explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2960: Organ Meanings

2024-07-18T13:34:28Z

172.70.85.113: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2960
| date = July 17, 2024
| title = Organ Meanings
| image = organ_meanings_2x.png
| imagesize = 407x346px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = IMO the thymus is one of the coolest organs and we should really use it in metaphors more.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT'S PINEAL GLAND - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This is a graph by [[Randall]] ranking how well he understands the function of certain human organs, compared to how much he understands {{w|metaphor}}s using them. 

One might expect understanding an organ's role and its use in metaphor to be strongly correlated, since the metaphors work by drawing a parallel to biological function. However, since our understanding of biological functions has evolved dramatically over time, and metaphorical language does not always keep up, the correspondence is often much looser. To complicate matters, many such anatomical metaphors vary from culture to culture, even though the biological functions remain largely consistent {{Citation needed}}.

The {{w|pineal gland}}, located in the center of the brain, was described as the “Seat of the Soul” by the dualist {{w|René Descartes}} in the 17th century. If this was what it was, the metaphors that might be derived from it would be pretty explicit. It was only in the mid-20th century that its real neuroendocrine (hormone-producing) biological role was grasped. Thus, the real meaning of the metaphor "the pineal gland of something" is uncertain, as is its actual function for the layman.

The {{w|thymus}}, highlighted in the title text, plays an important role in the immune system. It is not commonly used in metaphors,{{Citation needed}} but is perhaps ripe for use in ones describing such things as resilience, indomitability, and adaptability to changing circumstance, were more people to know what it was.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|-
! Organ !! Biological understanding !! Metaphor understanding !! Biological function !! Metaphor meaning(s)
|-
| {{w|Appendix_(anatomy)|Appendix}} || 3% || 85% || Maintaining gut flora, introducing pathogens to the immune system || Uselessness
|-
| {{w|Nerves}} || 40% || 90% || Sensing stimuli, and controlling muscles and organs || Courage; lack of courage; unsettledness; arrogance
|-
| {{w|Spine}} || 50% || 80% || Holding other bones up || Courage; structural integrity; centrality
|-
| {{w|Heart}} || 80% || 90% || Circulation of blood || Emotion; feeling; sympathy; love; courage; resilience; core; essence; the vulnerable self
|-
| {{w|Bones}} || 75% || 80% || Holding the skin up || Basic/underlying structure; something hidden; core; essence
|-
| {{w|Stomach}} || 70% || 65% || Repository for cake || Ability to tolerate unpleasant circumstances; motivation
|-
| {{w|Liver}} || 10% || 48% || Processing alcohol ||
|-
| {{w|Lungs}} || 60% || 52% || Oxygenation of blood; speaking || Loudness (e.g. of singing); purification
|-
| {{w|Spleen}} || 22% || 34% || Storing extra blood || Anger; viciousness
|-
| {{w|Thymus}} || 10% || 13% || Training immune cells (T-Cells) ||
|-
| {{w|Kidneys}} || 47% || 19% || Filtering blood ||
|-
| {{w|Pineal gland}} || 2% || 2% || Produces melatonin ||
|-
| {{w|Tongue}} || 70% || 5% || Taste; chewing; speaking || Speaking; something long and extended
|}

==Transcript==
:[A graph is shown with X and Y-axis without arrow or ticks. To the left of the Y-axis and below the X-axis there are labels with an arrow pointing up from the top of the Y-axis label and an arrow pointing right above the X-axis label, just beneath the x-axis.]
:Y-axis: How well I understand what it means when used in metaphors
:X-axis: How well I understand its actual biological function

:[On the graph is a scatter plot with 13 labels. Each label is written inside a line that goes just around the words. There are most in the top right corner, but they are spread all over the graph. Here in approximate reading order from top left with indicating of where on the graph the words are located:]
:[Top left:]
:Appendix
:[Top middle:]
:Nerves
:Spine
:[Top right:]
:Heart
:Bones
:Stomach
:[Center left:]
:Liver
:Spleen
:[Center right:]
:Lungs
:[Bottom left:]
:Thymus
:Pineal gland
:[Bottom middle:]
:Kidneys
:[Bottom right:]
:Tongue

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Scatter plots]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:2583: Chorded Keyboard

2022-02-25T00:05:22Z

172.70.85.113:

Why is it H+<Left> rather than H+<Right>? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 03:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:Probably for the rhyme with "Shift" in the previous verse. In terms of practicality, though, I agree — <Right> would make more sense for a real keychord. {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.154}}
::A pity Shift and Left don't rhyme very well. But then neither do Chord and Word. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 03:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::It works if you're from New Zealand. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.16|162.158.111.16]] 10:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::Wow, I totally missed that {{w|near rhyme}}. It's not quite so bad if you sing it, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 03:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::: Eh, {{w|Tom Lehrer}}'s certainly done much worse slant rhymes. -- [[User:KarMann|KarMann]] ([[User talk:KarMann|talk]]) 03:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::Sadly, too, there was the opportunity for "The other hand, hits H and ''lift.''" Alas. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 04:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::I don't know about other people, but I can reach H+<Left> on my keyboard with the index finger and pinky of my right hand, but H+<Right> requires thumb and pinky and doing something terribly awkward with my wrist. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.161|172.70.110.161]] 06:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::I added some (necessary?) additional contextualising of how it mirrors the original song, consider it a bridge/middle-eight, so that those who still don't quite get that bit of popular culture get a bit more of the idea than before.
::In the process I made an executive decision to comment about the rhyming (or not) along the way.
::...but I strayed into 'Cueball's Computer Problems' territory, and then noticed (sorry, missed it before diving in) that it's mentioned again (but chronologically before!) at the the end of the explanation. I'm not quite sure how to remove the redundancy. The lyrical trailing-off really needs to mention this, I feel, but removing repetitions from the other person's text will need extra thought too. If someone gets in there before I do and modifies either/both of the sections nicely then that'll be Ok, but I'll try to revisit it myself (and {{wiktionary|kill_one%27s_darlings|'kill my darlings'}} if necessary) if nobody else sees fit to in my stead. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:presumably he programmed his keyboard to use chord-logic for ALL common words.... if he has ctrl, alt, shift, and at least two special function keys, such as win and alt-gr.... that's 2^5=32 possible signal combinations from function keys. if he uses the 8 direction keys on the numeric keypad, that's 32*8= 256 possibilities for command modifiers to each letter. So, in theory, he could program in an unique combination of key strokes that chooses between the 256 most common words that begin with each letter, totaling 6656 possible words that can by typed using chording. The combination that results in "hallelujah" just happens to be ctrl-shift-h-left. hopefully there's a graphical prompt which shows you the 8 possible current words to choose from, given the most recent combination of function keys and a given letter.
::I happen to know that if you're typing in Japanese phonetic letters using MS Word, there are actually so many homonym words which have different logographic symbols, and different meanings, but which all SOUND the same, and thus are phonetically TYPED the same, that's it actually NORMAL for Word to list a pop-up context menu with the top-8 word choices you might have just meant to enter, and require you to select one before continuing. and then it swaps out the correct logograph symbol for the phonetic symbols you just typed. I don't think it uses the numpad directional arrows to make the choice, but honestly, it would be a lot more user-friendly if it did.... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.170|162.158.74.170]] 05:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it steganography? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.41|108.162.237.41]] 04:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:Stenography* [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.239|198.41.242.239]] 19:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:Stenotype actually (though they use special typing machines, but there's software to use any keyboard for stenotype). It's been a cornerstone of court reporting and live captioning for over a century, and it doesn't seem to be replaced anytime soon by transcription "AI", given how horrible it still is. I'm surprised it's not been mentioned in the article.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.190.113|162.158.190.113]] 12:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, having considerable knowledge of one of those covers of the song can lead to more confusion than less familiarity with any of them. My wife was recently moderately obsessed with Rufus Wainwright, including his cover of 'Hallelujah'. So when I read this comic, I didn't catch on until most of the way through what other Randall was up to. But when she read it, she caught on in the first line, and yet, didn't get the title text at all until I explained it to her (having compared some versions overnight before then), since that line isn't included in Rufus' version. No particular point here, just, well, 'Talk'. -- [[User:KarMann|KarMann]] ([[User talk:KarMann|talk]]) 01:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone recorded a cover with these lyrics yet? I had kind of assumed that would happen soon after this was posted. --[[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 04:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Kind of disappointed that the explanation isn't itself written in verse form after Hallelujah. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 11:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

;Control Shift H
https://defkey.com/what-means/ctrl-shift-h shows the shortcut action in 113 programs. (Who knew there was a website devoted to keyboard shortcuts?) In Firefox, it shows your history as soon has you hit the H. (I like to think that Randall uses good ol' open source Firefox.) Your history will show the current XKCD page first, of course, but that listing does not include the word "HALLELUJAH." The next keydown is interpreted as a separate keystroke. Nothing interesting happens with the 8 permutations of Ctrl-Shift (up or down) and (left arrow, numpad left, left tab, backspace). I was kinda hoping that Mozilla had secretly conspired to tweak this keystroke combination in the last update. In short, I have nothing to add to the explanation, but not for lack of trying. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.187|108.162.219.187]] 23:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (This is my first explainxkcd comment. I'll properly sign up before I comment again.)

We can add a javascript snippet that captures this keychord and shows "Hallelujah" on this website, right :P
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.188.81|172.70.188.81]] 04:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that the strip is "technically incorrect" in two ways, in order to make the song work. Firstly, while key-combos are often referred to as "chords", when they are user-configured they are typically called "macros" instead... but that would break the joke. Secondly, *Corded keyboards* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard) are a very, very different thing to "perfectly normal keyboard hardware connected to a system where someone has set up macros". A corded keyboard would not typically have any of the keys described in the strip: they normally have a half-dozen keys or less, though some exist with two or three rows of about four keys.

Also, the current explanation is incorrect both in that macroing is in any way a thing of the past, and also that it is always application-level. Things like AutoHotKey (windows), BetterTouchTool (mac), AutoKey and IronAHK (Linux) etc permit system-level macroing, so that the key-combo can inject the word hallelujah into whichever application currently has keyboard focus, typos can be automatically fixed, etc. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.162|108.162.238.162]] 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

: To be clear, the closest thing that exists to any kind of special keyboard hardware required to support chords/macros is a keyboard with *N-key rollover* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollover_(keyboard)) ... but this would not be required for the chord described in the strip. There are also gaming keyboards which have additional keys (eg Logitech's with extra "G keys") which allow you to map macros to those extra keys using custom keyboard driver software... but this is explicitly there to prevent you needing to chord to fire a macro. Neither of these are called "chorded keyboards", either. Fairly sure Randal would know all this and was just stretching facts to fit the joke. It'll be interesting to see if his alternative meaning for "chorded keyboard" becomes popular after this strip. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.130|162.158.187.130]] 16:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

'''Randall is not a millennial''' (& popularization of the interface hacks described, pre-dates millennials), so I have changed the first occurrence to read "gen-X", & corrected the past-tense phrasing farther down, to allow for modern usage (especially since alternative keyboards are ''more'' widely known\used now, than in the past). Randall has even done comics about this obnoxiously persistent & utility-reducing shift in terminology around "millennials": ''Not everyone born after the "baby boom" generation is a millennial!'' There were ''two'' generations in between. Regardless, common usage persistently shifts toward calling everyone since the Baby Boomers a "Millennial". In point of fact, many (or most?) of the social phenomena commonly associated with millenials, were well established over a decade before the millennium ("meme" image captions, digital nativism, eschewing traditional career & transportation modes, et cetera). Unfortunately, because the generation subsequent to the baby boom was comparatively so small, they are largely insignificant in terms of marketing & finance. (Gen-X also happen to have the lowest average income of any living generation.) Hence, everything post-BabyBoom tends to be attributed to "millennials", because ''actual'' millennials are the first generations since the baby boom, to comprise a population segment too large to be marginalized. <br />
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
:(Moreover:)
:In reality, increased interaction between age groups has largely erased any clear "generational" segmentation in behavior, rendering useless the entire concept of distinctly divided "generations": Age is an increasingly poor indicator of social set, & there is no globally consistent swell & decay cycle in birth rates, to produce meaningful points of demarcation between clusters. In other words, while age may ''sometimes'' still provide statistically useful clues toward an individual's behavior, there is no longer any clear dividing line between age groups over time. More practical & applicable to any year, are terms such as "teens" (13-19), "young adults" (<35), "middle aged", & "geriatric". Terms defining a "generation" by arbitrary decade rollovers, are increasingly disinformative & constitute poor set optimization.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
::Actually... Randall is a millennial. I won't revert the change as I find these generational categories silly and don't see how mentioning it adds anything to the (already very bloated) explanation but general consensus (i.e. wikipedia) is, that the term "Millennial" describes those born between 1981 and 1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Randall was born in 1984. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the phrase "millenial". I meant like the 80s and 90s but didn't know the right term. I'm surprised that the link to the section of the wikipedia showing open source hacker keyboards like the one randall depicts was changed back, dunno. It would be cool to link the image in from that article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard#/media/File:Chording_Keyboard.png ) or any other image. The current wording of the article added some inclusion around GUI operating systems, maybe like Windows, which is great, but do they have the level of customisation that linux and emacs hackers enjoy? When you code it yourself you can make arbitrarily large chords. It's been a long time since I've customised a GUI OS, so I'm imagining things have changed and you could somehow set up a homebrew chorded keyboard on windows or osx as well nowadays. It's certainly gotten _harder_ on linux, where things are much less barebones than they used to be. Probably a software package for all the environments somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.99|172.70.114.99]] 22:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
:"I'm surprised that the link to the section of the wikipedia showing open source hacker keyboards like the one randall depicts was changed back"... I did that. The link was for Chorded Keyboards, not for specificall the open-source ones. The reader who follows your link would have to scroll up to find out what a chorded keyboard ''was'', and might be excused for imaginging there was no relevence to the next section down about Commercial Devices was also not being possibly referenced.
:As pointed out, it appears that it was a lyrical thing, and it was a standard keyboard with various settings, but at the point of the link it was explaining the principle of any chorded keyboard, like a Braille-writer...
:...which, incidentally, does ''not'' do "whole words" with a combination, except if set up that way through optional configuration, much as Cueball has done for his regular-seeming non-chorded keyboard, but is calling a "chord".
:(I personally often set up many shortcuts on my Windows machines. I seem to be able to use Ctrl-Shift-Alt-<character> with impunity to launch many programmes or other features, because there are virtually no situations in which my four-fingered-salute would be something another program with keyboard-focus is likely to misinterpret as being an instruction built into it. Generally that's a mnemonic <character> to the thing I want to speed-launch, but I have occasionally used a cursor. I must admit I have never tried to hack a two-meta-two-'normal' key thing, so not sure whether I need to use something a bit more interesting than inbuilt Windows functionality for that. Will check next time I'm back on an MS OS. And I've never used it to speed-type things, which would need me to call something I've written/appropriated that does a configurable buffer-dump.)
:Anyway, I see in you a fellow verbose individual, like I'm striving (and failing) not to be. Welcome, if you're new to this site! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121|172.70.90.121]] 01:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on prior discussion about Milennial vs Generation-X, I think the solution is to go with the Xennial term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.69|162.158.146.69]] 23:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:I already thought, when the whole age-group-of-Randall was first brought up, that it was an unnecessary commentary. It's Cueball, who could be anybody of whatever age you want across a whole swathe of Gen-X and onwards. If I were of a mood to editorialise it to my own tastes I'd just put it back to "this is something that certain technically-minded people do" (to paraphrase, without looking up if it was written as hackers/geeks/whatever).
:The bit about "and his original audience" just confuses me. Is this a message to the far future when people like me (not a customised-keyboard user, but been reading xkcd almost from the beginning, so 'original' to that extent) are dead and gone? Or out virtually picketting the Metaverse so we no longer have time to keep up with CyberRandall 2.0's output anymore? It's a messy paragraph that seems to have something of an agenda behind it, not just simple explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.113|172.70.85.113]] 00:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

New user here, apologies if formatting inadequate - just wanted to observe that this is not the first XKCD to reference Cohen's secret chord song, it's also in the background of XKCD 1234 "Douglas Engelbart 1925-2013. Chris [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85|162.158.159.85]] 08:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This comic seems to have sparked a brief but bloody editing war over the efficiency of dvorak and qwerty, that issue raising its hoary head once more. It was funny to watch in real time. [[User:Requiscant|Requiscant]] ([[User talk:Requiscant|talk]]) 09:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

2585: Rounding

2022-02-24T04:05:08Z

172.70.85.113: /* Explanation */ Correcting (CN) position, wrt punctuation. Fathoms/etc aren't themselves any more esoteric than metric/’standard' imperial, but (if you insist) they are here being used esoterically.

{{comic
| number = 2585
| date = February 23, 2022
| title = Rounding
| image = rounding.png
| titletext = I've developed a novel propulsion system powered by loss of precision in unit conversion.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT moving at ᛟ smoots per millibarn attometer (rounded) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is about the follies of unit conversion. Normally, when you say you can ride a bike at 45 {{w|Miles per hour|mph}} if you round, you mean that you can ride at a speed between 44.5 and 45.5, something most people are incapable of doing.{{Citation needed}} The joke is that he actually means if you go through a extremely long chain of rounding imprecisely, starting at 17 mph (which is not an improbable speed for an ordinary road-bike and a reasonably fit rider), you can get to the value of 45.

The title text furthers the joke by taking the imprecise rounding literally, implying that this increase could actually be used/abused as a novel form of propulsion, but it isn't clarified for what type of vehicle. It could be an engine for ground or air travel, but contains the implication that it is trying to 'trick physics' similar to the {{w|Alcubierre drive|theoretical 'warp drive'}} conceived to propel interstellar spacecraft at otherwise impossible speeds.

Randall also esoterically uses some units here: fathoms/sec, furlongs/min, and furlongs/hr. A {{w|fathom}} is a unit of length, usually used to measure the depth of water. Fathoms/sec could potentially be used to measure the speed of a submersible, but not the speed of a bike. A {{w|furlong}} is also a unit of length, but is mostly obsolete except in horse racing. It is possible that furlongs/min or furlongs/hour could be used to measure the speed of a horse. {{w|Knot (unit)|Knot}}s (nautical mile per hour) are a standard unit of measuring speed, but are typically used for measuring speed for airplanes or ships, not speed on land.

{| class="wikitable"
! step !! mph !! {{w|Metre per second|m/s}} !! {{w|Knot (unit)|knots}} !! {{w|fathom}}s/sec !! {{w|furlong}}s/min !! {{w|Kilometres per hour|km/h}} !! furlongs/hour !! {{w|yard}}s/sec
|-
! 1
| 17 || 7.59968 || || || || || ||
|-
! 2
| 17.9 || 8 || 15.5508 || || || || ||
|-
! 3
| 18.41 || || 16 || 4.50083 || || || ||
|-
! 4
| 20.45 || || || 5 || 2.72727 || || ||
|-
! 5
| 22.5 || || || 5.50001 || 3 || || ||
|-
! 6
| 24.55 || || || 6 || || 39.5021 || ||
|-
! 7
| 24.85 || || 21.5983 || || || 40 || ||
|-
! 8
| 25.32 || || 22 || || || 40.744 || ||
|-
! 9
| 25.48 || || || || || 41 || 203.809 ||
|-
! 10
| 25.5001 || || || || || || 204 ||
|-
! 11
| 26 || 11.623 || || || || || ||
|-
! 12
| 26.84 || 12 || || || 3.57909 || || ||
|-
! 13
| 30 || || || || 4 || || || 14.6667
|-
! 14
| 30.68 || || || 7.5 || || || || 15
|-
! 15
| 32.73 || 14.6304 || || 8 || || || ||
|-
! 16
| 33.554 || 15 || || || || || ||
|-
! 17
| 34 || || || || 4.53332 || || ||
|-
! 18
| 37.5 || || 32.5867 || || 5 || || ||
|-
! 19
| 37.98 || || 33 || || || || || 18.5659
|-
! 20
| 38.86 || || || 9.5 || || || || 19
|-
! 21
| 40.91 || || 35.549 || 10 || || || ||
|-
! 22
| 41.43 || || 36 || || 5.52373 || || ||
|-
! 23
| 45.0001 || || || || 6 || || ||
|}

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

:[Cueball, wearing a bike helmet and standing next to a bike, is speaking to Megan.]

:Cueball: I can ride my bike at 45 MPH.
:Cueball: If you round.

:[To their right and proceeding down the rest of the comic, arrows show conversions from one measure into another unit.]

:17 MPH
:8 meters/sec
:16 knots
:5 fathoms/sec
:3 furlongs/min
:6 fathoms/sec
:40 KPH
:22 knots
:41 KPH
:204 furlongs/hr
:26 MPH
:12 M/S
:4 furlongs/min
:15 yards/sec
:8 fathoms/sec
:15 M/S
:34 MPH
:5 furlongs/min
:33 knots
:19 yards/sec
:10 fathoms/sec
:36 knots
:6 furlongs/min
:45 MPH

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Math]]

2585: Rounding

2022-02-24T01:37:11Z

172.70.85.113: /* Explanation */ Tiltetext explanation starts twice. Smashed the two versions together in the one place, as a cut'n'shut, but seems to still make sense.

{{comic
| number = 2585
| date = February 23, 2022
| title = Rounding
| image = rounding.png
| titletext = I've developed a novel propulsion system powered by loss of precision in unit conversion.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT moving at 7 PB/s (rounded) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is about the follies of unit conversion. Normally, when you say you can ride a bike at 45 {{w|Miles per hour|mph}} if you round, you mean that you can ride at a speed between 44.5 and 45.5, something most people are incapable of doing. The joke is that he actually means if you go through a extremely long chain of rounding imprecisely, starting at 17 mph (which is not an improbable speed for an ordinary road-bike and a reasonably fit rider), you can get to the value of 45.

{| class="wikitable"
! step !! mph !! {{w|Metre per second|m/s}} !! {{w|Knot (unit)|knots}} !! {{w|fathom}}s/sec !! {{w|furlong}}s/min !! {{w|Kilometres per hour|km/h}} !! furlongs/hour !! {{w|yard}}s/sec
|-
! 1
| 17 || 7.59968 || || || || || ||
|-
! 2
| || 8 || 15.5508 || || || || ||
|-
! 3
| || || 16 || 4.50083 || || || ||
|-
! 4
| || || || 5 || 2.72727 || || ||
|-
! 5
| || || || 5.50001 || 3 || || ||
|-
! 6
| || || || 6 || || 39.5021 || ||
|-
! 7
| || || 21.5983 || || || 40 || ||
|-
! 8
| || || 22 || || || 40.744 || ||
|-
! 9
| || || || || || 41 || 203.809 ||
|-
! 10
| 25.5001 || || || || || || 204 ||
|-
! 11
| 26 || 11.623 || || || || || ||
|-
! 12
| || 12 || || || 3.57909 || || ||
|-
! 13
| || || || || 4 || || || 14.6667
|-
! 14
| || || || 7.5 || || || || 15
|-
! 15
| || 14.6304 || || 8 || || || ||
|-
! 16
| 33.554 || 15 || || || || || ||
|-
! 17
| 34 || || || || 4.53332 || || ||
|-
! 18
| || || 32.5867 || || 5 || || ||
|-
! 19
| || || 33 || || || || || 18.5659
|-
! 20
| || || || 9.5 || || || || 19
|-
! 21
| || || 35.549 || 10 || || || ||
|-
! 22
| || || 36 || || 5.52373 || || ||
|-
! 23
| 45.0001 || || || || 6 || || ||
|}

The title text furthers the joke by taking the imprecise rounding literally, implying that this increase could actually be used/abused as a novel form of propulsion, but it isn't clarified for what type of vehicle. It could be an engine for ground or air travel, but contains the implication that it is trying to 'trick physics' similar to the {{w|Alcubierre drive|theoretical 'warp drive'}} conceived to propel interstellar spacecraft at otherwise impossible speeds.

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

:[Cueball, wearing a bike helmet and standing next to a bike, is speaking to Megan.]

:Cueball: I can ride my bike at 45 MPH.
:Cueball: If you round.

:[To their right and proceeding down the rest of the comic, arrows show conversions from one measure into another unit.]

:17 MPH
:8 meters/sec
:16 knots
:5 fathoms/sec
:3 furlongs/min
:6 fathoms/sec
:40 KPH
:22 knots
:41 KPH
:204 furlongs/hr
:26 MPH
:12 M/S
:4 furlongs/min
:15 yards/sec
:8 fathoms/sec
:15 M/S
:34 MPH
:5 furlongs/min
:33 knots
:19 yards/sec
:10 fathoms/sec
:36 knots
:6 furlongs/min
:45 MPH

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Math]]

Talk:2585: Rounding

2022-02-24T01:32:10Z

172.70.85.113:

Wot no {{w|FFF system|furlongs per fortnight}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.126|172.70.91.126]] 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If we're using the table, can I suggest it be fully filled in, but mark "original (rounded)" value cells one key colour and the chosen conversion in another, so that scanning along (not necessarily adjacent/rightwards) then down (always next row) then along... you see the 'bounce around'. And we also get to appreciate what other fractional values ''could'' have been chosen, prior to rounding... Alternately, some flow-charty layout (perhaps contained within a nominally borderless version of the table?) with arrows leading across the width and filling in-between each down-step. Ideas only (I have others, but those seem the best betsto consider). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.113|172.70.85.113]] 01:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)