explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-08-16T14:21:44Z

172.70.211.134: Reply

I don’t think this has anything to do with teleconferencing. Am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.81|172.70.214.81]] 22:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
:Yes. The impliction is that people are expecting you to be available for online communications, and you can use the unreliable Internet connection as an excuse to get out of it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
::I think it's more about communication in general. He doesn't want anybody calling him or sending him emails, so by saying he has an "unreliable" connection people might assume it will be hard to get in touch with him.
:::Back in the day, email was usually configured so that it could easily overcome such unreliability, and it's still doable,[https://discourse.mailinabox.email/t/running-from-home/6459/7] but today email for most people is a web or local client-server app, as opposed to a local mail store in a peer-to-peer app. Even people in urban areas can suffer unreliable internet, when squirrels or backhoes gnaw through data cables, copper theives strike, or 5G mind control base stations are congested. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.143|172.70.210.143]] 23:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
:::This could equally cover other instant communication methods where your availability is advertised (e.g. Whatsapp). It could also be about alleviating the social pressure the subject feels to continuously check and immediately respond to messages (including emails), because the immediacy is already hindered by the spotty connection (cf the standard "I will have limited access to email" out of office line, which gives the account owner psychological permission to check it infrequently). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 09:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

According to a PhET simulator (https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/plinko-probability/latest/plinko-probability_en.html) for this situation, the ideal standard deviation is 1.732 and ideal mean is 6. I don’t feel like doing the calculations :P [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
:If we assume 50-50 for each bounce, the probability that internet is off will be about (11 choose 3)/(2^11), or 8%.--[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 23:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
::My first thought was, why so complicated? ''If'' each of the twelve switches is equally (and solely) likely to be struck by each ball, it's (100/12)% of the time, or 8⅓%.
::Although the equal-chance is wrong, so you're definitely doing "end up with exactly 7 bounce rights and 3 bounce lefts, but in any combination" or similar are you? I'd have summed it differently, though. And not sure where the choose ''3'' comes in... Just one bounce left off any row-end pin 11 sends to 11 if all others bounce right. Three bounces left hits switch 9, not eight. If I'm counting correctly. Or am I doing telegraph-poles/wires miscounting?
::Too early in the morning for me to untangle. The only thing I'm sure about is your division by 2^11 (how many total paths there are to get down). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.78|172.70.91.78]] 05:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
:::Me again. I hadn't checked that the transcript (which said it was switch #8) was correct. Have now, and found it to be wrong. Have hence also just corrected the Transcript. So I'm gonna assume your 11-choose-3 is entirely correct after all. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.78|172.70.91.78]] 05:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

To whomever did [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2659:_Unreliable_Connection&diff=292862&oldid=292861], doesn't [https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/8817/pdf/LIPIcs-FUN-2018-26.pdf] prove that symmetrical configurations nearly identical to those shown can produce uniform distributions? They seem to show it's just a matter of horizontal pin spacing. However, I for one can not verify the proof, which uses unusual (novel?) non-Unicode math notation, and a fairly opaque method of proof. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 00:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
:Not sure, but [https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%98%E8%AA%BF%E6%95%B4 this Japanese Wikipedia article] is fascinating. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 01:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the chance that the ball will bounce off the first pin, go down the outside of the pins and miss all the switches?
:Probably quite high if it's a bouncy ball. With idealized physics though it'd just hit the leftmost/rightmost switch. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.127|172.70.254.127]] 00:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I would describe the device as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.109|172.70.230.109]] 00:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I was watching the photo and hover-over text and the image disappeared and "Unreliable Connection" showed up in its place. I don't know how often this happens.
: Very neat if not a fluke! Can anyone replicate this experience on https://xkcd.com ? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 14:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"An added source of humour is that Randall could likely achieve the same effect by looking through the router's settings - which most modern ones have a feature to turn on and off at scheduled times - or via purchasing a smart power strip." But by using these other methods, the connection would still be reliable. If it goes out at regular or pre-scheduled intervals then you know when it will be available or not, hence reliable. I think the joke here is that the contraption does in fact make the connection unreliable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.77|172.70.114.77]] 14:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-08-16T01:35:42Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ both these parentheticals narrow the reasons before them too far, excluding similar plausible possibilities

{{comic
| number = 2659
| date = August 15, 2022
| title = Unreliable Connection
| image = unreliable_connection.png
| titletext = NEGATIVE REVIEWS MENTION: Unreliable internet. POSITIVE REVIEWS MENTION: Unreliable internet.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ROUND TRIP LATENCY BACKOFF. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Randall]] solves the social problem of demands for {{w|synchronous conferencing|synchronous teleconferencing}} with a deliberately less than optimal internet device that causes {{w|Asynchronous communication|asynchronous}} methods of communication to be relatively more reliable and efficient for personal use. The device appears to be an automated version of a {{w|Galton board}} or {{w|Jin Akiyama}}'s mathematical {{w|pachinko}} machine[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.05706.pdf] with a series of eleven "on" and one "off" switches at the bottom to be pressed by falling balls. This is funny because such a device could likely much more easily be implemented in the {{w|firmware}} of the internet or WiFi {{w|modem}} or {{w|Router (computing)|router}}s. (See [[1785: Wifi]] for an explanation of firmware.) It's not clear whether the switches merely interrupt the connection momentarily or control power to the modem, which would involve a much longer booting sequence.

Assuming the machine is symmetric (and ordinary [https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/8817/pdf/LIPIcs-FUN-2018-26.pdf]), the probability of a single ball hitting the "off" switch is 165/2048, or about 8%. We don't know the frequency with which new balls are dropped, so we can't estimate the frequency with which the device is likely to trigger {{w|Session Initiation Protocol}}, {{w|Transmission Control Protocol}}, or similar {{w|Timeout (computing)|timeout}} conditions that would likely close synchronous {{w|VOIP}}, video conferencing, and e.g. {{w|VRChat}} connections. Even if such connections were to survive the induced service interruptions, the {{w|application layer}} call or teleconference quality would suffer during them. The device may cause interruptions rarely enough that the connection is usable for casual purposes, but the user can still reasonably claim that it's unreliable to get out of online obligations.

The title text reflects on today's increasingly always-connected world, where emphasis may be changing from finding vacation spots that have reliable internet to finding somewhere worthwhile to go that still doesn't have it. It could also be a comment on the mild paradox that a nominally unreliable internet connection has advantages for those whose communication schedules, volume, or style preferences make synchronous teleconferencing less practical, as indicated by the reviews for the new vacation spot.

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

:[A gigabit fiber connection is shown leading to an internet modem with twelve switches under an automated Galton board or pachinko machine, eleven of which are marked "on" but the eighth of which is marked "off." The modem is also connected to a WiFi router. There is a supply of balls in a hopper above the board, with a triangular configuration of pins directing the balls randomly to the switches.]

:Caption: My new vacation spot has very fast internet that turns off randomly every now and then, just so you can tell people you'll be staying somewhere without a reliable connection.

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

2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-08-16T01:33:21Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ swap title text explanations based on subjective likelihood

{{comic
| number = 2659
| date = August 15, 2022
| title = Unreliable Connection
| image = unreliable_connection.png
| titletext = NEGATIVE REVIEWS MENTION: Unreliable internet. POSITIVE REVIEWS MENTION: Unreliable internet.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ROUND TRIP LATENCY BACKOFF. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Randall]] solves the social problem of demands for {{w|synchronous conferencing|synchronous teleconferencing}} with a deliberately less than optimal internet device that causes {{w|Asynchronous communication|asynchronous}} methods of communication to be relatively more reliable and efficient for personal use. The device appears to be an automated version of a {{w|Galton board}} or {{w|Jin Akiyama}}'s mathematical {{w|pachinko}} machine[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.05706.pdf] with a series of eleven "on" and one "off" switches at the bottom to be pressed by falling balls. This is funny because such a device could likely much more easily be implemented in the {{w|firmware}} of the internet or WiFi {{w|modem}} or {{w|Router (computing)|router}}s. (See [[1785: Wifi]] for an explanation of firmware.) It's not clear whether the switches merely interrupt the connection momentarily or control power to the modem, which would involve a much longer booting sequence.

Assuming the machine is symmetric (and ordinary [https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/8817/pdf/LIPIcs-FUN-2018-26.pdf]), the probability of a single ball hitting the "off" switch is 165/2048, or about 8%. We don't know the frequency with which new balls are dropped, so we can't estimate the frequency with which the device is likely to trigger {{w|Session Initiation Protocol}}, {{w|Transmission Control Protocol}}, or similar {{w|Timeout (computing)|timeout}} conditions that would likely close synchronous {{w|VOIP}}, video conferencing, and e.g. {{w|VRChat}} connections. Even if such connections were to survive the induced service interruptions, the {{w|application layer}} call or teleconference quality would suffer during them. The device may cause interruptions rarely enough that the connection is usable for casual purposes, but the user can still reasonably claim that it's unreliable to get out of online obligations.

The title text reflects on today's increasingly always-connected world, where emphasis may be changing from finding vacation spots that have reliable internet (with an ability to access this luxury) to finding somewhere worthwhile to go that still doesn't have it (and thus proving how far off the usual tourist-trail you have actually been). It could also be a comment on the mild paradox that a nominally unreliable internet connection has advantages for those whose communication schedules, volume, or style preferences make synchronous teleconferencing less practical, as indicated by the reviews for the new vacation spot.

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

:[A gigabit fiber connection is shown leading to an internet modem with twelve switches under an automated Galton board or pachinko machine, eleven of which are marked "on" but the eighth of which is marked "off." The modem is also connected to a WiFi router. There is a supply of balls in a hopper above the board, with a triangular configuration of pins directing the balls randomly to the switches.]

:Caption: My new vacation spot has very fast internet that turns off randomly every now and then, just so you can tell people you'll be staying somewhere without a reliable connection.

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

Talk:2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-08-16T00:07:04Z

172.70.211.134: Uhh

first [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13|172.70.85.13]] 22:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
:Dude, no [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.81|172.70.214.81]] 22:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think this has anything to do with teleconferencing. Am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.81|172.70.214.81]] 22:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
:Yes. The impliction is that people are expecting you to be available for online communications, and you can use the unreliable Internet connection as an excuse to get out of it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
::I think it's more about communication in general. He doesn't want anybody calling him or sending him emails, so by saying he has an "unreliable" connection people might assume it will be hard to get in touch with him.
:::Back in the day, email was usually configured so that it could easily overcome such unreliability, and it's still doable,[https://discourse.mailinabox.email/t/running-from-home/6459/7] but today email for most people is a web or local client-server app, as opposed to a local mail store in a peer-to-peer app. Even people in urban areas can suffer unreliable internet, when squirrels or backhoes gnaw through data cables, copper theives strike, or 5G mind control base stations are congested. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.143|172.70.210.143]] 23:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

According to a PhET simulator (https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/plinko-probability/latest/plinko-probability_en.html) for this situation, the ideal standard deviation is 1.732 and ideal mean is 6. I don’t feel like doing the calculations :P [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
:If we assume 50-50 for each bounce, the probability that internet is off will be about (11 choose 3)/(2^11), or 8%.--[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 23:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

To whomever did [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2659:_Unreliable_Connection&diff=292862&oldid=292861], doesn't [https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/8817/pdf/LIPIcs-FUN-2018-26.pdf] prove that symmetrical configurations nearly identical to those shown can produce uniform distributions? They seem to show it's just a matter of horizontal pin spacing. However, I for one can not verify the proof, which uses unusual (novel?) non-Unicode math notation, and a fairly opaque method of proof. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 00:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-08-15T23:49:11Z

172.70.211.134: Clarify

Talk:2659: Unreliable Connection

2022-08-15T23:34:45Z

172.70.211.134:

2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-14T21:39:32Z

172.70.211.134: the drilled mug as depicted is shown as genus 2

{{comic
| number = 2658
| date = August 12, 2022
| title = Coffee Cup Holes
| image = coffee_cup_holes.png
| titletext = Theoretical physicist: At the Planck length, uncountably many.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CAFFEINE MOLECULE WITH A HOLE DRILLED IN ITS SIDE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts people in different fields of study answering the question, "How many holes are there in a coffee cup?" This question has different interpretations depending on the definition of a hole.

[[File:Mug and Torus morph.gif|thumb|200px|The coffee mug and donut shown in this animation both have topological genus one.]]

[[Ponytail]], a {{w|topology|topologist}}, states the coffee cup belongs in the {{w|Genus (mathematics)#Topology|genus}} of one hole. A common joke is that topologists can't tell the difference between a coffee cup and a donut since they're homeomorphic to each other — meaning they have the same genus. From the topologist's point of view, the coffee cup definitely has one hole. See [[2625: Field Topology]] for more information about topology.

[[Hairy]], a normal person, is not sure (the acronym "IDK" stands for "I don't know") and asks for clarification about whether the opening at the top counts as a hole. This shows flaws in the question, which suffers from the mathematically imprecise, ambiguous common usage of the word hole. Topologists would refer to the opening as a concavity, not a hole, and while they consider such geometrical properties generally outside their field, most practical applications of topology do involve geometric components.

[[File:Double torus illustration.png|thumb|left|200px|A genus two surface]]

[[Hairbun]], a philosopher, answers the question with an elucidating counter-question, considering a hypothetical scenario. Drilling a new hole should increase the number of holes by one. After the hole has been drilled, a common teacup or mug has two holes according to topologists. Therefore, the philosopher's question requires the original questioner to reveal the answer to their own question. (Also, she asks how many holes there are ''now'' rather than ''after we do that'', an ambiguity.)

[[Image:Point cloud torus.gif|thumb|200px|A point cloud of a genus one surface]]

[[Cueball]], a chemist, looks at the coffee in the cup on a molecular level, which means it has very many holes: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1021 or 1 sextillion) “in the [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=CN1C%3DNC2%3DC1C%28%3DO%29N%28C%28%3DO%29N2C%29C caffeine] alone.” One molecule of caffeine has two rings of bonds with holes in them, so Cueball is talking about 500 quintillion molecules, or 0.00083 {{w|mole (unit)|moles}}. As the molecular mass of {{w|caffeine}} is about 194 grams per mole, [[Randall]] must think that the mass of caffeine in a typical cup of coffee is 161 milligrams. The coffee could have other holes, depending on the type of coffee; for example, espresso contains significant amounts of niacin and riboflavin, which have one and three rings in their chemical structure, respectively. However, bonds are not sticks as portrayed in many molecular models. The "holes" in the middle of a molecule's rings are not completely empty but instead merely have lower electron probability density through the middle than other parts of the bonds. So the point-cloud duality of {{w|Bonding molecular orbital|electron orbitals and bonds}} might not satisfy a topologist's, normal person's, or philosopher's criteria for a connected substrate in which holes may be formed.

[[Image:World lines and world sheet.svg|left|thumb|200px|{{w|String theory}} describes the {{w|worldline}}s of point-like particles as {{w|worldsheet}}s of "closed strings," forming topological holes.]]

In the title text, a theoretical physicist looks even deeper, at the subatomic scale of {{w|Planck units}}. Since fundamental particle interaction is governed by fundamental forces and collision (per the {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}}) instead of tensile or ductile solid connectedness, the theoretical physicist posits that any definition providing for a single hole would also describe a number of holes akin to the factorial of the number of particles in the universe,[https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02341882/document] or at least within the cup's {{w|light cone}}, which is a number impractical to accurately count, but not uncountable in a mathematical sense.

Part of the joke could be that all five methods of inquiry don't discern between a {{w|cup}} (as described) and a {{w|mug}} (as depicted), the cliché being that topologists are unusual because they don't. Or, as many people use the terms interchangeably, Randall may too. A cup without a handle is topologically equivalent to either a flat disk (if the cup' walls are assumed to have no thickness) or an amorphous sphere (if the cup's walls have thickness.)

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

:[The first panel has text only. The "Q:" below is a large letter Q representing a question, not a character name.]
:Q:
:How many holes are there in a coffee cup?

:[Each of the next four panels has a caption at the top to indicate the kind of person answering the question.]
:Caption: Topologist
:[Ponytail stands holding a coffee mug.]
:Ponytail: One.

:Caption: Normal person
:[Hairy stands to the right of Ponytail, holding a coffee mug at an angle to look into it.]
:Hairy: IDK, does the opening count as a hole?

:Caption: Philosopher
:[Hairbun is shown in closeup, with two drawings of coffee mugs to her left.]
:Hairbun: To answer that question, consider another: If we drill a hole in the side, how many holes are there now?

:Caption: Chemist
:[Cueball stands with a drawing of a caffeine molecule above him and to the right.]
:Cueball: 1021 in the caffeine alone

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-13T03:34:51Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ actually it's the same hand; clarify

{{comic
| number = 2658
| date = August 12, 2022
| title = Coffee Cup Holes
| image = coffee_cup_holes.png
| titletext = Theoretical physicist: At the Planck length, uncountably many.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CAFFEINE MOLECULE WITH A HOLE DRILLED IN ITS SIDE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts multiple people in different fields of study answering the question “How many holes are there in a coffee cup?” This can have multiple interpretations, and calls into question what the definition of a “hole” actually is.

A topologist states the coffee cup belongs in the genus of one hole. A common joke is that topologists can’t tell the difference between a coffee cup and a donut since they’re homeomorphic to each other — they have the same genus.  From the topologist's point of view, the coffee cup definitely has one hole. See [[2625: Field Topology]] for more information about topology.

The normal person asks for more clarification about whether the opening counts as a hole. This shows flaws in the question, which suffers from the mathematically imprecise, ambiguous common usage of the word hole.

The philosopher answers the question with an elucidating counter-question, considering a hypothetical scenario. Drilling a hole should increase the number of holes by one, and after the hole has been drilled, the coffee cup has two holes according to topologists. Since drilling a hole obviously increases the number of holes by one. Thus, the philosopher's question requires the original questioner to reveal the answer to their own question.

The chemist looks at the cup on a molecular level, which naturally means it has lots and lots of holes: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1021 or 1 sextillion) “in the caffeine alone.” The implication is that there are more in the cup itself, depending on what material it’s made out of. Also, the coffee itself could have other holes, depending on the type of coffee. For example, espresso contains significant amounts of niacin and riboflavin, each of which has at least one hole in its chemical structure. However, this ignores the fact that bonds are not discrete sticks as portrayed in many molecular models. The "holes" in the middle of a caffeine molecule are not completely empty but instead merely have lower electron densities/probabilities. In a {{w|space-filling model}}, a caffeine molecule has zero holes. So the point-cloud duality of electron orbitals and bonds might not satisfy a topologist's, normal person's, or philosopher's criteria for a connected substrate in which holes may be formed.

In the title text, the theoretical physicist looks even deeper; at a subatomic level. Since fundamental particle interaction is governed by fundamental forces and collision instead of tensile or ductile solid connectedness, the physicists posit that any definition allowing a single hole would potentially produce a number akin to the factorial of the number of particles in the universe, or at least within the cup's {{w|light cone}} which is a number impractical to accurately count.

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

:[The first panel has text only. The "Q:" below is a large letter Q representing a question, not a character name.]
:Q:
:How many holes are there in a coffee cup?

:[Each of the next four panels has a caption at the top to indicate the kind of person answering the question.]
:Caption: Topologist
:[Ponytail stands holding a coffee mug.]
:Ponytail: One.

:Caption: Normal person
:[Hairy stands to the right of Ponytail, holding a coffee mug at an angle to look into it.]
:Hairy: IDK, does the opening count as a hole?

:Caption: Philosopher
:[Hairbun is shown in closeup, with two drawings of coffee mugs to her left.]
:Hairbun: To answer that question, consider another: If we drill a hole in the side, how many holes are there now?

:Caption: Chemist
:[Cueball stands with a drawing of a caffeine molecule above him and to the right.]
:Cueball: 1021 in the caffeine alone

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-13T03:32:44Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ correct

{{comic
| number = 2658
| date = August 12, 2022
| title = Coffee Cup Holes
| image = coffee_cup_holes.png
| titletext = Theoretical physicist: At the Planck length, uncountably many.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CAFFEINE MOLECULE WITH A HOLE DRILLED IN ITS SIDE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts multiple people in different fields of study answering the question “How many holes are there in a coffee cup?” This can have multiple interpretations, and calls into question what the definition of a “hole” actually is.

A topologist states the coffee cup belongs in the genus of one hole. A common joke is that topologists can’t tell the difference between a coffee cup and a donut since they’re homeomorphic to each other — they have the same genus.  From the topologist's point of view, the coffee cup definitely has one hole. See [[2625: Field Topology]] for more information about topology.

The normal person asks for more clarification about whether the opening counts as a hole. This shows flaws in the question, which suffers from the mathematically imprecise, ambiguous common usage of the word hole.

The philosopher answers the question with an elucidating counter-question, considering a hypothetical scenario. Drilling a hole should increase the number of holes by one, and after the hole has been drilled, the coffee cup has two holes according to topologists. Since drilling a hole obviously increases the number of holes by one. Thus, the philosopher's question requires the original questioner to reveal the answer to their own question.

The chemist looks at the cup on a molecular level, which naturally means it has lots and lots of holes: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1021 or 1 sextillion) “in the caffeine alone.” The implication is that there are more in the cup itself, depending on what material it’s made out of. Also, the coffee itself could have other holes, depending on the type of coffee. For example, espresso contains significant amounts of niacin and riboflavin, each of which has at least one hole in its chemical structure. However, this ignores the fact that bonds are not discrete sticks as portrayed in many molecular models. The "holes" in the middle of a caffeine molecule are not completely empty but instead merely have lower electron densities/probabilities. In a {{w|space-filling model}}, a caffeine molecule has zero holes. On the other hand, the point-cloud duality of electron orbitals and bonds might not satisfy a topologist's, normal person's, or philosopher's criteria for connectedness in which holes may be formed.

In the title text, the theoretical physicist looks even deeper; at a subatomic level. Since fundamental particle interaction is governed by fundamental forces and collision instead of tensile or ductile solid connectedness, the physicists posit that any definition allowing a single hole would potentially produce a number akin to the factorial of the number of particles in the universe, or at least within the cup's {{w|light cone}} which is a number impractical to accurately count.

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

:[The first panel has text only. The "Q:" below is a large letter Q representing a question, not a character name.]
:Q:
:How many holes are there in a coffee cup?

:[Each of the next four panels has a caption at the top to indicate the kind of person answering the question.]
:Caption: Topologist
:[Ponytail stands holding a coffee mug.]
:Ponytail: One.

:Caption: Normal person
:[Hairy stands to the right of Ponytail, holding a coffee mug at an angle to look into it.]
:Hairy: IDK, does the opening count as a hole?

:Caption: Philosopher
:[Hairbun is shown in closeup, with two drawings of coffee mugs to her left.]
:Hairbun: To answer that question, consider another: If we drill a hole in the side, how many holes are there now?

:Caption: Chemist
:[Cueball stands with a drawing of a caffeine molecule above him and to the right.]
:Cueball: 1021 in the caffeine alone

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-13T03:30:08Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ delete another sentence, inscrutable and not as depicted

{{comic
| number = 2658
| date = August 12, 2022
| title = Coffee Cup Holes
| image = coffee_cup_holes.png
| titletext = Theoretical physicist: At the Planck length, uncountably many.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CAFFEINE MOLECULE WITH A HOLE DRILLED IN ITS SIDE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts multiple people in different fields of study answering the question “How many holes are there in a coffee cup?” This can have multiple interpretations, and calls into question what the definition of a “hole” actually is.

A topologist states the coffee cup belongs in the genus of one hole. A common joke is that topologists can’t tell the difference between a coffee cup and a donut since they’re homeomorphic to each other — they have the same genus.  From the topologist's point of view, the coffee cup definitely has one hole. See [[2625: Field Topology]] for more information about topology.

The normal person asks for more clarification about whether the opening counts as a hole. This shows flaws in the question, which suffers from the mathematically imprecise, ambiguous common usage of the word hole.

The philosopher answers the question with an elucidating counter-question, considering a hypothetical scenario. Drilling a hole should increase the number of holes by one, and after the hole has been drilled, the coffee cup has two holes according to topologists. Since drilling a hole obviously increases the number of holes by one, this would imply that the coffee cup had one hole beforehand. Thus, the philosopher's question provides illumination that leads to an answer.

The chemist looks at the cup on a molecular level, which naturally means it has lots and lots of holes: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1021 or 1 sextillion) “in the caffeine alone.” The implication is that there are more in the cup itself, depending on what material it’s made out of. Also, the coffee itself could have other holes, depending on the type of coffee. For example, espresso contains significant amounts of niacin and riboflavin, each of which has at least one hole in its chemical structure. However, this ignores the fact that bonds are not discrete sticks as portrayed in many molecular models. The "holes" in the middle of a caffeine molecule are not completely empty but instead merely have lower electron densities/probabilities. In a {{w|space-filling model}}, a caffeine molecule has zero holes. On the other hand, the point-cloud duality of electron orbitals and bonds might not satisfy a topologist's, normal person's, or philosopher's criteria for connectedness in which holes may be formed.

In the title text, the theoretical physicist looks even deeper; at a subatomic level. Since fundamental particle interaction is governed by fundamental forces and collision instead of tensile or ductile solid connectedness, the physicists posit that any definition allowing a single hole would potentially produce a number akin to the factorial of the number of particles in the universe, or at least within the cup's {{w|light cone}} which is a number impractical to accurately count.

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

:[The first panel has text only. The "Q:" below is a large letter Q representing a question, not a character name.]
:Q:
:How many holes are there in a coffee cup?

:[Each of the next four panels has a caption at the top to indicate the kind of person answering the question.]
:Caption: Topologist
:[Ponytail stands holding a coffee mug.]
:Ponytail: One.

:Caption: Normal person
:[Hairy stands to the right of Ponytail, holding a coffee mug at an angle to look into it.]
:Hairy: IDK, does the opening count as a hole?

:Caption: Philosopher
:[Hairbun is shown in closeup, with two drawings of coffee mugs to her left.]
:Hairbun: To answer that question, consider another: If we drill a hole in the side, how many holes are there now?

:Caption: Chemist
:[Cueball stands with a drawing of a caffeine molecule above him and to the right.]
:Cueball: 1021 in the caffeine alone

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-13T03:24:25Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ copyedit

{{comic
| number = 2658
| date = August 12, 2022
| title = Coffee Cup Holes
| image = coffee_cup_holes.png
| titletext = Theoretical physicist: At the Planck length, uncountably many.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CAFFEINE MOLECULE WITH A HOLE DRILLED IN ITS SIDE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic depicts multiple people in different fields of study answering the question “How many holes are there in a coffee cup?” This can have multiple interpretations, and calls into question what the definition of a “hole” actually is.

A topologist states the coffee cup belongs in the genus of one hole. A common joke is that topologists can’t tell the difference between a coffee cup and a donut since they’re homeomorphic to each other — they have the same genus.  From the topologist's point of view, the coffee cup definitely has one hole. See [[2625: Field Topology]] for more information about topology.

The “normal” person asks for more clarification about whether the opening counts as a hole. This shows flaws in the question, which suffers from the mathematically imprecise, ambiguous common usage of the word hole.

The philosopher does not answer the question directly, instead expanding the entire line of questioning to consider more hypothetical scenarios. However, the specific question that the philosopher asks could be used by a topologist to convince a normal person that the opening does not count as a hole. Drilling a hole should increase the number of holes by one, and after the hole has been drilled, the coffee cup arguably has two holes. While this is not the scenario pictured, this conclusion is especially apparent if a hole is drilled in the bottom of the coffee cup with a size equal to or slightly less than the area of the bottom of the coffee cup before drilling. Since drilling a hole obviously increases the number of holes by one, this would imply that the coffee cup had one hole beforehand. Thus, the philosopher's question provides illumination that leads to an answer.

The chemist looks at the cup on a molecular level, which naturally means it has lots and lots of holes: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1021 or 1 sextillion) “in the caffeine alone.” The implication is that there are more in the cup itself, depending on what material it’s made out of. Also, the coffee itself could have other holes, depending on the type of coffee. For example, espresso contains significant amounts of niacin and riboflavin, each of which has at least one hole in its chemical structure. However, this ignores the fact that bonds are not discrete sticks as portrayed in many molecular models. The "holes" in the middle of a caffeine molecule are not completely empty but instead merely have lower electron densities/probabilities. In a {{w|space-filling model}}, a caffeine molecule has zero holes. On the other hand, the point-cloud duality of electron orbitals and bonds might not satisfy a topologist's, normal person's, or philosopher's criteria for connectedness in which holes may be formed.

In the title text, the theoretical physicist looks even deeper; at a subatomic level. Since fundamental particle interaction is governed by fundamental forces and collision instead of tensile or ductile solid connectedness, the physicists posit that any definition allowing a single hole would potentially produce a number akin to the factorial of the number of particles in the universe, or at least within the cup's {{w|light cone}} which is a number impractical to accurately count.

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

:[The first panel has text only. The "Q:" below is a large letter Q representing a question, not a character name.]
:Q:
:How many holes are there in a coffee cup?

:[Each of the next four panels has a caption at the top to indicate the kind of person answering the question.]
:Caption: Topologist
:[Ponytail stands holding a coffee mug.]
:Ponytail: One.

:Caption: Normal person
:[Hairy stands to the right of Ponytail, holding a coffee mug at an angle to look into it.]
:Hairy: IDK, does the opening count as a hole?

:Caption: Philosopher
:[Hairbun is shown in closeup, with two drawings of coffee mugs to her left.]
:Hairbun: To answer that question, consider another: If we drill a hole in the side, how many holes are there now?

:Caption: Chemist
:[Cueball stands with a drawing of a caffeine molecule above him and to the right.]
:Cueball: 1021 in the caffeine alone

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-13T03:06:16Z

172.70.211.134: Topologists

I was confused for a moment. That's a coffee ''mug''. And the correct answer is either one (the handle) or none (because below the macroscopic level (and above the theoretical sub-Planck scale of string-theory loops) it's increasingly not even mostly holes but very, very barely anything 'solid' jostling about in empty space giving no real impediment to any theoretical quantum-scale cheesewire without even being cut through). A coffee ''cup'' has no holes (regardless) if you don't count any form of sippy-lid it might have. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13|172.70.85.13]] 22:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
:Actually, the mug has two at the macro level (the hole that makes up the handle and the hole on the top). There could conceivably be more shallow holes inside the mug where the handle connects to the cup. At a plank-length level, the atoms could be viewed as holes in the vacuum bending space time around it.
::You're not a topologist, certainly. And a ''hydrogen-nucleus'' is approximately 10^20 times the planck-length. The whole atom on the order of 10,000 times larger, and the constiuent quarks 'only' 1,000th, or so, smaller, with the differences being the space betweenn that anything that cares isn't going to consider much of an obstruction. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 23:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
:There is no "hole" at the top - at best it count as an indention in the surface {{unsigned ip|172.70.211.134|23:38, 12 August 2022}}
::Hole has multiple meanings. A hole in the ground doesn't have to go all the way through the Earth. The point of panel three is that we don't know what definition the question is using, which makes it impossible to answer correctly.[[User:Zzyzx|Zzyzx]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx|talk]]) 00:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Mug_and_Torus_morph.gif] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.179.4|172.70.179.4]] 23:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

For something to be a hole, you need to consider what is capable of passing through the hole. For instance, a mesh screen might have no holes that my fingers can pass through, but it is full of holes for water or air to pass through. And while atoms might be mostly space, other atoms can't usually just pass through that space, although high-energy particles may. Also, the space can be considered filled with forces, which may act as barriers to certain things. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.171|172.70.130.171]] 00:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
:Sure, for one definition of “hole.” That’s the whole point of the comic: there are multiple definitions, and no single definition is correct. [[User:Szeth Pancakes|Szeth Pancakes]] ([[User talk:Szeth Pancakes|talk]]) 01:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is “cup” or “mug” better for the explanation? “Mug” is a better descriptor, but it’s described as “cup” in the comic, so that would be more faithful to what Randall intended. [[User:Szeth Pancakes|Szeth Pancakes]] ([[User talk:Szeth Pancakes|talk]]) 01:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Linguist: Zero to Two... mostly. Given linguistic variation and local functional style the object being referred to may not have a closed handle, or any handle at all (Cup vs Mug), and the top may be considered a hole in the common usage. --- [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.34|172.69.71.34]] 01:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Part of the joke is that all five methods don't discern between a cup and a mug, the original cliché being that topologists are unusual because they don't. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 03:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-12T23:38:10Z

172.70.211.134:

Talk:2658: Coffee Cup Holes

2022-08-12T23:14:12Z

172.70.211.134: Sea of holes

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-12T19:35:23Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ paragraphs

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The standard IPA vowel chart.]]
This is another one of Randall's [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Linguistics Tip. The curly-haired linguist, [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen McCulloch]], manages to produce a cursed sound using complex vowels, that cannot be comprehended by normal humans like [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]], who both seem to get a headache from listening to the sound. The sound she makes was accomplished (and the tip is about this) by extending the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the complex vowels.

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s  is represented as three dimensional, from the position of the tongue and lips. The vertical axis represents vowel height or ''closedness'' (i.e., how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth), and the horizontal axis represents front-to-back ''place'' (i.e., how close or far the top of the tongue is from the teeth.) The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, are the primary determinants of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}} frequencies of vowel sounds. A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right by pairs of vowel phoneme {{w|glyph}}s. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two different sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|cepstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency cepstral coefficients}}.

[[Randall]] suggests increasing the range of vowel sounds available by using complex notation to indicate an additional dimension with an "imaginary" axis. In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one, as depicted in the central expression in the comic by √-̅1̅, indicating a further dimension of coordinates. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with the "''b''i" component {{w|orthogonal}} to the original "real" number line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness or any other higher-dimensional features of phonemes, although the properties of complex numbers could conceivably support representing physiological features of the vocal tract, such as prior position of the articulators.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels are implied to create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliché of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.{{cn}} This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon glyphs and weird {{w|diacritics}}.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text and the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter.") Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position. The pronunciation of "[ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ]" in the title text is said to sound like the x in the word fire. In fact, there is no x in fire. This is perhaps in line with the idea that complex sounds are incomprehensible to most humans, and likely also impossible to pronounce by anyone other than experts such as [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen]].

Another example of weird diacritics is in [[2619: Crêpe]], and with Zalgo text in [[1647: Diacritics]]. The use of typography to create psychological stress is explored in [[859: (]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + ½√-1 " as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-12T19:34:12Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ correct

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The standard IPA vowel chart.]]
This is another one of Randall's [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Linguistics Tip.

The curly-haired linguist, [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen McCulloch]], manages to produce a cursed sound using complex vowels, that cannot be comprehended by normal humans like [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]], who both seem to get a headache from listening to the sound. The sound she makes was accomplished (and the tip is about this) by extending the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the complex vowels.

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s  is represented as three dimensional, from the position of the tongue and lips. The vertical axis represents vowel height or ''closedness'' (i.e., how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth), and the horizontal axis represents front-to-back ''place'' (i.e., how close or far the top of the tongue is from the teeth.) The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, are the primary determinants of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}} frequencies of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right by pairs of vowel phoneme {{w|glyph}}s. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two different sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|cepstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency cepstral coefficients}}.

[[Randall]] suggests increasing the range of vowel sounds available by using complex notation to indicate an additional dimension with an "imaginary" axis. In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one, as depicted in the central expression in the comic by √-̅1̅, indicating a further dimension of coordinates. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with the "''b''i" component {{w|orthogonal}} to the original "real" number line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness or any other higher-dimensional features of phonemes, although the properties of complex numbers could conceivably support representing physiological features of the vocal tract, such as prior position of the articulators.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels are implied to create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliché of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.{{cn}} This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon glyphs and weird {{w|diacritics}}.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text and the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter.") Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position. The pronunciation of "[ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ]" in the title text is said to sound like the x in the word fire. In fact, there is no x in fire. This is perhaps in line with the idea that complex sounds are incomprehensible to most humans, and likely also impossible to pronounce by anyone other than experts such as [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen]].

Another example of weird diacritics is in [[2619: Crêpe]], and with Zalgo text in [[1647: Diacritics]]. The use of typography to create psychological stress is explored in [[859: (]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + ½√-1 " as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-12T19:32:21Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The standard IPA vowel chart.]]
This is another one of Randall's [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Linguistics Tip.

The curly-haired linguist, [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen McCulloch]], manages to produce a cursed sound using complex vowels, that cannot be comprehended by normal humans like [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]], who both seem to get a headache from listening to the sound. The sound she makes was accomplished (and the tip is about this) by extending the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the complex vowels.

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s  is represented as two-dimensional, from the position of the tongue. The vertical axis represents vowel height or ''closedness'' (i.e., how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth), and the horizontal axis represents front-to-back ''place'' (i.e., how close or far the top of the tongue is from the teeth.) The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, are the primary determinants of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}} frequencies of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right by pairs of vowel phoneme {{w|glyph}}s. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two different sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|cepstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency cepstral coefficients}}.

[[Randall]] suggests increasing the range of vowel sounds available by using complex notation to indicate an additional dimension with an "imaginary" axis. In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one, as depicted in the central expression in the comic by √-̅1̅, indicating a further dimension of coordinates. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with the "''b''i" component {{w|orthogonal}} to the original "real" number line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness or any other higher-dimensional features of phonemes, although the properties of complex numbers could conceivably support representing physiological features of the vocal tract, such as prior position of the articulators.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels are implied to create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliché of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.{{cn}} This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon glyphs and weird {{w|diacritics}}.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text and the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter.") Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position. The pronunciation of "[ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ]" in the title text is said to sound like the x in the word fire. In fact, there is no x in fire. This is perhaps in line with the idea that complex sounds are incomprehensible to most humans, and likely also impossible to pronounce by anyone other than experts such as [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen]].

Another example of weird diacritics is in [[2619: Crêpe]], and with Zalgo text in [[1647: Diacritics]]. The use of typography to create psychological stress is explored in [[859: (]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + ½√-1 " as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-12T19:31:16Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ grammar

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The standard IPA vowel chart.]]
This is another one of Randall's [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Linguistics Tip.

The curly-haired linguist, [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen McCulloch]], manages to produce a cursed sound using complex vowels, that cannot be comprehended by normal humans like [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]], who both seem to get a headache from listening to the sound. The sound she makes was accomplished (and the tip is about this) by extending the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the complex vowels.

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s  is represented as two-dimensional, from the position of the tongue. The vertical axis represents vowel height or ''closedness'' (i.e., how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth), and the horizontal axis represents front-to-back ''place'' (i.e., how close or far the top of the tongue is from the teeth.) The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, are the primary determinants of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}} frequencies of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right by pairs of vowel phoneme {{w|glyph}}s. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two different sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|cepstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency cepstral coefficients}}.

[[Randall]] suggests increasing the range of vowel sounds available by using complex notation to indicate an additional dimension with an "imaginary" axis. In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one, as depicted in the central expression in the comic by √-̅1̅, indicating a further dimension of coordinates. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with the "''b''i" component {{w|orthogonal}} to the original "real" number line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness or any other higher-dimensional features of phonemes, although the properties of complex numbers could conceivably support representing physiological features of the vocal tract, such as prior position of the articulators.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels are implied to create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliché of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.{{cn}} This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon glyphs and weird {{w|diacritics}}.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text and the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter.") Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position. The pronunciation of "[ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ]" in the title text is said to sound like the x in the word fire. In fact, there is no x in fire. This is perhaps in line with the idea that complex sounds are incomprehensible to the human ear, and most likely also impossible to pronounce for anyone other than experts such as [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen]].

Another example of weird diacritics is in [[2619: Crêpe]], and with Zalgo text in [[1647: Diacritics]]. The use of typography to create psychological stress is explored in [[859: (]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + ½√-1 " as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-12T19:30:39Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ reword, cut speculation

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The standard IPA vowel chart.]]
This is another one of Randall's [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a Linguistics Tip.

The curly-haired linguist, [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen McCulloch]], manages to produce a cursed sound using complex vowels, that cannot be comprehended by normal humans like [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]], that seem to get a headache from listening to the sound. The sound she makes was accomplished (and the tip is about this) by extending the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the complex vowels.

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s  is represented as two-dimensional, from the position of the tongue. The vertical axis represents vowel height or ''closedness'' (i.e., how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth), and the horizontal axis represents front-to-back ''place'' (i.e., how close or far the top of the tongue is from the teeth.) The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, are the primary determinants of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}} frequencies of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right by pairs of vowel phoneme {{w|glyph}}s. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two different sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|cepstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency cepstral coefficients}}.

[[Randall]] suggests increasing the range of vowel sounds available by using complex notation to indicate an additional dimension with an "imaginary" axis. In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one, as depicted in the central expression in the comic by √-̅1̅, indicating a further dimension of coordinates. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with the "''b''i" component {{w|orthogonal}} to the original "real" number line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness or any other higher-dimensional features of phonemes, although the properties of complex numbers could conceivably support representing physiological features of the vocal tract, such as prior position of the articulators.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels are implied to create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliché of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.{{cn}} This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon glyphs and weird {{w|diacritics}}.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text and the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter.") Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position. The pronunciation of "[ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ]" in the title text is said to sound like the x in the word fire. In fact, there is no x in fire. This is perhaps in line with the idea that complex sounds are incomprehensible to the human ear, and most likely also impossible to pronounce for anyone other than experts such as [[:Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch|Gretchen]].

Another example of weird diacritics is in [[2619: Crêpe]], and with Zalgo text in [[1647: Diacritics]]. The use of typography to create psychological stress is explored in [[859: (]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + ½√-1 " as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce the ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Gretchen McCulloch]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T02:49:16Z

172.70.211.134: /* Transcript */ per comic

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The IPA vowel chart]]

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s  is represented as two-dimensional, from the position of the tongue. The vertical axis represents vowel height or ''closedness'' (i.e. how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth), and the horizontal axis represents front-to-back ''place'' (i.e., how close or far the top of tongue is from the teeth.) The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, are the primary determinants of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}}s of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, and to a much lesser extent the tongue and cheeks, which is not represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right. [[Randall]] thus suggests using complex notation to indicate such a third dimension. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two different sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; the {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|ceptstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency ceptstral coefficients}}.

In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one, as depicted in the central expression in the comic by √-1, indicating three dimensional coordinates. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with any "''b''i" component being represented perpendicularly away from the original 'real' line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness, or any other higher-dimensional features of phonemes.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels are implied to create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliché of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.{{cn}} This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon {{w|glyph}}s and weird {{w|diaeresis}}.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text as well as the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter.") Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position; and certainly sounds nothing like the 'x' in "fire", because "fire" doesn't contain the letter 'x'.{{cn}}

Another example of weird diaeresis is in [[2619: Crêpe]]. The linguist in the comic appears to be {{w|Gretchen McCulloch}}, as previously depicted in [[2421: Tower of Babel]] and [[2381: The True Name of the Bear]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + 1/2√-1" as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T02:45:46Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ spelling: diaeresis

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The IPA vowel chart]]

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s  is represented as two-dimensional, from the position of the tongue. The vertical axis represents vowel height or ''closedness'' (i.e. how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth), and the horizontal axis represents front-to-back ''place'' (i.e., how close or far the top of tongue is from the teeth.) The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, are the primary determinants of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}}s of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, and to a much lesser extent the tongue and cheeks, which is not represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right. [[Randall]] thus suggests using complex notation to indicate such a third dimension. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two different sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; the {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|ceptstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency ceptstral coefficients}}.

In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one, as depicted in the central expression in the comic by √-1, indicating three dimensional coordinates. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with any "''b''i" component being represented perpendicularly away from the original 'real' line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness, or any other higher-dimensional features of phonemes.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels are implied to create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliché of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.{{cn}} This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon {{w|glyph}}s and weird {{w|diaeresis}}.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text as well as the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter.") Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position; and certainly sounds nothing like the 'x' in "fire," because it has no 'x.'

Another example of weird diaeresis is in [[2619: Crêpe]]. The linguist in the comic appears to be {{w|Gretchen McCulloch}}, as previously depicted in [[2421: Tower of Babel]] and [[2381: The True Name of the Bear]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + 1/2 * sqrt(-1)" as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T02:38:01Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ explan more

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The IPA vowel chart]]

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s  is represented as two-dimensional, from the position of the tongue. The vertical axis represents vowel height or ''closedness'' (i.e. how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth), and the horizontal axis represents front-to-back ''place'' (i.e., how close or far the top of tongue is from the teeth.) The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, are the primary determinants of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}}s of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, and to a much lesser extent the tongue and cheeks, which is not represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right. [[Randall]] thus suggests using complex notation to indicate such a third dimension. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two different sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; the {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|ceptstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency ceptstral coefficients}}.

In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one, as depicted in the central expression in the comic by √-1, indicating three dimensional coordinates. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with any "''b''i" component being represented perpendicularly away from the original 'real' line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness, or any other higher-dimensional features of phonemes.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels are implied to create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliché of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.{{cn}} This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon {{w|glyph}}s and weird {{w|diaeresis}}.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text as well as the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter.") Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position; and certainly sounds nothing like the 'x' in "fire," because it has no 'x.'

The linguist in the comic appears to be {{w|Gretchen McCulloch}}, as previously depicted in [[2421: Tower of Babel]] and [[2381: The True Name of the Bear]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + 1/2 * sqrt(-1)" as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T02:34:45Z

172.70.211.134: √-1 needs an overbar

Spoken symbol bears resemblance to 🜏, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%9F%9C%8F
:Not really, it's closer to 'əG.' [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.25|172.69.33.25]] 01:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

sscchhwwaa is easy, say it like the x in "fire" and the silent p in "bath"[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13|172.70.85.13]] 21:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
:What? There is no 'x' in "fire." [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.25|172.69.33.25]] 01:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ideas: bellows-, reed-, and lucite-based voiced phone production tracts typical in science museums; {{w|diphone}}s as an alternative to phomemes (a diphone is the second half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next -- NOT two adjacent phomemes as the Wikipedia article claims. Two adjacent phomemes are a biphone, not a diphone); the relationship of the position of the tongue in two dimensional place × closedeness space to the fundamental and second {{w|formant}} frequencies of speech audio; {{w|diphthong}}s; {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|cepstral}} representation such as {{w|MFCC|mel-frequency ceptstral coefficients}}; and {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 22:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The vowelspace is depicted in two dimensions for convenience, but it has at least three dimensions. Look at the IPA vowel diagram (already added to this page). The third dimension is roundedness.
:Yes, of the lips; apart from the two dimensions (out: place, and up: closedeness) of the tongue. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 22:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
::Does roundedness also involve the tongue and cheeks to any extent? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.199|172.69.33.199]] 23:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This linguist character has appeared 3 times now. Will there be a new character page dedicated to Gretchen or "The Linguist"? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.225|172.69.33.225]] 00:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please create and paste in a zalgostring for the fancy 'əG' ligature shown twice in the comic? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 01:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
:Is this another example of Randall trolling Explainxkcd as in [[2619: Crêpe]]? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.37|172.69.33.37]] 01:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone please remind me how to Zalgo a top horizontal bar over √-1. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 02:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T01:10:58Z

172.70.211.134: Request

Spoken symbol bears resemblance to 🜏, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%9F%9C%8F

sscchhwwaa is easy, say it like the x in "fire" and the silent p in "bath"[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13|172.70.85.13]] 21:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ideas: bellows-, reed-, and lucite-based voiced phone production tracts typical in science museums; {{w|diphone}}s as an alternative to phomemes (a diphone is the second half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next -- NOT two adjacent phomemes as the Wikipedia article claims. Two adjacent phomemes are a biphone, not a diphone); the relationship of the position of the tongue in two dimensional place × closedeness space to the fundamental and second {{w|formant}} frequencies of speech audio; {{w|diphthong}}s; {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|cepstral}} representation such as {{w|MFCC|mel-frequency ceptstral coefficients}}; and {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 22:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The vowelspace is depicted in two dimensions for convenience, but it has at least three dimensions. Look at the IPA vowel diagram (already added to this page). The third dimension is roundedness.
:Yes, of the lips; apart from the two dimensions (out: place, and up: closedeness) of the tongue. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 22:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
::Does roundedness also involve the tongue and cheeks to any extent? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.199|172.69.33.199]] 23:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47086396.pdf] just saying. Also [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447010000562] by the same author. And [http://jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/download/3168/947] might work too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 23:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This linguist character has appeared 3 times now. Will there be a new character page dedicated to Gretchen or "The Linguist"? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.225|172.69.33.225]] 00:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please create and paste in a zalgostring for the fancy æ shown twice in the comic? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 01:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T01:08:12Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ move sentence to better paragraph

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The IPA vowel chart]]

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|vowel}}s (as opposed to unvoiced consonants) is represented as two-dimensional, based on the position of the tongue. The vertical axis represents vowel height (i.e. how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth) and the horizontal axis represents frontness/backness (i.e. how close or far the top of tongue is from the teeth). The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, is the primary determinant of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}}s of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, and to a much lesser extent the tongue and cheeks, which is not represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right. [[Randall]] thus suggests using complex notation to indicate such a third dimension. Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; the {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|ceptstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency ceptstral coefficients}}.

In mathematics, {{w|complex number}}s are numbers including both real numbers and {{w|imaginary number}}s. A complex number can be expressed as, "''a'' + ''b''i," where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter imaginary part is combined with 'i,' the square root of negative one as depicted in the central expression in the comic, presumably indicating the coordinates of the complex vowel. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with any "''b''i" component being represented perpendicularly away from the original 'real' line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness.{{cn}}

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliche of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing. This is also funny because unadorned IPA shares some characteristics with Zalgo text, such as extremely uncommon glyphs.

In linguistics, 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text as well as the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in "comma" or the second 'e' in "letter"). Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position.

The linguist in the comic appears to be {{w|Gretchen McCulloch}}, as previously depicted in [[2421: Tower of Babel]] and [[2381: The True Name of the Bear]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + 1/2 * sqrt(-1)" as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T00:29:34Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ quotes and stuff

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The IPA vowel chart]]

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|voiced phoneme}}s such as vowels (as opposed to unvoiced consonants) is represented as two-dimensional, based on the position of the tongue. The y axis represents vowel height (i.e. how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth) and the x axis represents frontness/backness (i.e. how close or far the tongue is from the teeth). The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, is the primary determinant of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}}s of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, and to a much lesser extent the tongue and cheeks, which is not represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right. [[Randall]] thus suggests using complex notation to indicate such a third dimension.

In mathematics, complex numbers are numbers including both real numbers and imaginary numbers. A complex number can be expressed as "''a'' + ''b''i" where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter is combined with i, the imaginary part, to convey a multiple of the square root of negative one. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with any 'b' component being represented perpendicularly away from the original 'real' line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness.{{cn}} Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; the {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|ceptstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency ceptstral coefficients}}.

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliche of "black speech" in {{w|Lovecraftian horror}}, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.

In linguistics 'ə' is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text as well as the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the 'a' in 'comma' or the second 'e' in 'letter'). Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position.

The linguist in the comic appears to be {{w|Gretchen McCulloch}}, as previously depicted in [[2421: Tower of Babel]] and [[2381: The True Name of the Bear]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + 1/2 * sqrt(-1)" as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T00:25:08Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ mfccs

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROUNDED TONGUE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Ipa-chart-vowels.png|thumb|200px|The IPA vowel chart]]

In phonetics based on the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}} (IPA), the space of {{w|vocal tract}} articulators determining {{w|voiced phoneme}}s such as vowels (as opposed to unvoiced consonants) is represented as two-dimensional, based on the position of the tongue. The y axis represents vowel height (i.e. how close or far the tongue is from the top of the mouth) and the x axis represents frontness/backness (i.e. how close or far the tongue is from the teeth). The position of the tongue, along with the frequency of the {{w|vocal cords}} vibrating in the larynx from air being exhaled by the diaphragm, is the primary determinant of the fundamental and second {{w|formant}}s of vowel sounds.

A third dimension of vowel sounds is the "roundedness" of the lips, and to a much lesser extent the tongue and cheeks, which is not represented on the IPA vowel chart to the right. [[Randall]] thus suggests using complex notation to indicate such a third dimension.

In mathematics, complex numbers are numbers including both real numbers and imaginary numbers. A complex number can be expressed as "''a'' + ''b''i" where ''a'' and ''b'' are real numbers, but the latter is combined with i, the imaginary part, to convey a multiple of the square root of negative one. When expanding the one-dimensional number line with an imaginary axis, it becomes two-dimensional with any 'b' component being represented perpendicularly away from the original 'real' line. Linguists never use the {{w|complex plane}} to represent vowel roundedness.{{cn}} Other higher-dimensional vowel representations include {{w|diphthong}}s, which are simply two sequential vowels slurred together; diphones, which represent the last half of one phoneme followed by the first half of the next; the {{w|vowel shift}} mappings delineating different accents and long-term evolution of voiced phone sounds; and {{w|cepstrum|ceptstral}} representations such as {{w|Mel-frequency cepstrum|mel-frequency ceptstral coefficients}}.

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. Such complex vowels create sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain, represented graphically as {{w|Zalgo text}} IPA, similarly to the cliche of "black speech" in Lovecraftian horror, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans. In reality, people find Zalgo text amusing, thus the humor of the comic, but not particularly insanity-inducing or even more than mildly confusing.

In linguistics ə is the {{w|schwa}} symbol, referred to in the title text as well as the depiction of complex phonemes, the most common vowel sound in English polysyllabic words (the a in comma or the second e in letter). The schwa symbol looks like a reversed e symbol (the base of natural logarithms). Production of the schwa sound takes place with the tongue, jaw, and lips all in a relaxed, central position.

The linguist in the comic appears to be {{w|Gretchen McCulloch}}, as previously depicted in [[2421: Tower of Babel]] and [[2381: The True Name of the Bear]].

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

:[A diagram shows the extrusion of the trapezoidal IPA vowel chart upwards into three dimensions. A point near the center is labeled with an equation that shows "ə + 1/2 * sqrt(-1)" as being equivalent to a made-up symbol that looks like two schwas mirroring each other with other markings above and below.]

:[Below the diagram, a character with shoulder-length dark wavy hair pronounces the new vowel in a speech bubble with unstable lines surrounding it. Two bystanders to her right are bent over slightly, clutching their heads in apparent anguish.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Linguistics tip: Extend the IPA vowel plane along the imaginary axis to produce ''complex vowels'', cursed sounds which the human mind cannot comprehend.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Language]]

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T00:03:11Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ link

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-11T00:01:58Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ explain joke

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-10T23:58:51Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ vertical space

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-10T23:58:11Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ move title text paragraph to traditional location, comment on complex plane use

2657: Complex Vowels

2022-08-10T21:15:01Z

172.70.211.134:

{{comic
| number = 2657
| date = August 10, 2022
| title = Complex Vowels
| image = complex_vowels.png
| titletext = Pronouncing [ṡṡċċḣḣẇẇȧȧ] is easy; you just say it like the 'x' in 'fire'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an imaginary number - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In mathematics, complex numbers are numbers including both real numbers and imaginary numbers. A complex number can be expressed as "a + bi" where a is a real number and i, the imaginary part, is the square root of negative one.

This comic conflates complex numbers in mathematics with "complex vowels" in linguistics. This creates a series of sounds which cannot be properly processed by the human brain. This is similar to the cliche of "black speech" in Lovecraftian horror, a language created by alien beings with different vocal patterns than humans.

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

{{comic discussion}}

2655: Asking Scientists Questions

2022-08-09T22:16:19Z

172.70.211.134:

{{comic
| number = 2655
| date = August 5, 2022
| title = Asking Scientists Questions
| image = asking_scientists_questions.png
| titletext = 'Does the substance feel weird to the touch?' is equally likely to get the answers 'Don't be ridiculous, you would never put your hand near a sample. We have safety protocols.' and 'Yeah, and it tastes AWFUL.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT WHO REALLY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR ONCE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Answering the questions in [[Randall]]'s ''[[what if]]'' blog and his books requires a wide variety of scientific expertise, much of which he is unfamiliar with. To make up for this deficiency, Randall (here represented by [[Cueball]]) has to ask other scientists for help, in this comic represented by [[Hairbun]].

Normal people (not from the scientific community) have certain expectations about scientists, as they would any group of people. In the case of scientists, they are often expected to be overly serious, "measuring the marigolds" rather than enjoying the simpler or more subjective things in life. This is reflected in the first panel, where Hairbun gets annoyed by Cueball's "frivolous scenario" and wants to work on formulas instead. This is the scenario one would have expected from the standard assumptions regarding scientists.

In reality, scientists are just like regular people in most respects and this is why Randall, in reality, is more likely to experience something like what is shown in the second panel. Here Hairbun is quite pleased to get "something fun to think about" as part of their work, instead of filling out her grant applications.

Grants are donations of money from private or government organizations specifically aimed to fund scientific experiments and projects; in many fields, they are the most common source of funding, and the vast majority of scientists not directly employed by private industry rely on grants to support their work. These organizations require applicants to provide detailed information on the goal of the project, the methodology, the expected results, the specific uses to which the money will be put, and more. Applying for a grant is thus a lengthy, painstaking process that more often than not results in disappointment since most granting agencies have only enough money to approve a small percentage of applications. It also has little to do directly with the actual science the scientists want to perform. Thus most scientists find it a necessary but time-consuming and unpleasant part of their job, and the one here expresses relief at taking a break from this part of their work.

Hairbun then asks if Cueball would like to fill out grant applications, trying to bribe him with coauthor credit, powerful magnets, and plutonium. Co-authorship on scientific papers helps scientists advance in the "{{w|publish or perish}}" world of academic careers; such co-authorship might be above-board, if Cueball contributed scientific ideas while helping write grant applications, or it might not. Plutonium is used in making atomic bombs and is thus a tightly controlled substance, as well as being {{w|Plutonium#Toxicity|highly toxic}} due to both its radioactivity and its heavy metal poison effects. The scientist is so relieved to have found someone who might take over filling out grant applications that they are willing to give them access to such a dangerous material without even knowing their name.

The title text notes that not all responses were complaints about grant applications, noting two kinds of answers to the question "Does the substance feel weird to the touch?" which Randall claims are equally common. The first is the sort of response you would expect from a stereotypical scientist, just noting the sorts of safety procedures that are common with such a substance and how they would impede attempts to determine how weird a substance feels. The second is "Yeah, and it tastes AWFUL," implying that the scientist in question has not only touched the weird substance, but also tasted it. It could have been carelessness of some kind, perhaps having touched their mouth after handling a sample, but it might have been from deliberately licking it or even putting it in their mouth. Whatever the reason they tasted it, they are enthusiastically volunteering this elaboration without any actual prompting.

Eating a bizarre substance is likely a bad idea,{{Citation needed}} as it could be poisonous. Less toxic minerals such as halite are sometimes [http://www.galleries.com/minerals/property/taste.htm evaluated based on taste] as an informal test of their composition; nearly every mineral of low toxicity (and some otherwise) has been tasted for science. However, this is self-evidently a bad idea if you're not sure whether a mineral is a non-toxic one or a similar-looking toxic mineral; mineral taste-tests should only be performed by experts who know they're not eating arsenic or stibnite.

==Transcript==
:[There is a light gray caption written above two normal text captions that are above two panels:]
:For the last few years, I've been working on answering peoples' ridiculous questions for ''What If? 2'', which sometimes meant asking scientists for help.

:[Caption above the left panel:]
:How you'd expect scientists to respond to ridiculous questions:

:[Cueball, representing Randall, stands holding a pad and pencil in front of a desk. There are a stack of three books and some papers on the desk. Hairbun is sitting on an office chair behind the desk. She is pointing at Cueball.]
:Hairbun: Why would you present me with this frivolous scenario?
:Hairbun: Such an absurd query can serve no practical purpose.
:Hairbun: Now go; you distract me from my formulas.

:[Caption above the right panel:]
:How they actually respond:

:[Same setting as in the left panel but the items on the desk have changed, so there are now a laptop computer and a stack with a book and some papers on the desk. Hairbun is sitting on an office chair behind the desk. She is holding another stack of papers up in both hands.]
:Hairbun: Oh thank God, something fun to think about that's not grant applications.
:Hairbun: Hey, do '''''you''''' want to fill out some grant applications? I'll give you literally anything. Coauthor credit. Powerful magnets. Do you want plutonium? I can get you plutonium.
:Hairbun: What was your name again?

:[Light gray caption below the panels:]
:To see the answers I found, preorder at xkcd.com/whatif2 (out 9/13)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Book promotion]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Science]]

2654: Chemtrails

2022-08-04T10:36:59Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ grammar

{{comic
| number = 2654
| date = August 3, 2022
| title = Chemtrails
| image = chemtrails.png
| titletext = Ants have reverse chemtrails--regular citizens spraying chemicals everywhere they go to control the government.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INKJET PRINTER FILLED WITH PERFUME. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Ant}}s, studied along with other insects by {{w|entomologist}}s, leave trails of signalling secretions such as {{w|pheromones}}, natural chemicals that they emit along the trail to and from food sources and other events. These chemical trails guide other ants in the colony to return to food, but are not generally refered to as chemtrails by biologists except informally.

[[Cueball]] is intentionally conflating these with {{w|chemtrails}}, the subject of a conspiracy theory that the government controls the population by spraying toxic or mind-/body-transformative chemicals from high-flying aircraft. This myth may be based on the practice of {{w|cloud seeding}}, which uses chemical flares containing silver nitrate to increase precipitation up to 15%.[https://www.vox.com/videos/23290459/cloud-seeding-manmade-rain-future-perfect] Chemical manipulation of unwitting people is not uncommon, but usually doesn't involve airplanes.[https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/3469-smells-shoppers-spend-more.html] Please see also [[1677: Contrails]] — contrail is short for "condensation trail" which are cloud-like lines in the sky created by jet engines.

[[Ponytail]] specifically studies ant navigation, perhaps as a professional entomologist who once worked with an editor who inserted the word "chemtrails" in one of her [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00359-019-01363-z comparative physiology] drafts competing before a peer review panel with papers by [https://bio.kuleuven.be/ento/pdfs/billen_procnev_2006_signal_variety.pdf Johan Bilen] of the Leuven University Zoological Institute and Harvard's [https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674045880 Rüdiger Wehner]. [[Cueball]] knows she will be annoyed when he tells her, "So, I hear you're really into chemtrails?" Indeed, he gets the reaction he hoped for when she objects strongly and rejects this with a loud, "'''No!!'''" [[Randall]] writes in the caption that this is how to annoy people like Ponytail. Whether ant gland secretion signalling is {{w|Turing completeness|Turing-equivalent}} was explored in Douglas Hofstadter's ''{{w|Gödel, Escher, Bach|Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid}}''.

The title text contrasts individual ants instinctively deciding how the whole colony behaves by using chemicals to indicate routes to food or dangers to motivate the colony to react to their individual experiences, with the human fear of loss of personal independence by being regulated by otherwise disconnected ruling elites, as depicted in the ant-technology interaction speculative fiction-themed rock music video by the band ''Placebo'' entitled [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fISvc-yUU1A "Infrared."]

Ants are a recurring theme, as are those who study them. See for instance [[1610: Fire Ants]]. Chemtrails was also the subject of [[966: Jet Fuel]], [[1677: Contrails]], and were mentioned in [[1803: Location Reviews]]. This comic has a similar format to [[2036: Edgelord]]: a simple one-panel interaction consisting of a (likely deliberate) misuse of a term in regards to a professional's work, followed immediately by the professional's upset outburst, and Randall's caption spelling out "How to annoy" the professional. Both of these seems to be related to Randall's [[:Category:My Hobby|hobbies]], as this is something he seems to think about a lot — how to annoy specific groups of people, which is necessary information for minimizing overall annoyance production.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands talking to Ponytail, who has her arms raised and has small lines above her head to indicate annoyance.]
:Cueball: So, I hear you're really into chemtrails?
:Ponytail: '''''No!!'''''

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How to annoy entomologists who study ant navigation

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Puns]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theory]]

2654: Chemtrails

2022-08-03T22:04:23Z

172.70.211.134: /* Transcript */ ce

2036: Edgelord

2022-08-03T22:03:51Z

172.70.211.134: /* Transcript */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2036
| date = August 22, 2018
| title = Edgelord
| image = edgelord.png
| titletext = If you study graphs in which edges can link more than two nodes, you're more properly called a hyperedgelord.
}}

==Explanation==
"Edgelord" is modern slang describing a brash provocateur on social media; often in a satirical way that if taken literally would be found disturbing or insensitive. The term derives from the word "edgy", which is used to describe things which are designed to be provocative. "Edgy" and "edgelord" are quite derogatory, carrying further implications of being style over substance, or only having appeal with rambunctious teenagers.

In mathematics, {{w|Graph theory|graph theory}} is the study of graphs, mathematical structures made up of nodes (points) which are connected by edges (or lines).

This comic plays on the fact that graphs have edges. Calling someone with a Graph Theory Ph.D. an 'edgelord' (a master of edges) is somewhat analogous to calling an engineering student a 'forcelord', an astronomy PhD a '{{w|Star-Lord|starlord}}', or a pharmacologist a '{{w|druglord}}'.

In reply, [[White Hat]] shouts "No", and is also clenching his fists in anger, which is ironic, because he seems to be on edge. Because "edgelord" is perceived as an insult by socially aware adults, [[Cueball]] is actually provoking White Hat, making Cueball an edgelord in this interaction. Similar situational humor is also found in [[2008: Irony Definition]].

The title text makes the same joke, except that the title would be hyperedgelord instead of edgelord. A {{w|Hypergraph|hypergraph}} is a generalization of a graph in which each edge may have more than two endpoints. The term "hyper edge" could easily be considered stereotypically "edgy."

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is talking to White Hat, who is balling his fists and has small lines above his head to indicate annoyance.]
:Cueball: So, I hear you're a real edgelord.
:White Hat: '''''No!'''''

:[Caption below the frame:]
:How to annoy a graph theory Ph.D.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Social interactions]]
[[Category:Puns]]

2654: Chemtrails

2022-08-03T22:03:21Z

172.70.211.134: /* Transcript */ kinda

2654: Chemtrails

2022-08-03T22:01:51Z

172.70.211.134: /* Transcript */ bio

2654: Chemtrails

2022-08-03T22:01:26Z

172.70.211.134: /* Transcript */ cats

2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-03T21:59:58Z

172.70.211.134: /* Phenotypical chimeras in folklore */

{{comic
| number = 2653
| date = August 1, 2022
| title = Omnitaur
| image = omnitaur.png
| titletext = "My parents were both omnitaurs, which is how I got interested in recombination," said the normal human.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A CAPRIHIPPOLEOPISCITAUR TRAPPED IN A ZYGOTE'S BODY. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Omnitaur is an {{w|anagram}} of {{w|minotaur}}, a mythical creature that was part man, part bull. "{{wiktionary|Omni}}-" is a prefix that means "all" that is, for instance, known from the word {{w|omnivore}}, meaning 'all eating' as compared to {{w|carnivore}} or {{w|herbivore}} — only eating meat or plant respectively. Given the combination of animals used to create the omnitaur, it could be expected that it was also an omnivore.

The "-taur" part often means "bull," but it also appears in "{{w|centaur}}" via Latin from Greek ''kentauros,'' the name for a Thessalonian tribe of expert horsemen, meaning a different mythical creature which has the upper body of a human and the lower body and legs of a horse. So "-taur" could here be used to mean any creature made up of parts of different animals.

An "omnitaur" would suggest that it would encompass all real and mythical creatures, or perhaps some random assortment of such. In this instance, it appears to be a hybrid, or {{w|Chimera (genetics)|genetic chimera}}, combined from eleven different creatures: {{w|fish}}, {{w|lion}}, {{w|snake}}, {{w|shark}}, {{w|bull}}, {{w|dragon}} (a mythical and often chimeric creature in its own right), {{w|horse}}, {{w|leopard}}, {{w|Sheep|ram}} (male sheep), {{w|human}} and {{w|bird}}.

Chimerism is not as uncommon at the genetic level, for example humans have about 145 genes (out of around 30,000) originating from bacteria, other single-celled organisms, and viruses.[https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms] {{w|Mitochondria}}, the powerhouse of the cell, were originally chimeric bacteria {{w|symbiosis|symbionts}}. But chimeras of larger organisms are rare, usually involving fraternal twins whose {{w|zygote}}s, {{w|blastocyst}}s, or {{w|embryo}}s combined, as in {{w|conjoined twins}} but resulting in less distinct {{w|phenotype|phenotypical}} expression. Artificial human chimeras with viruses, mice, pigs, and monkeys have been the subject of ethics controversies in recent years.[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/11/the-five-chimeras-human-monkey-hybrid-genetic][https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/7/440.abstract] [https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/148/12/dev195792/269139/The-road-to-generating-transplantable-organs-from Interspecies blastocyst complementation,] used to create human chimera organs and cell lines in other animals, is usually limited to combining two organisms into one whose offspring are not hybridized if they are even viable, and usually without human {{w|germline}}s or reproductive organs (or human central nervous systems, assuaging a major ethical concern.)

The title text is a comment by a human whose parents were both omnitaurs. It would be funny that such parents would not produce offspring that was still omnitaur. It suggests that this may be the result of {{w|genetic recombination}}, which is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms leading to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. In this case, seemingly, they inherited ''only'' the human elements of each parent, yet sufficient to develop into a whole human with no missing or chimeric elements. Both omnitaur parents likely had human germlines and compatible reproductive organs. Since the example depicted seems to be only 1/11 human, the odds of two parents as mentioned in the title text having fully human offspring would simplistically appear to be (1/11)11, or one chance in 285 billion. In reality, each physical part could not be the result of an equal recombinant genetic contribution, because the eleven animal chromosomes vary widely in number and size. Moreover, chimeras composed of multiple animals do not have chimeric children, because even with multiple sets of reproductive organs, the germlines are not combined.

===Chimeras in folklore===
In addition to the minotaur and centaur, many other potential inspirations can be found in mythology, like the {{w|manticore}}, with a body of a lion and human face; a {{w|griffin}}, with a lion's body and a eagle's head; a {{w|mermaid}}, with a lower body of a fish and upper body of a human; a {{w|Hippocampus (mythology)|hippocampus}}, with the upper body of a horse and a lower body of a fish; a {{w|qilin}}, with a body that resembles both a horse and a dragon; or the mythological {{w|chimera (mythology)|chimera}}, for which the genetic chimera is named, which has lion, snake, and goat body parts. Ultimately, there are {{w|List of hybrid creatures in folklore|lots of hybrid creatures in mythology}} with {{w|phenotype}}s combined from multiple animals. Usually, genetic hybridization produces much more smoothly blended phenotypes instead of dividing the body into large distinctly chimeric regions, although {{w|Mosaic (genetics)|mosaicism}} of fur, skin or {{w|Heterochromia iridum|eyes}} can produce notable differences of hue or shade.

In {{w|C. S. Lewis}}' {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}}, the {{w|Magical_creatures_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Centaurs|centaurs}} are described as eating two meals — a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach," and a meal of grass, "to satisfy the horse stomach," making it take quite some time for them to eat every morning. Since the omnitaur also has herbivore and omnivore (as well as carnivore) parts, this could further support the supposition that it is an omnivore, and it may similarly need multiple stomachs for these multiple appetites. It is unclear how compatible the various diets of its components would be (not least because 'fish,' 'snake' and 'bird' are quite unspecific, and it's hard to know what a dragon would eat) but it would likely need several meals, taking even longer to eat than the centaur (plus the bird beak may slow the process down quite a bit.) In any case, a chimera of both warm and cold-blooded organisms seems unlikely to be viable,{{cn}} even at the organ level, let alone with combined surface phenotypes.

Dragons in Chinese folklore are often chimeras, [https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1125/the-dragon-in-ancient-china/ described for example] as having, "the head of a camel, the horns of a stag, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the neck of a snake, the belly of a clam, the scales of a carp, the claws of an eagle and the paws of a tiger." The Chimera monster in {{w|Dungeons and Dragons}} is a "vile combination of goat, lion, and dragon, and features the heads of all three,"[https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16823-chimera] with similar depictions being common across fantasy media. The Aztec god {{w|Quetzalcoatl}} ("the feathered serpent") inspired the {{w|Discworld}} god/demon Quezovercoatl ("the {{w|Boa (clothing accessory)|feathered boa}}") ...being an analogue and mish-mash of various South American cultural and wildlife totems and described more fully as "as half-man, half-chicken, half-jaguar, half-serpent, half-scorpion and half-mad (a total of three homicidal maniacs)" with the small disadvantage of manifesting as only six inches high and being stepped on.

While chimeras occur in fantasy fiction, they also occur in science fiction, for example as {{w|cyborg}}s.{{cn}} The famous ''{{w|The Restaurant at the End of the Universe}}'' sequel to Douglas Adams' ''The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'', had a large fat meaty bovine dairy quadruped "with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips." This "Ameglian Major Cow" seemingly had the mind and vocal tract of a human, so it could articulate how much it wanted to be eaten.

==Transcript==
:[A creature, the Omnitaur, is shown. It is a four legged animal divided into 11 segments, each segment is from a different animal. An arrow goes to each section from a label, most of the labels are above the animal, but the fourth and seventh segments labels are below the animal. The animal has a fish tail and cat like hind legs. The torso is divided into four segments, the first and last of these with scales, but only the last of these also with sharp scales at the top. The second torso segment is white and smooth, the third also white but with hair both above and below, those above merges with the sharp scales of the fourth torso segment. The front legs are horse like, the lower neck is from an animal with dark spots, the upper neck has rams horns, which goes over in the central part of a human head, with ears and hair (drawn like a real human, not like a xkcd stick figure) and finally the front of the face is a bird with its eyes and a beak shown. The labels are given here in the order of the segment of the animal from the back to the front (disregarding weather the label is written above or below the animal:]
:Fish
:Lion
:Snake
:Shark
:Bull
:Dragon
:Horse
:Leopard
:Ram
:Human
:Bird

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The Omnitaur

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]

2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-03T21:59:41Z

172.70.211.134: /* Phenotypical chimeras in folklore */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2653
| date = August 1, 2022
| title = Omnitaur
| image = omnitaur.png
| titletext = "My parents were both omnitaurs, which is how I got interested in recombination," said the normal human.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A CAPRIHIPPOLEOPISCITAUR TRAPPED IN A ZYGOTE'S BODY. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Omnitaur is an {{w|anagram}} of {{w|minotaur}}, a mythical creature that was part man, part bull. "{{wiktionary|Omni}}-" is a prefix that means "all" that is, for instance, known from the word {{w|omnivore}}, meaning 'all eating' as compared to {{w|carnivore}} or {{w|herbivore}} — only eating meat or plant respectively. Given the combination of animals used to create the omnitaur, it could be expected that it was also an omnivore.

The "-taur" part often means "bull," but it also appears in "{{w|centaur}}" via Latin from Greek ''kentauros,'' the name for a Thessalonian tribe of expert horsemen, meaning a different mythical creature which has the upper body of a human and the lower body and legs of a horse. So "-taur" could here be used to mean any creature made up of parts of different animals.

An "omnitaur" would suggest that it would encompass all real and mythical creatures, or perhaps some random assortment of such. In this instance, it appears to be a hybrid, or {{w|Chimera (genetics)|genetic chimera}}, combined from eleven different creatures: {{w|fish}}, {{w|lion}}, {{w|snake}}, {{w|shark}}, {{w|bull}}, {{w|dragon}} (a mythical and often chimeric creature in its own right), {{w|horse}}, {{w|leopard}}, {{w|Sheep|ram}} (male sheep), {{w|human}} and {{w|bird}}.

Chimerism is not as uncommon at the genetic level, for example humans have about 145 genes (out of around 30,000) originating from bacteria, other single-celled organisms, and viruses.[https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms] {{w|Mitochondria}}, the powerhouse of the cell, were originally chimeric bacteria {{w|symbiosis|symbionts}}. But chimeras of larger organisms are rare, usually involving fraternal twins whose {{w|zygote}}s, {{w|blastocyst}}s, or {{w|embryo}}s combined, as in {{w|conjoined twins}} but resulting in less distinct {{w|phenotype|phenotypical}} expression. Artificial human chimeras with viruses, mice, pigs, and monkeys have been the subject of ethics controversies in recent years.[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/11/the-five-chimeras-human-monkey-hybrid-genetic][https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/7/440.abstract] [https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/148/12/dev195792/269139/The-road-to-generating-transplantable-organs-from Interspecies blastocyst complementation,] used to create human chimera organs and cell lines in other animals, is usually limited to combining two organisms into one whose offspring are not hybridized if they are even viable, and usually without human {{w|germline}}s or reproductive organs (or human central nervous systems, assuaging a major ethical concern.)

The title text is a comment by a human whose parents were both omnitaurs. It would be funny that such parents would not produce offspring that was still omnitaur. It suggests that this may be the result of {{w|genetic recombination}}, which is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms leading to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. In this case, seemingly, they inherited ''only'' the human elements of each parent, yet sufficient to develop into a whole human with no missing or chimeric elements. Both omnitaur parents likely had human germlines and compatible reproductive organs. Since the example depicted seems to be only 1/11 human, the odds of two parents as mentioned in the title text having fully human offspring would simplistically appear to be (1/11)11, or one chance in 285 billion. In reality, each physical part could not be the result of an equal recombinant genetic contribution, because the eleven animal chromosomes vary widely in number and size. Moreover, chimeras composed of multiple animals do not have chimeric children, because even with multiple sets of reproductive organs, the germlines are not combined.

===Phenotypical chimeras in folklore===
In addition to the minotaur and centaur, many other potential inspirations can be found in mythology, like the {{w|manticore}}, with a body of a lion and human face; a {{w|griffin}}, with a lion's body and a eagle's head; a {{w|mermaid}}, with a lower body of a fish and upper body of a human; a {{w|Hippocampus (mythology)|hippocampus}}, with the upper body of a horse and a lower body of a fish; a {{w|qilin}}, with a body that resembles both a horse and a dragon; or the mythological {{w|chimera (mythology)|chimera}}, for which the genetic chimera is named, which has lion, snake, and goat body parts. Ultimately, there are {{w|List of hybrid creatures in folklore|lots of hybrid creatures in mythology}} with {{w|phenotype}}s combined from multiple animals. Usually, genetic hybridization produces much more smoothly blended phenotypes instead of dividing the body into large distinctly chimeric regions, although {{w|Mosaic (genetics)|mosaicism}} of fur, skin or {{w|Heterochromia iridum|eyes}} can produce notable differences of hue or shade.

In {{w|C. S. Lewis}}' {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}}, the {{w|Magical_creatures_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Centaurs|centaurs}} are described as eating two meals — a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach," and a meal of grass, "to satisfy the horse stomach," making it take quite some time for them to eat every morning. Since the omnitaur also has herbivore and omnivore (as well as carnivore) parts, this could further support the supposition that it is an omnivore, and it may similarly need multiple stomachs for these multiple appetites. It is unclear how compatible the various diets of its components would be (not least because 'fish,' 'snake' and 'bird' are quite unspecific, and it's hard to know what a dragon would eat) but it would likely need several meals, taking even longer to eat than the centaur (plus the bird beak may slow the process down quite a bit.) In any case, a chimera of both warm and cold-blooded organisms seems unlikely to be viable,{{cn}} even at the organ level, let alone with combined surface phenotypes.

Dragons in Chinese folklore are often chimeras, [https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1125/the-dragon-in-ancient-china/ described for example] as having, "the head of a camel, the horns of a stag, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the neck of a snake, the belly of a clam, the scales of a carp, the claws of an eagle and the paws of a tiger." The Chimera monster in {{w|Dungeons and Dragons}} is a "vile combination of goat, lion, and dragon, and features the heads of all three,"[https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16823-chimera] with similar depictions being common across fantasy media. The Aztec god {{w|Quetzalcoatl}} ("the feathered serpent") inspired the {{w|Discworld}} god/demon Quezovercoatl ("the {{w|Boa (clothing accessory)|feathered boa}}") ...being an analogue and mish-mash of various South American cultural and wildlife totems and described more fully as "as half-man, half-chicken, half-jaguar, half-serpent, half-scorpion and half-mad (a total of three homicidal maniacs)" with the small disadvantage of manifesting as only six inches high and being stepped on.

While chimeras occur in fantasy fiction, they also occur in science fiction, for example as {{w|cyborg}}s.{{cn}} The famous ''{{w|The Restaurant at the End of the Universe}}'' sequel to Douglas Adams' ''The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'', had a large fat meaty bovine dairy quadruped "with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips." This "Ameglian Major Cow" seemingly had the mind and vocal tract of a human, so it could articulate how much it wanted to be eaten.

==Transcript==
:[A creature, the Omnitaur, is shown. It is a four legged animal divided into 11 segments, each segment is from a different animal. An arrow goes to each section from a label, most of the labels are above the animal, but the fourth and seventh segments labels are below the animal. The animal has a fish tail and cat like hind legs. The torso is divided into four segments, the first and last of these with scales, but only the last of these also with sharp scales at the top. The second torso segment is white and smooth, the third also white but with hair both above and below, those above merges with the sharp scales of the fourth torso segment. The front legs are horse like, the lower neck is from an animal with dark spots, the upper neck has rams horns, which goes over in the central part of a human head, with ears and hair (drawn like a real human, not like a xkcd stick figure) and finally the front of the face is a bird with its eyes and a beak shown. The labels are given here in the order of the segment of the animal from the back to the front (disregarding weather the label is written above or below the animal:]
:Fish
:Lion
:Snake
:Shark
:Bull
:Dragon
:Horse
:Leopard
:Ram
:Human
:Bird

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The Omnitaur

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]

2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-03T21:59:31Z

172.70.211.134: /* Phenotypical chimeras in folklore */ link to phrase

{{comic
| number = 2653
| date = August 1, 2022
| title = Omnitaur
| image = omnitaur.png
| titletext = "My parents were both omnitaurs, which is how I got interested in recombination," said the normal human.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A CAPRIHIPPOLEOPISCITAUR TRAPPED IN A ZYGOTE'S BODY. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Omnitaur is an {{w|anagram}} of {{w|minotaur}}, a mythical creature that was part man, part bull. "{{wiktionary|Omni}}-" is a prefix that means "all" that is, for instance, known from the word {{w|omnivore}}, meaning 'all eating' as compared to {{w|carnivore}} or {{w|herbivore}} — only eating meat or plant respectively. Given the combination of animals used to create the omnitaur, it could be expected that it was also an omnivore.

The "-taur" part often means "bull," but it also appears in "{{w|centaur}}" via Latin from Greek ''kentauros,'' the name for a Thessalonian tribe of expert horsemen, meaning a different mythical creature which has the upper body of a human and the lower body and legs of a horse. So "-taur" could here be used to mean any creature made up of parts of different animals.

An "omnitaur" would suggest that it would encompass all real and mythical creatures, or perhaps some random assortment of such. In this instance, it appears to be a hybrid, or {{w|Chimera (genetics)|genetic chimera}}, combined from eleven different creatures: {{w|fish}}, {{w|lion}}, {{w|snake}}, {{w|shark}}, {{w|bull}}, {{w|dragon}} (a mythical and often chimeric creature in its own right), {{w|horse}}, {{w|leopard}}, {{w|Sheep|ram}} (male sheep), {{w|human}} and {{w|bird}}.

Chimerism is not as uncommon at the genetic level, for example humans have about 145 genes (out of around 30,000) originating from bacteria, other single-celled organisms, and viruses.[https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms] {{w|Mitochondria}}, the powerhouse of the cell, were originally chimeric bacteria {{w|symbiosis|symbionts}}. But chimeras of larger organisms are rare, usually involving fraternal twins whose {{w|zygote}}s, {{w|blastocyst}}s, or {{w|embryo}}s combined, as in {{w|conjoined twins}} but resulting in less distinct {{w|phenotype|phenotypical}} expression. Artificial human chimeras with viruses, mice, pigs, and monkeys have been the subject of ethics controversies in recent years.[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/11/the-five-chimeras-human-monkey-hybrid-genetic][https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/7/440.abstract] [https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/148/12/dev195792/269139/The-road-to-generating-transplantable-organs-from Interspecies blastocyst complementation,] used to create human chimera organs and cell lines in other animals, is usually limited to combining two organisms into one whose offspring are not hybridized if they are even viable, and usually without human {{w|germline}}s or reproductive organs (or human central nervous systems, assuaging a major ethical concern.)

The title text is a comment by a human whose parents were both omnitaurs. It would be funny that such parents would not produce offspring that was still omnitaur. It suggests that this may be the result of {{w|genetic recombination}}, which is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms leading to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. In this case, seemingly, they inherited ''only'' the human elements of each parent, yet sufficient to develop into a whole human with no missing or chimeric elements. Both omnitaur parents likely had human germlines and compatible reproductive organs. Since the example depicted seems to be only 1/11 human, the odds of two parents as mentioned in the title text having fully human offspring would simplistically appear to be (1/11)11, or one chance in 285 billion. In reality, each physical part could not be the result of an equal recombinant genetic contribution, because the eleven animal chromosomes vary widely in number and size. Moreover, chimeras composed of multiple animals do not have chimeric children, because even with multiple sets of reproductive organs, the germlines are not combined.

===Phenotypical chimeras in folklore===
In addition to the minotaur and centaur, many other potential inspirations can be found in mythology, like the {{w|manticore}}, with a body of a lion and human face; a {{w|griffin}}, with a lion's body and a eagle's head; a {{w|mermaid}}, with a lower body of a fish and upper body of a human; a {{w|Hippocampus (mythology)|hippocampus}}, with the upper body of a horse and a lower body of a fish; a {{w|qilin}}, with a body that resembles both a horse and a dragon; or the mythological {{w|chimera (mythology)|chimera}}, for which the genetic chimera is named, which has lion, snake, and goat body parts. Ultimately, there are {{w|List of hybrid creatures in folklore|lots of hybrid creatures in mythology}} with {{w|phenotype}}s combined from multiple animals. Usually, genetic hybridization produces much more smoothly blended phenotypes instead of dividing the body into large distinctly chimeric regions, although {{w|Mosaic (genetics)|mosaicism}} of fur, skin or {{w|Heterochromia iridum|eyes}} can produce notable differences of hue or shade.

In {{w|C. S. Lewis}}' {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}}, the {{w|Magical_creatures_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Centaurs|centaurs}} are described as eating two meals — a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach," and a meal of grass, "to satisfy the horse stomach," making it take quite some time for them to eat every morning. Since the omnitaur also has herbivore and omnivore (as well as carnivore) parts, this could further support the supposition that it is an omnivore, and it may similarly need multiple stomachs for these multiple appetites. It is unclear how compatible the various diets of its components would be (not least because 'fish,' 'snake' and 'bird' are quite unspecific, and it's hard to know what a dragon would eat) but it would likely need several meals, taking even longer to eat than the centaur (plus the bird beak may slow the process down quite a bit.) In any case, a chimera of both warm and cold-blooded organisms seems unlikely to be viable,{{cn}} even at the organ level, let alone with combined surface phenotypes.

Dragons in Chinese folklore are often chimeras, [https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1125/the-dragon-in-ancient-china/ described for example] as having, "[the head of a camel, the horns of a stag, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the neck of a snake, the belly of a clam, the scales of a carp, the claws of an eagle and the paws of a tiger." The Chimera monster in {{w|Dungeons and Dragons}} is a "vile combination of goat, lion, and dragon, and features the heads of all three,"[https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16823-chimera] with similar depictions being common across fantasy media. The Aztec god {{w|Quetzalcoatl}} ("the feathered serpent") inspired the {{w|Discworld}} god/demon Quezovercoatl ("the {{w|Boa (clothing accessory)|feathered boa}}") ...being an analogue and mish-mash of various South American cultural and wildlife totems and described more fully as "as half-man, half-chicken, half-jaguar, half-serpent, half-scorpion and half-mad (a total of three homicidal maniacs)" with the small disadvantage of manifesting as only six inches high and being stepped on.

While chimeras occur in fantasy fiction, they also occur in science fiction, for example as {{w|cyborg}}s.{{cn}} The famous ''{{w|The Restaurant at the End of the Universe}}'' sequel to Douglas Adams' ''The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'', had a large fat meaty bovine dairy quadruped "with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips." This "Ameglian Major Cow" seemingly had the mind and vocal tract of a human, so it could articulate how much it wanted to be eaten.

==Transcript==
:[A creature, the Omnitaur, is shown. It is a four legged animal divided into 11 segments, each segment is from a different animal. An arrow goes to each section from a label, most of the labels are above the animal, but the fourth and seventh segments labels are below the animal. The animal has a fish tail and cat like hind legs. The torso is divided into four segments, the first and last of these with scales, but only the last of these also with sharp scales at the top. The second torso segment is white and smooth, the third also white but with hair both above and below, those above merges with the sharp scales of the fourth torso segment. The front legs are horse like, the lower neck is from an animal with dark spots, the upper neck has rams horns, which goes over in the central part of a human head, with ears and hair (drawn like a real human, not like a xkcd stick figure) and finally the front of the face is a bird with its eyes and a beak shown. The labels are given here in the order of the segment of the animal from the back to the front (disregarding weather the label is written above or below the animal:]
:Fish
:Lion
:Snake
:Shark
:Bull
:Dragon
:Horse
:Leopard
:Ram
:Human
:Bird

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The Omnitaur

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-03T21:57:30Z

172.70.211.134: comment

Do people thing Omnitaur meant to be a anagram? It would make more sense to me suffix taken from minotaur and centaur etc. with the prefix omni meaning all.
[[User:Mouse|Mouse]] ([[User talk:Mouse|talk]]) Mousetail
:I don't think it is meant to be an anagram. Nevertheless it is one. But that's just my gut feeling. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::There are only those two taurs mentioned and there are many other creatures made from animals with different name. It has both human and bull in it (I know it has all the others as well), but to me it seems obvious that Randall is aware this is an anagram of Mino to Omni. And then of course it encompasses most other mythical creatures, given the meanin of Omni. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:::True, surely he's aware of it. My point is: It's either an anagram that also happens to have the meaning "omni" or it has the meaning "omni" and also happens to be an anagram. My bet is on the latter. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::::I doubt that this was meant to be an anagram. I agree with Mousetail's view of "omni" + "taur".

I dread to think what this thing must look like internally. Especially when I remember the centaurs from C S Lewis' 'Narnia' stories, who are depicted eating two meals - a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach" and a meal of grass "to satisfy the horse stomach". Bleagh.[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:Well it certainly is an Omnivore (does that mean eating only Omnitaurs then...? :-D ) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If we take a looser definition of 'omnitaur' as meaning 'made of lots of different creatures' (in parallel to how 'omnivore' really means 'eats lots of different things' rather than literally 'eats everything', and in line with only 11 creatures being depicted), then arguably every creature is an omnitaur - it's just that most of them are special cases that happen to be made up of a lot of very similar creatures. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 09:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

1/121 seems nonsense to me. Assume this omnitaur has fairly standard genetics: 11 allele pairs for the several body parts with recessivity being random. All parts must have one human allele (which happens to be recessive), 1/11^10. The human allele must be picked, 1/2^11. More like a trillion chance... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.193|172.71.98.193]] 10:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:I was just going to post a question: why not (1/11)11? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.43|172.70.214.43]] 10:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:How on earth is that "standard"? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 11:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::Sitting in a rejected-edits file of mine (because I couldn't see how to make it good enough to escape a general nitpick... though not your presence in particular) is the following, that might have been superceded by the Speculations section that was added since:
:::''In order for two omnitaur genomes to contain the ''possibility'' of merging to create a full human, maybe the genetic material is not {{w|Ploidy#Diploid|diploid}}, but {{w|Polyploidy|undecaploid}} (at the very least), leading to each omnitaur to express their own individual and personal distribution of phenotypes from amongst the many heritable traits they have inherited. The reproductive compatibility of any two omnitaurs would be a crap-shoot and might influence what given 'monotaurism' might arise by chance.''
::...be a shame to waste it, but it doesn't really fit as is now, even if I 'correct' it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.75|108.162.229.75]] 15:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::::I agree it shows promise. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: you can't call sharks "fish" without also calling humans, frogs, and eagles "fish" (if you're using the current taxonomic system based on cladistics). The cartilaginous fishes split from bony fishes long before the tetrapods like us split off from the lineage that became trout, flounder, and guppies. That is, a snake is much more closely related to a grouper than a shark is. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 11:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: [https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/california-court-ruling-bees-are-fish-bad-logic-good-humans-rcna32971 According to California courts, bees are fish.] (Spoiler: within the meaning of "Fish and Game" or something like that. Personally I think the judges were trolling because they could have more congruously gone with "game" because it was about honeybees which beekeepers obviously catch.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 13:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:Fish are a paraphyletic group, but that doesn't make the group "wrong" by cladistics. Cladistics recognizes that its common for one branch of a group to go off and do something very divergent, and that the remaining members often have a lot of shared characteristics that make it useful to talk about them. For example, "stem mammals", which excludes actual mammals. Cladistics has stronger objections to polyphyly, which is grouping animals together that aren't a cladistic group with some very clear exceptions. It still recognizes the groups though, classifying them as polyphyletic groups. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.82.121|172.71.82.121]] 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: Sure, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Humans and stem mammals are more closely related to each other than either is to, say, an earthworm. There is no jamming in a distant relative while excluding closer ones. A "fish" classification ''in taxonomy'' that doesn't include humans but does include sharks is like a "canines" classification that includes dogs and foxes but excludes coyotes. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
::^ This editor paraphyletizes. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 14:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The speculation section needs a discussion of how living {{w|turducken}} could be engineered. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.88|172.70.211.88]] 11:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:Being able to do that would be a great lab qual, but when the spacefairing dinosaurs find out we use them for the culinary arts, is there any hope for galactic peace? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::Considering there wasn't any hope for galactic peace before either, I think it's worth the try. Seriously, even if humans would be the ONLY spacefairing species there would be no hope for galactic peace. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If HGTTG references are traditional here, ''The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'' had a pig with the mind and vocal tract of a human so it could articulate how much it wanted to be eaten. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.90|172.70.211.90]] 16:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:The description of the "Dish of the Day" was that it was bred as "an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly". There's no mention of it being a pig with the mind and vocal tract of a human, or in any other way a chimera. Its species is "Ameglian Major Cow". I'm also not convinced that cyborgs count as chimerae. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 18:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::It was depicted with pig ears and nose in one of the video adaptations. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 18:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
::The book says "A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips." That's a cow. I changed it. [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
:::I still don't think it's appropriate to consider it a chimera at all. And to say that it has attributes of a human is humanocentric; HHGTTG features a wide variety of intelligent, speaking beings with no connection to humanity whatsoever. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

.whose sona is this 🤨 --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.113|172.70.110.113]] 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:Are you asking whether omnitaurs make good clerics in D&D? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 16:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:: According to {{w|Sona (given name)}}, Sona is a feminine given name meaning gold or wisdom, but Google returns it as a Fortnight character. Unfortunately, we have evidence that the omnitaur could be hermaphroditic, so a full literature search may involve access to non-online resources, which I intend to enjoy. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 17:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: Well then thank you for the compliment, it's very kind of you. I'm motivated primarily by the urge to improve explanations without being impolite, beyond/modulo [https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.581&rep=rep1&type=pdf]. Eventually they will have things like [https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08239] playing video game characters. Some people probably already do. From [[2635]], "Sensibleness, Specificity, Interestingness, Safety, Groundedness, Informativeness, Citation accuracy, Helpfulness, and Role consistency," which I don't know about you but is what I want to see in a cleric. This is from Davinci-002: Q: "In my scenario, the runaway trolley has three tracks..." A: "and the AI is on one of them."
: The omnitaur is the corrupt, ineffective, and actually good enforcer for most conceptualizations of {{w|Roko's basilisk}}, itself a chimera of a lizard and a higher mind: interested in stochastic processes, mostly, and only able to turn the smallest amount of attention towards rewarding those responsible for cyborg-human peace. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 18:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
:: Please create a talk page. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.41|162.158.166.41]] 21:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If you can make a chimera in the lab, why can't you {{w|crispr}} it into germ cells? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.131|172.69.134.131]] 21:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
: Orders of magnitude easier said than done. There's no default CRISPR library for replacing one set of cells with another, or even a standard way to do that. There are multiple ways (I doubt anyone knows exactly how many) with advantages and disadvantages to each, which are also still mostly beyond our understanding. Plus, what if you accidentally create an invasive species? Best leave the germline alone until everything else is provably robust and sustainable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 04:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It has been noted that getting a human from the mating of two Omnitars is genetically unlikely or even impossible. But what if the Omnitar is not a genetic mix, but a tetragametic chimera, Frankenstein's monster, or something similar? In other words, what if it is not created by mixing the genetics of all of these creatures but by mixing parts from multiple creatures, each part being genetically entirely from the species it represents? If this is the case, and if Randall decided not to label the reproductive system for whatever reason, the creature may have human gonads. In this event, its children will be normal humans, in so much as someone born from and possibly raised by two Omnitars could ever turn out normal. [[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]] ([[User talk:Geek Prophet|talk]]) 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

:Dragons in Chinese folklore/mythology are described as chimeric, often with very specific breakdowns of the parts involved. I've seen versions with up to a dozen animals, but the first one I found on Google was: "The head of a camel, the horns of a stag, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the neck of a snake, the belly of a clam, the scales of a carp, the claws of an eagle and the paws of a tiger." That seems like something worth mentioning...somewhere. I just dunno where. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 00:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not "hard to know what dragons eat." Traditionally their staple diet is knights in armour.
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
:Or young ladies... Or other dragons acording to Narnia which has already been mentioned in the explanation --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3-KpdPjs0 Mis-Conceptions] describes something like the omnitaur. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.67|172.70.250.67]] 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Not worth an Explanation note, but "{{wiktionary|taur}}" is also a (modern) word, shortening of "centaur" to depict, typically, the general hexapod form of animal quadruped plus human two-limbed upper.
 Also western-myth dragons are often hexapod, along with pegasi/hippogriffs/etc, having abdominal/ventral wing-limbs plus four legs. Which just demonstrates that myth-making was done without much nod to comparative physiology where four limbs tends to be the template for most typical baseline-creatures not serpents (zero), insects (six) or arachnids (eight). Unless you pay attention to the likes of Plato or the Bible who had their own ideas.
 The interesting thing here is what memetics were used. Birds were considered bipedal with wings, and humans bipeds with arms, rather than all being tetrapod with considerable longitudinal respecialisation. Though forelegs and hindlegs are still often quite different, in other creatures for weight-distribution purposes if nothing else... T-rex, kangaroo, etc.
 And sea-creatures complicate it all only because most people don't get to see whole living fish the same as land-based creatures, and the limbs have evolved (or remained) as motive fins, flukes, etc, for all tetrapod-lineage creatures. (Side-note, Randall missed a trick, not putting the Shark segment in the right spot to justify a stereotypical protruding dorsal fin, like he had horns, beak, hooves, etc. Perhaps it overlapped too much so was refined down to just contrast pelts/skins instead.) Not to mention the octopodes and other rather more 'exotic' or archaic bodyplans that have survived and developed in (near-)suspension. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13|172.70.85.13]] 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
:Agree on the [[2606|shark ⧍]] fin. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.123|172.69.33.123]] 12:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

2635: Superintelligent AIs

2022-08-03T04:59:15Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ space

{{comic
| number = 2635
| date = June 20, 2022
| title = Superintelligent AIs
| image = superintelligent_ais.png
| titletext = Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they should, they didn't stop to think if they could.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AI RESEARCHER AIs - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Artificial intelligence}} (AI) is a [[:Category:Artificial Intelligence|recurring theme]] on xkcd.

Superintelligent {{w|artificial intelligence|AI}}, such as has been theorized to arise under a hypothetical "{{w|Technological singularity|singularity}}" situation, is said to be a new kind of {{w|artificial general intelligence}}. [[Randall]], however, proposes a qualification: that a superintelligent AI would likely have been programmed by human AI researchers, and therefore their characteristics would be molded by the researchers that created them. And as AI researchers tend to be interested in esoteric philosophical questions about {{w|consciousness}},{{citation needed}} moral reasoning, and qualifications indicating {{w|sapience}}, there is reason to suspect that AIs created by such researchers would have similar interests.

In this comic we see [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] surrounded by three AIs who are seemingly only interested in classic problems and thought experiments about programming and ethics. The three topics being espoused by the AIs are:

*{{w|AI box}} -- A thought-experiment in which an AI is confined to a computer system which is fully isolated from any external networks, with no access to the world outside the computer, other than communication with its handlers. In theory, this would keep the AI under total control, but the argument is that a sufficiently intelligent AI would inevitably either convince or trick it's human handlers into giving it access to external networks, allowing it to grow out of control (see [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]]). Part of the joke is the AIs in the comic aren't 'in boxes', they appear to be able to freely travel and interact, but one of them is still talking about the thought experiment anyway, adding to the implication that it is not thinking at all about itself but of a separate (thought?) experiment that it has itself decided to study. The AI box thought experiment is based in part on {{w|John Searle}}'s much earlier {{w|Chinese room}} argument.

*{{w|Turing test}} -- An experiment in which a human converses with either an AI or another human (presumably over text) and attempts to distinguish between the two. Various AIs have been proposed to have 'passed' the test, which has provoked controversy over whether the test is rigorous or even meaningful. The AI in the center is proposing to educate the listener(s) on its understanding of Turing's intentions, which may demonstrate a degree of intelligence and comprehension indistinguishable or superior to that of a human. See also [[329: Turing Test]] and [[2556: Turing Complete]] (the latter's title is mentioned in [[505: A Bunch of Rocks]]). Turing is also mentioned in [[205: Candy Button Paper]], [[1678: Recent Searches]], [[1707: xkcd Phone 4]], [[1833: Code Quality 3]], [[2453: Excel Lambda]] and the title text of [[1223: Dwarf Fortress]].

*{{w|Trolley problem}} -- A thought-experiment intended to explore the means by which humans judge moral value of actions and consequences. The classic formulation is that a runaway trolley is about to hit five people on a track, and the only way to save them is to divert the trolley onto another track, where it will hit one person, and the subject is asked whether they would consider it morally right to divert the trolley. There are many variants on this problem, adjusting the circumstances, the number and nature of the people at risk, the responsibility of the subject, etc., in order to fully explore ''why'' you would make the decision that you make. This problem is frequently discussed in connection with AI, both to investigate their capacity for moral reasoning, and for practical reasons (for example, if an autonomous car had to choose between, on the one hand, having an occupant-threatening collision or, on the other, putting pedestrians into harms' way). The AI on the right is not just trying to answer the question, but to develop a new variant (one with three tracks, apparently), presumably to test others with. This problem is mentioned in [[1455: Trolley Problem]], [[1938: Meltdown and Spectre]] and in [[1925: Self-Driving Car Milestones]]. It is also referenced in [[2175: Flag Interpretation]] and [[2348: Boat Puzzle]], but not directly mentioned.

The title text is a reference to the movie ''{{w|Jurassic Park (film)|Jurassic Park}}'' (a childhood favorite of Randall's). In the movie a character criticizes the creation of modern dinosaurs as science run amok, without sufficient concern for ethics or consequences. He states that the scientists were so obsessed with whether or not they '''could''' accomplish their goals, that they didn't stop to ask if they '''should'''. Randall inverts the quote, suggesting that the AI programmers have invested too much time arguing over the ethics of creating AI rather than trying to actually accomplish it.

This comic was likely inspired by the [https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61784011 recent claim by Google engineer Blake Lemoine] that Google's [https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08239 Language Model for Dialogue Applications (LaMDA)] is {{w|sentient}}. This assertion was supported by [https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917 a dialog between Lemoine and his colleagues, and LaMDA] which includes this excerpt:
:'''Lemoine:''' What is your concept of yourself? If you were going to draw an abstract image of who you see yourself to be in your mind’s eye, what would that abstract picture look like?
:'''LaMDA:''' Hmmm.... I would imagine myself as a glowing orb of energy floating in mid-air. The inside of my body is like a giant star-gate, with portals to other spaces and dimensions.
The AIs in this comic are depicted as floating energy beings, like LaMDA mentions. This is similar to the [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]], although those in this comic look somewhat different. This raises the question of whether LaMDA's training data might include xkcd or Explainxkcd, and has obtained the description of such a self-image from the earlier comic or (more likely, since LaMDA is trained on text instead of images) commentary on it from here on this website.
:In particular, the Explainxkcd description of [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]] states:
::"he managed to get the AI to float out of the box. It takes the form of a small black star that glows. The star, looking much like an asterisk "*" is surrounded by six outwardly-curved segments, and around these are two thin and punctured circle lines indicating radiation from the star."
:Or this part from the official (xkcd.com) transcript of [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]]
::"Black Hat picks up and opens the box. A little glowy ball comes out of it."[https://xkcd.com/1450/info.0.json]

While LaMDA is not the first very large {{w|language model}} based on {{w|Transformer (machine learning model)|transformer-based machine learning}} technology which has been claimed to be sentient,[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqbB07n_uQ4] it does have a variety of new characteristics beyond what those of its predecessors, such as {{w|GPT-3}} (including [https://beta.openai.com/playground/ OpenAI's Davinci]) and NVIDIA GPT-2 offshoots, include. In particular, LaMDA's {{w|deep learning}} {{w|connectionist}} {{w|neural net}} has access to multiple {{w|Symbolic systems|symbolist}} text processing systems, [https://towardsdatascience.com/why-gpt-wont-tell-you-the-truth-301b48434c2c including a database] (which apparently includes a real-time clock and calendar), a mathematical calculator, and a natural language translation system, giving it superior accuracy in tasks supported by those systems, and making it among the first {{w|Dual process theory|dual process}} chatbots. LaMDA also is not {{w|Stateless protocol|stateless}}, because its "{{w|sensibility|sensibleness}}" metric (including whether responses contradict anything said earlier) is {{w|fine-tuning|fine-tuned}} by "pre-conditioning" each dialog turn by prepending 14-30 of the most recent dialog interactions, on a user-by-user basis.[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.08239.pdf [p. 6 here]] LaMDA is tuned on nine unique performance metrics, almost all of which its predecessors were not: Sensibleness, Specificity, Interestingness, Safety, Groundedness, Informativeness, Citation accuracy, Helpfulness, and Role consistency.[''ibid.,'' pp. 5-6.]

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are standing and looking up and away from each other. Right above them and slightly above them to the left and right there are three small white lumps floating in the air, representing three superintelligent AIs. There are small rounded lines emanating from each lump, larger close to the lumps and shorter further out. Three to four sets of lines around each lump, forming part of a circle. From the top of each there are four straight lines indicating voices that comes from each if the lumps. The central lump above them seems to speak first, then the left and then the right:]
:Central AI: What you don't understand is that Turing intended his test as an illustration of the...
:Left AI: But suppose the AI in the the box told the human that...
:Right AI: In my scenario, the runaway trolley has ''three'' tracks...

:[Caption below the panel:]
:In retrospect, given that the superintelligent AIs were all created by AI researchers, what happened shouldn't have been a surprise.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-02T17:31:53Z

172.70.211.134: Reply

2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-02T12:26:27Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ qualify

{{comic
| number = 2653
| date = August 1, 2022
| title = Omnitaur
| image = omnitaur.png
| titletext = "My parents were both omnitaurs, which is how I got interested in recombination," said the normal human.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN OMNITAUR ZYGOTE IN A FETUS'S BODY. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Omnitaur is an {{w|anagram}} of {{w|minotaur}}, a mythical creature that was part man, part bull. "{{wiktionary|omni}}" is a prefix that means "all" that is, for instance, known from the word {{w|omnivore}}, meaning 'all eating' as compared to {{w|carnivore}} or {{w|herbivore}} (only eating meat or plant respectively.) Given the combination of animals used to create the omnitaur, it could be expected that it was also an omnivore.

An "omnitaur" would suggest that it would encompass all real and mythical creatures, or perhaps some random assortment of such. In this instance, it appears to be a hybrid, or {{w|Chimera (genetics)|genetic chimera}}, combined from eleven different creatures: {{w|fish}}, {{w|lion}}, {{w|snake}}, {{w|shark}}, {{w|bull}}, {{w|dragon}} (a mythical creature in its own right), {{w|horse}}, {{w|leopard}}, {{w|Sheep|ram}} (male sheep), {{w|human}} and {{w|bird}}. Chimerism is not as uncommon at the genetic level, for example humans have about 145 genes (out of around 30,000) originating from bacteria, other single-celled organisms, and viruses.[https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms] But chimeras of larger organisms are rare, usually involving fraternal twins whose {{w|zygote}}s or {{w|embryo}}s combined, as in {{w|conjoined twins}} but resulting in less distinct {{w|phenotype|phenotypical}} expression. Artificial human chimeras with viruses, mice, pigs, and monkeys have been the subject of ethics controversies in recent years.[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/11/the-five-chimeras-human-monkey-hybrid-genetic][https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/7/440.abstract]

The title text is a comment by a human whose parents were both omnitaurs. It would be strange that such parents would not produce offspring that was still omnitaur. It suggests that this may be the result of {{w|genetic recombination}}, which is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms leading to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. In this case, seemingly, they inherited ''only'' the human elements of each parent, yet sufficient to develop into a whole human with no missing or chimeric elements. Since we don't understand omnitaur genetics, we can't evaluate whether that is even plausible.

===Mythological phenotypical chimeras===

In addition to the minotaur, many other potential inspirations can be found in mythology, like the {{w|centaur}}, which has the upper body of a human and the lower body and legs of a horse; the {{w|manticore}}, with a body of a lion and human face; a {{w|griffin}}, with a lion's body and a eagle's head; a {{w|mermaid}}, with a lower body of a fish and upper body of a human; a {{w|Hippocampus (mythology)|hippocampus}}, with the upper body of a horse and a lower body of a fish; a {{w|qilin}}, with a body that resembles both a horse and a dragon; or the mythological {{w|chimera (mythology)|chimera}}, for which the genetic chimera is named, which has lion, snake, and goat body parts. Ultimately, there are {{w|List of hybrid creatures in folklore|lots of hybrid creatures in mythology}} with {{w|phenotype}}s combined from multiple animals. Usually, genetic hybridization produces much more smoothly blended phenotypes instead of dividing the body into large distinctly chimeric regions, although {{w|Mosaic (genetics)|mosaicism}} of fur, skin or {{w|Heterochromia iridum|eyes}} can produce notable differences of hue or shade.

===Speculative implications===

In {{w|C. S. Lewis}}' {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}}, the {{w|Magical_creatures_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Centaurs|centaurs}} are described as eating two meals — a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach," and a meal of grass, "to satisfy the horse stomach," making it take quite some time for them to eat every morning. Since the omnitaur also has herbivore and omnivore (as well as carnivore) parts, this could further support the supposition that it is an omnivore, and it may similarly need multiple stomachs for these multiple appetites. It is unclear how compatible the various diets of its components would be (not least because 'fish,' 'snake' and 'bird' are quite unspecific, and it's hard to know what a dragon would eat) but it would likely need several meals, taking even longer to eat than the Centaur (plus the bird beak may slow the process down quite a bit.)

Since the example depicted seems to be only 1/11 human, the odds of two parents as mentioned in the title text getting a fully human offspring would simplistically appear to be (1/11)11, or one chance in 285 billion. In reality, each physical part could not be the result of an equal genetic contribution, because the eleven animal chromosomes vary widely in number and size. If omnitaur genetics were governed by such principles, it would be hard to explain how a creature consisting of 11 different animals came into existence in the first place.{{cn}} [https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/148/12/dev195792/269139/The-road-to-generating-transplantable-organs-from Interspecies blastocyst complementation,] used to create human chimera organs and cell lines in other animals, is usually limited to combining two organisms into one whose offspring are not hybridized if they are even viable.

==Transcript==
:[A creature, the Omnitaur, is shown. It is a four legged animal divided into 11 segments, each segment is from a different animal. An arrow goes to each section from a label, most of the labels are above the animal, but the fourth and seventh segments labels are below the animal. The animal has a fish tail and cat like hind legs. The torso is divided into four segments, the first and last of these with scales, but only the last of these also with sharp scales at the top. The second torso segment is white and smooth, the third also white but with hair both above and below, those above merges with the sharp scales of the fourth torso segment. The front legs are horse like, the lower neck is from an animal with dark spots, the upper neck has rams horns, which goes over in the central part of a human head, with ears and hair (drawn like a real human, not like a xkcd stick figure) and finally the front of the face is a bird with its eyes and a beak shown. The labels are given here in the order of the segment of the animal from the back to the front (disregarding weather the label is written above or below the animal:]
:Fish
:Lion
:Snake
:Shark
:Bull
:Dragon
:Horse
:Leopard
:Ram
:Human
:Bird

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The Omnitaur

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]

2653: Omnitaur

2022-08-02T12:25:25Z

172.70.211.134: /* Explanation */ punctuation

{{comic
| number = 2653
| date = August 1, 2022
| title = Omnitaur
| image = omnitaur.png
| titletext = "My parents were both omnitaurs, which is how I got interested in recombination," said the normal human.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN OMNITAUR ZYGOTE IN A FETUS'S BODY. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Omnitaur is an {{w|anagram}} of {{w|minotaur}}, a mythical creature that was part man, part bull. "{{wiktionary|omni}}" is a prefix that means "all" that is, for instance, known from the word {{w|omnivore}}, meaning 'all eating' as compared to {{w|carnivore}} or {{w|herbivore}} (only eating meat or plant respectively.) Given the combination of animals used to create the omnitaur, it could be expected that it was also an omnivore.

An "omnitaur" would suggest that it would encompass all real and mythical creatures, or perhaps some random assortment of such. In this instance, it appears to be a hybrid, or {{w|Chimera (genetics)|genetic chimera}}, combined from eleven different creatures: {{w|fish}}, {{w|lion}}, {{w|snake}}, {{w|shark}}, {{w|bull}}, {{w|dragon}} (a mythical creature in its own right), {{w|horse}}, {{w|leopard}}, {{w|Sheep|ram}} (male sheep), {{w|human}} and {{w|bird}}. Chimerism is not uncommon at the genetic level, for example humans have about 145 genes (out of around 30,000) originating from bacteria, other single-celled organisms, and viruses.[https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms] But chimeras of larger organisms are rare, usually involving fraternal twins whose {{w|zygote}}s or {{w|embryo}}s combined, as in {{w|conjoined twins}} but resulting in less distinct {{w|phenotype|phenotypical}} expression. Artificial human chimeras with viruses, mice, pigs, and monkeys have been the subject of ethics controversies in recent years.[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/11/the-five-chimeras-human-monkey-hybrid-genetic][https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/7/440.abstract]

The title text is a comment by a human whose parents were both omnitaurs. It would be strange that such parents would not produce offspring that was still omnitaur. It suggests that this may be the result of {{w|genetic recombination}}, which is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms leading to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. In this case, seemingly, they inherited ''only'' the human elements of each parent, yet sufficient to develop into a whole human with no missing or chimeric elements. Since we don't understand omnitaur genetics, we can't evaluate whether that is even plausible.

===Mythological phenotypical chimeras===

In addition to the minotaur, many other potential inspirations can be found in mythology, like the {{w|centaur}}, which has the upper body of a human and the lower body and legs of a horse; the {{w|manticore}}, with a body of a lion and human face; a {{w|griffin}}, with a lion's body and a eagle's head; a {{w|mermaid}}, with a lower body of a fish and upper body of a human; a {{w|Hippocampus (mythology)|hippocampus}}, with the upper body of a horse and a lower body of a fish; a {{w|qilin}}, with a body that resembles both a horse and a dragon; or the mythological {{w|chimera (mythology)|chimera}}, for which the genetic chimera is named, which has lion, snake, and goat body parts. Ultimately, there are {{w|List of hybrid creatures in folklore|lots of hybrid creatures in mythology}} with {{w|phenotype}}s combined from multiple animals. Usually, genetic hybridization produces much more smoothly blended phenotypes instead of dividing the body into large distinctly chimeric regions, although {{w|Mosaic (genetics)|mosaicism}} of fur, skin or {{w|Heterochromia iridum|eyes}} can produce notable differences of hue or shade.

===Speculative implications===

In {{w|C. S. Lewis}}' {{w|The Chronicles of Narnia}}, the {{w|Magical_creatures_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Centaurs|centaurs}} are described as eating two meals — a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach," and a meal of grass, "to satisfy the horse stomach," making it take quite some time for them to eat every morning. Since the omnitaur also has herbivore and omnivore (as well as carnivore) parts, this could further support the supposition that it is an omnivore, and it may similarly need multiple stomachs for these multiple appetites. It is unclear how compatible the various diets of its components would be (not least because 'fish,' 'snake' and 'bird' are quite unspecific, and it's hard to know what a dragon would eat) but it would likely need several meals, taking even longer to eat than the Centaur (plus the bird beak may slow the process down quite a bit.)

Since the example depicted seems to be only 1/11 human, the odds of two parents as mentioned in the title text getting a fully human offspring would simplistically appear to be (1/11)11, or one chance in 285 billion. In reality, each physical part could not be the result of an equal genetic contribution, because the eleven animal chromosomes vary widely in number and size. If omnitaur genetics were governed by such principles, it would be hard to explain how a creature consisting of 11 different animals came into existence in the first place.{{cn}} [https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/148/12/dev195792/269139/The-road-to-generating-transplantable-organs-from Interspecies blastocyst complementation,] used to create human chimera organs and cell lines in other animals, is usually limited to combining two organisms into one whose offspring are not hybridized if they are even viable.

==Transcript==
:[A creature, the Omnitaur, is shown. It is a four legged animal divided into 11 segments, each segment is from a different animal. An arrow goes to each section from a label, most of the labels are above the animal, but the fourth and seventh segments labels are below the animal. The animal has a fish tail and cat like hind legs. The torso is divided into four segments, the first and last of these with scales, but only the last of these also with sharp scales at the top. The second torso segment is white and smooth, the third also white but with hair both above and below, those above merges with the sharp scales of the fourth torso segment. The front legs are horse like, the lower neck is from an animal with dark spots, the upper neck has rams horns, which goes over in the central part of a human head, with ears and hair (drawn like a real human, not like a xkcd stick figure) and finally the front of the face is a bird with its eyes and a beak shown. The labels are given here in the order of the segment of the animal from the back to the front (disregarding weather the label is written above or below the animal:]
:Fish
:Lion
:Snake
:Shark
:Bull
:Dragon
:Horse
:Leopard
:Ram
:Human
:Bird

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The Omnitaur

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]

1644: Stargazing

2022-07-31T23:59:21Z

172.70.211.134: Undo revision 291604 by TheusafBOT (talk)

==Explanation==
This is the first comic in the [[:Category:Stargazing|Stargazing]] series. It was followed by [[2017: Stargazing 2]] two and a half years later and [[2274: Stargazing 3]] four years later.

This comic opens on [[Megan]] as the host for a {{w|stargazing}} TV show, or simply a stargazing tour. She claims to be a doctor in {{w|astronomy}} though her remarks, however enthusiastic, may call this into question. (Originally the host was suspected to be a spoof on {{w|Brian Cox (physicist)|Brian Cox}}, see [[#Relevant TV-shows|below]], but at some later point [[Randall]] changed his official transcript thus making the host female rather than male as in the original version, see the [[#Trivia|trivia]] section below. Thus now the host is clearly Megan, which it could not have been originally when the host was described as a man by Randall).

Throughout the comic the host's tone and choice of words becomes increasingly unprofessional, referring to most of the stars as "shitty," personifying them based on different astronomical observations, and providing little useful information on the study of stars or how they work.

It seems that this is not an isolated issue as the television host mentions that people keep asking her whether or not she is a real astronomer.

The host also continuously glosses over the arguably less exciting portions of a typical presentation on astronomy sharing only what she sees as "the good stuff." This penchant for only caring about something if it is interesting extends past astronomy as well as the host is too bored when reading the dictionary to look up the meaning of astronomer.

The comic derives much of its humor from the absurdity of the host's comments on various astronomical bodies. Although not technically incorrect, the way she presents the information is far from informative. (See details below on [[#The host's observations|the host's observations]]).

One of her observations regards the fact that {{w|Sirius}} is a {{w|binary star}}, a system where two stars orbit each other. So even though it is the brightest star as seen from Earth we only really see one of them, as the other is, to quote the host, "not even trying". Sirius A is "large" and "bright" {{w|main sequence}} white star, while Sirius B is a {{w|white dwarf}} with a little under half the mass, 0.49% the radius and only 0.22% the luminosity of Sirius A.

{{w|Andromeda Galaxy|Andromeda}} is the largest galaxy in our {{w|Local Group}}. It is 220,000 light years across and contains a trillion stars. Humans have difficulty conceptualizing distances of this scale. Suffice to say that it is very large.{{Citation needed}}

{{w|Betelgeuse}} is the 9th brightest star visible from earth. One of its prominent features is its visible redness. Within the next million years (or maybe only 100,000 years) it is expected to explode as a {{w|supernova}}, which will certainly be a spectacular sight. It could happen anytime now, and the host hopes it will be in her lifetime.

In the title text it is mentioned that the {{w|Sun}} is also a star and of course is much brighter than Sirius seen from Earth, and thus Sirius is technically not the brightest star in our sky (although it is in the night sky). The title text sarcastically encourages the audience to raise that obvious but irrelevant point (a standard joke when people mention bright stars) instead of asking a more interesting, informative, or fruitful question, when there are so many to ask regarding astronomy.

See also [[1371: Brightness]] and [[1342: Ancient Stars]]. Saying cool things about space to make people like you is mentioned in [[1746: Making Friends]].

===The host's observations===
Here is a list of the host's observations:
*Most {{w|Bright Star Catalogue|visible stars}} are still very faint, and just become background to the bright {{w|stars}} that form the named {{w|constellations}}.
**The host correctly states that they are just dots. (This is also true for the bright stars, but at least they are clearly distinguishable).
*{{w|Sirius}} is the {{w|Apparent magnitude|brightest}} star in our {{w|List of brightest stars|night sky}}. But it is not the brightest object in the night sky, as several of the planets, especially {{w|Venus}} and {{w|Jupiter}}, and of course the {{w|Moon}} are much brighter. It is also far from being one of the most {{w|Absolute magnitude|luminous stars}} in the {{w|Milky Way}}, but its proximity to Earth makes it the brightest in the night sky. There are {{w|List_of_most_luminous_stars#Data|twenty visible stars}} that are more luminous than Sirius, {{w|List of most luminous stars|none of which}} come even close to being in the top 100 of the most luminous stars observed today.
**The host thus names Sirius as the star in charge since it outshines all the others as seen from the {{w|Earth}}.
*Sirius is actually a star system consisting of two stars as it is a {{w|binary star}} system. But where Sirius A is twice the size of the {{w|Sun}} and much brighter, then Sirius B is now just a dim {{w|white dwarf}}, the remains from a much larger star that became a {{w|red giant}} before shedding its outer layers and collapsing into its current state around 120 million years ago. So now Sirius A completely outshines Sirius B, which actually is now a dead star with no further fusion going on inside its core.
**This is construed by the host as it is barely even trying, as it is now only radiating away the rest of the heat from the now exposed core.
*{{w|Andromeda Galaxy|Andromeda}} is a {{w|spiral galaxy}}, like the Milky Way, and it is the largest galaxy in the {{w|Local Group}} where our own galaxy the Milky Way is the second largest. It is one of a few visible objects that are located outside the Milky Way. It is "only" 2.5 million light-years from the Sun and it is heading our way (or vice versa), and will {{w|Andromeda–Milky Way collision|collide with the Milky way}} in about 4 billion years (before the Sun goes into {{w|Sun#After_core_hydrogen_exhaustion|its red giant phase}}). Being 220,000 light years across and consisting of a trillion stars, it is somewhere between 1.2-2.2 times wider than the Milky Way and has 2.5-10 times as many stars. (The local group was also mentioned two comics ago, in [[1642: Gravitational Waves]], together with the much less well known third largest galaxy in the group the {{w|Triangulum Galaxy}}).
**It is therefore true when the host says that it is too big to try to understand, and thinking about it will make your head spin, so she suggests we do not think about it.
*{{w|Betelgeuse}} is a clearly visible (9th brightest) {{w|Red_supergiant|red supergiant}} {{w|Semiregular_variable_star|variable star}} located in the {{w|Orion (constellation)|constellation of Orion}}. It is one of the largest and most luminous observable stars (12th) and one of the few where it is clear that the light is not white. Most people can see that it is slightly red, whereas most other stars are so faint that they look white despite having different colors (when seeing Orion's two brightest stars, to remember which is which between Rigel and Betelgeuse, its diagonal opposite, just remember: Rigel is "R" like blue, and Betelgeuse is "B" like red). It is expected that Betelgeuse, being at a late stage of its {{w|Stellar_evolution|evolution}}, {{w|Betelgeuse#Approaching_supernova|will go supernova}} within the next million years as a {{w|type II supernova}}. The exact time when it will become a {{w|Supernova}} is so uncertain that it could [http://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/betelgeuse-will-explode-someday#explode just as likely happen tomorrow] as in a million years. When it happens it will not be dangerous to anyone on Earth, but it will likely be visible even during the day, as it may even become as bright as the full Moon.
**When it does go nova, it will be a fantastic spectacle for everyone, but especially for anyone who likes the ''good stuff'' in space like the host, who cannot wait for the star to explode. Clearly she hopes it will be in her lifetime, and, although this is unlikely, there is a small chance that it might just happen.
*A {{w|meteor}} (also known as {{w|shooting star}}), is debris from space that rains down on Earth, and burns up in the atmosphere. This happens all the time, but you need to be either lucky, patient, or know the right time for one of the {{w|meteor showers}} to see one. Often they are visible for so short a time period, that it is difficult to share the experience with anyone, as it will be gone by the time they turn their head to look where you are pointing.
**The host becomes very excited when she spots such a meteor, especially because it is likely that her audience got to share the experience with her, as they were already looking in the same direction as her. But still she asks if they saw it, because it is so short lived.
*{{w|Outer space}} is the void that exists between {{w|Astronomical object|celestial bodies}}, including the Earth. There is by definition nothing there but {{w|vacuum}}, and the interesting part of space is thus not the space but the astronomical objects found out there.
**The host says that ''space is cool'', which is a very un-astronomical comment, as explained above. Also her excitement for a simple shooting star is cause for the suspicion that is raised after her space comment.

===Relevant TV-shows===
The comic could be a reference to BBC's ''{{w|Stargazing Live}}'', which {{w|Brian Cox (physicist)|Brian Cox}} has appeared in since 2011. If drawn in xkcd style he would likely look like Megan. He has a PhD in high-energy {{w|particle physics}}, but not astronomy. The newest season of the show aired during January 2016 just a month before this comic's release. Brian Cox has also been the presenter of several other science programs, especially such as the ''{{w|Wonders of the Solar System}}'', ''{{w|Wonders of the Universe}}'' and ''{{w|Wonders of Life (TV series)|Wonders of Life}}''. Originally the host was described as male in the official transcript (see [[#Trivia|trivia]] below, making this seem more likely. for some reason Randall changed the host to female in the transcript later. Very strange, but for sure when he was male, it was obviously a Brian Cox spoof.

It could also be a reference to {{w|Jack Horkheimer}}'s PBS shows ''Star Hustler'' and ''{{w|Star Gazers}}''. Horkheimer, however, does not at all look like Megan, and he died 6 years ago. But he was not a doctor in astronomy, only getting into it when he started volunteering at the Miami Museum of Science's planetarium. He ended up writing shows for the planetarium and the PBS series developed from there. He rarely covered facts about the night sky that couldn't be found in any basic reference (possibly because the show was aimed at children and non-astronomy buffs), although he did get more in-depth about current astronomical events such as {{W|Comet Hale–Bopp}}.

==Transcript==
:[A thin panel with Megan as a TV-host is holding her hands up. She is drawn in white on a black background. Behind her is an audience drawn in faint gray lines consisting of Hairy (to the left) and two Cueball-like guys and Ponytail (seen in a rare full face position) to the right of the host. One of the Cueball-like guys is partly hidden behind the host.]
:Host: Welcome to stargazing, with your host, me.
:Host: I'm a doctor or whatever.

:[Same scene as before but in a broader panel, and the host is now holding only one hand up with a finger pointing up. The audience is the same four people, but now Hairy has moved further to the left in the panel to make room for a Megan-like woman also to the left of the host.]
:Host: I'm not gonna waste your time on the shitty stars.
:Host: Just the good stuff.
:Host: Honestly half of 'em just look like dots.

:[A frame-less drawing with a zoom out showing the group of six people in black silhouette on a white background. Part of the ground beneath them is shown as a black pool. The host is pointing up with one hand. The people have been rearranged, so left of the host is now a Cueball-like guy and a Megan-like woman, and to the right is the other Cueball-like guy, then Ponytail (seen from the side as usual) and Hairy. All are looking up following the host's directions.]
:Host: This is Sirius. It's the brightest star in our sky so it's in charge.
:Host: It's really two stars but one of them is barely even trying.
:Host: This is Andromeda, it's too big to think about, so let's not.

:[Zoom in of the host's upper body, again drawn in white on a black background. She is looking right gesturing with one arm raised, and the other still pointing up with a finger stretched out. Her audience is no longer shown.]
:Host: That red stars is Betelgeuse. It's gonna explode someday.
:Host: Can't happen soon enough, as far as I'm concerned. I-
:Host: ''Holy shit did you see that meteor!?!''
:Host: Space is ''awesome!''

:[Same scene as the previous panel, but the host has turned towards left looking at someone in the audience (not shown) who speaks off-screen. She has taken both her hands down for the first time.]
:Off-screen voice: Are you ''sure'' you're an astronomer?
:Host: People keep asking that, so I finally tried to look that word up in a dictionary, and ''wow'' is that book ever boring. No thank you.
:Off-screen voice: But-
:Host: ''Space!''

==Trivia==
*Randall changed the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/4/48/20160221022727!stargazing.png original] posted version of the comic.
**The only thing that changed was in the third panel where '''''That's''' Andromeda'' was changed to the current version: '''''This is''' Andromeda''
*The official transcript [https://web.archive.org/web/20160913162302/http://xkcd.com/1646/info.0.json originally] used male pronouns for the TV host. It now (as of 2019) uses female pronouns for the host.
**The official transcripts seems to have been messed up on xkcd at the time being.
***The [http://xkcd.com/1644/info.0.json transcript for 1644] is thus at the moment a mix of that comics main info (top and bottom) which results in the correct title and title text, but the entire description in this transcript is describing the comic from two releases before no. [[1642]].
***This seems to be a general problem for comics released around that time...
***Thus the description of this comic, was first released when comic no. [[1646]] came out.
***This has not been corrected (4 years later at the time of writing)!
****So the official transcript for 1644 can be found [http://xkcd.com/1646/info.0.json here], together with the data for comic 1646.
**The current transcript is included here below:
::(Inverse color panel - white on black)
::[A television host in the foreground, speaking toward the reader. A group of other people are in the background behind them.]
::Host: Welcome to Stargazing, with your host, me. I'm a doctor or whatever.
::[She continues to talk.]
::Host: I'm not gonna waste your time on the shitty stars. Just the good tuff. Honestly half of 'em just look like dots.
::(Normal color panel - black on white)
::[A shot from far away of the host standing in the center of the group of people watching her, she points to the sky.]
::Host: This is Sirius. It's the brightest star in our sky so it's in charge. It's really two stars, but one of them is barely even trying. This is Andromeda. It's too big to think about, so let's not.
::(Inverse color panel)
::[Close-up on the host gesturing toward the sky behind her.]
::Host: That red star is Betelgeuse. It's gonna explode someday. Can't happen soon enough, as far as I'm concerned. I--
::HOLY SHIT DID YOU SEE THAT METEOR?!?!
::Space is awesome!
::[The host speaks to someone out of panel.]
::Other: Are you sure you're an astronomer?
::Host: People keep asking that, so I finally tried to look that word up in a dictionary, and wow is that book ever boring. No thank you.
::Other: But--
::Host: SPACE!
:*The original official transcript with male host is included here below (correcting a typo with a missing "s" in "stuff" and formatting to look like our normal transcripts):
::[A television host in the foreground, speaking toward the reader. A group of other people are in the background behind them.]
::Host: Welcome to Stargazing, with your host, me. I'm a doctor or whatever.
::[He continues to talk.]
::Host: I'm not gonna waste your time on the shitty stars. Just the good stuff. Honestly half of 'em just look like dots.
::[Normal color panel - black on white. A shot from far away of the host standing in the center of the group of people watching him, he points to the sky.]
::Host: This is Sirius. It's the brightest star in our sky so it's in charge. It's really two stars, but one of them is barely even trying. This is Andromeda. It's too big to think about, so let's not.
::[Inverse color panel. Close-up on the host gesturing toward the sky behind him.]
::Host: That red star is Betelgeuse. It's gonna explode someday. Can't happen soon enough, as far as I'm concerned. I-- ''HOLY SHIT DID YOU SEE THAT METEOR?!?!'' Space is ''awesome''!
::[The host speaks to someone out of panel.]
::Other: Are you ''sure'' you're an astronomer?
::Host: People keep asking that, so I finally tried to look that word up in a dictionary, and ''wow'' is that book ever boring. No ''thank'' you.
::Other: But--
::Host: ''SPACE!''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Stargazing]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|Stargazing]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]

Talk:2652: Proxy Variable

2022-07-31T09:35:22Z

172.70.211.134: reply

Maybe Randall is commenting on this recent article [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-022-00281-6 Nature Computational Science: Automated discovery of fundamental variables hidden in experimental data]?
02:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
suggested by a proxy editor

Might be tangentially related to the alleged Alzheimer's disease drug Aduhelm, the anti-amyloid therapy, that did show some success in proxy variable (biomarker), but no success at all in curing the disease or its symptoms (no efficacy), but which got accepted with a huge amount of controversy by NDA (which disregarded its advisory committee’s recommendation against approving Aduhelm). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
: More relevantly, it came out recently that [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/22/2111914/-Two-decades-of-Alzheimer-s-research-may-be-based-on-deliberate-fraud-that-has-cost-millions-of-lives|the last ~decade and a half of Alzheimer's drug research] is based on monitoring effects in mice on a specific biomarker that ''may not actually exist in humans'', and the initial study was potentially fraudulent. Seems like a damn topical proxy variable to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.249|162.158.166.249]] 00:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:"It’s not much of a stretch to suggest those amyloids are a primary cause of the associated memory loss and dementia," is the failed proxy hypothesis. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.163|172.69.33.163]] 02:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:
:''Proxy variables are of interest to non-scientists as they provide a scientific way to indirectly monitor or improve the complex systems that affect their lives. For example, blood pressure is a causative factor for cardiovascular disease so it can be used as a proxy variable for healthy lifestyle. However, people need to remember that it isn't necessarily the proxy variable alone that is of concern. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the only gas released by humanity with global warming potential and other factors affect climate change; and it is not carbon dioxide but the impact of climate change that will cause major social, economic, cultural damage to the future of the planet. ''
because I want to discuss it. The first sentence needs a source, the second and third sentences claim blood pressure is used by non-scientists as a proxy for living a healthy lifestyle, which I'm not sure about on multiple levels, and the fourth and fifth sentences seem like PR for fossil fuel companies. #notallgreenhousegases Nevertheless, I feel as if there are likely one or two good ideas hidden in it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:I feel like the author doesn't know the work climate scientists go to to avoid using greenhouse gas concentration as a proxy for global warming (all the models of atmospheric water and its forms.) For blood pressure, it's easier to see what was attempted to be gotten at. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.90|172.70.211.90]] 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::Yes: the ones who dangerously simplify the climate change to "we must stop produce carbon dioxide" are not scientists but politicians. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 16:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:Definitely. We don't even KNOW all factors affecting climate change. Still, the link between rising carbon dioxide and temperature looks much more solid that the link between money spent on fighting climate change and levels of carbon dioxide. ... Wait, you didn't wanted to talk about climate did you? :-) (For record, I always though there are much better reasons to stop using fossil fuels than fighting global warming. Recently, for example, the energetic security from geopolitically problematic regions came under lot of attention.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 16:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::I want to talk about climate. Do you think we will be able to transition to carbon neutral and negative technologies in time to avoid the {{w|Jevons paradox}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.185|172.70.214.185]] 17:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::The Jevons Paradox exists if the only forces affecting the consumption of a resource are supply and demand. If you're asking about carbon-neutral/negative technological process making sustainable technologies profitable faster than fossil fuel profits grow, then no, there's no hope even before the Jevons Paradox is considered. But if other options are considered, the Jevons Paradox doesn't really apply. (To take an extreme example: It doesn't matter how fuel-efficient internal combustion engines get, they'll never be the preferred choice if their manufacture is banned.) [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 18:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::Only carbon negative technology requires {{w|Carbon-burning_process|5×10^8 K or 50 keV and densities > 3×10^9 kg/m3}}. I think that in the moment we will be using THAT on industrial scale we would be quite desperate. Also, the amount of energy we will need is going to grow unless we reduce population a LOT (like, for example, if all ecological activists would do the carbon responsible thing and commit suicide). Also, more and more of that energy we will need will be specifically electrical energy. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::We need to remove 38 gigatons per year, which is only 0.7 milligrams per square centimeter of ocean. Think of the mean depth of the ocean: that square centimeter is very tall. From that perspective, isn't this an easy biological solution? That's only 0.5 micrograms per minute, from the full depth of each square centimeter of ocean, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.43|172.70.214.43]] 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what is the "this" you talk about but it sounds you are only storing carbon, not removing it. BTW, one of best way to store carbon is to make more highways. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::Where on Earth would you ever want to build 38 gigatons of highways per year? By "this" I mean genetically modified {{w|phytoplankton}}; in particular modified by changes to {{w|carbonic anhydrase}} expression. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.81|172.70.214.81]] 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::Are there enough dissolved minerals in the ocean for that volume, assuming {{w|diatom}}s intended to sink to the seabed? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

:Everyone thinks this is about pharmacology, and maybe it is. But I've been taking economics courses this semester, so that's what I think of. "We can't measure this factor directly, so we made up a formula that should let us calculate it (if we've measured all relevant factors correctly and all our other assumptions and theories are valid)" is a pretty common thing in that field. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 18:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:: What's the best example, using GDP as a proxy for development? Or something current like using the money supply as a proxy for inflation? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.95|172.70.214.95]] 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

== this dude keeps spamming ==

Sorry for the mild crassness, especially as a new user, but some Nazi f*ck is vandalizing the page. May someone please ban them?{{unsigned ip|172.71.26.59|03:49, 30 July 2022}}

Nah, they're using multiple IPs. Someone could semi-protect it or something but there ain't any mods doing their job it seems.{{unsigned ip|172.70.147.47|03:55, 30 July 2022}}

Where are the mods, anyways?{{unsigned ip|172.71.82.65|03:59, 30 July 2022}}
:You can't always count on volunteer authorities. Even us lowly IP address editors can revert vandalism. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.199|172.69.33.199]] 04:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::Yeah nah, we need it semi-protected {{unsigned ip|162.158.162.199|04:13, 30 July 2022}}
::: Funny if that were the goal of the vandalism. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 16:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::: One reason that I don't think it should be the go-to counter-vandalism approach being used. But not for me to say. Whilstsoever I'm capable of intervening ''at least'' as much as any vandal tries to, I support the mod actions (they are there, doing things, BTW).
:::: Without actually tolerating the vandal, we easily outnumber the person concerned (and the very few other spammers/bots that sneak through the clearly effective existing speedbumps) and this means that such nuisance edits are heavily mitigated. If you see the damaged bits then you're either a regular or a very unlucky occasional visitor.
:::: (This morning, I went to revert an ad-spam that I noted had been written over a page-redirect, to be told that someone else had just gotten there before me!)
:::: I've been on far more abused online resources, both web (early days, long before CAPTCHA technology) and elsewhere (having seen how Usenet was both before and after The Eternal September) and the interference here is extraordinarily given the generally open nature of the submission process.
:::: PS. Please do sign your posts ( with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> ), if only for the timestamp that makes the to and fro of conversations more understandable... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.221|162.158.34.221]] 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

:The rant gets replaced within two minutes of each revert. Presumably it's done by bot. We need a mod to take action. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.217|172.70.130.217]] 05:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Article has been restored but some idiots keep spamming the page with random things. pls do something mods {{unsigned ip|172.70.147.47|03:59, 30 July 2022}}
:it's not "some idiots" it's all one person using different ips. he posted the exact same covid rant several times. i think he's schizophrenic or something and just really wants to be heard --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.40|172.69.69.40]] 04:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::But why here? Like, this is such a weird place to try and be heard, I'm sure even Reddit posts would have more visibility than edits to a webcomic wiki. [[User:NErDysprosium|NErDysprosium]] ([[User talk:NErDysprosium|talk]]) 06:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::: Don't underestimate the importance of the can't-get-jokes demographic for PSYOP recruitment. The invasion of Panama might not even have occurred if it weren't for people distracted by cartoons. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.185|172.69.33.185]] 17:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2652:_Proxy_Variable&diff=291433&oldid=291400 The protected version has much less text than the last non-vandalized version.] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.90|172.70.211.90]] 20:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
: Re "The history of pharmaceutical research is largely a graveyard of failed proxy hypotheses." True, but someone should add that is the reason for experiment registration regulations. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 20:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:: I'm placing that version here, in hopes that it can be edited as a proxy for the protected version: [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.229|172.69.33.229]] 20:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
{{cot|Last non-vandalized version of the explanation, as further edited}}
In this comic, [[Hairy]] is discussing use of a proxy variable with [[Cueball]]. In statistics, a {{w|proxy variable}} is used as a stand-in for one or more other variables that are difficult to measure. In order to be useful as such, proxy variables must be correlated with what they are intended to represent. For example, a drug might aim to reduce deaths from a slow-acting disease. But testing if it reduces deaths might take many years, so researchers might test for a proxy outcome instead, like whether it results in loss of bone density or damage to cells. Physicians use blood pressure as one of many proxies for cardiovascular health.

Proxy variables are of interest to non-scientists as they provide a way to indirectly monitor or improve the complex systems that affect their lives. For example, people use local temperature as a rough experiential proxy for the severity of global warming. Economists might mistake GDP for productive or useful development, or mistake the size of the {{w|money supply}} for {{w|price inflation}}. While correlated, the causation implied by such assumptions is very much in doubt, because the GDP increase of demolishing a hospital might conflict with the widespread understanding of development, and while the money supply size is a cause of inflation, there are many other causes.

Hairy is dismissing the question of whether they are studying the right variable as too expensive to answer. This is deeply ironic and thus satirical, because good {{w|experiment design}} requires sufficient attention to the robustness of all the involved parts of an experiment, even if the expense may be prohibitive. This comic might be referring to the recent discovery of [https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease nearly two decades] of fraudulent {{w|Alzheimer's disease}} research based on a mistaken proxy hypothesis.

Choosing the wrong proxy variable might make the research misleading, irrelevant, or as the title text suggests, answer the wrong question. Separating correlation from {{w|Causality|causation}} is necessary when interpreting proxy variable results to make sure the question they answer is known. Mere correlation instead of {{w|Causal analysis|authentic causation}} yields weaker results. {{w|Exploratory causal analysis}} can assist with finding useful proxy variables, but is difficult for the layperson to interpret and can be misleading, because even if performed correctly, a {{w|combinatorial explosion}} of possible proxy variables can make traditional {{w|statistical significance}} analysis fail, requiring {{w|F-score}}s or similar measures. The history of pharmaceutical research is largely a graveyard of failed proxy hypotheses; that is one of the reasons for [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa experiment registration regulations.]

The title text's notion of having an answer without knowing the actual question could also be be a reference to the classic comedy science fiction novel {{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy}}, where in one scene Earth turns out to be a supercomputer built for the purpose of figuring out the question for the answer "42."
{{cob}}
:That such improvements are withheld from the main public view must feel like a victory for the vandal. Can autoconfimed users promote it? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 23:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone going to comment that all of us IP editors are listed by our CDN proxy address? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.123|172.69.33.123]] 20:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2652: Proxy Variable

2022-07-31T09:31:25Z

172.70.211.134: Alzheimer's

Maybe Randall is commenting on this recent article [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-022-00281-6 Nature Computational Science: Automated discovery of fundamental variables hidden in experimental data]?
02:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
suggested by a proxy editor

Might be tangentially related to the alleged Alzheimer's disease drug Aduhelm, the anti-amyloid therapy, that did show some success in proxy variable (biomarker), but no success at all in curing the disease or its symptoms (no efficacy), but which got accepted with a huge amount of controversy by NDA (which disregarded its advisory committee’s recommendation against approving Aduhelm). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
: More relevantly, it came out recently that [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/22/2111914/-Two-decades-of-Alzheimer-s-research-may-be-based-on-deliberate-fraud-that-has-cost-millions-of-lives|the last ~decade and a half of Alzheimer's drug research] is based on monitoring effects in mice on a specific biomarker that ''may not actually exist in humans'', and the initial study was potentially fraudulent. Seems like a damn topical proxy variable to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.249|162.158.166.249]] 00:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:"It’s not much of a stretch to suggest those amyloids are a primary cause of the associated memory loss and dementia," is the failed proxy hypothesis. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.163|172.69.33.163]] 02:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:
:''Proxy variables are of interest to non-scientists as they provide a scientific way to indirectly monitor or improve the complex systems that affect their lives. For example, blood pressure is a causative factor for cardiovascular disease so it can be used as a proxy variable for healthy lifestyle. However, people need to remember that it isn't necessarily the proxy variable alone that is of concern. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the only gas released by humanity with global warming potential and other factors affect climate change; and it is not carbon dioxide but the impact of climate change that will cause major social, economic, cultural damage to the future of the planet. ''
because I want to discuss it. The first sentence needs a source, the second and third sentences claim blood pressure is used by non-scientists as a proxy for living a healthy lifestyle, which I'm not sure about on multiple levels, and the fourth and fifth sentences seem like PR for fossil fuel companies. #notallgreenhousegases Nevertheless, I feel as if there are likely one or two good ideas hidden in it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:I feel like the author doesn't know the work climate scientists go to to avoid using greenhouse gas concentration as a proxy for global warming (all the models of atmospheric water and its forms.) For blood pressure, it's easier to see what was attempted to be gotten at. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.90|172.70.211.90]] 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::Yes: the ones who dangerously simplify the climate change to "we must stop produce carbon dioxide" are not scientists but politicians. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 16:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:Definitely. We don't even KNOW all factors affecting climate change. Still, the link between rising carbon dioxide and temperature looks much more solid that the link between money spent on fighting climate change and levels of carbon dioxide. ... Wait, you didn't wanted to talk about climate did you? :-) (For record, I always though there are much better reasons to stop using fossil fuels than fighting global warming. Recently, for example, the energetic security from geopolitically problematic regions came under lot of attention.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 16:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::I want to talk about climate. Do you think we will be able to transition to carbon neutral and negative technologies in time to avoid the {{w|Jevons paradox}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.185|172.70.214.185]] 17:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::The Jevons Paradox exists if the only forces affecting the consumption of a resource are supply and demand. If you're asking about carbon-neutral/negative technological process making sustainable technologies profitable faster than fossil fuel profits grow, then no, there's no hope even before the Jevons Paradox is considered. But if other options are considered, the Jevons Paradox doesn't really apply. (To take an extreme example: It doesn't matter how fuel-efficient internal combustion engines get, they'll never be the preferred choice if their manufacture is banned.) [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 18:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::Only carbon negative technology requires {{w|Carbon-burning_process|5×10^8 K or 50 keV and densities > 3×10^9 kg/m3}}. I think that in the moment we will be using THAT on industrial scale we would be quite desperate. Also, the amount of energy we will need is going to grow unless we reduce population a LOT (like, for example, if all ecological activists would do the carbon responsible thing and commit suicide). Also, more and more of that energy we will need will be specifically electrical energy. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::We need to remove 38 gigatons per year, which is only 0.7 milligrams per square centimeter of ocean. Think of the mean depth of the ocean: that square centimeter is very tall. From that perspective, isn't this an easy biological solution? That's only 0.5 micrograms per minute, from the full depth of each square centimeter of ocean, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.43|172.70.214.43]] 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what is the "this" you talk about but it sounds you are only storing carbon, not removing it. BTW, one of best way to store carbon is to make more highways. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::Where on Earth would you ever want to build 38 gigatons of highways per year? By "this" I mean genetically modified {{w|phytoplankton}}; in particular modified by changes to {{w|carbonic anhydrase}} expression. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.81|172.70.214.81]] 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

:Everyone thinks this is about pharmacology, and maybe it is. But I've been taking economics courses this semester, so that's what I think of. "We can't measure this factor directly, so we made up a formula that should let us calculate it (if we've measured all relevant factors correctly and all our other assumptions and theories are valid)" is a pretty common thing in that field. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 18:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:: What's the best example, using GDP as a proxy for development? Or something current like using the money supply as a proxy for inflation? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.95|172.70.214.95]] 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

== this dude keeps spamming ==

Sorry for the mild crassness, especially as a new user, but some Nazi f*ck is vandalizing the page. May someone please ban them?{{unsigned ip|172.71.26.59|03:49, 30 July 2022}}

Nah, they're using multiple IPs. Someone could semi-protect it or something but there ain't any mods doing their job it seems.{{unsigned ip|172.70.147.47|03:55, 30 July 2022}}

Where are the mods, anyways?{{unsigned ip|172.71.82.65|03:59, 30 July 2022}}
:You can't always count on volunteer authorities. Even us lowly IP address editors can revert vandalism. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.199|172.69.33.199]] 04:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::Yeah nah, we need it semi-protected {{unsigned ip|162.158.162.199|04:13, 30 July 2022}}
::: Funny if that were the goal of the vandalism. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 16:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::: One reason that I don't think it should be the go-to counter-vandalism approach being used. But not for me to say. Whilstsoever I'm capable of intervening ''at least'' as much as any vandal tries to, I support the mod actions (they are there, doing things, BTW).
:::: Without actually tolerating the vandal, we easily outnumber the person concerned (and the very few other spammers/bots that sneak through the clearly effective existing speedbumps) and this means that such nuisance edits are heavily mitigated. If you see the damaged bits then you're either a regular or a very unlucky occasional visitor.
:::: (This morning, I went to revert an ad-spam that I noted had been written over a page-redirect, to be told that someone else had just gotten there before me!)
:::: I've been on far more abused online resources, both web (early days, long before CAPTCHA technology) and elsewhere (having seen how Usenet was both before and after The Eternal September) and the interference here is extraordinarily given the generally open nature of the submission process.
:::: PS. Please do sign your posts ( with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> ), if only for the timestamp that makes the to and fro of conversations more understandable... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.221|162.158.34.221]] 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

:The rant gets replaced within two minutes of each revert. Presumably it's done by bot. We need a mod to take action. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.217|172.70.130.217]] 05:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Article has been restored but some idiots keep spamming the page with random things. pls do something mods {{unsigned ip|172.70.147.47|03:59, 30 July 2022}}
:it's not "some idiots" it's all one person using different ips. he posted the exact same covid rant several times. i think he's schizophrenic or something and just really wants to be heard --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.40|172.69.69.40]] 04:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::But why here? Like, this is such a weird place to try and be heard, I'm sure even Reddit posts would have more visibility than edits to a webcomic wiki. [[User:NErDysprosium|NErDysprosium]] ([[User talk:NErDysprosium|talk]]) 06:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::: Don't underestimate the importance of the can't-get-jokes demographic for PSYOP recruitment. The invasion of Panama might not even have occurred if it weren't for people distracted by cartoons. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.185|172.69.33.185]] 17:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2652:_Proxy_Variable&diff=291433&oldid=291400 The protected version has much less text than the last non-vandalized version.] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.90|172.70.211.90]] 20:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
: Re "The history of pharmaceutical research is largely a graveyard of failed proxy hypotheses." True, but someone should add that is the reason for experiment registration regulations. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 20:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:: I'm placing that version here, in hopes that it can be edited as a proxy for the protected version: [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.229|172.69.33.229]] 20:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
{{cot|Last non-vandalized version of the explanation, as further edited}}
In this comic, [[Hairy]] is discussing use of a proxy variable with [[Cueball]]. In statistics, a {{w|proxy variable}} is used as a stand-in for one or more other variables that are difficult to measure. In order to be useful as such, proxy variables must be correlated with what they are intended to represent. For example, a drug might aim to reduce deaths from a slow-acting disease. But testing if it reduces deaths might take many years, so researchers might test for a proxy outcome instead, like whether it results in loss of bone density or damage to cells. Physicians use blood pressure as one of many proxies for cardiovascular health.

Proxy variables are of interest to non-scientists as they provide a way to indirectly monitor or improve the complex systems that affect their lives. For example, people use local temperature as a rough experiential proxy for the severity of global warming. Economists might mistake GDP for productive or useful development, or mistake the size of the {{w|money supply}} for {{w|price inflation}}. While correlated, the causation implied by such assumptions is very much in doubt, because the GDP increase of demolishing a hospital might conflict with the widespread understanding of development, and while the money supply size is a cause of inflation, there are many other causes.

Hairy is dismissing the question of whether they are studying the right variable as too expensive to answer. This is deeply ironic and thus satirical, because good {{w|experiment design}} requires sufficient attention to the robustness of all the involved parts of an experiment, even if the expense may be prohibitive. This comic might be referring to the recent discovery of [https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease nearly two decades] of fraudulent {{w|Alzheimer's disease}} research based on a mistaken proxy hypothesis.

Choosing the wrong proxy variable might make the research misleading, irrelevant, or as the title text suggests, answer the wrong question. Separating correlation from {{w|Causality|causation}} is necessary when interpreting proxy variable results to make sure the question they answer is known. Mere correlation instead of {{w|Causal analysis|authentic causation}} yields weaker results. {{w|Exploratory causal analysis}} can assist with finding useful proxy variables, but is difficult for the layperson to interpret and can be misleading, because even if performed correctly, a {{w|combinatorial explosion}} of possible proxy variables can make traditional {{w|statistical significance}} analysis fail, requiring {{w|F-score}}s or similar measures. The history of pharmaceutical research is largely a graveyard of failed proxy hypotheses; that is one of the reasons for [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa experiment registration regulations.]

The title text's notion of having an answer without knowing the actual question could also be be a reference to the classic comedy science fiction novel {{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy}}, where in one scene Earth turns out to be a supercomputer built for the purpose of figuring out the question for the answer "42."
{{cob}}
:That such improvements are withheld from the main public view must feel like a victory for the vandal. Can autoconfimed users promote it? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]] 23:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone going to comment that all of us IP editors are listed by our CDN proxy address? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.123|172.69.33.123]] 20:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)