explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2948: Electric vs Gas

2024-06-22T07:55:33Z

172.70.85.240:

Now I'm not a fan of gas engines, but that argument is in bad faith. Gas engines have one ''very big'' advantage over electrics: Energy density, and by extension, range. Batteries can't come close to the energy density of hydrocarbons, despite the latters' overall lower efficiency. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

:I think that's one of the main arguments for hybrid systems. Using a gas engine to charge an electric motor, and then using the electric motor to actually power the appliance, enables significant efficiency gains. If anything, combining the technologies enables even greater ''usable'' energy density from hydrocarbons. Hybrid electric vehicles for example are extremely efficient. [[User:Eunakria|Eunakria]] ([[User talk:Eunakria|talk]]) 17:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Energy density, and the ability to move large amounts of stored energy from one place to another quickly and easily (aka pump gas, vs charge or swap a battery), from a thermal and maintenance perspective. (Which is not entirely unrelated to energy density.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.39.54|172.70.39.54]] 18:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Swapping batteries (and slowly charging the batteries in the swap station) could offer comparable "charge" times to gasoline refuelling times, while also being better for battery lifespan, but would require industry coordination and standardisation re: battery packs and install location that, sadly, simply does not exist. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.212|172.70.42.212]] 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Plug-in hybrids have been superior since 1904, but the incremental capital cost is still an issue while oil is under $100/bbl. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.129|172.71.150.129]] 19:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::A litre of gasoline provides 31.5MJ of energy, and in the US a pump transfers 38 litres (10 USgal) per minute, or 0.633 litres per second. That's an energy throughput of 31.5MJ/l x 0.633 l/s = 19.95MW. And US gasoline pumps are, by law, slow. In the civilised world, petrol pumps can deliver 30% more (50l/minute). Hi-flow diesel pumps used to fill trucks and buses are much faster - between 80 and 120 litres per minute. 120 litres per minute of diesel fuel is an energy transfer rate of about 76MW. By comparison, the fastest 3-phase AC chargers for the Tesla model 3 charge at 11kW; Pumping gas is about 2,000 times faster at getting energy into a car than this. The fastest single phase chargers are 7.4kW; While a standard wall socket charger can manage a paltry 2.3kW, (around a ten-thousandth of the energy transfer rate of a gas pump). The "super" DC charging stations achieve an "impressive" 250kW, making pumping gas at a regular gas station about eighty times faster than using one of these. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.207|172.68.64.207]] 07:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
: Except of course that this isn't quite as simple as this. A Honda Civic (one the most popular US petrol cars) will go about 400 miles on a full tank, about the same as a Dodge Ram. Also about the same as a Tesla Model S. There's a pretty good reason this isn't a coincidence - people don't want more much more range, and a bigger tank is more weight. A Chevy Silverado full tank will go about 500miles. If you really want range, you need to look at a hybrid car. As the comic points out, the torque on a standard otto cycle engine is poor, but that cycle is deliberately designed to give more torque. Hybrids use an Atkinson cycle which is far more energy efficient, but could not provide enough torque - so you use the electric to do that. A Prius has a range in excess of 630 miles, more than any popular petrol car. So if you want range, you still want an electric engine, just store the energy in hydrocarbons. For similar reasons, diesel trains use the diesel to run generators which then power the electric motors on the wheels, and have done for decades. {{unsigned ip|172.70.162.186|20:47, 19 June 2024}}
:: Which brings us back to energy density: The Honda Civic has a similar range to the Tesla – at 10% the weight for its fuel (vs. the Tesla's battery), and one-third the volume. The comparison gets even worse for long-haul cargo, but that might be beyond the topic of this conversation. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 13:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:How about we make an actual list, then?
:{| class="wikitable"
|+ Electric v. Gas Engines
|-
! +/- of Electric Cars !! +/- of Gas Cars
|-
| -Energy Density/Range || +Energy Density/Range
|-
| -Battery Life || -Fuel Efficiency
|-
| -Toxic Rare Earths || -Fossil Fuels
|-
| +Cleaner || -Motor Power
|-
| -Decrease Efficiency in Winter || +Lower Vehicle Weight
|} [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

:Isn't the comic just making the claim that electric ''motors'' are superior to gas engines? It's not saying anything about how easy it is to supply energy to the motor/engine, or anything about their use in transportation. Given that, I don't think there's anything particularly contentious here? [[User:Syperk|Syperk]] ([[User talk:Syperk|talk]]) 04:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

On the other other hand, in a lot of cases an electric motor is just a gas engine with extra steps due to the current state of the power grid. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.232|172.68.174.232]] 17:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

:Not here in Washington State it isn't. Most of our electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:: AFAIK, no new dams are being built, and I reckon that the probability is vanishingly small that any new dam that is mooted will survive the inevitable storms of protest and get built. The trend, rather, and the political pressure, salmon fans, is to remove dams (e.g. those on the Elwha River). The existing dams are aging, their impoundment volumes are dwindling due to sedimentation, and the water for those impoundments is increasingly bespoke and is, in at least some cases, declining in volume due to climate perturbations. The population, and its energy use, is increasing. As of 2022, [https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA#tabs-1 I read], WA was a net exporter of electricity. I would not be taking that status for granted. A few years ago, a study was published, finding that, in states where the electricity grid was dependent on fossil-fuel-fired plants, electric cars had a <em>greater</em> carbon footprint than gasoline/petrol cars - and this was before the major gains in gasoline fuel efficiency contributed by advances in computer tech (2007 Honda Civic hybrid gets the same city mileage, ca. 35 mpg, as a 2021 Honda Civic petrol engine, in my hands). I do not know what current assessments say about this. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.129|172.71.150.129]] 04:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

:I'd say an electric motor powered by a hydrocarbon grid still usually makes better use of gas than a typical gas engine. Gas engines that don't always run at full throttle (as in, a gas engine in an appliance) have dramatically worse efficiency than electric motors that don't always run at full throttle. It depends ''very'' heavily on use case, though; always take measurements and run the numbers before coming to a specific conclusion. Science would be nothing without empirical data. [[User:Eunakria|Eunakria]] ([[User talk:Eunakria|talk]]) 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Should this have [[:Category:Climate change]]? I can’t decide. [[User:Usb-rave|Usb-rave]] ([[User talk:Usb-rave|talk]]) 17:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, it's better with it for people looking though the category later on, they will want to see it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.10|162.158.186.10]] 19:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, with this argument the thing gas engines have going for them over EVs is the refueling time and availability. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.175|172.69.59.175]] 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:That's fair. It would be nice if electric cars had been more focused-on ten years ago than the trend (trend? craze? idea? whatever.) starting now. I refuse to buy a Tesla, though. Elon is never getting my money. I'm waiting for an electric Volvo. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:As in...you've ordered one, or you hadn't realised they exist?[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's really remarkable how uninformed and unintelligent this comic is, to the point where I now doubt the veracity of his entire What If? series. {{unsigned ip|172.70.114.62|19:13, 19 June 2024}}
:To be fair, there’s sort of an agenda here, while I don’t believe there’s one in ''What If?'' I can’t independently verify the accuracy of ''What If?'', of course, but there is that. [[User:Usb-rave|Usb-rave]] ([[User talk:Usb-rave|talk]]) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:I'd like to know more about the "uninformed and unintelligent" assessment. Given that not all of Randall's characters copy his ''exact thinking''. I don't think he'd espouse much of what he has Black Hat say/do. And clearly many of his Cueballs, even being often accepted as Author Avatars, can be clearly being dumber than Randall (who is 'writing them as dumb') is. What we have is parody. And maybe you just don't see the parody in the way intended (or understood by others). Perhaps you have a completely different mindset, or are just inclined to be anti-Randall> (Even in things he's actually right about...) I don't know where the mismatch may be here, but if you're seriously thinking that there remains not one useful take-away from anything Randall has ever said, just from the ''possibility'' that his cartoon characters don't completely mesh with what you perceive as a correct worldview, then this needs looking at from a different perspective than just reassessing the whole ''What If?'' corpus. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24|162.158.74.24]] 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: The tagline for the xkcd comic does include the word "sarcasm", which should warn against over-serious or over-literal interpretations. Not infrequently, I find, xkcd ventures into the realm of the sarcastic, the opinionated, even the polemic (cf. the Hilary Clinton campaign ads), and this one states a clear opinion in favor of electric cars ... with which one is free to debate (as here, exhaustively), or disagree. All of which brings the cartoonist to the attention of the world, and thereby supports him in his chosen line of work, which, in the current state of cartooning as a profession, is no small accomplishment. As for the opinion, consider the following question: "I have a four-mile commute to work. Which is the most eco-friendly option? The electric car? The hybrid? The gas/petrol car?" Answer: the foot car. Walking the four miles is the only minimum-carbon solution under all circumstances ... except perhaps ones that allow the questioner to keep deir job. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.4|108.162.245.4]] 05:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh... OK. I had poor signal so this one took a while to load, and I only saw the "Gas vs. Electric" title. I thought it was going to be about kitchen stoves - ones that burn ''actual'' "gas", vs. electrical heating elements. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 19:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually experienced the "cons" of a less limited degree of power and not being noisy at all, today. Someone in an electric vehicle (could have been a Tesla) pulled out of a sideroad, accelerating at what seemed like a reckless rate (it was advantageous to do so, but a petrol-powered vehicle that might have taken a bit longer to switch up the gears would still have been up to speed soon enough to not get into contention with any other vehicles). And with barely more than a whine, and perhaps a bit of road-noise that might have included at one point a bit of grit-splattering. I was watching this, and knew they were pulling out of the junction (and knew for certain, moreover, that there was no traffic coming up or down the road, nor anybody crossing the road anywhere in my rather long sight). Had there been someone ''actually'' about to cross the road (within the next 50 yards or so), however, it would have been entirely possible that they would have been caught be surprise by this near-silent and suddenly fast-moving vehicle. If it was a Tesla, then maybe its inbuilt forward 'radar'/whatever would have helped bring the vehicle to a stop, or at least slow it down/stop if from speeding up enough, before any actual accident might have happened... but this is theoretical, as it just happened not to happen anything like this on this occasion... But it could have. And the paradigm for crossing the road that I learnt several decades ago of "Stop, Look, Listen, Think" has probably now started to lose out on the "Listen" bit, and possibly degraded even the "Look" and "Think" until we start to retrain ourselves to anticipate vehicles whipping around random corners that are far more silent-and-deadly then what we've all become used to. Ok, so this is not necessarily the total fault of the electric vehicles (or even the drivers, but they must have ''some'' hand in the matter), but in changing the dynamics and situational awarenesses of road traffic so much it ''might'' be considered a relatable problem. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24|162.158.74.24]] 23:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: I drove an electric motorcycle for a while, which put me quite exposed and aware of safety and my driving environment. The concerns about EVs being too quiet don't come across as grounded in reality. Modern ICE vehicles typically have minimal engine noise already. There are really two cases: out on the road, where half the people (exaggerating) have their earbuds in, and any engine noise is swamped by tire noise anyway. No difference between ICE and electric here. Then in a parking lot, where tire noise is not significant, and maybe pedestrians could get extra auditory cues about the vehicles around them from ICE engine noise. In that context, I personally would flip open my visor and make eye contact with pedestrians. It would be nice if drivers of full-sized cars and trucks, no matter their power source, would do more of that. Driving while inattentive is unambiguously bad. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.204|172.69.23.204]] 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
: Rolling noise becomes more than enough for safe audibility by about 30 km/h (below which speed collisions are relatively less dangerous anyways, though most urban streets really should have a speed limit of 20 km/h for numerous reasons including safety), and actually dominates engine noise by about 55 km/h. ICEs are loud enough to have like a dozen deleterious health effects even while idling, though the noise of a bicycle, if sufficiently constant, is enough to reach the WHO threshold. In short, electric cars only need to make additional noise below about 30 km/h for safety, and even then only 55dBA, quieter than typical speech, and even then only if there's already a lot of noise polution to drown them out. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.33|162.158.146.33]] 07:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::Although really what they mostly need is drivers who look where they're going, and don't assume that people will just get out of their way when they hear them coming.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 08:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::: Which is best accomplished using narrower streets, bollards, and other traffic easing mechanisms that make people want to slow down and pay attention rather than putting up a lower speed limit sign and just expecting people to obey it. That goes double in the US where most speed limits are assigned by looking at the speeds people are actually driving in good conditions and setting it where 10% of people woulld be speeding (and then rounded to the nearest 5 mph), meaning the sign is literally irrelevant to almost everyone. Oh, also, we desperately need to stop combining streets, which are destinations, with roads, which are thoroughfares, into "stroads" that fail at being both; that's an actual majority of your traffic easing taken care of basically in one step. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.234|162.158.146.234]] 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the current explanation is missing the forest for the trees. My impression was that White Hat was parroting a ChatGPT-style response -- noncommittal and logically incoherent. (In fact, I missed the logical non sequitur the first time I read the strip. The style just screamed to me ChatGPT, though.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 00:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
: I agree about missing the forest for the trees. Everyone's so focused on the opinions being expressed, they're totally missing what to me is the whole point of the comic: poking fun at similar kinds of pro vs. con comparisons but where some/any/all of the points are actually on the wrong side of the argument. So while on the surface the comparison appears balanced, it's actually incredibly biased. Sure all of that stuff is interesting for those wanting to know more about the actual pros and cons of the particular subject being discussed; but that's just the vehicle Randall happened to choose for delivery. Now I'm not sure if ChatGPT / AI plays into this, aside from it probably being more likely to produce this kind of unintentionally biased comparison; but I'd assume given the absence of cues implying as much that this comic is not related to AI. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.236|172.71.146.236]] 19:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:: Forgive me, but I believe "where some/any/all of the points are actually on the wrong side of the argument" has been well covered. Stating a couple of IC-Cons/EV-Pros ''as if'' EV-Cons/IC-Pros (and possible reasons why they could reinterpret things that way). Or is there yet another objection, and you aren't also meaning that? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.64|172.70.91.64]] 20:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::: It's touched on, barely; but most of the explanation (and commentary) is so focused on rehashing the arguments for/against the different types of vehicles that it's easy to miss. I'm sure those topics are already well covered elsewhere, do we really need to go into so much detail here? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.96|172.71.151.96]] 18:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This comic was posted yesterday and I'm already seeing people typing essays. I'm scared. (also electric rules gas drools nyehh) [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 13:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
: Not too shabby a result from a stick-figure drawing posted on the Internet. Jealous? As for 'electric', nice to see your unqualified support for [https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara slave labor in the Congo] and elsewhere. Get a horse! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.73|172.68.23.73]] 13:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:: Isn't a horse also a form of slave labour?[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.223|172.71.242.223]] 13:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::: PETA would likely agree with you, to the point of sabotage if widespread re-introduction of bestial labor looked like being a thing. So, if we shut down the electricity grid to quell the AI revolt (if resource limitations don't compel that shutdown sooner), and we are denied fossil fuels for reasons of climate destruction and, again, resource limitation, this time-honored path to civilization will likewise be refused us. At least initially ... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.133|172.71.147.133]] 01:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::There are several things wrong with your assessment, [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.73|172.68.23.73]] (although I do wish my comics got this much attention). The first is your assumption that I know the exact methods used to gather battery materials (I don't). The second is saying I support slave labor, which I '''''ABSOLUTELY DO NOT.''''' The third is your assumption that I have the space, money, resources, skills, and time to purchase and take care of a horse. I don't! Slave labor is appalling, the DRC is a nightmare, and horses have more needs than I could fit into a week. Back to electric cars, though: they're generally better for the environment, they're quieter, they're more powerful, and their engine systems are really cool and fun to look at and see in action. Gas(oline) engines are loud, smelly, pollution-heavy, and subject to violent explosions in a crash. Electric is better in general. It's a good idea to manufacture them, but I agree with you on the need for changing battery material-harvesting methods. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 17:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::: I argue that knowing the state of the electric-economy supply chain, the resources needed and [http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2023/ph240/cadicamo1/ the limitations on their availability] as well as how they are procured, is necessary for any informed stance. I argue further, if you and I are wantonly snapping up electric gadgets, and, as is typical, are scouring the Internet for the cheapest possible prices for those gadgets, then you and I are screaming our support for human slavery in the only term$ that matter. The cry "Get a horse!" was a catcall aimed by horse owners at owners of early 20th-century automobiles, which were orders of magnitude dirtier and smellier than today's machines, were essentially non-functional, and took insignificantly less labor to maintain than the horse. You are absolutely correct about the maintenance needs of a horse, and indeed most people in the "horse and buggy days" couldn't afford either the cost or the time to own one. They were symbols of the 1% - who had slaves, be they chattel or hireling, to maintain their stables. From where I sit, the issues associated with actually realizing the fantasy of an electric economy are far more existential than changing battery-material harvesting methods, and I no longer accept that We the People will, or even can, face up to, never mind resolve, the issues. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.133|172.71.147.133]] 01:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: Sounds like [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-single-cognitive-bias/ selective outrage] to me. Do you have a clue what kind of disaster the fossil fuel industry has wreaked (and continues to wreak) upon the world? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.214|162.158.166.214]] 06:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::: Damage from the Industrial Revolution has been plain in lake sediment cores from northeastern North America dating from the 1850s. To name one; picked this one because of peripheral (taxonomy of the organisms used in the assessment) association with the work and [https://www.queensu.ca/research/researchers/john-p-smol its lead researcher]. My beef is with those who think that [https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2020/08/23/kris-an-murphy-wunderwaffe/ the technology that got us into this mess will somehow pull us out], in the absence of evidence [https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2023/07/22/amoebas-lorica-setiback/ that people will stand the financial and standard-of-living sacrifices necessary to make it happen] - witness, for example, the lot of us arguing pointlessly about this on our carbon-belching computers. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.90|172.68.22.90]] 22:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::: I read a press account, recently, about how a group of scientists and engineers plan to deploy a giant umbrella to shade the Earth from incoming solar radiation and thereby interrupt global warming; the latest in {{w|Space sunshade|a series of such ideas}}. It immediately called to mind the Road Runner cartoon, in which Wile E. Coyote, despairingly, put up a tiny, tattered parasol to protect himself from the anvil that was descending on him. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.120|162.158.41.120]] 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::: It is, as I'm sure that wikilink says, an old, old idea (and a bit discredited in the eyes of those who think that putting a sticking plaster on won't stop us from the juggling with knives, and having more fumbles, for which the sticking plaster is ''supposed'' to be a treatment for). I'm surprised it's been seriously brought up recently, not least because you'd have to deploy a truly massive shade (not Earth-sized, perhaps not even Moon-sized, but certainly orders of magnitude larger than we have any current experience, or hope, in constructing) to produce a significant effect, and only doing that by denying a significant part of the Sun's energy from both natural and man-made solar-energy receivers in selected areas of Earth. (Imagine the uproar, as certain countries get 'shaded' and neighbours do not, by adjusting the largely Sun-synchronous (''or'' full-on Lagrangian) orbit. And it is in the power for the shade-operators to change which one(s) are effected, hence they could be considered/accused culpable for any unwanted effects, or just from perceived disadvantages and cultural objections.)
:::::: But it ''would'' be better than an 'anti-anvil parasol', because any worthwhile attempt would have to be effective enough to actually produce a measurable effect (which is all that might be needed to go over the tipping point, or not, at present), whereas Wile. E.'s attempt is instant fail. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.240|172.70.85.240]] 07:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

and now i know why xkcd doesn't have a comments section. [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That the argument is fallacious is the point. It is hardly a first for white hat. It shouldn't be seen as a serious "pros and cons" argument, it would be obvious to anyone reasonable, including Randall, that there are real cons to EVs (how important they are is up to debate). But as evidenced by previous comics, white hat is not particularly reasonable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.143|172.71.130.143]] 11:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:Rather than "not particular reasonable" (more the realms of Black Hat), I'd have said "not particularly rational"/similar is White Hat's schtick. But I do agree with you in principle, and don't understand half the 'objections' above, if serious. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.172|141.101.99.172]] 13:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

2921: Eclipse Path Maps

2024-04-18T10:13:53Z

172.70.85.240: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2921
| date = April 18, 2024
| title = Eclipse Path Maps
| image = eclipse_path_maps_2x.png
| imagesize = 562x674px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Okay, this eclipse will only be visible from the Arctic in February 2063, when the sun is below the horizon, BUT if we get lucky and a gigantic chasm opens in the Earth in just the right spot...
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a TORNADO CAPITAL OF THE WORLD - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A total {{w|solar eclipse}} occurred {{w|Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024|on April 8, 2024}} in North America, ten days before this comic. This comic comments on the fact that most solar eclipses happen on territories not easily reachable by humans, or do happen near easy to reach places, but with weather conditions that make viewing the eclipse less appealing, like cloudy skies (mentioned previously in [[2915: Eclipse Clouds]] and [[2917: Types of Eclipse Photo]]), fog, or tornadoes (also a [[:Category:Tornadoes|recurring subject]] on xkcd), or experience only a short period of totality.

This map shows only one small location within this particular path of totality which is ideal for seeing an eclipse. However, because this is the only attractive location, almost everyone wanting to view the eclipse (apparently 40,000,000 visitors) is aiming to travel to this area. Packed in to 6 square miles, this would equal 2.57 people per square meter (plus any resident population), which isn't very much space available per person.

The title text mentions the {{w|Solar eclipse of February 28, 2063|solar eclipse of February 2063}}, and claims it will only be visible from the Arctic, though in fact this annular eclipse will traverse through the Indian Ocean. The eclipse in the comic would supposedly happen when the {{w|Sun}} would be below the horizon, which is a contradiction in terms, since an eclipse is only an eclipse from the frame of reference of the viewer — it is equivalent to saying that the eclipse is not visible from that location (but is visible from a location over the horizon). It then jokingly suggests that a giant chasm could open up between the location being considered and the location from where it would be visible, allowing people to view it. If this did happen, the chasm itself would likely eclipse the eclipse as a spectacle. In most cases, it would also likely cause severely detrimental effects (for example, magma eruptions, tsunamis, etc.), and would therefore not be considered 'lucky', despite the small and short-term benefit of being able to view an eclipse from a previously unsuitable location.

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

:'''Every eclipse path map'''
:[A grey band representing the totality path of an eclipse travels along the map across several labels. Labels along the path from top to bottom:]
:Zone where totality lasts 1-2 seconds
:[On water] Bay of shifting ice
:[On water] Shipwreck cove
:[On land] Desert so harsh they train Mars astronauts there
:[On water] Sea of rocky crags and maelstorms
:[In square brackets] State department travel advisory
:[On an island] Isle of perpetual fog
:[On small part of a peninsula] Nice, scenic, accessible area (6 square miles, 40,000,000 visitors expected)
:[On land] Tornado capital of the world
:[On land] Area where the eclipse will be low in the sky, behind the tornadoes

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Solar eclipses]]
[[Category:Maps]]
[[Category:Tornadoes]]
[[Category:Weather]]

879: Lamp

2023-11-30T01:39:04Z

172.70.85.240: Undo revision 329874 by 172.70.174.64 (talk) Not really CN stuff. And you mispunctuated, too.

{{comic
| number = 879
| date = March 30, 2011
| title = Lamp
| image = lamp.png
| titletext = 'That was definitely not in my top three wishes.' 'Who said anything about YOUR wishes?'
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] finds a lamp. It has a shape which suggests it is a magic lamp, which might contain a {{w|genie}}. Traditionally, genies grant three wishes to whoever rubs their lamp, thus freeing them. Cueball rubs the lamp, but instead of releasing a genie, the lamp appears to ejaculate. Cueball is grossed out by this and holds the lamp away from him.

The imagery and style of the comic are intentionally similar to male stimulation and ejaculation. The act of rubbing one's genitals to stimulate orgasm is well known and well documented in both literature and science. However, almost anyone would be disturbed by unintentionally giving sexual pleasure to a stranger.

In the title text, a discussion is shown between Cueball and the lamp. Cueball states that what happened was NOT one of the three wishes he would have asked for if a genie had been released, and the lamp retorts, "Who said anything about YOUR wishes?", implying that the lamp's wish was to receive "handy" stimulation (or possibly that the last user of the lamp wished for that to happen to the next owner).

Genies are also mentioned in at least five other comics:
*[[152: Hamster Ball]]
*[[532: Piano]] (where the joke is also penis related)
*[[1391: Darkness]]
*[[2193: Well-Ordering Principle]]
*[[2741: Wish Interpretation]]

In the song {{w|Genie in a Bottle}}, from 1999 by {{w|Christina Aguilera}}, the sexual comparison of rubbing a genie in bottle is very clear in the song, although here it is a woman genie that needs to be [https://youtu.be/kIDWgqDBNXA?t=52 rubbed in the right way] to be let out.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stumbles on a lamp, lying on the ground.]

:[Cueball picks it up.]
:''Rub rub''

:[The lamp sprays fluids.]
:''Splort''

:[Cueball holds the lamp at arm's length, a puddle of fluid on the ground.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Sex]]
[[Category:Penis]]
[[Category:Genie]]

210: 90's Flowchart

2023-05-25T21:25:14Z

172.70.85.240: Georgian -> Gregorian

{{comic
| number = 210
| date = January 15, 2007
| title = 90's Flowchart
| image = 90s_flowchart.png
| titletext = Freestyle rapping is basically applied Markov chains.
}}

== Explanation ==

Here you can see an apparent flowchart. However, it has non-standard notation. The oval normally represents either the start or stop of a process. Here, both the ''yes'' and ''no'' end up in ''stop'', which would normally imply that nothing below can be reached.

Unless we are in the 90s, this doesn't matter, as there is nothing after the stop. But in the 90s, two processing paths follow, and both are from the lyrics of two-hit rap songs from the 90s:
*''{{w|U Can't Touch This}}'' by {{w|MC Hammer}}, says "Break it down. Stop! Hammertime."
*''{{W|Ice Ice Baby}}'' by {{w|Vanilla Ice}} says "All right, stop. Collaborate and listen."

In both instances, the sense of the lyric is that you should interrupt what you are doing, and switch to the new action. Interpreted in terms of flowchart terminology, we could consider that the 'stop' just pauses the main thread, and secondary threads are launched to perform the 'Hammertime' and the 'Collaborate' and 'Listen' activities.

The title text compares {{w|freestyle rapping}} with {{w|Markov chain|Markov chains}}. Markov chains are mathematical constructs in which the state at the next time step is dependent only upon the current state and probability, and not the state at previous times. This is somewhat similar to freestyle rapping, in which what is said next must bear some relationship to what was just said, but the "freestyle" part means that almost anything can be brought in (hence the probabilistic part); furthermore, freestyle rapping allows the rapper to say something next that bears a relationship to what was just said, but not to what was said before that.
There have been several flowchart comics, all of which are listed [[:Category:Flowcharts|here]].

Both ''Ice Ice Baby'' and ''U Can't Touch This'' were released in the year 1990, and so their status as "90s" music is disputable. The 1st decade didn't start until year 1 ({{w|year 0}} does not exist in the Gregorian calendar system), so the 2nd decade didn't start until year 11, and the 3rd decade didn't start until year 21, etc. Whether those songs count as being released in the 90s would be discussed [[2249|over 2000 comics later]].

== Transcript ==
[A flowchart is shown. Stop 1 and 2 are different options, and everything is a rectangle unless indicated otherwise (only on the first mention).]

:Start [Circle] → The 90's? [Diamond]
::The 90's? → No → Stop [1, circle]
::The 90's? → Yes → Stop [2, circle]
:::Stop [2] → Hammertime
:::Stop [2] → Collaborate → Listen

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Flowcharts]]
[[Category:Music]]