explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3003: Sandwich Helix

2024-10-25T16:12:21Z

172.70.85.110: /* Helix */ Yep, I got them the wrong way round, during editing!

Sandwich presumably refers to {{w|compliment sandwich}}, but I don’t know what the helix is. --[[User:Galaktos|Galaktos]] ([[User talk:Galaktos|talk]]) 14:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

: Maybe {{w|Models of communication#Dance}}? --[[User:Galaktos|Galaktos]] ([[User talk:Galaktos|talk]]) 14:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:The word "Helix" may be a reference to the previous comic. [[User:CategoryGeneral|CategoryGeneral]] ([[User talk:CategoryGeneral|talk]]) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

==Grammar==
Minor grammatical point; please feel free to skip this. I just tweaked "a communication technique [...] which meaning has not been lost." to "a communication technique [...] whose meaning has not been lost.". "''Of'' which ''the'' meaning" or "whose meaning" both work, but the latter is less contrived. People keep forgetting that "whose" can refer to objects, as well as to people. <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whose#Determiner>

The first rule of communication is "Always talk about communication." [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 15:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

==Helix==

I don't think the "helix" refers to software development. It could be about the helical model of communication, which conveys communication as a non-linear process.

This is perhaps a joke with these simplistic "rules" of communication (like the compliment sandwich), which portray communication as something much simpler.

If we assume that communication is complex and non-linear (as the helical model of communication portrays), we might conclude that there is no such thing as "#1 rule of communication"; something that could be observed by the misuse of the "compliment sandwich". {{unsigned ip|172.70.47.87|15:38+, 25 October 2024}} (Assuming all the above is the same IP editor, tweaking their comment.)

:Ah, thank you. I added the Spiral (for development) because I couldn't find the Helix one (for communication), and I thought this was the best linkable item out there. Now I know it's ''Helical'', I've found it and I can put a link on your addendum and perhaps remove my original 'placeholder'. That's collaborative communication! ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.77|172.70.91.77]] 15:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC) (PS, please sign Talk contributions, and wikilinks are a good idea if you can add them. ;p )

Talk:2995: University Commas

2024-10-18T05:12:08Z

172.70.85.110:

As Wikipedia notes, the {{w|Harvard comma}} is actually a thing, and synonymous with the Oxford comma. It's hard to understand whether Randall was just ignoring that.
It's interesting to also look at how the various commas are meaningful. For instance, the Yale comma here appears to be just plain ungrammatical, you'd never put a comma between a verb and a its direct object; similarly the Cambridge comma and Princeton commas are ungrammatical, you'd never put one after the word "and." The Stanford comma is unambiguously normal and it's not clear how you could have such a list without it (absent replacement with a [Stanford?] semicolon). The Columbia comma is being used to separate "mac and cheese" into "mac, and[,] cheese" which changes the semantic meaning (arguably into something meaningless, but maybe we're listing Apple Computers or even Macintosh apple fruit abbreviated). The MIT comma is a cute programming joke for multiline lists. Maybe there are hidden trick meanings (like MIT) I'm missing. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:On their own, few of them are intrinsically bad, in the right context.
:*"Please, buy" - valid comma. Prefixed subclause (general plea).
:*"Please buy, apples" - valid comma (more specific plea).
:*"apples, mac" - valid comma (list-type).
:*"mac, and" - valid comma (potentially a conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"mac and, cheese" - valid comma (potentially a post-conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"and cheese, milk" - valid comma (follow-up sub-clause).
:*"cheese, milk, and" - Oxford comma. (Thus invalid, by default. IMO.)
:*"milk and, bread." - ...would be valid, as above, except for the sentence ending.
:*"and bread,." - Ok. Definitely the worst. (Except for the Oxford Comma, which is still worserer!)
:Obviously, combinations of them (or counterpart lack of them, in some cases) can clash badly. Some can work well together, but using ()s, ;s or feetnete* is often better than diving in and out of sub-clauses in the midst of a comma-bound list and potentially making it ambiguous whether you're diving in/out of a clarifying aside or replacing a non-terminating conjunction or perhaps one of the other usages to which a comma might apply.
:* Or just generally rewriting a multi-clausal sentence completely! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 23:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry, no: "and," is bad grammar, except when illustrating a dramatic (but grammatically wrong) verbal pause; ", and" is fine for noting a pause used to divide a list, but it's best to use semicolons in a divided list. IE: "milk; bread; mac and cheese; blood, sweat, and tears". (Again, "blood, sweat and tears", would be atypical cadence if spoken aloud; therefore, the comma.) I don't care what style guides say, only what works well.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What's grammatically wrong about something like "I drink beer and, on occasion, cider"?
::::Thank you for the "and, on occasion, beer and cider" example. Looking only at the given sentence about a shopping list, I wondered if the subordinate clause suggestion was edit-mangle or a very strange dialect difference. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 02:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::It wasn't "and, on occasion, beer and cider" given as an example. It was "[I drink] beer and, on occasion, cider". Depending upon what comes before the "and,", it ''might'' be the same sort of thing, but "beer and, on occasion, cider" probably is intended to mean "... beer (mostly) and cider (occasionally)". Your vesion might be somethng like "I drink beer, cider and, on occasion, beer and cider" => "I drink beer (frequently), cider (frequently) and a beer-and-cider-mix (occasionally)".
:::::(Noting that I've never tried mixing beer and cider, although I have done it with wine and cider. Long story. Though mostly it was mixed in my stomach, not pre-mixed. Probably made me the absolute drunkest I ever have been, but the effects took more time to take effect than those who were deliberately plying me with the drink(s) counted on, so their 'plan' sort of failed... I was younger and foolisher, but so were they! These days, I prefer my beer (typically a bitter, maybe a stout, generally not lagers/etc) unblended in any way. The same with my whisky (single malt, and in preference to whiskey). And wine's fine, but with a meal. Don't really go for ciders these days. If I want something appley, I prefer fruit juice, and if I want something fizzy (not all ciders are fizzy, but most of the major ones are) then give me a Pepsi Max (or something similar - I love the taste of aspartame in the morning!). But I rarely mix anything more than cordial/concentrate and water.)
:::::As to how people mangle/dialectise subordinate clauses, I couldn't say. I think it's grammatically odd to say "Write me!" (for "Write '''to''' me!), ''or'' to say "lit it on fire" (I'd just say that I "lit it", or "set fire to it"), so there's probably some strangeness of expectations between sublinguistic jurisdictions. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.165|172.68.205.165]] 15:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Also, the cadence of "blood, sweat and tears" has nothing to do with the commas you give it. This isn't a case of marking verbal ticks, with... uh... transcribed notation. Either for official recording purposes or in the pre-scripting of speech for later performance. One is free to nuance the phrase how you want, with or without OC. The main issue about the OC is whether a list (of ''more'' than two items) should have each (non-final) element followed by a comma? Or are commas placeholders only for the "and"/"or"s that are omited? (And my opinion is that it is the latter, all else being equal. I apply that to semicolon-separated lists, insofar as I won't end with "...; penultimate item; '''and'' last item", but prefer to omit the '''and''' (or '''or'' ), casting whether it's a list of options or an accumulation by the introductory/follow-up contextualisation of that list.)
:::But, whichever standard you prefer, there will be cases where it reads wrongly to others. If you're lucky enough to spot it, then you can look to what you can do to adjust the sentence to remove ambiguity. This does not normally mean adding in any old commas where,,,,, you think a Pinter Pause is needed. (Maybe an ellipsis, in normal writing.) The fact that a grammatical comma may be where a spoken pause may crop up is not because the comma causes the pause. The verbal pause is (if not garbled out) caused by the same understanding of how clauses/etc require intoning under the circumstances.
:::But it is a rhetorical choice as to whether to intone "blood..., sweat... and tears" or "blood, sweat and... tears" or any number of other pausing strategies, as it is how you faithfully transcribe what has already been intoned. When merely listing these in text, your chosen style of grammar is the master. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.134|172.70.160.134]] 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

::Commas can go in a number of places in lists, and, occasionally, after the word "and". [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Potentially, anything is possible... I can see how a sentence like "Please buy apples, mac and cheese, milk, and, bread being out of stock, oats" would work, but I really don't see how the commas after "and" could work ''in this sentence''. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If each item in a list shall be followed by a comma then the MIT comma is quite proper. SDT [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.206|172.68.245.206]] 05:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The UCLA comma may refer to the 8 clap, a chant at UCLA which is begins with a string of 8 claps. {{unsigned ip|172.68.205.178|07:33, 8 October 2024}}

I thought the UCLA & Michigan commas referred to quotes within citations. This isn't uncommon in literary studies, where you quote articles quoting books. Depending on your quotation style, this can result in a long string of 3-4 "commas" (as in: short lines in punctuation marks). If you place the quote between actual commas, make that 4-5. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the tirade against the Oxford comma in the article is not relevant for understanding the comic. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" is not saying that Ayn Rand is the mother. To express that one should write "To my mother, Ayn Rand, and to God". Thus the ambiguity can be resolved. I believe one of the editors is mixing in their personal taste here. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.71|172.71.160.71]] 09:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Tirade? Hardly. It explains when it doesn't help (and when it might).
:And I think you misread. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" indeed does not say that Ayn Rand is the mother. In fact it ''explicitly'' says that "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God'"... erm... does ''not'' say the thing that 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God' ''potentially'' does. (See table below.)
:The choice of how to disambiguate "my mother, who is Ayn Rand", as a concept, is another thing and has multiple options. Disambiguating in the direction of a simple list is the contention surrounding the Oxford(/Serial) Comma itself (it is, by definition, being used in the list format), given that some circumstances are most helped by it and others are most helped by its absence. If you're strongly for the OC, you'll hopefully rewrite problematic OCed formulations so that you can use it. If you're strongly against it you should change problamatic non-OCed versions so that you can better go without one. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.128|172.70.85.128]] 10:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Inspired (a bit) by the Three Laws permutation table, a set of possible ambiguations from the straight list...
{| class="wikitable"
!A !!B !!C !!"A, B and C" !!"A, B, and C"
|-
|my parents||Ayn Rand||God||"my parents (who are Ayn Rand and God)"||''list only''*
|-
|my parents||God||Ayn Rand||"my parents (who are God and Ayn Rand)"||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||my parents||God||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||God||my parents||''list only''* ||"Ayn Rand (who is God), and my parents"
|-
|God||my parents||Ayn Rand||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|God||Ayn Rand||my parents||''list only''* ||"God (who is Ayn Rand), and my parents"
|}
:-* - Assuming no other "All You Zombies" and/or divine incarnation scenarios.
:...maybe it's too early in the morning, but I'm sure I'm missing other ambiguities I've commented on before. (Without necesarily going into the asterisked territories.) Anyone want to amend this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.105|172.68.186.105]] 09:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Love it! [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::There's additional potential ambiguity if you go with the singular "my mother" as opposed to the plural "my parents". "My mother, Ayn Rand, and God" (with the Oxford comma) could be listing 2 separate entities while indicating that my mother is Ayn Rand, or could be listing 3 separate entities. "My mother, Ayn Rand and God" (without the Oxford comma) could be referring to a single entity while indicating that my mother is both Ayn Rand and God, or listing 3 separate entities. (In a phrase like, "My mother, Ayn Rand and God, gave it to me," the comma after God indicates that it's one entity, but you lose that clarity with "It was given to me by my mother, Ayn Rand and God." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.66|172.68.70.66]] 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What if my mother, Ayn Rand, and God are actually the trinity?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.87|172.69.195.87]] 08:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I myself, was fully expecting one of the examples given, to be: "To my God and mother, Ayn Rand". [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize that this comic focuses on University commas, however I feel that some mention should be made about the Walken Comma and the Shatner Comma! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.103|172.70.114.103]] 10:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:What, do you,    mean by,   that? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.106|172.69.195.106]] 13:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Here's the explanation: [https://www.joeydevilla.com/2015/06/26/a-visual-guide-to-the-different-comma-styles/ Walken and Shatner Commas] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.228|162.158.62.228]] 11:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

{{w|Mac and cheese}} is probably not well-known outside the US (especially not under that name). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.115|172.71.160.115]] 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:As usual, the Brits don't know how to name food. "Macaroni cheese" sounds like the macaroni is made of cheese. But I added an explanation and link to the Wikipedia page. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Don't be silly, that would clearly be named "cheese macaroni". Macaroni cheese is clearly cheese for macaroni, and it's simply polite to serve macaroni to have it with as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.114|172.71.151.114]] 14:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::: By the logic of your second interpretation, "cheese macaroni" is clearly macaroni for cheese. The lexical existence of this separate form of macaroni begs the question: what kind of macaroni goes best with macaroni cheese? The plain kind or cheese macaroni? The answer is neither! The best kind of macaroni to serve with macaroni cheese is clearly macaroni-cheese macaroni. But then what kind of cheese goes best with that? None other than (macaroni cheese)-macaroni cheese, which in turn is best served with ((macaroni cheese) macaroni)-cheese macaroni. This interleaving of macaroni and cheese never ends, meaning that no matter where you choose to stop, you will always end up with a sub-optimal pairing. So it's best to just not eat any form of cheese with any form of macaroni, to avoid disappointment. As an aside, the logic of your first interpretation implies that "macaroni cheese" is actually cheese that's made of macaroni. [[User:MelodiousThunk|MelodiousThunk]] ([[User talk:MelodiousThunk|talk]]) 12:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::As opposed to 'mac and cheese', which sounds like a particularly unappetising dish made using a waterproof coat.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.92|172.68.186.92]] 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Oddly, US English goes the other way with "grilled cheese", neglecting to mention that the cheese should be placed between slices of bread before grilling; in British English, it would generally be called a "cheese toastie". (Until looking it up, I was under the mistaken belief that it was a name for what we would call "cheese on toast", which also involves grilling the cheese, on the toast.) [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 21:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Grilled Cheese is short for Grilled Cheese Sandwich, and Cheese Toastie is short for toasted (or toast(ie/y) cheese Sandwich. In both cases the hearer is expected to know, either from context or experience, that a sandwich is being referenced (offered). It is possible that toasting has mor eassociations with bread (and therefore sandwiches) than grilling, but either toasting or grilling can be done to a variety of foods, including bread(s).[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.171|172.70.130.171]] 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::A "toasted cheese sandwich" may or may not get the same name as "cheese on toast" (i.e. a sort of "toasted cheese smörgåsbord", or a kind of {{w|Welsh rarebit}}-redux, rather than 'raw' cheese put onto freshly toasted toast, which is yet ''another'' option).
::::::In general, if the cheese is exposed to the grilling (and, technically, could have any (or no!) substrate rather than bread) it could be considered "grilled cheese", in a way that cheese enclosed (perhaps nipped-closed, in 'toastie maker' devices) is only actually a melted filling.
::::::But I reckon there's many interpretations of handy "heating up cheese and bread" dishes, and many of those will involve grilling and/or toasting, but not necessarily both. Or either, as "bread on cheese" in the microwave for a short blast can be nice, as can a fried cheese sandwich (and, doubtless, also ''deep-''fried has been tried, but not by me). And with much variation on what any of that might be termed.
::::::...and, if you'll excuse me, you've made me acutely aware that there is extra mature cheddar and wholemeal sliced bread in the house and a variety of means to cook (or not cook) it. I might try an open-topped cheese-on-bread heated up in the ...waffle-maker..? not sure what it is, but it's not strictly a sandwich-toaster and I've never made waffles in it... with the top propped up to not messily press into the eventually melting cheese top. With a sprinkling of herbs and spices and the bread lightly buttered(/non-dairy-spreaded, technically), it'll end up not toasted but delightfully cooked and all melty (hopefully not too much, molten cheese sticking to the roof of the mouth is rather awkward!) and probably raise my cholesterol more than is healthy. And, no, I don't really have a name for it. Adding another slice of bread on top, before 'waffle-ironing, might make it a sorted-of-toasted cheese sandwich, but "heated smorgasbord" doesn't really roll off the tongue (nor does the cheese, if I excessively melt it). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.110|172.70.85.110]] 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

:'Mac & cheese' is, sadly, probably more common in the UK now than the proper 'macaroni cheese'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.47|141.101.99.47]] 08:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the added red text in the Notation column, but it needs to be explained in the Explanation column. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.8|162.158.90.8]] 00:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Could this, at least in part, be about typography, not grammar and style? The depicted commas are not all the same. [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 10:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, MIT is the home of the Rust language, which prominently uses trailing commas after the last item in a list as a matter of programming style.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.211|172.70.214.211]]
* As best I can tell this isn't true? Rust was not developed at MIT, nor is it currently sponsored by MIT. As best I can tell, the only association between the two is an old copy of the book "The Rust Programming Language" hosted under MIT's domain. I would guess that the comic refers to it as the "MIT comma" simply for the reference to programming [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.97|162.158.158.97]] 16:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

ABAP uses dots as end-of-command delimiters. {{unsigned ip|162.158.202.92|06:13, 11 October 2024}}

== ! UNRESOLVED VERSION CONFLICT ! ==
There has been a problem with different versions. I shifted a paragraph, but the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2995:_University_Commas&oldid=352624 version that got saved] had 1615 characters less than before. A whole lot of rambling had been removed from the explanation, but there was no version conflict warning and no other saved revision in the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2995:_University_Commas&action=history revision history]. I didn't want to take credit for the changes, though I appreciated them, so I undid my edit, then redid my shift of paragraphs, and hoped that the other editor would reconcile the versions. That didn't happen. I'm writing this note to draw attention to the "lost edit". [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 18:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2781: The Six Platonic Solids

2023-07-12T00:38:13Z

172.70.85.110: No legitimate reason for removal. Needs to be here on general principle that, *without a clear reason*, you don't edit others' words.

Does he know about Homestar Runner? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.137|172.70.131.137]] 06:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
:Yes. http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/Webcomic_Sightings#xkcd [[User:Trogdor147|Trogdor147]] ([[User talk:Trogdor147|talk]]) 01:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Why Jorb? Only thing I can find is [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jorb Jorb on wikitionary] just meaning spelling of bad pronunciation of Job. And yes the episode of Homestar Runner [https://homestarrunner.com/toons/a-jorb-well-done A Jorb Well Done] comes up. Also this episode that is the top meaning of jorb on [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jorb Urban dictionary]. Would really like there to a better idea than that Plato did a great Jorb making a sixth solid to rule the mathematicians. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

: I agree. We should ask for our money back. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 17:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What if there're much more of them, like a [https://xkcd.com/2657 Ď̩̰odec̭ähedron], but our minds can't properly comprehend their shape?
: There are a bunch of other regular polyhedra besides the Platonic solids. Most notable are the triangular, square, and hexagonal tilings (which are planar and infinite) and the four Kepler-Poinsot polyedra (which are nonconvex). And there are dozens more if you don't require faces to be planar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.234|172.70.178.234]] 09:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
::See https://youtu.be/_hjRvZYkAgA for an overview of every regular polyhedron in Euclidean 3-space. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.40|162.158.146.40]] 09:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I had never seen this channel before, and I'd very much like to thank you for introducing it to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.8|162.158.167.8]] 21:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
: Some of the proofs of the theorem that there are exactly five platonic solids do not require our minds to "comprehend their shape", because they only rely on their algebrical properties. In fact, the Group theory proof works in any dimension (≥3), despite our minds being very bad at picturing what stuff looks like in higher dimensions. In fact, it's a bit of the opposite: lower dimensions (2 and 3) are "special cases", because all other dimensions have exactly 6 such platonic solids. [[User:Jthulhu|Jthulhu]] ([[User talk:Jthulhu|talk]]) 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a reference to how the Utah Teapot is nicknamed “the sixth Platonic solid” due to its presence beside real Platonic solids in demonstrations of 33D rendering. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.118.133|172.68.118.133]] 08:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
:...yeah, but you need to render that 33D shape on a proper 32D monitor, ideally, because even on a 31D monitor the two different forced perspectives/projections you need to collapse the extra dimensions down tend to look confusing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.229|172.70.162.229]] 10:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC) *insert winky-face as necessary*
:: Thanks, that predates my claim in https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00090, so I won’t claim priority:
::: ‘By this conception, the claim that there is a Russell Set is simply wishful thinking, analogous to wanting the phrase “sixth Platonic solid” to have a referent, while not actually intuiting which shape this might be.’
:: — [[User:FlashSheridan|FlashSheridan]] ([[User talk:FlashSheridan|talk]]) 12:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we think about Jorb, perhaps, as "J orb," which might lead us to think about (''i'',''j'') coordinates, i.e. notational systems where ''j'' is the square root of minus 1? (blah blah engineering vs. mathematics, what does ''i'' mean, &c., &c., &c.) Maybe not! [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 10:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

When I naively imagine further platonic solids, my approach to cheating is usually to imagine arbitrarily non-euclidean space. It’s somewhat pleasant that the jorb looks a little like that —- it’s only platonic if the coordinate system it’s in bends and stretches to make it so. I imagine the name and depiction are simply to be intentionslkynvague or confusing about what it actually is. It’s a lot harder to do real innovation nowadays and tasks like inventing a jorb can readily crop up to nerds (the nerd snipe kind) who are looking for sufficiently hard and harmless puzzles. A sixth platonic solid seems to mostly happen outside the norms of what people usually consider in a pretty significant way. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.99|162.158.155.99]] 02:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked GPT-4, "Why could Sauron control the Nazgûl when not in possession of the One Ring?" The response:

:''Sauron was able to control the Nazgûl even when he didn't possess the One Ring because of the nature of the rings they received and the relationship these rings had with the One Ring.''
:''Sauron, disguised as Annatar, the "Lord of Gifts," helped the Elven smiths of Eregion, led by Celebrimbor, forge the Rings of Power. Unknown to the Elves, Sauron had instructed them to forge the rings in such a way that they could be controlled by one master ring - the One Ring. He secretly forged the One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom, uttering the famous verse: "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."''
:''When he gave the nine rings to Men, these rings corrupted them over time and turned them into the Nazgûl, also known as the Ringwraiths. Because these nine rings were still under the influence of the One Ring, Sauron was able to control the Nazgûl even when he did not possess the One Ring himself. The One Ring's power was inherent and didn't need physical proximity to exert control. The Nazgûl were bound to the will of Sauron as their wills were dominated by their rings, which were in turn dominated by the One Ring.''
:''The link and dominance were so strong that even when the One Ring was lost, the Nazgûl remained under Sauron's control. It's also worth noting that Sauron held the Nine Rings the Nazgûl originally received, which could also contribute to his ability to control them.''
:''It's a complex network of influence and control established by Sauron, making him a powerful Dark Lord even in the absence of his master ring.''

Well. I'm glad <s>someone</s> something understands that. Lol. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.145|172.69.22.145]] 06:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks suspiciously like a bicycle saddle to me. And as anyone who's parked their backside on one for any distance or time, it is DEFINITELY a solid. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 07:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
:(Well, there's all kinds of saddles, and the [https://www.brooksengland.com/en_uk/swallow.html golden era of leather saddles] were actually not that bad (that link states a 10 year guarantee for the current output, but I personally know of a couple used regularly for 60+years and were still doing well), though with the advent of more synthesised materials they've had to go creative with the texture/covering to give it back the 'give'. Which no doubt makes more an 'impression' on the more modern saddle purchaser, in more ways than one.)
:Reminds me of one of the more abstract 'elemental' {{w|Henry Moore}} pieces, or possibly one of his contemporaries/'inspired-by's. And you could certainly find painters and other art-form creators who have gone into 'abstract blob' shapes, either to represent something real in a novel way or to deliberately represent nothing real at all, and I suspect that's Randall's aim... (Like "xkcd" made to not look enough like anything else, or so intended). It certainly shows no sign of ''any'' symmetry at all. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.32|172.70.86.32]] 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on the shape, ribbing, and a different definition of "platonic" I think this could be referring to the Roman artefact that was recently re-classified as a dildo. Platonic solid? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.111.111|172.70.111.111]] 16:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, this feels like a Cow Tools comic to me. Sometimes mathematicians discover new things, wouldn't it be weird if they discovered something impossible? End of joke. Everything else regarding the shape and name is an inkblot test (until the title text which is actually a LOTR reference of course). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.82.59|172.70.82.59]] 17:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that the dodecahedron and isocahedron have their names switched? [[User:C.h.ninnymuggins|C.h.ninnymuggins]] ([[User talk:C.h.ninnymuggins|talk]]) 21:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
:It would be if they were (a common error), but... they aren't. (See {{w|Platonic solid|here}}.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.196|172.69.79.196]] 21:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok whoever added that jan misali link that's super cool of you nice [[Special:Contributions/172.71.82.147|172.71.82.147]] 03:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Bumpf

I feel that there's a joke missing here, especially with the LOTR connection made in the alt-text. After all, Plato might have gifted the solids to the mathematicians, but thanks to Gary Gygax, it was the gamers who found a use for them....
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.7|172.70.86.7]] 06:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Plato did a a great jorb ruling the mathematicians by forging the impossible... plato got a gold star at his job review... was that really it?--[[User:4til7|4til7]] ([[User talk:4til7|talk]]) 20:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I kind of feel sorry for the platonic solids. Condemned to the friend zone for eternity; or at least until the end of this universe. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 22:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You've all been nerd sniped. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.43|172.70.42.43]]

Also the Gömböc comes to mind from the name, the shape and the novelty of Jorb.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.182.115|162.158.182.115]] 18:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
: Added link to "{{w|Gömböc}}", as that is immediately what I thought of when seeing this comic. Randall's Jorb looks designed to have Gomboc-like properties: if starting on the long thin facet seen on the top edge, it would be gently pulled down by the large round egg-like "end" and then presumably roll onto one side or the other i.e. rotating around its long axis until reaching the position shown. If the Jorb were indeed a mono-monostatic shape, then like the known Gömböc design it would be a "polyhedron" with one (albeit curved) "facet", and like the Platonic solids it can rest on any one of its facets, trivially true as there is only one facet. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 05:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

So, I think this explanation is under-focused on the actual joke. The core humor here is the idea that "Platonic Solid" means "Solids Plato made" and not regular polyhedra at all. "Mathmetitions long believed there were five platonic solids, all regular polyhedra" So the jorb is explicitly a platonic solid that is not a regular polyhedra. Our explanation should point out then, things like the fact that the platonic solids predate Plato.

There is no doubt that the cube is the most common, but today a strange force made a lot of tetrahedron objects appear. This happens every year. [[User:ConlangGuide|ConlangGuide]] ([[User talk:ConlangGuide|talk]]) 06:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC); 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC); 06:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC); 06:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:I'd like the answer to two questions:
:# What is CG even talking about?
:# What is the person who keeps removing CG's comment even complaining about? (Something about Cultural Misappropriation, but ''which'' culture(s)?)
:...maybe the answer to one will answer the other, but I've a feeling they're entirely unconnected. Perhaps one (or both?) just trolling. Yet, unless 7/7 is International Dungeons&Dragons™ Day, or something, neither even close to what I'm imagining it's about. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.96|172.71.242.96]] 10:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::That post first appeared in June. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.17|172.71.154.17]] 23:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
'''Stop your games'''. And they clearly ''are'' games, as we already know about the historic link between the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2781:_The_Six_Platonic_Solids&diff=next&oldid=317682 .XXX and CG-styled accounts], which you (singular/plural, I don't care) have now used to 'edit war between yoursel(f/ves)'. I don't generally care if the comment is there (whatever it even refers to, but with no obvious 'illegality') or not, but useless reverts/de-reverts/re-reveets/etc should not be tolerated. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.53|172.70.91.53]] 08:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Ha, CG started to fight against himself! Hee-Ha! Hung-Huh-Ha-Hey! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.205|162.158.166.205]] 23:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if this is relevant: http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/A_Jorb_Well_Done {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.141|3:47, 2 July 2023}}

Talk:2738: Omniknot

2023-06-20T21:07:09Z

172.70.85.110: Modified revert (with additional reply)

Down the middle, that's Granny, Reef, ...(k)not sure.., ?bow line and two half hitches? and something of a plaited-knot that the name escapes me entirely right now (but an extension of the other one I can't identify). I'm sure there's a handy online catalogue of knots, to reference, though, before I try to stumble over the side-knots too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.172|172.71.242.172]] 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Binding security maximized but unbinding security minimized. RIP, tethered sailor beneath a capsized boat. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.78|172.70.114.78]] 16:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This comic is dead on for a facetious rock climbing saying: "If you can't tie a knot, then tie a lot." Based on the tactic some climbing newcomers use, of tying tons of knots all over the place because they aren't confident that any one knot will hold. This tactic is strongly frowned upon - you should learn the right knot, use it, and don't add any extraneous ones.

Somebody on twitter posted an image with the two strings in different colours, which helps to visualize the knots:
https://twitter.com/hollowgrin/status/1625902852387352576
[[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:Feels like this NEEDS to be included in the explanation so I added it. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::As per adding comment, I'd rather like to see the image in-site. (It's very difficult to open Twitter links without the seemingly undeletable Twitter app opening and telling me I need to get off my arse and get an account, so I tend not to even try.) I bashed up one of my own, for my own pleasure, but I'm not fooling myself that it's any good (basic blue/red masked to each side's rope, with directional chevrons no-masked out to show direction of pull... tried to gradient it to indicate distance as well - that looked awful!) and others' efforts would be nice to see.
::(Assuming permission isn't asked for, but refused.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.132|172.69.79.132]] 15:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Damn, I traced it myself and I am pretty sure the picture on twitter is better (I will not look, I will only get depressed...) I'd put that coloured picture under "transcript" ;-)[[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.140|172.68.51.140]] 18:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:Nah, transcript is supposed to be all regular text, aggressively so. That link is rather pictorial. :) I added the link to the explanation instead. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't suppose any of you knot-loreheads would care to add an explanation/link to explain "Connecting them with a hitch" from the title text? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.231|172.70.254.231]] 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A "bend" is a knot that connects two ropes or lines. A "hitch" is a knot that connects a rope (a.k.a. line) to something like a post, loop, or shackle.

Is there a mistake in the title text then, since he says to use a random hitch to connect something from the top (presumably rope in the form of a knot) to something in the bottom (presumably more rope)? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.82.186|172.70.82.186]] 22:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:I think using a hitch on another rope can be valid, with one rope ACTING as said post, being all straight. For example, a rope pre-secured at both ends, and thus unable to "participate" in the knot, tying a rope to it in-between instead, such as tying a rope to a clothesline.

I tied it in real life. Once everything was tightened, the main taut portion was the Carrick bend with the other four knots slacking below, and it held pretty well. I imagine if the slack was on the other side, putting stress on the granny knot, it would be a different story. I would upload the picture but I messed up the reef knot and that pulled straight out. --[[User:Jacky720|Jack]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|c]]) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sailor here. The "granny knot" is what a sailor would call a "thief's knot", and it used to be used in place of a reef knot, in some parts of the world, when stores were suspected to be going missing; the thief, after taking some of the stores, would re-lash the remainder using a proper reef knot (through force of habit) and the change of knot would give away that the stores are being taken from that pile.

Additionally, the two bends at the sides look more like sheet bends than bowlines, to me. It just looks like a rope is passed through a bite and then holds the bite together with a half-hitch. (Maybe I just can't get my head around the orientation, though?)

Lastly - is it maybe worth adding that the reason for the figure-of-eights at the tail of the rope is to act as a "stopper" knot, to prevent the tail working it's way back through the half-hitch, which would enable the bite to come apart and the whole thing to come loose? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.147|172.70.86.147]] 10:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:A note that a Granny knot is ''not'' the Thief knot. A Granny is (often!) a mis-tied Reef, half re-handed to create a less flat version of the binding, whilst a Thief is a variation of the Reef, which has the opposite track to one of the cords to look the same at first glance (enough to catch the unwary/rushed, as you say, who might then fail to restore it as originally left).
:In fact, a knot that has been given the variations of both '''Gr'''anny and Th'''ief''' is called a "Grief", rather than be back to the original Reef (or a functionally identical reflection/rotation). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.64|172.71.178.64]] 12:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:I corrected "bite" to "bight", as that's the correct spelling for a loop of rope or line. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.141|172.69.134.141]] 06:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
::Don't do that. Feel free to explain the 'error', but here in the Discussion pages these are words written by specified people (or at least their IPs) and you can never know if it's an error/a pun/correct in a different dictionary from yours/any other reason that it is 'wrong'. Educate people (or set yourself up to ''be'' educated), don't whitewash (perhaps incorrectly) over text that the original author may not even find has been changed. They could possibly be changed to say something they did ''not'' intend, and it would need a judgement call to, e.g., disentangle honest (mis)use of an autoantonym from a deliberate vandalism. Anyway, I have reverted your changes, but retained your comment. Not because I actually think it was ever a bad-faith edit (you are right, as far as I'm aware, though I hadn't actually picked it up myself during my own reading and replying here), just that it sets a bad principle. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.110|172.70.85.110]] 21:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Both bowlines are the "correctly" tied sailor's bowline. There is an alternative "left-handed" version in which the end goes the other direction, coming out to the side rather than the interior of the knot. Also called the cowboy bowline, ABOK 1034.5 It is unclear which version is better. One could probably do a PhD dissertation on bowline knots. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.97|172.71.30.97]] 14:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Scoutmaster here. I recommend the "Animated Knots by Grog" website as a knot reference. The Wikipedia entries on granny and grief knots are surprisingly useful references for how those knots differ from each other and the reef knot. 
The knot on top is definitely a <s>granny knot and not a grief knot.</s> I was wrong. :P Since the ends that terminate the knot exit on opposite sides instead of the same side, calling it a grief knot is not wrong. 
Left and right knots are bowlines because they have three working ends and one dead end. The sheet bend has two live ends and two dead ends. The center knot is indeterminate; if you cover up the ends it could be either a sheet bend or a bowline, as they have the same form. Since it appears to have four live ends it would be fair to call it "neither" as well. PhD thesis topic, indeed. 
I'd also like to point out that the capsizing nature of the reef knot is considered a feature - it affords easy untying even after being used under heavy load, such as holding a rolled up sail hanging from a yard arm. Being able to unfurl the sail by pulling a single rope is useful. As already noted on the page: if you don't want that feature, pick a different knot. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.36|172.71.146.36]] 14:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:You can't really tell a difference between Granny and Grief (and Reef and Thief) in the above as there's not really a 'loose end' from any of those. Following all cords, the visible ends ending with the stoppers ''or'' the off-screen ends (possibly coming back on-screen from the other side, in a large loop, but we can't know that) always goes through multiple other knotted segments. Although I'd say Granny (and Reef) as default is certainly the simplest interpretation.
:And an uncollapsed Reef tends to jam itself, to not simply undo. You need to force it (or rely upon it rotating, through (improper?) use) to make it into a "cow hitch around a straight rope" form and thus an easier untie. Which you can only do if you have sufficient slack on one 'end'.
:(Not sure you could guarantee it capsizing, deliberately or incidentaly, in the omniknot situation once the whole mass gets strained. And there's no way ''that'' Reef segment can undo itsef, without plenty of other knot-failures happening, even if it does re-wrap...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.100|172.70.91.100]] 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, forcing a reef knot to capsize requires abusing the knot; i.e. applying a load onto one of the formerly loose ends. It takes less force than you may think. Try it sometime! I have occasion for this most often with kids' shoestrings.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.59|172.71.147.59]] 03:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

According to at least one interpretation I've heard, the origin of the Gordian knot story is the use of a complex knot as a sort of tamper evident seal. It won't stop a determined intruder, but it will let the the owner know someone has violated the seal (because the rope is either loose or tied back differently), and let the would-be violator know that the violation they might be considering won't go unnoticed. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.143|172.71.30.143]] 16:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"it is knot recommended to use overly complex knots ..." -- is this meant as a joke? the wrong not is used before recommended
:Of course, obviously. :) There's no doubt in my mind. Explain XKCD editors can't help adding jokes and puns wherever possible, and this one is somewhat required, LOL! (Also, sign your comments, please) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Made it: https://imgur.com/gallery/cYQQPKq [[User:Mikemenn|Mikemenn]] ([[User talk:Mikemenn|talk]]) 16:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Mikemenn