explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3085: About 20 Pounds

2025-05-06T23:21:45Z

172.70.210.242:

Wow - first here! I can't help thinking 'about 20 pounds' could be exactly 10 kg! 0r even one Newton?! [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 05:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:"One Newton" and "10 kg" are totally different things. "10 kg" would cause 1 Newton of gravitational force if you were in a world with about 1% of Earth's gravity, though. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.86|172.69.109.86]] 09:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::Oops! In my rush I should have checked and put 100 Newtons. I was relying on 10kg being about 22 pounds, or rather the other way around, and then a particle having mass not weight and Science using Metric units. Apologies. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 11:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::(Moved your reply up a bit. You seemed to respond to "20 pounds are...", below, ''and'' split their timestamp signature from their message. And forgot to sign properly, at first, so I got edit-conflicted ''twice'' whilst trying to post myself and correct your initial error. Please take a bit more care, everybody. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.53|172.70.163.53]] 11:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC))
:20 pounds are approximately 9.072 kg, so not exactly 10 kg (in fact, it rounds to 9). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.55|172.70.134.55]] 10:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
::That's the wrong way to think about it. "Exactly 10kg" is "exactly 22.0462lbs", but that (to the nearest single significant figure) is legitimately "about 20lbs". See any given step in [[2585: Rounding]], especially where that 'disagrees greatly' with an adjacent step.
::As with any Oracle (that's worth its omphalos), it may be giving an ''entirely true'' answer which nevertheless is deliberately phrased as ambiguous and misinterpretable, the possible supernatural complement to the 'exact words' genie contract. As with the [[2741: Wish Interpretation]] genie, the Oracle ''may'' slip into less "unhelpfully helpful" mode immediately after, though for different reasons. However, "burritos are ''pretty'' good" also suggests that there's some other thing that is ''more'' good, so — again — it's giving a sufficient response to what they (now) should do, but not a perfect one.
::As I write, the explanation (probably needs a general rewrite) doesn't mention anything about the burritos except as title text, or I would have ensured the famed exact-words/vague-detail was noted in that bit. (Shorter than here.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.82|141.101.98.82]] 11:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.55|172.70.134.55]] 10:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Nobody said anything about "exactly 20 pounds". 20 pounds is about 10 KG and about 100 Newtons when considered as a force rather than a mass. The comic says "about 20 pounds". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.63|172.70.230.63]] 22:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Though I don't think it at all merits being described as a reference, I am minded of the {{w|The Usenet Oracle}} (at least when I knew of it). Though, if it ''was'' to be a deleliberate shout-out, I'd expect a few more actual in-jokes. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.130|172.70.86.130]] 06:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I bet Randall is in some kind of force-interaction-related, What-if-induced rabbit hole right now (or has been at the time of writing). Wondering what the next comic will be about. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.144.175|172.71.144.175]] 08:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"Nature of ... 20 pounds" is a reference to the koan "A monk asked Tozan, 'What is the nature of Buddha?' He replied, 'Three pounds of flax.'" Someone can add this to the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.115|172.70.111.115]] 08:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:There is a similar story in the Principia Discordia. When asked what is the meaning behind POEE, a Discordian cabal, Malaclypse the younger answered "five tons of flax." [[User:FlavianusEP|FlavianusEP]] ([[User talk:FlavianusEP|talk]]) 16:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"something that doesn't interact with electromagnetism cannot be 'seen', as photons will pass through it completely unaffected": is this supposed to be true ? I thought photons interacted with gravity, and even the phrase before states that gravity is believed to affect everything. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.151.93|172.68.151.93]] 09:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
: Indeed, photons do interact with gravity. What I had in mind when writing that were ''direct'' interactions -- of course everything interacts with everything else via a second-order interaction, <X> -> gravity -> <X> for any particle/field <X>. I can clarify that if nobody gets to it before I get around to it. [[User:Linkhyrule5|Linkhyrule5]] ([[User talk:Linkhyrule5|talk]]) 21:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:We can ''infer'' Dark Matter (and, for that... *ahem* ...matter, also Dark Energy) from what the photons in the universe are telling us that does not look anything like what 'light(-interacting) matter' ''should'' be doing. As with some searches for black holes (most particularly, when the theory is that the unseen mass of the universe is a lot of small black holes drifting in the void, not acreting enough to create secondary visible effects), whether or not light is being gravitationally lensed by things (that we cannot directly see) is part of the way that we're narrowing down what-and-where DM is.
:And, I think, currently it seems to be considered that it's residing in a webwork of DM tendrils, at extragalactic (indeed, cosmological) scales, such that where the tendril cross is where they draw 'normal' matter together enough to be any given galaxy. But that's in an "explains all(/many) known facts" way, and might yet be incorrect. e.g. if there's side-dimensions (equally undetectable, at least visually) that change the inverse-square dropoff of gravity at large enough scales to govern galactic rotation rates by just enough to fit observations, or we have some other misunderstanding/scientific blind spot that further study may correct.
:Or, in short, think Brownian Motion. We can't see a handful of air molecules (not by normal, even microscope-enhanced, human vision), they might as well be invisible. But, by what we see of more visible particles, suggests that they exist as something. Conversly, the æther, a proposed medium for light, was thought to exist in a similar all-pervasive manner (insofar as trivial human experience, though less physically 'interactive' than wind), but deeper checks (as to whether its effects on light were as they should have been) dismissed it as a possible concept.
:Depending upon interpretation of the comic (I originally read it as "all dark-matter particles are ~20lbs in mass WIMPs/nano-MACHOs/whatever", but it seems that others take it as "''all of'' dark-matter particles is a single ~20lbs mass particle"; and that's make the oracle-invokers' attitudes more logical, if not the universe), there actually being Dark Matter, but it being just 20lbs of 'something' ''somewhere'' in the whole universe, makes it a needle in a galactic-supercluster-sized haystack.
:Detecting ''that'' would be difficult in the extreme. Even if it's somehow within a few hundred metres of the experimenters. There are ways to {{w|Cavendish experiment|observe the movements of small masses at small distances}}, but when you don't even have a clue ''if'' it exists (or is moving/has moved, and how), it's fairly hopeless. Gravitational lensing of light would be impractical at such distances/masses. LIGO may be very clever, insofar as merging high-mass objects at long distances, but not really for this. Event Horizon Telescope's ability to see a black hole('s accretion disk) via Very Long Baseline Interferometry is also totally useless here.
:I think I'd ''also'' settle for the burritos, given that certainty that I wasn't going to find what I'm looking for via any obvious route. (Assuming I couldn't ask the Oracle to ''show me'' the Dark Matter, rather than just answer questions about it. And noting that, if not for the indicated progression of the conversation, I might have assumed the oracular voice were really from the pentagram (more usual for demonology, not oracularities!) and that the dark blob ''was'' the 20lbs of Dark Matter. Which, of course, it ''does not deny'', so maybe my headcan[n]on ''is'' that the summoned Oracle ''is'' the DM, being deliberately evasive, and successfully so. That would satisfy it being both that which Ponytail seeks, ''and'' the entity of which Ponytail summons in order to seek it! Cueball, however, is currently just seeking food, which (one assumes) the DM-slash-Oracle is not.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.25|172.68.229.25]] 12:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My physics skills are rusty but 20 pounds is much more than the Planck mass. Doesn't this imply that Randall's dark matter particles would be black holes? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.243.107|172.68.243.107]] 10:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, you are right that 9 kg is about 417,000,000 times more than the Planck mass (21.76 μg), but no, that doesn't imply that 9 kg dark matter particles would be black holes, for that particle can be larger than 417,000,000 Planck lengths (1 Planck length is c. 1.616255×10–35 m, so above 7 rm, this particle would not collapse into a black hole). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.81|172.68.245.81]] 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Since it's Star Wars day and the 20 lbs. reference would be causing a massively large amount of mass, would it be safe to say that they "sense a great disturbance in the force?"
[[Special:Contributions/67.84.20.42|67.84.20.42]] 10:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Back in 2005, when the kg was an actual object's mass, there was an article about what a five pound (~2.268 kg) electron is, but it was deleted, for it is a "trivial result of special relativity". [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.81|172.68.245.81]] 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Since pounds are a measure of weight, and weight is a measure of the gravitational attraction between an object and its "planet", what is the reference planet that is being used to define the weight of the Dark Matter particle?
 Should we assume that Earth's surface is being used as the reference, even though we have no measurements that suggest DM particles are around us, and no reason to assume that the particles would even notice that Earth has a "surface"?
 If Randall wanted to use mass, then he should have used the imperial unit of slug, but I suppose saying that a DM particle is 0.62162 slugs might not give the readers quite the same impression as using 20 pounds. [[User:Galeindfal|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal|talk]]) 13:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:I might be missing some humour here, but the pound is actually a measure of mass, just like the gram, so it doesn't vary from a planet to another. You might have fallen prey to the second paragraph of the {{w|pound-force|wikipedia article about the pound-force}}, which states: 'Pound-force should not be confused with pound-mass (lb), often simply called "pound"' [[Special:Contributions/172.71.127.160|172.71.127.160]] 14:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this, by chance, the Internet Oracle? [[Special:Contributions/104.23.187.126|104.23.187.126]] 13:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see anything like the pentagram with candles at its web site. The comic seems more like they're summoning a daemon. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Any idea where Randall came up with "20 pounds"? Why not 19 or 21 (blackjack!)? Why not use Newtons (too figgy?)? Only thing I can think of is that, in America at least, many people think they are "about 20 pounds overweight." I think that's too much of a stretch (pants???) to be the answer here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.27.170|172.68.27.170]] 14:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:I think it's just humorous, adding to the imprecision / casualness of "about 20". Imperial measurements feel "less scientific" than metric. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.124|162.158.146.124]] 16:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:The amount of people confusing mass and weight/force in this thread is pretty disappointing for an xkcd forum. You can't convert pounds into Newtons. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.172.143|162.158.172.143]] 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:The poster meant Kilograms rather than Newtons I assume. Under the assumption that the oracle is satire for large language models and AI chats, the "20 pounds" shows the kind of tone and data the AI has been tuned to provide. It's a way they behave when outside the core domain they are well-trained for, producing a certain brand of mistakes, awkwardnesses, and uncanny valleys, that may be quite humorous when first encountered. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.77|172.70.111.77]] 22:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say (as the explanation does right now) that 20 lbs is too little to detect through gravitational interaction. Throwing some numbers together: a 20lbs-sphere of Osmium, the heaviest stable element, is about 4.5cm in radius. If a 20lbs point mass flies by just above the surface of that sphere, it would generate a gravitational force of about 2.5 micronewtons (hooray for Gauss's theorem). That's the weight of a few grains of salt - small, but definitely detectable. If they're all really really fast, or there's always lots of them around at any given time or something, that might wash out any measurements (someone more knowledgeable about dark matter can probably comment what the expected velocity and flux density of 20lbs-dark-matter-particles would be where we are). But in principle, rather measurable! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.172.142|162.158.172.142]] 17:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"A particle that interacts with nothing except gravity, could only be detected by a gravitational telescope." -- Detected by a whatnow? Is that a thing which exists? Google had nothing for "gravitational telescope" when I searched for it.
Additionally, are there any theoretical physicists out there who can weigh in on how plausible the "20 pound particle that doesn't interact with anything else" theory is? [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 19:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:Well, we haven't seen any such thing. But... that is of course the point. So, by logical extension, it ''must'' be true! :o [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.130|172.70.58.130]] 21:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There’s a few places online that I’ve seen people ''frustrated'' about dark matter because it’s been so hard to detect, even hoping that it turns out to be experimental error or otherwise not real (for example, [http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/005665.html this collectSPACE thread]) just because it has been so “annoying” to readers of science news to not have a solution for so long. I think this comic could be kind of a joke along those lines (“what if it turns out dark matter ''doesn’t'' matter at all and we’ve been wasting our time?”) but played out in a ridiculous way because dismissing any scientific research, however frustrating, as “a waste of time” would be very un-XKCD.
(Unsigned)
----

Sounds an awful lot like a primordial black hole (a genuine dark matter hypothesis), doesn't it? Anyone who knows what the Hawking temperature of a black hole of that mass would be? (A black hole with a Hawking temperature less than 2.7 K would absorb more energy than it gives off in Hawking radiation and would therefore be stable in the current age of the universe.)
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.110|162.158.91.110]] 23:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2710: Hydropower Breakthrough

2022-12-13T05:43:17Z

172.70.210.242:

ChatGPT sez:

:The comic depicts Beret Guy, a character known for his expertise in science and engineering, standing on a podium and announcing that their hydroelectric dam has achieved a level of efficiency greater than one, producing more water than was fed into it. This is cause for celebration, as it indicates that the dam is functioning properly and efficiently. However, the second off-panel voice raises a question, suggesting that there may be more to the situation than initially thought.

:The title text adds further information by revealing that a hydroelectric dam is also known as a heavy water reactor. This suggests that the dam may not be operating in the traditional way, but rather may be using a different type of technology, such as nuclear power, to produce the excess water. This could raise concerns about safety and the potential risks associated with this type of technology.

Meh. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.45|172.69.33.45]] 03:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It *is* possible. All Beret Guy has to do is use the electricity to run air conditioners, which will have one side condensing water from the atmosphere, ergo more water coming out than went in. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 04:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering that he phrases it "more water than we fed into it" in the past tense, it might just be that there's a leak in the dam.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.19|172.69.33.19]] 04:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC) mraction

More variation: "more water than *we* fed into it" ie not counting water from the river that feeds it, or rainfall. There's also the title text turn of phrase "heavy water reactor". "heavy" could refer to either the "water" (in the sense of gravity, or deuterium passing through), or the "reactor" (as in its mass) - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-26T03:19:17Z

172.70.210.242: /* Explanation */ spelling

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a {{w|hypothesis}} and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}}, {{w|puffery}}, and insufficiently descriptive title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly promotional and insufficiently descriptive clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity due to the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

{{w|Empirical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' almost always state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}},'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports'' (or ''{{w|case study|case studies}}'' — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of emperical analysis), which present data and a chronicle of its collection often without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''{{w|Conference proceeding|conference papers}},'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways in prior work; ''{{w|Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|syntheses}},'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''{{w|Comparison|comparative studies}},'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''{{w|Interpretive discussion|interpretive}} papers,'' showing a different perspective on previous work; ''{{w|technical report}}s,'' which may present information on a specific procedural topic or progress and results in a field; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended to argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical or logic research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. Research articles which do present and test a hypothesis are usually written in [https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/centers/writing/writing-resources/how-to-write-an-apa-research-paper American Psychological Association (APA) style].

Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they may be more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published. However, research articles describing the discovery of new {{w|microbe}}s in prestigious peer-reviewed journals are often published as observational reports,[https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004029][http://calamar.univ-ag.fr/mangroveSAE/articles/2022/Volland%20et%20al%202022.pdf][https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10482-021-01656-x] so Megan's concerns may be unfounded; even if so, the editors of any reputable journal would almost certainly require a far more descriptive and less overtly promotional title from Cueball. The question remains whether an intial submission with a catchy clickbait title might get more prompt attention from editors and reviewers.

In the title text, the {{w|conflict of interest}} statement says that the authors hope their results are correct because, "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential conflict of interest usually refers to the authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict between the authors' {{w|extrinsic motivation}}s and factors influencing the accuracy and neutrality of their work; in fact it claims the opposite, an alignment between their {{w|intrinsic motivation}}s and the goal of producing high quality work.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-26T03:17:48Z

172.70.210.242: /* Explanation */ not always

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a {{w|hypothesis}} and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}}, {{w|puffery}}, and insufficiently descriptive title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly promotional and insufficiently descriptive clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity due to the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

{{w|Emperical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' almost always state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}},'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports'' (or ''{{w|case study|case studies}}'' — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of emperical analysis), which present data and a chronicle of its collection often without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''{{w|Conference proceeding|conference papers}},'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways in prior work; ''{{w|Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|syntheses}},'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''{{w|Comparison|comparative studies}},'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''{{w|Interpretive discussion|interpretive}} papers,'' showing a different perspective on previous work; ''{{w|technical report}}s,'' which may present information on a specific procedural topic or progress and results in a field; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended to argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical or logic research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. Research articles which do present and test a hypothesis are usually written in [https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/centers/writing/writing-resources/how-to-write-an-apa-research-paper American Psychological Association (APA) style].

Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they may be more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published. However, research articles describing the discovery of new {{w|microbe}}s in prestigious peer-reviewed journals are often published as observational reports,[https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004029][http://calamar.univ-ag.fr/mangroveSAE/articles/2022/Volland%20et%20al%202022.pdf][https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10482-021-01656-x] so Megan's concerns may be unfounded; even if so, the editors of any reputable journal would almost certainly require a far more descriptive and less overtly promotional title from Cueball. The question remains whether an intial submission with a catchy clickbait title might get more prompt attention from editors and reviewers.

In the title text, the {{w|conflict of interest}} statement says that the authors hope their results are correct because, "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential conflict of interest usually refers to the authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict between the authors' {{w|extrinsic motivation}}s and factors influencing the accuracy and neutrality of their work; in fact it claims the opposite, an alignment between their {{w|intrinsic motivation}}s and the goal of producing high quality work.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-25T23:40:54Z

172.70.210.242: /* Explanation */ hedge

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a hypothesis and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}} style and {{w|puffery}} title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a {{w|hypothesis}} and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly-promotional clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity caused by the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

{{w|Emperical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' almost always state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}},'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports,'' (or ''{{w|case study|studies}} — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of emperical analysis'') which present data and a chronicle of its collection without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''{{w|Conference proceeding|conference papers}},'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways on work; ''{{w|Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|syntheses}},'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''{{w|Comparison|comparative studies}},'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''{{w|Interpretive discussion|interpretive}} papers,'' showing a different perspective of previous work; ''{{w|technical reports}},'' which usually present information on a specific procedural topic; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended to argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they are more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published.

In the title text, Cueball's conflict of interest statement says that authors hope the results are correct because "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential {{w|conflict of interest}} usually refers to authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-25T23:17:01Z

172.70.210.242: /* Explanation */ already linked

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a hypothesis and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}} style and {{w|puffery}} title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a {{w|hypothesis}} and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly-promotional clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity caused by the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

''Empirical investigations'' and ''analysis papers'' state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''literature reviews,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''meta-analyses,'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports,'' which present data and a chronicle of its collection without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''conference papers,'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways on work; ''syntheses,'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''comparative studies,'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''interpretive papers,'' showing a different perspective of previous work; ''technical reports,'' which present information on a specific procedural topic; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because observational reports are more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published.

In the title text, Cueball's conflict of interest statement says that authors hope the results are correct because "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential {{w|conflict of interest}} usually refers to authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict of interest.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2702: What If 2 Gift Guide

2022-11-24T10:18:45Z

172.70.210.242: my hands are typing words, but what if my hands arent real. are the words still real? is anything?

{{comic
| number = 2702
| date = November 23, 2022
| title = What If 2 Gift Guide
| image = what_if_2_gift_guide_2x.png
| imagesize = 500x878px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = BABIES OR LITERATURE BUT NOT BOTH: Baby shoes
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an OUT-OF-CONTROL HANDHELD NEUTRINO CYLINDER FOR TEENS. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic is a gift guide matching the interest of the receiver with a gift.

{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! Interest !! Gift Idea !! Explanation
|-
| Engineering || The platinum cylinder formerly used to identify the kilogram || This is an object of historical relevance of which only six exist, making it a very expensive or illegal gift.
|-
| Biology || The genomes of the scientists who headed the human genome project || The "International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium," as the {{w|Human Genome Project}} team was known, involved scientists from twenty institutions in six countries. In the US, it was initially led by DNA structure co-discoverer {{w|James Watson}} who was succeeded by {{w|Francis Collins}}. In the UK, the project was led by {{w|John Sulston}}. The teams from other countries' institutions were less prominent and performed substantially less work on the initial sequencing. Gene sequence donor identities were protected so neither donors nor scientists could know whose DNA was sequenced. More than 70% of the reference genome produced by the project came from a single anonymous male donor from Buffalo, New York. None of the project scientists contributed to the donor pool; nor have any of them announced that they had their genomes sequenced independently.
|-
| Physics || A beam of neutrinos delivered through the earth by the LHC || [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino Neutrinos] interact very weakly with other particles, to the point that they almost always pass straight through matter completely unaffected. This means that particle accelerators can send neutrinos to any other point on Earth by aiming the particle beam into the ground, and the neutrinos pass straight through the Earth. This point is referenced in [https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/ What If? 73]. The low interactivity of neutrinos would also mean that the recipient would be unable to perceive their gift, making this a poor present for anyone except the small proportion of physics aficionados who already have a neutrino detector on-hand.
|-
| Animals || Surprise wildlife encounter (gift-wrapped box with a bobcat inside) || This is a reference to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Bobcats xkcd's rich history of mailing boxed bobcats to people]. This gift would place the recipient in a perilous situation, and, although definitely a wildlife encounter, is not a good gift{{Citation needed}}.
|-
| Law || A vacation to that area of Idaho where you can commit crimes with impunity due to a court district boundary error || This refers to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Death_(Yellowstone) "Zone of Death"], a 50-square-mile area of Yellowstone National Park that is in the physical boundaries of Idaho, but in the legal jurisdiction of Wyoming. Because a jury in the United States must be composed of residents of the same district ''and'' state in which the crime was committed, but no one lives in this small area of a National Park, anyone who committed a crime here could not possibly receive a trial, and thus could not legally be punished for said crime in any circumstance. This is an interesting legal loophole, but going to this area does not provide any more value than hearing about it, and could scare your law-enthusiast friend.
|-
| Chemistry || A necklace of element samples whose symbols spell out the recipient's name (note: names like "Katherine" and "Brandon" may cause radiation accidents.) || Novelty necklaces are a common and innocuous gift, and using element symbols in place of the same letter is a common gimmick, such as in the title of Breaking Bad. However, making an object out of whatever element sample corresponds to someone's name could have unpredictable results - some elements in their pure form are too brittle or have too low a melting point for such an application, and some are unsafe. "Katherine" would be made from Potassium (highly reactive), Astatine (rare, '''radioactive''' and has a short half-life), Hydrogen (gaseous at room temperature, flammable), Erbium, Iodine (sublimes into a gas at room temperature), and Neon (gaseous at room temperature). "Brandon" would be made from Boron, Radium ('''radioactive'''), Neodymium, Oxygen (gaseous at room temperature), and Nitrogen (gaseous at room temperature). The problems with element samples could be partially alleviated by allowing compounds rather than pure elements, but the radioactivity would still be a problem, and neon does not form compounds and as such is always gaseous.
|-
| Puzzles || Two goats and a new car || This is a reference to the the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem "Monty Hall problem"], in which a game show contestant can win only one of the three items. (See [[1282: Monty Hall]] for another cartoon inspired by this problem.) This gift places the recipient within a puzzle which is typically discussed hypothetically, rather than happening in real life. Although a new car is a ''great'' gift, goats are only useful to people with specific professions.
The problem that the recipient would have would likely be how to transport the two goats - it'd be difficult to fit both into a compact car at once, but one can't be left behind unattended.
|-
| Technology || Cybiko® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000) || This device was referenced in [https://xkcd.com/2699/ one of last week's comics], so Randall seems to have a temporary fixation on it. While an interesting example of the history of communication technology and coming from a time when experimentation was common and standards were few, it isn't very useful now, because it is no longer supported, has a communication range of 100 meters (sending text messages via radio) and one can only use it to communicate with users of the same device. However, technology enthusiasts could find it interesting as a collectors' item, so by all means it is one of the most plausible gift ideas on this list.
|-
| Space || Webb telescope personal photoshoot || The Webb telescope belongs to NASA, the ESA and the CSA, and is currently very far from Earth. It is designed to capture distant space objects in previously unseen detail. It is not designed to photograph nearby objects of human size, assuming that that is what photoshoot implies. These circumstances make it both an impossible and impractical gift. Furthermore, unless the recipient of the gift is able to travel a long way from Earth, Webb would have to point at the warm Earth and expose its optics to the Sun, permanently crippling the telescope.[https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faqLite.html This is forbidden by NASA.] On the other hand, a gift experience of being allowed to to take your own snapshot of Webb in position, perhaps with a [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10442913/James-Webb-Space-Telescope-seen-Earth-settles-orbit.html robotic telescope], might be an attractive gift to a space enthusiast!
|-
| Literature || Stephen King's writing desk (he's still using it so you'll have to fight him) || {{w|Stephen King}} is an author lucky enough to have legendary status while still alive. The desk of an author that has died would become an object of historic significance and would likely be either kept for exhibition or auctioned by their respective estate, but as Stephen King still writes, his desk, while valuable, cannot be subjected to the same.
|-
| Philosophy || Out-of-control trolley || This is another gift that places the recipient in the situations that they like discussing hypothetically. This refers to the {{w|trolley problem}}, which places stress on the person forced to make the decision, and exists to make them examine their morals. Facing someone with the hypothetical problem is already not a good gift, but forcing them to live through it in real life is a terrible gift. (See [[1455: Trolley Problem]] for another cartoon inspired by this problem.)
|-
| Psychology || A nice gift with a note saying you don't expect anything in return || This is perhaps the most viable option on this list. This gift plays a psychological game on the recipient, reminding them of the nature of favors and bringing giving something into return into the question. This would cause them stress, making it a bad gift, but a psychologist would hopefully understand it to be a joke.
|-
| (Title text) Babies or literature but not both || Baby shoes || This is a reference to the six-word story [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_sale:_baby_shoes,_never_worn For sale: baby shoes, never worn] which is often attributed to Ernest Hemingway. Someone with babies, such as expecting or new parents would find baby shoes as a valuable gift for their child. Someone interested in literature would see the reference to a famous work. But someone who understands the reference would possibly also be sad if they simultaneously actually enjoyed babies or have children of their own (since the story implies the seller was expecting a baby but there was an accident).
|}

''[https://xkcd.com/what-if-2/ What if? 2]'' is a book by [[Randall Munroe]], author of xkcd.

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

What If? 2 Gift Guide

What if? 2 makes a good gift for anyone who's into science, absurd ideas, or just the universe in general. To order, go to xkcd.com/whatif2, or just type "what if 2" into some random box on your device; it will probably work.

Here are some other gift ideas for hard-to-shop-for science enthusiasts:

Interest - Gift Idea

Engineering - The platinum cylinder formerly used to define the kilogram 
Biology - The genomes of the scientists who headed the human genome project 
Physics - A beam of neutrinos delivered through the earth by the LHC 
Animals - Surprise wildlife encounter (gift-wrapped box with a bobcat inside) 
Law - A vacation to that area of Idaho where you can commit crimes with impunity due to a court district boundary error 
Chemistry - A necklace of element samples whose symbols spell out the recipient's name (note: names like "Katherine" and "Brandon" may cause radiation accidents.) 
Puzzles - Two goats and a new car 
Technology - Cybiko® Wireless Handheld Computer for Teens (2000) 
Space - Webb telescope personal photoshoot 
Literature - Stephen King's writing desk (he's still using it so you'll have to fight him) 
Philosophy - Out-of-control trolley 
Psychology - A nice gift with a note saying you don't expect anything in return. 

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Book promotion]]

Talk:2701: Change in Slope

2022-11-24T00:22:23Z

172.70.210.242: /* Raw Data */ fixed

I am an occasional data scientist, and I can confirm this is why we have monitor stands that tilt. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.50|172.71.94.50]] 16:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The third e in "neeed" in the title text seems to be a typo
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 16:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think Randall may have added it to represent that the speaker prolongs the "e" sound for emphasis, although that's usually done with 4-5 e's. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::I had to double-check this, myself (presumed the 'Bot created the lage faithfully, but went straight to source to see if I needed to find a vandalism post to revert). May need a comment (to prevent hypercorrection, if not to note the implied emphisis) and certainly will if it turns out to be a typo and gets corrected (for which I'm sure a future checker will discover Randall's revisiting, but then worth a note to that effect). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I guess Randall fixed it, because I'm only seeing 2 'e's in the title text. Just updated it on the wiki. [[User:Zman350x|Zman350x]] ([[User talk:Zman350x|talk]]) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Bender Bot was one of the main characters in Futurama. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Just donning my unnecessary pedantry hat for a moment: his name is Bender Bending Rodriguez --[[User:192·168·0·1|192·168·0·1]] ([[User talk:192·168·0·1|talk]]) 23:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple(?) of authors used the word(s) "(point of) inflection", which is {{w|Inflection point|not really suitable}} for a join between two straight segments. Was tempted to talk about "discontinuity", but that really only applies to the meta-slope (derivatives, to one degree or other) where it suddenly jumps (at a point), or the derivative's derivative has jumps (as it enters and leaves the smoothly linking curve). Hope it works well enough how I left it, though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.176|162.158.142.176]] 21:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For anyone curious, I used an image editor to turn the entire comic sideways and [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/525939879805190154/1044395695525875712/xkcd_sideways.png it actually does seem to work,] to some degree anyway. [[User:SuperSupermario24|SSM24]] 23:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Added; thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.230|172.71.158.230]] 00:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

: If you don't mind sharing: which program did you use? Did you tweak things like relative distance / camera FOV, to effectively select a specific point in the continuum that makes up the {{w|Dolly Zoom}} effect, and at the limit on one end results in {{w|orthographic projection}}? (Edit 10 minutes later: a better article to look at is {{w|Perspective distortion (photography)}}) Or did you just leave it at whatever the default is? Can you recreate the image with the two extremes, and share them? And lastly - can you upload the image (and potentially the new images) to the wiki directly, so they can be embedded in the page? Thanks! --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 17:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This one shows the beauty of Explainxkcd: people reading the explanation are likely to learn accessible methods of substantial practical utility. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, if it works for picking out lumber at Lowe’s, why not for graphs, too? - MadMarie
:There was an old bit of explanation that related it to examining physical objects (for dent/bend-removal in metalwork, I think it was) that got wiped out by a later edit. Though I'm considering my own version, now generalised to cover your experience, as it seems quite relevant/analogous to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the 1st explanation needs to go touch grass and learn how real people talk, pissed me off so much I just effectively rewrote the whole thing from scratch [[Special:Contributions/172.71.202.46|172.71.202.46]] 06:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Intrigued, looking at the first explanation (give or take that person's initial small errors/omissions) I personally find it more to the point than what it has become. Not to say the complete rewrite was wrong, but it got it not that much closer to the mythical perfection. IMO. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.169|141.101.76.169]] 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Going in a different direction than "this is silly" - if we ignore the "viewing point/parallax" issue, doing a change of basis like this is similar to linear methods like [SVD https://hadrienj.github.io/assets/images/ch12_svd/ch11_SVD_geometry.png] & [https://jakevdp.github.io/PythonDataScienceHandbook/figures/05.09-PCA-rotation.png PCA], and considering the graph as a mappingg in a "higher dimension" is similar to the "kernel trick" popularized by [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wqSTBCguVyU/maxresdefault.jpg Support] [https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*gtF6KeL7b9zNHd7pXtC1Nw.png Vector] [https://dinhanhthi.com/img/post/ML/support-vector-machine/svm-3.jpg Machines] 11:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

== Raw Data ==

I love this cartoon. This is definitely something that was relevant in my work!

At my old job I had some commercial or public-domain software for extracting the raw data behind a scatter plot. If anyone has something like that handy, I would love to see someone extract the data behind the graph on the left, so that we can:
1. Apply the affine transformation which generates the image on the right with the tilted paper.
2. Apply the statistical tests which Randall Munroe is alluding to.

:Knock yourself out:
{{cot|Digitized data courtesy https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/}}
<pre>
0.000000, 0.015366
0.001887, 0.000000
0.002830, 0.041488
0.024528, 0.060695
0.033019, 0.014597
0.038679, 0.009988
0.044340, 0.072220
0.047170, 0.055317
0.050000, 0.072220
0.064858, 0.092964
0.070215, 0.117001
0.088207, 0.088354
0.091037, 0.122928
0.091037, 0.109099
0.100943, 0.140215
0.103773, 0.165338
0.106603, 0.178246
0.128891, 0.171331
0.147641, 0.196685
0.146226, 0.187465
0.162264, 0.215124
0.180188, 0.264910
0.182452, 0.218812
0.202830, 0.275052
0.204245, 0.261222
0.208490, 0.272747
0.217923, 0.293491
0.227358, 0.267369
0.230322, 0.234880
0.241744, 0.311930
0.256603, 0.344199
0.262263, 0.338930
0.299056, 0.376467
0.308254, 0.420261
0.313206, 0.417956
0.336791, 0.456371
0.344338, 0.433322
0.355659, 0.456371
0.367923, 0.496323
0.374055, 0.503237
0.388206, 0.503237
0.389621, 0.514762
0.409433, 0.533201
0.412263, 0.525518
0.415093, 0.540884
0.432074, 0.555328
0.446225, 0.599275
0.443395, 0.588519
0.449526, 0.537811
0.449055, 0.588519
0.468866, 0.609263
0.487263, 0.627702
0.490093, 0.636922
0.516979, 0.670727
0.523448, 0.697179
0.519809, 0.662276
0.548111, 0.697618
0.551413, 0.740642
0.550941, 0.689935
0.565092, 0.726813
0.572168, 0.724508
0.576413, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.763691
0.601177, 0.785588
0.604714, 0.791350
0.625335, 0.775545
0.643394, 0.817473
0.664620, 0.855119
0.688812, 0.871693
0.688003, 0.821643
0.710374, 0.925035
0.707544, 0.806716
0.715091, 0.888156
0.717921, 0.880473
0.724148, 0.976665
0.749054, 0.927010
0.757544, 0.961913
0.763204, 0.959608
0.783016, 0.983426
0.781601, 0.971133
0.797166, 1.028756
0.802827, 1.031060
0.805657, 0.999560
0.821223, 0.966523
0.822638, 0.957304
0.842449, 1.038744
0.843864, 1.028756
0.859431, 1.049500
0.865091, 1.058719
0.876411, 1.077159
0.882072, 1.086378
0.889147, 1.077159
0.901883, 1.024914
0.904714, 1.017231
0.908605, 1.100208
0.913204, 1.107122
0.936553, 1.130171
0.937261, 1.116342
0.967447, 1.159370
0.969806, 1.205310
0.978301, 1.104817
0.983956, 1.101525
1.000000, 1.167820
</pre>
{{cob}}
:104 points. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Can someone please check my work https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1c_7Qj3S1VXtL-AckfSfHCd4ofGYYDYH5 and tell me if I'm doing it right? I'm pretty sure I don't really know what I'm doing. I kind of cargo cult-coded the Savitzky-Golay filter stuff linked from the explanation and have zero understanding of what's actually going on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 21:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Here's how Randall seems to be suggesting to do it, based on the light gray figures: [superceded] -- Can someone please help fix the residuals on the second plot? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::: I fixed the residuals and added an inset confidence interval comparison for the two slopes: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1apKDIN5FE32mtGiQew5cE6wK6m6eM_Fr [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 00:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

2701: Change in Slope

2022-11-21T17:17:09Z

172.70.210.242:

{{comic
| number = 2701
| date = November 21, 2022
| title = Change in Slope
| image = change_in_slope_2x.png
| imagesize = 656x371px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Squinting at a graph is fine for getting a rough idea of the answer, but if you want to pretend to know it exactly, you neeed statistics.
}}

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

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

:How to detect a change in the slope of your data

:[First column, on the left]
:Novice method:
:[A graph, with dots forming a rough line, math formulas, and sub graphs]
:Do a bunch of statistics

:[Second column, on the right]
:Expert method:
:[Perspective view of the previous graph, with the legend "Hey look, it bends here" and an arrow pointing to the graph]
:Tip the graph sideways

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Scatter plots]]
[[Category:Bar charts]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]

2699: Feature Comparison

2022-11-17T15:23:07Z

172.70.210.242: /* Explanation */ copyedit

{{comic
| number = 2699
| date = November 16, 2022
| title = Feature Comparison
| image = feature_comparison_v2.png
| imagesize =
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Below the Web, and the Dark Web, a shadowy parallel world of Cybiko users trade messages on the Translucent Neon Plastic Web.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MULTIHOMED MESH NODE. Read HTML comments to expand. This page is the subject of vandalism, and the comic itself contains severe errors. Assume everything is wrong. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic compares different remote communication services, including the relatively well-known {{w|Twitter}}, {{w|Discord}}, {{w|Mastodon (software)|Mastodon}}, {{w|Facebook}} (FB), {{w|Slack (software)|Slack}}, {{w|Signal (software)|Signal}}, {{w|Internet Relay Chat}} (IRC), {{w|Tumblr}}, {{w|Reddit}}, and {{w|SMS}} (mobile telephone text messages). It also includes the less well-known {{w|Cybiko}}® wireless handheld computer for teens. For each of these, it purports to indicate which of various features they support.

===Services===


;Cybiko® wireless handheld computer for teens
:This was a handheld computer designed for teens and released in 2000, which featured its own two-way radio text messaging capabilities along with built-in games and a music player. Additional information about it is available at [http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Cybiko the Dead Media Archive], as the device has not been manufactured since 2003.
:The chart suggests that the Cybiko has an advantage over all of the other listed communication services, as it is capable of all eight of the table's listed features listed, with none of the others being close.
:Purchasing a Cybiko or finding friends who own one can be its own challenge, as device was discontinued nearly 20 years ago. Additionally, the Cybiko is a ''device'' rather than a ''service''; a more fair comparison would be to a modern {{w|smartphone}}, which can provide get most of these features via multiple apps, including those apps written especially for such rival services.

===Features===

;{{w|Mesh networking}}
:A form of connectivity that reduces or removes the need for a centralized server or predefined gateways to a communications 'backbone'. Nodes communicate directly with any nodes that happen to be contactable, and from there may connect through to whatever nodes are in mutual contact, or to be found further afield, either in real-time or asynchronously.
:The Cybiko has this ability, as well as wireless message delivery because it communicates directly to other devices via radio, hence the ability to operate without any internet connectivity at all. There are several {{w|Comparison of software and protocols for distributed social networking|ongoing projects for distributed social networking}}.


This comic contains several errors. Mastodon doesn't require a central server, or support file transfer. Discord does not provide for user-run instances itself. (There are two third party Discord server implementations, but it is unclear whether those could be counted as run by users.) Slack does not provide for user-run instances itself. Reddit does not provide for user-run instances at all, only user moderation and administration. IRC does require at least one central server,[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1459.html] and relegate file transfer support to the domain of client extensions. Signal is heavily used in user-run instances via a diverse ecosystem of code forks; many of these don't require a central server, a couple use mesh networking. Reddit occasionally does have built-in games. Finally, Tumblr does have a form of group chats.

An earlier version of the comic suggesting that Mastodon has no user-run instances was corrected by [[Randall]] shortly after publication of the original.




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

:[A table with checkmarks to indicate which features various messaging services have. Each column is labeled with a service name and its logo beneath, except that for the last column, the device's longer name is written higher than all the other services' names, with an arrow pointing to a drawing of the device below it.]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Twitter
! Discord
! Mastodon
! FB
! Slack
! Signal
! IRC
! Tumblr
! Reddit
! SMS
! Cybiko® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000)
|-
! Direct messages
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
! Group chats
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! File transfer
| || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Built-in games
| || ✓ || || ✓ || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! User-run instances
| || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Doesn't require central server
| || || || || || || ✓ || || || || ✓
|-
! Mesh networking
| || || || || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! Wireless message delivery works without internet
| || || || || || || || || || ✓ || ✓
|-
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

2699: Feature Comparison

2022-11-17T13:52:24Z

172.70.210.242: /* Explanation */ link from talk

{{comic
| number = 2699
| date = November 16, 2022
| title = Feature Comparison
| image = feature_comparison_v2.png
| imagesize =
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Below the Web, and the Dark Web, a shadowy parallel world of Cybiko users trade messages on the Translucent Neon Plastic Web.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MULTIHOMED MESH NODE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is comparing different remote communication services, including the relatively well-known {{w|Twitter}}, {{w|Discord}}, {{w|Mastodon (software)|Mastodon}}, {{w|Facebook|Facebok}} (FB), {{w|Slack (software)|Slack}}, {{w|Signal (software)|Signal}}, {{w|Internet Relay Chat}} (IRC), {{w|Tumblr}}, {{w|Reddit}}, and {{w|SMS}} (mobile telephone text messages).

The less well-known "{{w|Cybiko}}® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000)" was a handheld computer designed for teens and released in 2000, which featured its own two-way radio text messaging system. The Cybiko has two-way communication capabilities along with built-in games and music player capabilities. Additional information about it is available at [http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Cybiko the Dead Media Archive], as the device has not been manufactured since 2003. The chart suggests that the Cybiko has an advantage over all of the other ten communication services listed, as it has all eight of the features listed in the table, whereas none of the other services under consideration have more than five of the features. Of course, purchasing a Cybiko or finding friends who own one can be its own challenge, as device was discontinued nearly 20 years ago.


{{w|Mesh networking}} is the ability for users to have P2P connections, and talk without a centralized server. The Cybiko has this as well as wireless message delivery because it communicates to other devices via radio hence the ability to operate without any internet connectivity at all. There are several ongoing projects {{w|Comparison of software and protocols for distributed social networking|for distributed social networking}}.

This comic contains several errors. Mastodon doesn't require a central server, or support file transfer. Discord does not provide for user-run instances itself. (There are two third party Discord server implementations, but it is unclear whether those could be counted as user-run instances of Discord.) Slack does not provide for user-run instances itself. Reddit does not provide for user-run instances at all, only user moderation and administration. IRC does require at least one central server,[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1459.html] and relegate file transfer support to the domain of client extensions. Signal is heavily used in user-run instances via a diverse ecosystem of code forks; many of these don't require a central server, a couple use mesh networking. Reddit occasionally does have built-in games. Finally, Tumblr does have a form of group chats.

An earlier version of the comic suggesting that Mastodon has no user-run instances was corrected by [[Randall]] shortly after publication of the original.




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

:[A table with checkmarks to indicate which features various messaging services have. Each column is labeled with a service name and its logo beneath, except that for the last column, the device's longer name is written higher than all the other services' names, with an arrow pointing to a drawing of the device below it.]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Twitter
! Discord
! Mastodon
! FB
! Slack
! Signal
! IRC
! Tumblr
! Reddit
! SMS
! Cybiko® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000)
|-
! Direct messages
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
! Group chats
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! File transfer
| || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Built-in games
| || ✓ || || ✓ || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! User-run instances
| || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Doesn't require central server
| || || || || || || ✓ || || || || ✓
|-
! Mesh networking
| || || || || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! Wireless message delivery works without internet
| || || || || || || || || || ✓ || ✓
|-
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

Talk:1914: Twitter Verification

2022-11-10T05:22:57Z

172.70.210.242:

https://twitter.com/jack/status/928658511311097856 Comic may relate to twitter's usage of the verification symbol. Randall might be mocking Twitter for not realizing how the verification symbol would be thought of as a symbol of importance. Character shown may be Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO. --[[User:Videblu|Videblu]] ([[User talk:Videblu|talk]]) 05:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of when the checkmark emoji on Mastodon (https://joinmastodon.org) was similar to the Twitter "verified" mark and anyone who wanted was a verified user. Then, people moved on to pineapples for whatever reason. -- --[[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe|(Arguments welcome)]]

How can a bot write this text? Does it automatically scan the text in the comic, somehow find a news page about the topic and copy its text? If that's the case, that's some pretty advanced AI and it should be applied to more things than this wiki. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

:Nope, the bot only creates a new page with an image and a title text when a new comic goes online. See [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1914:_Twitter_Verification&action=history edit history] and [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:DgbrtBOT bot's profile] ;) The incomplete tag is kept even after people start editing the page, until it looks complete. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.218|141.101.96.218]] 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

::As an aside, I tip my hat to Fvalves for [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1914:_Twitter_Verification&diff=prev&oldid=147658 this edit] to the incomplete template! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.82|162.158.92.82]] 12:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:::For posterity (and so future visitors don't have to wade through the edit history), the page was created by a bot and then edited by a non-bot, a Cylon, and a Verified Twitter User. It was later "verified by a creationist twit." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 18:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So how do I get verified on twitter? I'm real I tell you! I'm a real boy! I am Iam! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.71|162.158.69.71]] 14:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Sam

Twitter should just change the standard for who gets the checkmark to be the same as the Wikipedia notability standard: getting "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That seems to create few quarrels. An even easier solution for them is to make the requirement be having a personal Wikipedia page – that way, now it's Wikipedia's problem. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41|172.68.26.41]] 16:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:I'll add that maybe the badge would look less like an "endorsement" if it were just, say, a rectangle with an "R" for "real account", rather than something with such positive implications as a check mark (which you get on your good grades at school for example) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41|172.68.26.41]] 16:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
::DOES CAPS ALSO FEEL NATURAL? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I saw the end of this story on [https://www.fox.com/watch/4e9ac96523b454de771f95a4f775facb/ The Orville]. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I have always assumed this "verified account" thingy is available to anyone who applies for it and supplies an ID scan or something to prove their identity (not a twitter user, obviously). They just randomly give it to people as they see fit? WTF were they thinking? [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:As someone who has literally never been on Twitter, this doesn't seem hard. Why doesn't Twitter just give verified status to people who can verify who they are? User sends Twitter proof of their identity, if Twitter finds the proof satisfactory they make that account verified.[[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
::Because a lot of actual people do have the same names. There are numerous people with the name William Gibson on Twitter, but when you search William Gibson, the handle @GreatDismal comes up, with his name listed as William Gibson, & a check-mark to indicate that the account belongs to the (most) famous William Gibson, not some random guy with that name.
:::'Some random guy' named William Gibson is no more random than the (most) famous William Gibson. It's certainly no guarantee that it's the person you want to follow. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.18|141.101.105.18]] 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Since there are so often multiple people with the same name, & even people who (gasp!) don't use their name as their Twitter handle, I think the verification should be relative to a particular association; People could even attain multiple verifications, such as "Verified author of Neuromancer", "Verified Ford certified mechanic", "Verified resident of Zyzzyx", "Verified president of the United States", etc. (Not that someone as important as the US president would have time to waste writing Tweets.) Just make a list of anything you can verify about them, & let people see that on their profile. Just because she wasn't in Terminator doesn't mean Sarah O'Connor is insignificant; often it can be difficult to tell which profile belongs to someone you know, versus a stranger with that name. They should just verify stated facts about the person, avoiding any judgement of the notability of those facts.
(By the way, "Marina Appaloosa" may potentially be the coolest fictional name I've seen generated by these captchas so far.)
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.4|108.162.216.4]] 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

"As the internet is populated by various large and strongly opinionated groups [citation not needed]" I strongly disagree with the "citation not needed" tag. Please cite a source! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.202|162.158.63.202]] 14:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
:I'm honestly having a bit of difficulty figuring out whether that edit was made by someone who didn't understand the inherent sarcasm in {{Citation needed}}, or by someone who ''did'' understand and was trying to make a point. —[[User:CsBlastoise|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise|talk]]) 19:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Twitter also provides additional behind-the-scenes functionality to users with blue ticks which isn't available to regular users. It's not just about marking their profiles with a signifier. It's about allowing them to use the service in a way which hides the contributions of anybody without a tick.

There is no twitter account @realDonaldTrump anymore. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.19|141.101.99.19]] 04:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This didn't age well. lol [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 05:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

2695: Soil

2022-11-07T15:58:38Z

172.70.210.242: /* Transcript */ cat

{{comic
| number = 2695
| date = November 7, 2022
| title = Soil
| image = soil_2x.png
| imagesize = 547x217px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = You might want to bring your frost-sensitive plants in from the patio. The high-level aerosols may result in short-term cooling across the entire backyard.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPLANATION SEED. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Beret Guy]] is at it again, what with his wacky powers. this time, he seems to be using {{w|volcano}} seeds to grow tiny volcanoes as an alternative to fertilizing [[Cueball]]'s garden. In reality, volcanoes are caused by the pressure of {{w|magma}} (underground lava) from below the Earth's crust pushing up through it, not seeds.

Volcanic soil is [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/volcanic-soil generally fertile].

The title text alludes to the fact that sulfate {{w|aerosol}}s from volcanic eruptions may cause a [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/volcanic-soil short-term cooling effect], expanding on the comedy from a small scale volcano, by adding small scale volcano effects — in reality, the cooling effect occurs because the {{w|aerosol}}s in the atmosphere block out energy from the sun.

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

:[Cueball is standing, holding a trowel. Beret Guy is kneeling, and pouring the content of a small bag in a hole in the ground.]

:Cueball: Thanks for the gardening help!

:Beret Guy: I made these seeds myself!

:[Beret Guy is standing next to a small eruption coming from the ground.]

:[Same scene, eruption is now a knee-high volcano. It produces fumes.]

:Beret Guy: The infusion of nutrient-rich volcanic soil will revitalize your garden.

:[Same scene, the volcano is now waist-high. There are flames on its sides.]

:Voice outside the picture from the direction of Cueball: All my plants are on fire.

:Beret Guy: But soon, life will return to these slopes!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]

Talk:2694: Königsberg

2022-11-05T20:31:37Z

172.70.210.242: reply

; Aluminum foil
Why would aluminum foil be valuable? I can see how it would be hard to produce at the time. But how would it be used and why would people of the time see a lot of value in it? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.65|172.71.146.65]] 03:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
:Good question, but I'm persuaded the novelty and scarcity of metallic aluminium would have made it plenty valuable among those already wealthy enough to recognize what it was. Prussia was wealthy and Königsberg was its largest port city back then, so probably the mayor would have been able. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.205|172.70.206.205]] 03:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
::Aluminium was very valuable - methods for its extraction from ore didn't exist in any useful form until much later. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.146.80|172.68.146.80]] 03:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
::: Would scarcity be enough to make it valuable? Since nobody had this material back then, there wouldn't be any known applications for it. Compared to bringing e.g. a simple pocket calculator, a flashlight, a solar-powered e-book reader, etc. If an alien landed in my house and brought me some weird, shiny material that would be unable to build on earth, I wouldn't be too interested. But if they had some cool gadget or books full of alien information, I would immediately see its value. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.88|172.71.142.88]] 04:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: At the time, there were few chemists who could have recognized what it was, but the Mayor of Königsberg would plausibly have been able to commission one. It likely would have taken months if not years, though. I guess if you have a time machine such details don't matter. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 04:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
::::: Bear in mind that platinum was once 'an inferior substance that got in the way of accumulating silver', and cobalt was the stuff that the underground spirits mischievously put in the way of those seeking copper. To different degrees, their attractiveness has increased since those times they were considered less than desirable.
::::: But, for aluminium foil, I suspect it would have been like pineapples in English(/European?) stately circles... Not to be used for anything practical, but shown off (as long as it did not deteriote beyond a certain point), possibly there'd be money to be made in 'hiring it out' to decorate tables at fancy dinners (in carefully handled fragments, after the first few tearing incidents). L
:::::: “Not to be used for anything practical”: Well they could wrap their leftovers in it…
::::::: Before they put them in the fridge? ;o)
::::: No doubt a natural philosopher or somesuch would give his eyeteeth to analyse the substance, but being so far beyond the ability to recreate (assuming they discovered what they might even need to do) it would take the bankrolling of an extremely rich patron to obtain permanent posession of some without obligation to return it to the social circuit situations. So easily destructed (I wonder if they'd discover thermite a hundred and more years early, before they ran out of potentially finely shredded aluminium?) or at least aesthetically denatured.
:::::I suppose a screwed up ball of foil (carefully glued together internally, of all fragments still reobtainable) could be the end-game for the original roll, and a wonder it could still be (again, taking the "pineapple place" on the tables of the high and mighty, relatively untarnishing as it would be and gingerly some lucky few would be allowed to hold it and marvel at its sharp fragility and metallic lightness.
:::::...or, in another destiny, perhaps it would be given to a master tailor, in order to (try to?) create some sartorial masterpiece for one or other monarch of the age. Not that I'm sure they'd be able to accomplish that properly (limited pre-offcut trials on how to attach it to underfelts/whatever and to somehow exploit its flexibility without exceeding its very low tolerance for shear-force damage). It'd be a story and a half, whatever happened to it! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 05:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::"Aim for brevity while avoiding jargon." —Edsger Dijkstra [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.210|172.69.33.210]] 06:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting that "the citizens' old coffeehouse problem" (c.f. linked reference), originally of how to cross the bridges was never solved but instead proven by Euler to be insoluble. He did give a proof to satisfy those who had henceforth decided there perhaps could be no solution, but that necessarily postdates the initial issue that could not originally be solved, and which Euler (in turn) also did not solve. But how to rewrite this to everyone's satisfaction? I see a bit of a tussle of interpretation in the edit history over this. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
:Proving that a problem has no solution is still called solving it in math and logic. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 15:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
::That's solving the issue of the solution (if you've proved there is none), at the meta- level. It is described as a "negative resolution" in the primary wikilink, which adds another semantic complexity but at least points to what was proven. Right in its first paragraph. For the everyday reader that hasn't yet burrowed into the wikilink, and without in-depth knowledge of terminological scope, they shouldn't be given the wrong idea about what question was actually answered. And "We've solved it: there's no solution!" is not a particularly helpful reduction of this kind of outcome. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.207|172.71.178.207]] 16:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
::...ok, so looking at it myself, maybe [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2694:_K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=298234&oldid=298231 this change] removes both parties' objections. (Probably not, but perhaps a way ''towards'' a final rapprochement.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.24|172.70.85.24]] 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I read somewhere (maybe some Martin Gardner book?) that nowadays in Koenigsberg (or Kaliningrad as it is called today) there IS an eight bridge. But I couldn't confirm it.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.129.49|162.158.129.49]] 17:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
: There's a link to the Google Maps aerial view in the map caption. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 20:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)