoops that Russia had to jump through, dependant upon China (and even NK!) for resources it was suddenly in need of. But the US was already in the position to be trading with any and all parts of the world (that it chose to), the ''cost'' was that maybe it couldn't sell quite as much worth in the form of cadillacs to a small group of islands that provided it with a given value of fish, but the value is that they'll ''keep on'' preferentially selling fish (that obviously the US can make use of).
::Now... Well, such fish that may be caught might go elsewhere, the world markets shuffle about, perhaps China gets more fish (perhaps NK does?) if it has demands for them, or perhaps it no longer seems worthwhile fishing so much from those islands. If there's nothing else for fishermen to do, maybe they'll go elsewhere to find something, but don't expect them to immigrate to the US and fish there, 'internally'. Not with the recent policies on immigration. So, the US probably has fewer fish, China has more soft-power (and probably hard-power, too) and the world adjusts to a state where in trying to win 'trade wars' against the whole world, the US has surrendered most of its trading power to the kind of countries that were previously trying hard to become its equals (and now become its superiors).
::If the current guy was ''really'' serious about "Gina" being his trading opponent, he'd work specifically against their influence, not actually make it more likely to increase. And that doesn't fit well with trying to split China and Russia again (even if he's making Russia and the US comrades in arms, again, in a separate deal).
::Before anyone points at the ungainly notice about bias/slanted opinion, I'm just outlining an interpretation here that shows contradictions in the scheme of the ultimate "re-on-shoring of ''everything''" drive being nothing but good. There's probably a better balance. Possibly not a guaranteed win:win, but at worst a lose-least:lose-least one. But such a Prisoner's Dilemma situation can't happen when one of the prisoners seems to only believe in win:lose results, so that they always aim (however wrongly) only for a maximised return on their side, resulting in an unsatisfactory lose:lose (or even lose:gain, to their own disadvantage) outcome. Also, I'm not 'Merkin myself. I'd ''rather'' a stronger US than various other nations getting stronger, actually, and that's why I'm worried that the world may pivot in ways that (openly, at least) the current US Administration don't actually want.
::But global trade is hard. "Who would have though it to be so hard..." Who knows where this will lead (especially if it strays out of the purely financial sphere, which of course it is already doing). Simply restoring manufacturing to the US is not the simple panacea that some might suggest. Aluminium (yeah, I know, but that's my spelling) can be made far cheaper in Canada than in the US and that's not going to change within four years (maybe not fourteen, could take more than forty!) and this and all the other supply-ripples won't happen fast enough (especially with far too much stick and practically no carrot) to fulfil the aspirations being espoused. So you absolutely can't take the current plans at face value. I'd be surprised if most of the ones touting them even believe them, and there must actually be more ulterior motives behind the wrecking-ball that's being unleashed, to which they're in more of a position to benefit from. (Time will tell, maybe. Perhaps it'll all work like a charm, but I'd heavily bet against it if I actually had the resources to significantly benefit out of the future failure, and yet couldn't do anything to reverse it.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.110|172.71.241.110]] 11:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There should be a "don't feed the trolls" banner at the top of the discussion. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:There's already a "Don't be a jerk!" rule noted at the bottom. Could just move it to the top, I suppose. (Or better, just move it to the top only for topics that are likely to lure people into acting like jerks. Good way to tell whether a given strip is going to upset a lot of people...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.96|172.70.42.96]] 22:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::made a notice about it up top '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::TORI! YOU'RE BACK! [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm from Germany, with the opposite issue. I never understood why having an export surplus should be a good thing. Let's make a bilance. OUT: Cars, machines, chemicals,... IN: Little printed paper snips (or little bytes if paid more modern). Sounds like a bad swap to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.186|162.158.112.186]] 07:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Former Financial Times and World Bank economist Tim Harford's "Undercover Economist" pop-econ books explain this quite well. (I don't think I can do Harford's explanation justice here but I shall try; any mistakes are my own) Germany wants to trade (for example) oil with OPEC, but all it has to trade are (for example) BMWs and OPEC doesn't want enough BMWs relative to how much oil Germany wants. So, Germany sells the extra BMWs to America in return for US dollars (the international currency for oil trading) and uses the US dollars to buy the oil. Economically, a BMW factory is basically a machine that converts steel into petrol via a really roundabout process. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 18:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Randall saw the most recent video from StandUpMaths. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.161|16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure if it was actually intended, but it seems that everyone missed the potential second meaning in the last frame. It's possible that Ponytail was referring to lidar diodes as a heat source used to cook the pizza, and Cueball either mistakenly or sardonically responded as if the mentioned diodes was instead suggested as a topping. That might also be a jab at political discussion, which is often full of spirited rebuttals based on misinterpretations of the opposing side's comments. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to lock comment sections? I feel like it would be especially helpful in comics like these. And while Reddit is usually not a good example for anything them locking the comments for contentious content (hehe) is actually a really good idea. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.75|172.68.12.75]] 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:The talk page ''could'' be semi-protected (to various degrees: admin-only editing, autoconfirmed-only editing) by an admin (your best bet would be to ask [[User:Kynde]]). I would recommend against such drastic moves for the moment, as the vandalism and trolling isn’t that bad (''yet''). If it does get worse, I’ll make sure to send a message to Kynde. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Fair enough, haste never gets anyone anywhere and it'd appear unjustified to do something that severe if it isn't that bad enough. But if it gets to the level of the I'm With Her comment section and nobody has asked for it to be locked, I'll ask Kynde like you asked. In any case, I'll wait. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.147|172.71.223.147]] 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I cannot agree that Reddit (or any site's) locking of comments is a good idea; it's a declaration of failure better dealt with by not having anything there at all except a statement that the topic is outside the scope acceptable by one's site. Even worse though, ''removing'' comments that are not abusive, promoting harm, etc, while leaving others that may be either similar or inverse, ''especially'' for difficult topics, is UNACCEPTABLE from any forum hoping to host discussion of anything the least bit controversial. '''Removing non-violating comments is even worse than locking threads, which is also bad.''' I'm outta here & probably won't be back; unhealthy moderation practices make for unhealthy discussions. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, explainxkcd has gone off the cliff, and not just on this particular article, but repeatedly, and it’s getting worse and worse. I'm not going to edit it myself, but might I suggest a rule of thumb? If it isn’t necessary to help some understand the COMIC, then don’t put it in there in the first place! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.176|172.69.23.176]] 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Repeatedly"? By what criteria? Obviously in your opinion, anyway, and I'm not going to tell you what to think (or try to guess what you're thinking), but I believe you're being subjective. Nice to hear from you, though. Please do come by again some time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.226|141.101.98.226]] 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Seconded. This really should be the policy. I have strong political opinions like just about everyone (and like everyone, I certainly think that my views are logically derived from cold hard objective facts), but I have refrained from editing this page because I am VERY aware that it would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, and detract from the purpose of this website. "Explain xkcd" is for explaining xkcd, it's not a a platform to persuade the internet to adopt your political opinions. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 20:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:I really don't know what you guys are talking about, at least regarding the explanation for this specific comic. I believe the contributors have done a pretty good job keeping the explanation pretty close to neutral, except maybe it might be just a little opinionated in one paragraph. Most of the "extra" explanation in there provides some necessary background that may not be quite as obvious to future readers. Any leaning toward one opinion or another is mostly an explanation of the leaning attributed to the characters by the author himself. If you have a specific rebuke against a portion that seems more opinionated or subjective, either tag it in the explanation without changing the explanation itself, or bring up the specifics in this discussion. Please try not to bash this whole site and the contributors because of your own opinions. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 00:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how best to integrate it into the explanation, but I think https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations should be cited somewhere in the article, and I think it should be stated in more explicit terms that Trump's reciprocal tariffs are based on what is effectively a calculation of the United States' trade deficits with other countries. I think the article would benefit from more explicit descriptions and coverage of the tariff announcement for posterity, as I can imagine someone being really confused about this 10 years from now. I think reactions and backlash should be mentioned to provide context, but the article shouldn't get too detailed with any justifications for said reactions, so as not to take a side. Right now I feel that the article is a bit too in-the-weeds with explaining exactly what tariffs are and what a trade deficit is without providing context for why the comic is politically relevant, which I think is necessary to understand the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.166|162.158.62.166]] 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

At the moment the article says that "Donald Trump claimed that if the U.S. has a trade deficit with another country, then the U.S. is getting ripped off." This claim seems pretty ridiculous, but I have no idea whether it is what Mr. Trump said. Since the whole cartoon seems based on this premise, I think it would help to have a citation to make this clearer for posterity. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.109|172.71.150.109]] 05:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:It's pretty much his whole schtick on this. Googling gives numerous direct reports or videos of his rhetoric where he says, often visible in the summary (or, with videos, subtitle/surtitles on the thumbnail view). I included an actual quote, thought that better than linking to BBC News (annoying those who don't trust the BBC as a source), Fox News (annoy those who don't trust Fox as a source), etc... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.42|172.71.26.42]] 08:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

2935: Ocean Loop

2025-03-25T11:30:49Z

172.70.162.58: Undo revision 370214 by 172.68.211.60 (talk) Not by that category's criteria (the mistake doesn't count).

{{comic
| number = 2935
| date = May 20, 2024
| title = Ocean Loop
| image = ocean_loop_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x286px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I can't believe they wouldn't even let me hold a vote among the passengers about whether to try the loop.
}}

==Explanation==

Upon hearing the term "ocean loop", many people think of horizontal {{w|ocean gyre}}s or {{w|ocean currents}}. This comic illustrates a vertical, rather than horizontal, ocean loop.

The comic shows a large construction, rising out of the sea to dwarf a nearby cruise ship. It involves a submerged water-jet sending water up out of the surface and round a rollercoaster-loop-like water-flume trough. The scale is such that it seems that the ship, once caught in the necessarily powerful stream of water, is also intended to be propelled around the inverting loop before "safely" exiting at the other side.

The design is reminiscent of the infamous 'Cannonball Loop' water slide - a [https://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-trb-action-park-looping-water-slide-20150305-story.html fully-functional] water slide complete with a loop-de-loop - which was one of many famously dangerous rides and attractions at Action Park; a theme park in New Jersey that became iconic for its blithe disregard for human safety, and the numerous accidents and deaths at the park as a result. This [https://youtu.be/P14W1pRRK9Y video], among other potentially dangerous water slides, shows 2 such loop-de-loop water slides ([https://youtu.be/P14W1pRRK9Y?t=487 1] and [https://youtu.be/P14W1pRRK9Y?t=522 2]). Apart from various other issues regarding {{what if|43|large "loop-de-loops"}}, the stream of water required to maintain this setup would be {{w|Entrainment (hydrodynamics)|acting upon the nearby water}} and so the nearby ship is probably already close enough to be drawn into the loop (with the best option left being to deliberately steer into it, rather than risk being swept uncontrollably into the structure), assuming that it isn't already caught in the tug of the water-jet's inward flow.

Even assuming a "successful" loop (the stresses and rotation inflicted by the loop are likely beyond the design limits of such a vessel), the emergence back into the ''relatively'' calm and stationary waters beyond the exiting outflow would be a severe challenge to navigation. On the positive side, due to the nature of buoyancy, if the loop structure itself is capable of withstanding the force of the water being forced round it then it ''should'' be equally capable of withstanding the passage of the ship, unlike an impromptu rail-based loop which might stand up on its own but then shake itself apart when the first carriage is sent around it.

Not only would there be problems for the engineers, ship and navigators, the "ride" wouldn't be pleasant for the ship's passengers in any way. Many of the passengers would suffer extreme injuries from the changes of velocity (up to 370km/h or 230mph based on a loop radius of 3 x ship length) and rotation (unlike {{w|rollercoasters}}, or even airplanes during simple take-off and landing, passengers aren't normally strapped down). It is possible that the initial extreme undercurrent would capsize the ship. Depending upon where in the ship you were, the centripetal forces and the ship's rotation may not match for all passengers, forcing anyone not properly secured out towards the bow or stern. As well as the passengers, this also is relevant to all unsecured items (e.g. knives and forks would go flying off tables), as well as the dangers of breakable glass, liquids and many other dangerous objects which could create hazards even (or particularly) against those who have strapped themselves down to prevent their own movement through the ship.

Because of all these safety concerns, the caption, "[[:Category: Banned from conferences|I don't know why the cruise line fired me]]", suggests that someone in the company realized this would not be a good idea, and shut down the concept. However, the title text, "I can't believe they wouldn't even let me hold a vote among the passengers about whether to try the loop", implies that the narrator (whether because they simply hadn't thought it through properly, or they are [[Black Hat|someone with a sadistic nature]]) actually managed to get as far as building this loop and having a ship ready to try it. Considering the vast budget that would have been required to realise this concept, it appears that oversight at the cruise company is not what it could be, and perhaps others should be in line for firing as well (if it has not already bankrupted the company).

When those in charge of the ship objected to sailing into this loop, the builder attempted to get around this by having the passengers vote on it. Presumably worried that opening the decision-making process to the passengers might favor the exciting risk over the well-founded reason of the staff, those in charge put a stop to that too. Cruise ships generally don't function as democracies, even outside of absurd situations such as the one depicted.

==Transcript==

:[A cruise ship approaches an enormous loop-de-loop flume from the left. A large jet of water is being propelled into the loop-de-loop by an enormous submerged hot tub style jet. The loop-de-loop, that looks like a waterslide, and the structure housing the jet are connected to a slightly inclined seabed, higher on the right.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I don't know why the cruise line fired me.

==Trivia==
* '''This trivia section was created by a BOT'''
* The [[:File:ocean_loop_huge.png|standard size]] image was uploaded with a resolution/size larger than the supposed 2x version.
* This may have been an error.
* At the time of posting, the image was ''massive'', 4760 x 4295 pixels.

{{comic discussion}}

3054: Scream Cipher

2025-02-22T02:53:13Z

172.70.162.58: /* Worked example */ Something erroneous with the first paragraph (but can't tell what is being said, so can't correct it). The second one removed seems like pure opinion.

{{comic
| number = 3054
| date = February 21, 2025
| title = Scream Cipher
| image = scream_cipher_2x.png
| imagesize = 287x416px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = AAAAAA A ÃA̧AȂA̦ ǍÅÂÃĀÁȂ AAAAAAA!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A ÃA̧ȂÁAǍẢÂA̋ ȦÅĀ - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A {{w|Cipher}} is a method of encryption, where characters or sometimes words are substituted for other characters in a set pattern, allowing for arbitrary strings to be enciphered using it. The complexity and strength of ciphers varies, from {{w|one-time pads}} and (historically) {{w|enigma machine|Enigma}} as stronger and more complex, to {{w|substitution ciphers}} as some of the weakest and least complex, where each character is simply given a set different symbol to represent it in the cipher.

This comic uses a substitution cipher, where all the letters of the English Alphabet are represented using the letter "A", with different {{w|diacritical marks}} to define the differences. This kind of cipher is often used on a recreational basis by children or casual enthusiasts, the similarity of the letters increasing the obcurity of the content and the skill or technology required for use, but there is also significant impracticality, as not only are substitution ciphers the easiest to break, but also the similarities in the letters do make the cipher hard to read and easy to misread, and the detail in the diacritical marks makes it easy to draw the "A"s incorrectly or ambiguously, potentially leading to [[3003: Sandwich Helix|part of the message being lost]]. This was our experience in the comments section of this very article, where one person implemented translator functions alongside another person crafting a message that failed to translate. However, the logic behind the code is mostly visual similarity, and if attentive to connecting concepts between the American and scream cipher alphabet, it could be quickly learned and translated in a glance.

It's named "Scream Cipher" (as a pun on {{w|stream cipher}}s, commonly used in computing) because the written form of a scream is a long string of As, possibly with some other characters at the end (and often an exclamation point for emphasis), such as "Aaaaaah!" or "Aaaaaaagh!". The name may or may not be a reference to IBM's {{w|Scream_(cipher)|Scream cipher}} published in 2002.

In the comic, [[Cueball]] texts the ciphered version for the plaintext "HELLO", and [[Megan]] responds with that for "HI".

The title text deciphers to "AAAAAA A SCARY MONSTER AAAAAA!"

You can translate text to and from Scream Cipher using [https://github.com/matthewpwatkins/scream-cipher/ the Scream Cipher Translator].

Another recent comic featuring all "A"s was [[2957: A Crossword Puzzle]].

==Worked example==



Say we want to encode "Scream" in the Scream Cipher. First we would need to split out word into the letters, so S, C, R, E, A, M.

The first letter is S, so if we go to S in the table S is shown to become to Ã, C similarly becomes A̧, R becomes Ȃ, E corresponds to Á, A is the main letter so A is unchanged to A, and M becomes Ǎ. If we then write them again in order, we find SCREAM becomes ÃA̧ȂÁAǍ.

To turn cipher text back into normal text, the process is repeated in reverse. To translate A̧ẢA̯A̰ÁȂ, we go to A̧ in the table and find A̧ becomes C. Ả similarly becomes I, A̯ becomes P, A̰ becomes H, Á becomes E, and Ȃ becomes R. If we write the letters in order, we see that A̧ẢA̯A̰ÁȂ becomes CIPHER.

==Table==

The {{w|Unicode}} names of the characters in the cipher are as follows:

{|class="wikitable"
! colspan=2 | Input !! colspan=3 | Substitution
|-
! Plain !! Unicode description !! Cipher !! Unicode description(s) !! Usage note
|-
| A || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A || A || '''U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A || Unadorned base character
|-
| B || U+0042 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER B || Ȧ || '''U+0226 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH DOT ABOVE || Phonetic symbol for low central vowel
|-
| C || U+0043 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C || A̧ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+0327 COMBINING CEDILLA''' || Cedille is often attached to a 'c', as in "français".
|-
| D || U+0044 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D || A̱ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+0331 COMBINING MACRON BELOW''' ||
|-
| E || U+0045 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER E || Á || '''U+00C1 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH ACUTE || Many words have an acute e, as in "fiancé".
|-
| F || U+0046 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER F || A̮ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+032E COMBINING BREVE BELOW''' ||
|-
| G || U+0047 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER G || A̋ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+030B COMBINING DOUBLE ACUTE ACCENT''' ||
|-
| H || U+0048 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER H || A̰ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+0330 COMBINING TILDE BELOW''' ||
|-
| I || U+0049 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I || Ả || '''U+1EA2 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH HOOK ABOVE ||
|-
| J || U+004A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER J || A̓ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+0313 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE''' ||
|-
| K || U+004B LATIN CAPITAL LETTER K || Ạ || '''U+1EA0 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH DOT BELOW ||
|-
| L || U+004C LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L || Ă || '''U+0102 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH BREVE ||
|-
| M || U+004D LATIN CAPITAL LETTER M || Ǎ || '''U+01CD LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH CARON ||
|-
| N || U+004E LATIN CAPITAL LETTER N || Â || '''U+00C2 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH CIRCUMFLEX ||
|-
| O || U+004F LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O || Å || '''U+00C5 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH RING ABOVE || The symbol contains the letter 'O'.
|-
| P || U+0050 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER P || A̯ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+032F COMBINING INVERTED BREVE BELOW''' ||
|-
| Q || U+0051 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Q || A̤ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+0324 COMBINING DIAERESIS BELOW''' ||
|-
| R || U+0052 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER R || Ȃ || '''U+0202 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH INVERTED BREVE ||
|-
| S || U+0053 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S || Ã || '''U+00C3 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH TILDE ||
|-
| T || U+0054 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER T || Ā || '''U+0100 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH MACRON ||
|-
| U || U+0055 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER U || Ä || '''U+00C4 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH DIAERESIS || Many German words have a 'ü', as in "[[w|Fahrvergnügen]]"
|-
| V || U+0056 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER V || À || '''U+00C0 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH GRAVE ||
|-
| W || U+0057 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER W || Ȁ || '''U+0200 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH DOUBLE GRAVE ||
|-
| X || U+0058 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER X || A̽ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+033D COMBINING X ABOVE''' || The symbol contains the letter 'X'.
|-
| Y || U+0059 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Y || A̦ || U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, '''U+0326 COMBINING COMMA BELOW''' ||
|-
| Z || U+005A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Z || Ⱥ || '''U+023A LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH STROKE ||
|}

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

:[Top of the panel has 26 letters of the alphabet, each followed by a hyphen and the letter "A" with a unique diacritical mark for each. "A - A" at the top is an exception, where the latter doesn't have a diacritic.]
:{|
|A - A
|-
|B - Ȧ
|G - A̋
|L - Ă
|Q - A̤
|V - À
|-
|C - A̧
|H - A̰
|M - Ǎ
|R - Ȃ
|W - Ȁ
|-
|D - A̱
|I - Ả
|N - Â
|S - Ã
|X - A̽
|-
|E - Á
|J - A̓
|O - Å
|T - Ā
|Y - A̦
|-
|F - A̮
|K - Ạ
|P - A̯
|U - Ä
|Z - Ⱥ
|}
:[Cueball and Megan typing on their phones, Cueball with two hands and Megan with one hand.]
:Cueball's phone: A̰ÁĂĂÅ
:Megan's phone: A̰Ả

:[Caption below the panel:]
:In the ''Scream Cipher'', messages consist of all As, with different letters distinguished using diacritics.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Unicode]]

3044: Humidifier Review

2025-01-30T09:09:29Z

172.70.162.58: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3044
| date = January 29, 2025
| title = Humidifier Review
| image = humidifier_review_2x.png
| imagesize = 285x287px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They should add a little sticker that certifies that the humidifier supports water conservation, but in the sense of energy conservation or momentum conservation.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a 101% EFFICIENT TOASTER Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic shows a review of a {{w|humidifier}}, which complains that it uses too much water to increase the humidity of the room to 45%. However, aside from small efficiency improvements (and [[2710: Hydropower Breakthrough|machinery made by Beret Guy]]), it is impossible to reduce the amount of water used to humidify the room.

A humidifier is a device that evaporates water from a tank, causing the air around it to become more humid. The law of {{w|conservation of mass}} states that the amount of matter in the universe must stay constant. Therefore, the amount of water used by the humidifier must be at least the amount gained by the air. In order to release more water into the air than was originally placed in the tank, the humidifier would have to use a chemical reaction to create water from some other chemicals - which would still need to be supplied. This analysis also assumes the room is held at a constant temperature. Since humidity (when given as a percentage measure such as the stated 45%) is relative to the water capacity of the air at its current temperature, a humidifier could also increase relative humidity by cooling the air, even using no water at all.

Other examples of commonly-used, commonly-reviewed household devices whose operational efficiency is limited by the laws of physics themselves include {{w|space heater|space heaters}}, {{w|electric water boiler|electric kettles}}, {{w|air conditioning|air conditioners}}, and {{w|refrigerator|refrigerators}}. For instance, a space heater cannot produce more heat than the electrical energy it consumes, as dictated by the laws of thermodynamics. Similarly, an electric kettle cannot heat water with less energy than the amount required to raise its temperature, due to the specific heat capacity of water. Air conditioners and refrigerators operate by transferring heat rather than creating "cold," and their efficiency is constrained by the {{w|Carnot cycle}}, which defines the maximum possible efficiency of a heat engine.

The joke in the title text is based on different senses of the word "conservation". To most people this refers to reducing wasted use of some material, e.g. "water conservation" means avoiding waste of water. But to physicists, it means that some quantity in a system stays the same; for instance, conservation of energy means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. For many years, most appliances have had {{w|Energy Star}} stickers that indicate their impact on the environment; by adopting the physicists' sense, they can trivially say they support water conservation.

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

:[A product review appears within a panel. At the top left is a small drawing of a humidifier within a rectangle. To the right of that rectangle, the following text appears:]
:HydroPro Humidifier
:[A line of illegible text appears below the product name, followed by a shorter line of illegible text within a rectangle.]
:Reviews
:[A horizontal line separates the above from a small close-up drawing of Hairy in a circle, with two lines of illegible text to his right.]
:[(3/5 stars)] '''Good but inefficient'''
:It keeps the humidity at 45% pretty well. I'd give it 5 stars if it didn't use so much water.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My favorite reviews are the ones that penalize products for not violating the laws of physics.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Online reviews]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]

Talk:2254: JPEG2000

2025-01-29T12:56:46Z

172.70.162.58:

Cubeball's keyboard has disappeared in the third panel. 22:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure the woman in this comic should be called Hairbun. Updating transcript... [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Jpeg2000 is widely used on archive.org (scans are stored as .jp2 there). For example, the image of this page [https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.215730/2015.215730.The-Theory#page/n99/mode/1up] is internally from a jp2.zip file:
https://ia601604.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/16/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.215730/2015.215730.The-Theory_jp2.zip&file=2015.215730.The-Theory_jp2/2015.215730.The-Theory_0099.jp2
where BookReaderImages.php seems to be able to read .jp2 in zip and send it to you as a legacy format your browser can handle. [[User:Yosei|Yosei]] ([[User talk:Yosei|talk]]) 01:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if as a result of this comic, xkcd fans will cause rapid adoption. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:Looks like [https://pdf-aktuell.ch/pa/language/en/is-jpeg2000-compression-suitable-for-pdf-files-for-prepress/ it just isn't worth it].

GIMP seems to be able to load JPEG2000 images. To export as JPEG2000, you need an external plugin. [[User:Fabben|Fabben]] ([[User talk:Fabben|talk]]) 12:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
:That’s correct, I changed the text. --17:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if Randall is deliberately referencing Valve's Artifact's [https://steamcommunity.com/games/583950/announcements/detail/1712958942366879379 long haul]. Even has a loose connection with image artifacts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.102|172.68.47.102]] 12:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Would a brief description of the .png format (more typically used for comic images) be appropriate? {{unsigned|162.158.78.70}}

I was pretty sure that patents were the main problem with adoption, at least in time when .gif patents were a problem. However, it seems the patent status is getting better and it isn't helping ... meanwhile, WEBP, which is using similar technology, is gaining traction.
... which would also answer the question of the previous commenter: while brief mention of PNG might be worth it, mention of WEBP and similar alternatives would be more important -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
: In the US, patents are issued for 20 years, counting from when the application was submitted, which means it should be coming off patent any day now. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 21:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's also used for [http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Image_System textures in Second Life]. In fact, that page also states that decompressing JPEG2000 is much more processor-intensive than other image compression methods, so I guess that might be another reason for the lack of general adoption? [[User:EddyM|EddyM]] ([[User talk:EddyM|talk]]) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

JPEG2000 is not at all unknown in the geospatial community. Both USGS and NASA offer various aerial and satellite imagery products in JPEG2000 format only. I assume it is one of the most versatile non-proprietary photographic imaging formats out there. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.184|162.158.167.184]] 06:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

When I clicked on th3 .jp2 as ljnked in the Trivia, my tablet wanted to open it only in my (pre-installed bog-standard) ebook reader ''or'' GPS Essentials (perhaps confirming 162.158.167.184's comment, just above). But mention of JPEG2000 takes me back (25 years or so!) to a time a similar scare to the GIF patent issue had motivated alternatives to the 'public' common picture standard. And reminds me also of the "masking" technique used on (regular?) JPEGs, based upon keyword-hash shuffling/deshuffling of selected 8x8-pixel DCT units of a JPEG image (and of the hues apllied to the curves) to reversibly censor images, IIRC driven largely by Japanese censorship rules. Somewhere on an old hard disk I must still have the reverse-engineered 'solver' I wrote for that, written in Delphi... ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.144|141.101.107.144]] 18:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Odd that Randall would use a lossy JPEG2000 image for a cartoon rather than a lossless one. A friendly reminder that JPEG is best for photography and is not intended for line drawings. [[User:Thisisnotatest|Thisisnotatest]] ([[User talk:Thisisnotatest|talk]]) 08:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
: That's his loss, then! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.196|141.101.98.196]] 17:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I was browsing a series of 70+ page PDFs that was a very high quality image scan, and the PDF browser would regularly grind to a halt for a second or two when trying to move forward a few pages. I eventually discovered that the images were embedded in JPEG2000. They were definitely small file sizes and definitely high quality, but it was just too much. I decoded the entire 500+ pages and re-encoded them as jpeg. Bigger file size, lower resolution, but scrolling was smooth as butter again.

Randall is correct to not really care about the standard's failure, per se, except insofar as he feels sorry for it. The difference between the technical impressiveness of these improvements and their unimportance to reality reminds me of the VHS vs [[Wikipedia:Betamax|Beta]] issue. Yes, Beta had the ability to reproduce sound and video of a higher fidelity, but only in a trivial sense indistinguishable to most people under normal conditions, whereas VHS was better at things that were indeed important, like being able to record a full two hour movie when Beta could handle less than one hour. The same thing happened with [[Wikipedia:OS/2|OS/2]] vs Windows...OS/2 was purely object-oriented, a technical distinction that was completely irrelevant to real life, but required four times as much RAM as the typical brand-new computer came with, so it failed. Being able to save 32 bit color profiles and choose whether the compression is lossless is important to me as a graphic artist, but doesn't matter one whit to the typical user, who wouldn't even notice the difference. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 17:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The link to the term "betamaxed" doesn't seem to be working... {{unsigned ip|172.71.26.175|03:32, 8 February 2024}}
:Well, it worked, but was redirecting to a generic page lacking the definition. ;)
:Anyway, replaced it with another link that (currently) defines the term. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.101|172.69.194.101]] 04:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::Talking of Betamax, and pre-empting JPEG2000's millenial naming by more than a decade, I'm still holding out for {{w|Video 2000}}'s inherent superiority (over ''both'' VHS and Betmax) to be recognised... I've still got a machine and a number of tapes (including 2x4hr ones), waiting to be used again. Just as soon as they reimplement analogue TV broadcasts once more! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 12:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3015: D&D Combinatorics

2024-12-05T18:23:27Z

172.70.162.58:

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)
::I had assumed that the locks were built into the chests (as they sometimes are), and that the chests were physically separated. Using m of n keys on a single chest would merely be complicated, but wouldn't really fulfill the description. Leaving the chests unlocked, but tightly wrapped in a locked chain would be more like drawers of a single "chest". I instead assumed that each of m chests had to be individually opened with its own proper key, but you had n chests to choose from. It was unspecified what would happen if you tried pairing a chest to the wrong key; perhaps both the key and the chest would be disabled (melted/stuck/burned/teleported). (And yes, needing only a subset of the chests, but any sufficiently large subset will do, is a semi-standard class of problem; a search for Byzantine Generals or PAXOS algorithm will get you started.) [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 07:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::For certain combinations of Ms and Ns, one solution is to have each chest have M locks (that must all be unlocked), such that each possible combination of M keys fully opens (at least) one chest, within which are the necessary complimentary keys to now fully unlock every other chest. A looser version is to have possibly only M/2 (or M/3, etc) locks in a configuration whereby you get to open any given two (or 3+) chests that only produce the full set of keys (and probably spares), but does leave it open to being exploited as "we could only open the one chest, and maybe one or two others with (M/2)<(owned keys)<(M) partial key overlap but at least it had ''some'' of the available treasure", unless designed to not work like that.
:::The limited subset of workable {M,N} values makes it impractical as "I have N chests and M chests, how do I...?" puzzle-setting, but still leaves it possible to force a puzzle from scratch that works this way (e.g. "you must have visited at least M antechambers and deceated the Key Guardians within, before you can open the chests within which are all the components necessary to create the potion that makes you ElementalLevelBoss-Proof"), for which you can determine a convenient set of requirements.
:::One (simple) combination would be two of three distinct keys (#1, #2 and #3) and three chests ("A", needs #1+2, contains #3; "B" needs 1+3, contains 2; "C" need 2+3, contains 1).
:::Add in the feature of duplicate keys but also a mechanism (or magic, or valid physical reason) which causes keys to be stuck in the locks (or vanish/melt/shatter/etc) upon being used, and you can create an even more complex puzzle, whereby having keys enough to (theoretically) open two chests is actually only enough to open one of them initially as you then lose the ability to attempt to open the other... at least until the opened chest provides new keys enough to open (perhaps by opening a different interim chest, with its own new keys, etc) the one that you did not initially choose. This would greatly expand the number of higher-order "M-of-N" combinations that you could facilitate. And could even created "M>N" requirements (three keys, two (combo-)locks: chest A needs 1+2, chest B needs 1+3; both render any keys inserted beyond further use but also contain a 'spare' 1; you need to externally gain 1+2+3 to eventually open A+B).
:::Exactly how (and why) you do it is open to your own needs.
:::And, if you're open to add an intermediate "locked box", you can exploit the trivial many:one ''and'' one:many relationships by just compounding them together, and maybe even adding more steps; e.g. with the last example of keys 1+2+3 opening A+B, you can offer up (from A, 4)+(from B, 5). To unlock C needs both 4+5 (thus 1+2+3, once removed), which itself handily contains ''all'' the further individual keys (or copies of the one key) required to open D, E, F, ... Z, so grants the stipulation of "3 needed to open 23". Or the earlier 2 keys (non-sticking, or regained by copies) for 3 chests grants the full co-keys needed to open that same key-store (see also {{w|Annett's key}}). Arbitrarily higher permutations of pretty much any initial number of (original) keys and however many intermediate openings (to match the singular key-safe's relatively simple multi-key requirements) steps you through the means to then open an arbitrary number of (final) locks, but you won't get ''any'' of the last locks unlocked if you have not fully satisfied the very first requirement.
:::...although it'd be neater if it was an M-and-N that was more direct, I still think. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.85|141.101.99.85]] 18:13, 5 December 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)

You can do it with two dice, although not by summation. Roll 2d3; if 1,1, or 3,3 pass, else fail. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.88|162.158.167.88]] 19:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Could someone explain option 6, multiplying two six-sided dice, with a threshold of > 20? I think 66, 65, 64, 56, 55, and 46 all work, making it ... equivalent to 1D6.
[[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 07:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's >= 20, so 54 and 45 work as well. That brings the probability up to 8/36 = 2/9. [[User:Vandof|Vandof]] ([[User talk:Vandof|talk]]) 13:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

1540: Hemingway

2024-06-07T08:33:39Z

172.70.162.58: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1540
| date = June 19, 2015
| title = Hemingway
| image = hemingway.png
| titletext = Instead of bobcat, package contained chair.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a reference to the six-word short story ''{{w|For sale: baby shoes, never worn}}'', which has been commonly attributed to famous author {{w|Ernest Hemingway}} (the disputed authorship of the story is referenced several times in the comic).

The comic plays on the fact that the original story takes the form of a short advertisement that might have been seen in a newspaper, and makes up alternate versions that use various modern 'standards' that did not exist in Hemingway's time. In keeping with the original, each example remains six words long. The title text obeys this rule, too. Many of the drafts poke fun at the tragedy that the original story suggests. With the original ("For Sale: Baby shoes, never worn"), readers could infer that the baby who would have worn the shoes must have died. Randall tries to make the reader infer other, more absurd things instead.

The comic also alludes to Hemingway's practice of repeatedly re-working drafts of his novels before publication. For example, he is [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/books/a-farewell-to-arms-with-hemingways-alternate-endings.html reported] to have rewritten the final passage of {{w|A Farewell To Arms}} 39 times. Later editions of his works include these rough drafts, allowing the devoted reader to understand how the work developed.

The following are the various drafts offered in the comic.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! width="305" | Draft
! Explanation
|-
| For Sale: This gullible baby's shoes
| This suggests the seller somehow tricked the baby out of its shoes.
|-
| Baby shoes for sale by owner
| This suggests that a very intelligent baby is somehow selling its own shoes, or that someone is selling an old pair of shoes they had as a baby. This style represents the typical automobile or house sales ads, differentiating the sale by owner from the sale by a professional middleman (a car dealer or a realtor) and thus bypassing the extra expense of middleman's fee.
|-
| <strike>Actually, there’s no evidence Hemingway wrote</strike>
| A fragment of a preemptive rebuttal to the comic’s premise (or at least its title). This sentence was stopped at the sixth word, in keeping with the premise.
|-
| Free shoes, provided you overpower baby
| This suggests the person posting the ad is asking people to forcibly steal shoes from a baby. This alludes to the common expression "[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/like_taking_candy_from_a_baby like taking candy from a baby]", meaning a task is extremely simple and effortless. One doesn't necessarily need to overpower a baby to steal its shoes either; there are other methods such as annoying the baby until it throws its shoes or tricking the baby (see the first example above).
|-
| For Sale: Weird baby's toe shoes
| Randall once again displays his distaste for [[1065: Shoes|weird toe shoes]], that is, shoes with individual toes. Rather than the tragedy implied by the original story, this instead implies that the baby has odd taste in shoes, and perhaps the parents would rather their child wear regular shoes.
|-
| For Sale: Baby shoes ✓Prime Eligible
| This is a reference to {{w|Amazon.com|Amazon}}, which offers Prime as a paid service to expedite shipping of items ordered on its website.
|-
| <strike>Though popularly attributed to Hemingway, the</strike>
| Another fragment of a rebuttal, written in an encyclopedic style, and also stopped at the sixth word.
|-
| This weird trick covers baby feet!
| This is modeled after common 'click bait' wording designed to get users to visit web pages, typically using words such as "this weird trick" or "secrets they don't want you to know" to artificially increase its apparent appeal. xkcd has previously parodied click bait in [[1283: Headlines]], [[1307: Buzzfeed Christmas]] and [[1426: Reduce Your Payments]].
|-
| For Sale: Baby shoes, just hatched
| This plays on the meaning of the phrase "baby shoes", reframing it to mean a newly-born shoe (similar to "baby bird"), rather than its typical meaning of footwear designed for babies.
|-
| Sale: Seven-league boots (expedited shipping)
| {{w|Seven-league boots}} are mythical boots that allow their user to move seven leagues (21 miles) per step. The "expedited shipping" part suggests that the people delivering these boots may be wearing seven-league boots themselves, allowing them to reach the customer much faster than if by airplane (except, of course, if the boots had to be shipped overseas).
|-
| Complete this survey for free shoes
| This is another reference to common internet marketing campaigns, where users are incentivized to take surveys in exchange for small compensation such as free samples or coupons. Possibly a [[Phishing License|phishing scam]].
|-
| ''Shoes'', by Ernest Hemingway {{Citation needed}}
| This is a reference to Wikipedia. "{{w|Citation needed}}" is used to mark claims that require additional evidence to justify as true. In this case, Randall is using this to question whether the short story was really written by Hemingway.
|-
| This is my greatest short story
| This is a completely different style that could also have been used to write a short story in six words. Rather than telling a story about shoes, this is more "meta" by referencing itself and being a self-fulfilling (or self-defeating) prophecy. (The sequel was titled "Don't bother reading my other stories").
|-
| For Sale: Baby shoes (-1) [Cursed]
| This is written like a description of a virtual item typically found in Roguelike games or MMOs. "-1" typically means the item will reduce its wearer's stats (such as defense or speed rating) by one point. "Cursed" usually means the item cannot be taken off the wearer's body once it is put on. It might also reference the fact the original story suggests the baby died, perhaps because of the cursed shoes.

"-1" in this context is usually read aloud as "minus one"; this would break the six word pattern.
|-
| <blink><marquee>Baby shoes!</marquee></blink>
| This is reminiscent of the style of HTML widely used in the 1990s. Both the <blink> and <marquee> tags make the text content ("Baby shoes!") appear more prominent and attention-grabbing. The blink tag makes a blinking effect in Netscape, whereas the marquee tag makes a scroll effect in Internet Explorer. On a normal web page, these tags only affect how the text content is displayed on screen and aren't directly shown to visitors. However they are shown here to make the six words count, albeit in a lighter shade of gray to reinforce the fact that they're not part of the text content. An interesting note: When this comic was first posted to xkcd.com, the '/' in the </blink> tag was missing. This was fixed between the 19th and 20th of June, 2015, showing that the omission was, indeed, unintentional.

Blink has since been deprecated as of HTML 4.0, and, should this be implemented in an HTML page today, it would appear like this: [[File:babyshoesblinkmarquee.gif|frameless]]
|-
| For Sale: Baby-sized saddle, bobcat
| This is a reference to [[A-Minus-Minus|325: A-Minus-Minus]] in which [[Cueball]] says: 'Instead of office chair, package contained bobcat'. A 'baby-sized saddle' is presumably a very small saddle that's only usable if the user was a baby and was trying to ride a small animal such as a bobcat.
|-
| Hemingway busted for Craigslist shoe scam
| This is written like a news headline where Hemingway supposedly wrote about shoes in order to perpetrate a scam. {{w|Craigslist}} is a website where users can advertise and seek goods and services.
|}
The title text continues the reference to [[A-Minus-Minus|325: A-Minus-Minus]], but inverts the situation. Rather than unexpectedly receiving a bobcat by package, this time the package contains a regular item instead of the expected bobcat. In keeping with the theme of the comic, the review is written in only six words.

==Transcript==
:Hemingway's Rough Drafts

:[A list of rough draft stories.]
:For sale: This Gullible Baby's Shoes
:Baby Shoes For Sale By Owner
:<strike>Actually, there's no evidence Hemingway wrote</strike>
:Free Shoes, Provided You Overpower Baby
:For Sale: Weird Baby's Toe Shoes
:For Sale: Baby Shoes ✓ Prime eligible
:<strike>Though popularly attributed to Hemingway, the</strike>
:This Weird Trick Covers Baby Feet!
:For Sale: Baby Shoes, Just Hatched
:Sale: Seven-League Boots (Expedited Shipping)
:Complete this survey for free shoes!
:''Shoes'', by Ernest Hemingway [citation needed]
:This is my greatest short story.
:For sale: Baby shoes (-1) [cursed]
:<blink><marquee>Baby Shoes!</marquee></blink>
:For Sale: Baby-sized Saddle, Bobcat
:Hemingway Busted for Craigslist Shoe Scam

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Bobcats]]
[[Category:Comics with cursed items]]

Talk:2942: Fluid Speech

2024-06-06T13:18:18Z

172.70.162.58:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:(Edit conflicted with 162, above, so this is my own reply...) I thought it was that it isn't "ho T'p otato", with the "teh-peh" awkwardness. For me, the natural way to say it is to glottalstop the first T for more "ho'potato" (the other Ts, there I find awkward ''not'' to get the "t>s<" out of, the ">s<"-tail being what makes a full-T not a lazy one). But clearly a different accent involved, as "ha" doesn't work at all for me unless I try to use some sort of (probably awful) Goodfellas-type accent. And my native accent is notoriously good at glottlestopped Ts (that most people misinpersonate badly, by attaching them to the wrong adjacent syllable).
:As for "going to", experimentally holding my finger over the length of my tongue, it seems it barely has to move at all in "going" (the whole tongue wants to rise on the "i", but I can suppress that and do the tone-change from further back, if not straight from the vocal chords). Though continuing through to the "to", with my finger in there, it's no better than "going ku" as I prevent the tongue-tip doing the necessary small movement to fulfil any form of T. I can do better through basic gastromancy, but behind my unmoving jaw and lips (''without'' the finger almost down my throat, of course), I can feel the tongue tip doing it's small but vital "crossing the T" work. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 03:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:For me, it's more like "ho'buh-deh-duh" - so none ot the t's get pronounced properly. And I'd drop the n in 'going to' before I dropped the t.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 08:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:Wunber dayder, doober dayder, freeber dayder for.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

>Alien impersonating a human

Sounds like a normal Runglish to me, just like the one you can hear in this clip: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXNKUo5MrbM]

I hate that he pointed this out, because I'm going to start pronouncing things the way they're supposed to sound and everyone will think I'm weirder. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
: How are you pronouncing 'Psychoticpotato'?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.6|172.69.195.6]] 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-05T22:16:05Z

172.70.162.58: ...accidentally breaking things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There is no such thing as a gliding helicopter." is a common misconception. Every helicopter pilot learns to [[wikipedia:Autorotation|autorotate]] reflexively when there is a power failure. {{unsigned|Ericprud|20:53, 5 June 2024|You're new: Remember to sign Talk comments; Don't top-post; We tend to use the handy wikilink template here... Otherwise, a valid comment. -- RandomIP editor, passing by.}}