explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2949: Network Configuration

2024-06-24T09:16:47Z

172.70.85.7: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2949
| date = June 21, 2024
| title = Network Configuration
| image = network_configuration_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you repeatedly rerun the development of technological civilization, it turns out that for some reason the only constant is that there is always a networking utility called 'netcat', though it does a different thing in each one.
}}

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

In this comic, [[Cueball]] takes an uncommon networking bug (needing to establish a fresh connection for each {{w|Network_packet|packet}} sent) to the extreme. Instead of merely redoing the appropriate handshakes for data transfer, he is reconstructing the entire {{w|Human_history|history of human civilization}} each time.

As this originally took multiple millennia, doing it for every network packet would make communication ''extremely'' slow; in modern networking, we send and receive thousands of packets every second.

In the final frame, Cueball looks shaggy and dirty, with a {{w|Hoe_(tool)|grub hoe}} behind him, as though he had been performing these tasks in real life just to get his network working again. He has also had to build himself a new wooden chair (and possibly desk), and apparently hasn't yet got to the point of developing a notebook computer, so is using a PC under the desk, connected to a chunky monitor. He says the network packet was stuck in the {{w|Neolithic}} era, the final period of the Stone Age that marked the transition from hunter-gatherer lifestyle to one of settlement. Apparently Cueball had to go through the effort of inventing farming, one of the developments of the {{w|Neolithic Revolution}}, to keep communicating with [[Ponytail]].

Randall Munroe is familiar with the popular creative nonfiction topic of what it takes to rebuild civilization, the subject of a book he blurbed on its cover, [https://www.howtoinventeverything.com/ How to Invent Everything], by Ryan North, fellow cartoonist.

The title text discusses {{w|netcat}}, a simple utility to make a tcp connection which comes in annoyingly incompatible [https://manpages.debian.org/stretch/netcat-traditional/nc.1.en.html nc.traditional] and [https://manpages.debian.org/stretch/netcat-openbsd/nc.1.en.html nc.openbsd] varieties. This may be a reference to the {{w|The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy|Hitchhiker's Guide}} series which states that 85% of civilizations developed a drink that sounds like "Jynnan Tonnyx" ({{w|Gin and tonic}}) before inventing interstellar flight. The drinks are only related by their name and have nothing else in common.

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

:[Ponytail is sitting on an office chair at her computer with a headset on. A zigzag line indicates what is shown on the computer screen]
:Ponytail (typing): Ugh, your connection is so laggy.
:Computer: Yeah, sorry.

:[Cueball is sitting on an office chair at his laptop]
:Cueball (typing): It's because I messed up my network configuration and now I have to rebuild a separate civilization from scratch for each packet.

:[Ponytail at her computer]
:Ponytail (typing): Huh?
:Ponytail (typing): What are you talking about?
:Ponytail (typing): ...Hello?

:[Beat panel]

:[Cueball, with dirt on his head and around him, is at an old computer setup with an agricultural tool resting on his now non-office chair]
:Cueball (typing): Sorry, got stuck in the Neolithic that time.
:Cueball (typing): Inventing farming takes '''''forever'''''.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Cueball Computer Problems]]

2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-03T10:55:17Z

172.70.85.7: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2940
| date = May 31, 2024
| title = Modes of Transportation
| image = modes_of_transportation_2x.png
| imagesize = 510x518px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = My bold criticism might anger the hot air balloon people, which would be a real concern if any of them lived along a very narrow line directly upwind of me.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Transportationally convenient but insidiously dangerous robotic car - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Randall's chart compares different modes of transportation by how convenient and dangerous they are. At the top-left (high in convenience and low in danger) are airliners and trains, as these are both fast-moving vehicles on which many millions of dollars have been spent to make them safer. In the top-right, motorcycles are at the same convenience level, but are rated much more dangerous, since they are easy to lose control of at high speeds, and careless drivers (of cars) can easily hit a motorcycle and cause extreme harm. Things like unicycles (bottom-left) are considered much lower on the convenience scale, being not very fast or easy ways to travel, but relatively safe, while towards the centre, skis are apparently moderately convenient and moderately dangerous, since they are relatively easy to fall on if going fast downhill. Way out on their own in the bottom-right, hot air balloons appear to be unique in being rated least on convenience and highest on danger.

Because a hot air balloon is rated so poorly, if an optimization algorithm considers it the optimal mode of transportation, it must be the result of a sign error (e.g. having a minus sign where a plus sign is supposed to be, or vice versa), making the algorithm optimize for the opposite result by mistake. Presumably, modes of transportation similar to hot air balloons (like zeppelins and blimps) are left off the chart to increase the gap for comedic effect.

In order to compare the relative danger from each mode of transport, one can look at statistics of fatalities and injuries sustained during each activity. Traditionally this can be reported in fatalities/{{w|Killed_or_Seriously_Injured|KSI}} per mile driven or passenger mile (or other unit of distance) to account for the fact that some modes are used much more than others, and make valid comparisons. They may also be reported per capita (but this ignores the relative usage of different modes), or per journey (but this doesn't take into account the fact that different modes typically have different journey lengths and times). All of these are somewhat flawed, since they are really measuring the danger ''to'' users of that mode of transport, both from their own conveyance, and from other sources such as other road users.Since ballooning is not a very common mode of transport, hot air balloon incidents are [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9533500/ correspondingly uncommon], and flights are not routinely monitored or registered, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions from the data for hot air balloons.

The title text makes a joke that if a hot air balloon enthusiast disagrees with the ranking and is angered by it, they may wish to remonstrate or retaliate, but will have a difficult time getting to Randall's house with their preferred mode of transportation, because they are limited to travelling in the direction of the wind. In reality, hot air balloons have some freedom to choose their direction of travel, since by controlling their altitude they can access different wind directions at different heights. Randall should, therefore, be concerned about hot air balloonists who live within a wedge spanned by the various wind directions accessible on a given day. In principle, if the weather conditions are favorable, this could cover every direction from Randall's house. The phrase "hot air balloon people" is reminiscent of "autogyro people" from the title text of [[1972: Autogyros]].

Curiously, the comic includes most common forms of transport, and a number of less common ones, but omits examples such as buses (a mass transit solution arguably more convenient than trains). It is not clear if this is an error, or a deliberate choice to maintain the comic's layout and presentation.

This is the second comic in a row to feature an algorithm.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Transportation !! Description !! Convenience !! Danger !! Zone
|-
|{{w|Train}}s
|Mass transit on rails Very convenient ''if'' scheduled services along established routes are well suited for your journey. Many people can make journeys in complete safely on dedicated tracks (Incidents can affect many people at once, but are comparatively rare.)
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Airliner}}s
|Mass transit aircraft As long as there are convenient airports, and operators. Air travel is ''very'' safe, accounting for the number of miles traveled and passengers carried. (Accidents can be catastrophic both to the passengers/crew and potentially anybody on the ground, however.)
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Car}}s
|Motorised road vehicle Most common method of long distance travel used to get anywhere from a mile to 200 miles. It is mostly safe (for those ''inside'' the car), since many safety features have gradually been introduced, either as the result of regulation, or as selling features.
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Practicality
|-
|Scooters
|Either: 
*{{w|Kick scooter}} - ...
*{{w|Motorized scooter|Engine-powered scooter}} - ...
*{{w|Scooter (motorcycle)|Low powered motorbike/moped}} - ...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Bicycle}}s
|Human-powered (or {{w|Electric bicycle|mostly so}}) two-wheeled road vehicle ...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Boat}}s
|Watercraft of various types ...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Walking}}
|Personal bipedal ambulation 
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Practicality
|-
|{{w|Motorcycle}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Helicopter}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Light aircraft}}
|In the United States, the general category of [https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/categories small aircraft] covers a variety of aircraft certified to weigh 19,000 pounds (8618 kg) or less at takeoff. Maximum allowed weight varies by specific category.
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Go-kart}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Skateboard}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Inline skates|Rollerblades}}
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Ski}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Unicycle}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Sled}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Bumper Cars}}
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|Speciality/Recreational
|-
|{{w|Hot Air Balloon}}s
|...
|data-sort-value=""|
|data-sort-value=""|
|?????
|}

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

:[A chart is shown, where the Y axis is labeled "Convenient for travel" and has an arrow pointing up and the X axis is labeled "Dangerous" and has an arrow pointing right.]
:[The following modes are shown in the "Zone of practicality" (a large irregular area fitting in to the top left corner of the chart), highlighted with a gray background, starting with the first few bunched at highest convenience, :]
:Trains [very convenient, very safe]
:Airliners
:Cars
:Scooters [the most dangerous of this set, at medium-low danger]
:Bicycles
:Boats [medium-high convenience, a slight amount of danger]
:Walking [the least convienient, at roughly half, and lowest danger of this set]
:[The following modes are shown in the "Zone of specialty and recreational vehicles" (a large irregular swathe from the top right to the bottom left, not quite touching the prior zone), highlighted with a gray background, the nodes spread in rough order from high convenience/danger to low convenience/danger:]
:Motorcycles [highly convenient, nearly maximum danger]
:Helicopters [not quite fully convenient, most danger]
:Light aircraft
:Go karts
:Skateboards
:Rollerblades
:Skis
:Unicycles
:Sleds
:Bumper cars [lowest convenience and lowest danger item]
:[The following is labeled "?????" (in the bottom right corner), and has a gray background all to itself in a small blob notably distant from the nearest other group:]
:Hot air balloons [placed as almost the least convenient and most dangerous, of all labels]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Hot air balloons are the optimal mode of transportation, if your optimization algorithm has a sign error.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-03T08:29:38Z

172.70.85.7:

I'd say a bicycle is way less dangerous than a car [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 1/4)
:Considering only the two vehicles themselves, I would probably agree with you but this comic is about convenience and danger of various means of transport. Wouldn't you agree that using a bicycle for transport in crowded city traffic is rather more dangerous to the cyclist than using a car is to the driver? {{unsigned ip|172.69.60.138|21:46, 31 May 2024}}
:It depends on whether you're comparing worst case injuries versus injury rate. Since airliners are considered one of the safest, I think it's injury rate. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:I'd say a bicycle is less dangerous than a unicycle, but apparently walking<unicycle<car<bicycle. No metric I can think of matches that order, neither danger in a vacuum, danger in a self-environment, danger in a car environment, or danger to others in any environment. I'm quite confused. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.29|172.70.114.29]] 05:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::On a per-passenger-mile basis, walking is over ten times more dangerous than driving, and trains are about four times as dangerous as planes. So this comic can't be about risk of death per mile. It must be something more like risk of death per hour, which is extremely low for unicycles since people don't usually ride them in life-threatening situations outside of circuses. Similarly, travelling to and from work on a pogo stick every day would be quite dangerous, but in practice, people hardly ever die on a pogo stick. So it depends how you measure it. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::: I can see the danger/hour, but surely the unicycle shouldn't count as a mode of transportation when it is used in a circus? You also don't want to count the hours when a car is stationary and the driver is waiting for someone to enter or leave (which is a significant amount of time for taxi's). So when it is used for actual transportation, it is most certainly more dangerous per hour than many other things on this graph. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.99|172.70.110.99]] 23:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:I think there is a couple that are off on here since I think light aircraft and helicopters are also less dangerous than cars when looking at accident rates vs trips or vs miles traveled. Cars are quite dangerous. They sure are convenient though. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.87|172.64.238.87]] 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed: By any metric I can think of, this chart is grossly off on more than one form of transport. For one thing, inline skating is ''much'' safer than skateboarding in almost every scenario except approaching a bunch of mean kids. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
: I think the metric he's using is actually ''perceived'' danger.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.145|172.70.90.145]] 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Most deaths are either due to involved cars or people doing races or stunts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 2/4)

I would not count "died because plane crashed onto road" into car dangers, as I would not count F1 driver death into the same bucket as car commuters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 3/4)
:So I would do the same for bikes. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 4/4)
::Agreed. Deaths caused by cars should not count against bikes unless "plane crashed onto road" would count against cars & 'flying by nuclear rocket' would count against the poor people walking below.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not actually true that a hot air balloon has only one possible direction of travel. It seemed relevant so I added a couple of sentences to the explanation. I suspect Randall is aware of this of course, being a weather nerd. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.69|162.158.74.69]] 00:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh... A hot air balloon is not a "mode of transportation", that is it's not a means to go from location A (on the ground) to location B (on the ground) A hot air balloon is means of going ''Up'', and staying ''up'' for an reasonable period of time. In most balloon rides, the "destination" is irrelevant, the purpose of the ride is to reach altitude, not travel horizontally. I feel Randall misses the point of balloons here. It shouldn't be only the graph, because it's not a "Mode of transport".
[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:The graph only addresses how convenient\dangerous things are as a form of transport. A Slip-N-Slide could easily have made the list, if Randall had viewed any such record attempts lately. Putting only practical modes of transport on the chart, would leave the lower right empty. If one wanted to know whether hot-air balloon ''was'' a practical mode of transport, one could theoretically consult a chart like this to find out that it isn't.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Are American hot air balloonists commonly fond of taking sniper rifles up with them? [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Dangerous to whom is relevant. Yes, cars are less dangerous to the driver than bicycles and pedestrians, but that is because the main threat to bicyclists and pedestrians is cars. If you count victim deaths in addition to perpetrator deaths, then cars are the least safe vehicle. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.30|172.71.99.30]] 01:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Regret

Are scooters really more convenient than bikes or does Randall just think they are cooler? Please discuss. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.128|172.69.58.128]] 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:The convenience of scooters probably includes their relative storability/carryability between uses, easier to hop on and off (also you might get away with scootering down long corridors where a bike would be (more) frowned upon) and takes less maintenance. (Electric ones do have the additional fuss of charging (and ICE ones needing fuel/being more disruptively noisy), but hard to tell whether Randall means shove-along or motorised in any way). Probably he doesn't mean mopeds (also known as 'scooters', in some contexts), but they also may be considered like bicycles but marginally more convenient (when fuelled/serviced) and commensurately a little bit more dangerous (though I'd argue further over to near full-on-motorbikes, myself). But it's a lot of speculation either way. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.28|172.71.242.28]] 11:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Very inconvenient, and definitely more dangerous. No way to transport anything except in a rucksack. Terribly small wheels. Muscle-powered very strenous compared to a bike. Electrical make you freeze to death in winter. Wear down very quickly (bearings in wheels and steering, brakes). Only use for scooters are flat, smooth passages, certainly indoors. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.69|172.71.246.69]] 09:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:I think Randall's use of "scooters" here, may include mopeds & ebikes, since ebikes aren't listed here, yet are roughly equivalent to (or even just ''are'') a moped, while mopeds & high-output ebikes <45MPH are often classed among "scooters".
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::A "high-output e-bike" is (or should) be classified under "motorbike". And I already (before I read this) included reference to electrically-assisted bicycles under the Bicycles entry itself. There may be various distinctions recognised under different local laws, but power-assisted-pedalling versions (augmenting, but not making insigificant, the riders' 'normal' effort) and power-rather-than-pedalling versions (which would go all the way up to those with ''no pedals'', totally reliant upon the motor) would probably sit either side of the notional divide that might be recognised by those in charge of classifying them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.182|172.69.79.182]] 22:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would expect that unicycles are more dangerous than bicycles. For that matter, bicycles are probably more dangerous than tricycles, and those would be slightly less safe than quadcycles. There we probably hit the optimal point, but I doubt anyone has done an in dept study into this matter. Just for starters: a double blind test would not be particularly safe for the riders. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.101|172.71.98.101]] 07:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:When you have learnt how to ride a bike, a tricycle can actually be ''harder'' to ride, due to having to unlearn your existing bicycling instincts. To turn (or not to turn) on a bicycle involves at least 'microleaning', as well as steering, which can actually work against the steering geometry on a tricyle (perhaps a quadricycle is less effected, as one reverts to car-like behaviour/has to account for uneven road surfaces even more differently). Before you have the bike-riding skills (especially on front-wheel-pedal kids' trikes, which have yet more things going on than proper road-cycling tricycles) you generally don't get into the wrong mode of balance where you actually veer off exactly the opposite way to what you intend and maybe start to lift one of the rear wheels off the ground, or more.
:For similar reasons, it's much better to have a completely new passenger ('stoker') on a tandem who is not a cyclist than one who is (but it being their first time on a tandem). The 'steersman' does not need too much complication from their "luggage" instinctively leaning on their own (or unconsciously tugging left/right on their fixed-handlebars), at least until they've practiced their coordination so that there's just the right amount of weight redistribution at the right time to make the whole machine correctly metastable for the circumstances. A non-cyclist can generally be asked to "just sit there and pedal" and not, despite being told, throw themselves around in various ways not related to the (synchronised with the steersman) pedal-revs. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.28|172.71.242.28]] 11:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a "jetpack" missing to the right of hot air ballons... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61|108.162.221.61]] 10:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:On the far right. Together with paragliding. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.69|172.71.246.69]] 09:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::Hey now, paragliding is quite safe & convenient, so long as you can locate updrafts, & have free airspace, & stay away from the back & sides of any upwind slopes, & don't bank too hard, & ... OK yeah, I can see it now. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:: And jetskis.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.177|172.70.90.177]] 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::: Also, {{w|Lawnchair_Larry_flight|helium balloon chair}}.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.7|172.70.85.7]] 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hot air balloons can be particularly dangerous in large groups, each being approximately 1.11% of an extinction level event. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.143|172.69.246.143]] 15:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:That's only asserted to be true for the red ones... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157|172.70.85.157]] 17:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

== Other in-between modes of transport? ==

So which modes of transports belong in the white band between the "Zone of specialty and recreational vehicles" and the Hot air balloons? I would suggest the Autogyro (see [[1972:_Autogyros|#1972]]) between the skis and the hot air balloon. Any other suggestions? [[User:Frog23|Frog23]] ([[User talk:Frog23|talk]]) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:A shovel? Tunneling is both dangerous & inconvenient...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

== Explain "sign error" (done?) ==

I came here to find out what a sign-error is, but the description assumes I already know. {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.69|22:58, 31 May 2024}}

2936: Exponential Growth

2024-05-24T14:41:06Z

172.70.85.7: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2936
| date = May 22, 2024
| title = Exponential Growth
| image = exponential_growth_2x.png
| imagesize = 545x264px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Karpov's construction of a series of increasingly large rice cookers led to a protracted deadlock, but exponential growth won in the end.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INFINITELY NESTED SET OF RICE COOKERS - Please change this comment when editing this page.}}

{{w|Exponential growth}} is the principle that if you keep multiplying a number by a value larger than 1, you will pretty quickly get very large numbers. Even if you start with 1 and simply double it each time, you'll have a 10-digit number after about 30 iterations.

This principle is often illustrated using a story that generally follows the narrative of a king of India (or elsewhere) wishing to thank a man for creating the game of {{w|chess}}, or perhaps some other chess-related service, and asked him to name his own reward. The man asks for a single grain of wheat (or, in some versions, rice) to be placed on the first square of a chessboard, and then for each subsequent square adding twice as many grains as the one before, until {{w|Wheat and chessboard problem|all 64 squares are filled}}. The king grants his strange request and immediately orders one wheat grain to be placed on the board, imagining this to be a trivial gift compared to the vast riches he had expected to be asked for. For the second square two more pieces are placed, and the square after has four pieces (the tale may involve waiting a day between each placing of grains, delaying the unravelling and subsequent outcome of the story). However, by the 20th iteration, there are over 500,000 grains on the board and the king has to dig deep into his supply to continue to pay his dues. On the 24th the king finds he owes more than 8 million grains. By the 32nd, the king finds himself owing over 2 billion grains and has to give up, realising the essential impossibility of the task.

In some versions of the story, the man is executed for embarrassing the king/being over-greedy; in others, he's rewarded for his cleverness; in yet others he becomes king himself as a consequence. There are also other versions that [https://www.comedy.co.uk/radio/finnemore_souvenir_programme/episodes/7/5/ subvert the well-known tale] by the king not being so naïve as to fall for the 'trick' played by the creator of the problem.

Since a chessboard contains 64 squares, the final square would contain 263 (approximately 9.2 quintillion) grains. This would be around 600 billion tonnes of wheat (even in modern times, this is more than 750 years of global wheat output). Worse, that's just for the final square – adding up all the squares would require about double that (264-1 which is approximately 18.4 quintillion grains).

Instead of this being a (possibly apocryphal) story, [[Black Hat]] enacts it literally during a game of chess to annoy his opponent into quitting. Black Hat begins describing the metaphor, only to reveal it wasn't a metaphor at all. Black Hat had been playing actual chess games, and tried to force his opponent to resign by burying the chess pieces in rice, as implied by the multiple large sacks bluntly labelled 'rice' on his side of the chessboard. (This is not the first comic to feature large quantities of rice labelled in this manner – in [[1598: Salvage]], a gargantuan tank of rice has simply the word 'rice' written on the side in equally gargantuan capital letters.)

{{w|Garry Kasparov}} is a world renowned Russian chess master. He had the highest {{w|FIDE}} chess rating in the world - one of 2851 points - until {{w|Magnus Carlsen}} surpassed that in 2013 by 31 points. The [https://www.chess.com/openings/Sicilian-Defense-Taimanov-Szen-Kasparov-Gambit Kasparov gambit] is an opening move in chess, a variation of the {{w|Sicilian Defense}}.

In 1984–1985 Garry Kasparov played {{w|Anatoly Karpov}} in a 5-month-long 48-game championship tournament which was abandoned. In these matches Kasparov was losing 4-0 with 6 wins being required to win. Kasparov proceeded to draw 35 times before the match was abandoned. The title text implies that Kasparov actually tried this method on Karpov, who attempted to consume all the rice with "increasingly large rice cookers", but eventually couldn't keep up, causing the game to be abandoned in the 5 month period. While this is obviously fictional, it fits with the principle of exponential growth. If exponential growth is unrestricted, it will eventually grow beyond the constraints of anything that could plausibly be built to contain it.

In a 1985 rematch, Kasparov defeated Karpov for the world championship title, which he retained in their next rematch in 1986.

There are several articles in the International Chess Federation (FIDE)'s [https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf Laws of Chess] that might prevent Black Hat from winning in this way:
* 7.3 "If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position (...). The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces."
* 12.1 "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute."
* 12.6 "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. (...)"

The amount of rice collected on each square of the chess board is listed below. It all sums up to around 400 billion tons (or {{w|tonne}}s, the various distinctions being not so important), taking each grain as weighing approximately 0.02 grams. This is 500 times the annual world production.

The last day, alone, would require 200 billion tons. But the implicit nature of this doubling is that the amount of rice you put on at any stage is exactly equal to the amount of rice already on the board ''plus one extra grain''. So there were around 200 billion tons already, before the last square required a virtually identical additional amount.

* First row:
** a1: 1 grain
** a2: 2 grains
** a3: 4 ...
** a4: 8
** a5: 16
** a6: 32
** a7: 64
** a8: 128
* Second row
** b1: 256
** b2: 512
** b3: 1,024
** b4: 2,048
** b5: 4,096
** b6: 8,192
** b7: 16,384
** b8: 32,768
:
* First of each subsequent row
:
** c1: 65,536 grains (~ 1 kg)
** d1: 16,777,216 (~ 400 kg)
** e1: 4,294,967,296 (~ 100 tons)
** f1: 1,099,511,627,776 (~ 25,000 tons)
** g1: 281,474,976,710,656 (~ 6 million tons)
:
* ...
:
* Eighth row, in detail
** h1: 72,057,594,037,927,936 (~ 1.5 billion tons, more than the 2022 world harvest)
** h2: 144,115,188,075,855,872
** h3: 288,230,376,151,711,744
** h4: 576,460,752,303,423,488
** h5: 1,152,921,504,606,846,976
** h6: 2,305,843,009,213,693,952
** h7: 4,611,686,018,427,387,904
** h8: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (~ 200 billion tons)

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Wheat_Chessboard_with_line.svg Example on chessboard (SVG diagram)]

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Black Hat is talking to Cueball standing next to him, arm raised.]
:Black Hat: Exponential growth is very powerful.

:[Closeup on Black Hat. Next to him is an image of the lower left part of a chessboard. The four leftmost squares in the bottom row have grains of rice on them -- one, two, four, and eight grains respectively.]
:Black Hat: A chessboard has 64 squares.
:Black Hat: Say you put one grain of rice on the first square, then two grains on the second, then four, then eight, doubling each time.

:[Black Hat has emptied a bag of rice on a chessboard. There are two additional bags next to him and a pile of rice already on the table. A small pile of rice is growing at Black Hat's feet. A frustrated Hairy is walking away, fists clenched. On Hairy's side of the chessboard there is a white King and Pawn]
:[Caption above panel, representing Black Hat continuing to speak:]
:If you keep this up, your opponent will resign in frustration.
:It's called Kasparov's Grain Gambit. Nearly impossible to counter.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

2933: Elementary Physics Paths

2024-05-19T13:30:23Z

172.70.85.7:

{{comic
| number = 2933
| date = May 15, 2024
| title = Elementary Physics Paths
| image = elementary_physics_paths_2x.png
| imagesize = 464x672px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = ==QUANTUM PHYSICS==> 'Oh no. My particles have quantum tunnelled!'
}}

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

This comic explores the complexities of understanding the universe's fundamental building blocks.

The absurdity of understanding ''everything'' starting from just understanding basic particles is similar to the fallacy presented in [[1570: Engineer Syllogism]].

In the first panel, Cueball expresses the idea that if he understands the behavior of tiny particles, he'll understand everything. This reflects a common scientific pursuit, {{w|reductionism}}, to uncover the basic principles underlying all physical phenomena in order to understand them. For example, most chemical reactions can be explained as the recombinations of a few dozen common elements.

The comic then splits into two branches representing different fields of physics which refute Cueball's optimistic assumption: {{w|condensed matter physics}} and {{w|quantum field theory}}.

The concept of {{w|antireductionism}} (or {{w|holism}}) is then demonstrated by following the left causal path using a 'traditional' physical approach.
In the Condensed Matter Physics branch, Cueball encounters a cloud of vibrating particles, which symbolizes the complexity that arises when simple particles combine to produce complex behaviors. The issue with reducing down to particles is that the number of different interactions between particles to understand makes the topic no longer simple. This highlights the challenge of predicting macroscopic properties from microscopic interactions, a central theme in condensed matter physics. This is shown in everyday life, from things like a baseball curving through the air, to how a mirror reflects light. [[1734: Reductionism]] also touches on the impracticality of gaining knowledge about a larger construct through understanding its constituent parts.

In the Quantum Field Theory branch, Cueball is faced with the issue that particles at the quantum level aren't simple. Quantum Field Theory deals with the fundamental particles and forces of nature, and it describes a complex world where particles can behave as both waves and particles simultaneously, among other strange phenomena.

The title text introduces a third branch: the field of {{w|cosmology}}, which deals with the large-scale structure and history of the universe. Cosmology suggests that even our catalog of the most fundamental particles might be inadequate - perhaps an allusion to theorized phenomena like dark matter and dark energy - raising questions about the nature of existence itself.

No matter how you study the universe, it's complicated.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
:[Cueball gestures at a particle, represented as a dot with motion lines around it.]
:Cueball: Everything is made of tiny particles. If I understand those, I'll understand everything!
:[The comic splits into two branches.]
:[Condensed Matter Physics branch]
:[Cueball is fretting over a cloud of particles.]
:Cueball: Oh no.
:Cueball: Simple particles can combine to produce complex behaviors.
:[Quantum Field Theory branch]
:[Cueball is fretting over the same particle as in the first panel.]
:Cueball: Oh no.
:Cueball: '''''These particles aren't simple!'''''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]

2933: Elementary Physics Paths

2024-05-19T13:29:39Z

172.70.85.7:

{{comic
| number = 2933
| date = May 15, 2024
| title = Elementary Physics Paths
| image = elementary_physics_paths_2x.png
| imagesize = 464x672px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = ==QUANTUM PHYSICS==> 'Oh no! My particles have quantum tunnled into the Kremlin!'
}}

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

This comic explores the complexities of understanding the universe's fundamental building blocks.

The absurdity of understanding ''everything'' starting from just understanding basic particles is similar to the fallacy presented in [[1570: Engineer Syllogism]].

In the first panel, Cueball expresses the idea that if he understands the behavior of tiny particles, he'll understand everything. This reflects a common scientific pursuit, {{w|reductionism}}, to uncover the basic principles underlying all physical phenomena in order to understand them. For example, most chemical reactions can be explained as the recombinations of a few dozen common elements.

The comic then splits into two branches representing different fields of physics which refute Cueball's optimistic assumption: {{w|condensed matter physics}} and {{w|quantum field theory}}.

The concept of {{w|antireductionism}} (or {{w|holism}}) is then demonstrated by following the left causal path using a 'traditional' physical approach.
In the Condensed Matter Physics branch, Cueball encounters a cloud of vibrating particles, which symbolizes the complexity that arises when simple particles combine to produce complex behaviors. The issue with reducing down to particles is that the number of different interactions between particles to understand makes the topic no longer simple. This highlights the challenge of predicting macroscopic properties from microscopic interactions, a central theme in condensed matter physics. This is shown in everyday life, from things like a baseball curving through the air, to how a mirror reflects light. [[1734: Reductionism]] also touches on the impracticality of gaining knowledge about a larger construct through understanding its constituent parts.

In the Quantum Field Theory branch, Cueball is faced with the issue that particles at the quantum level aren't simple. Quantum Field Theory deals with the fundamental particles and forces of nature, and it describes a complex world where particles can behave as both waves and particles simultaneously, among other strange phenomena.

The title text introduces a third branch: the field of {{w|cosmology}}, which deals with the large-scale structure and history of the universe. Cosmology suggests that even our catalog of the most fundamental particles might be inadequate - perhaps an allusion to theorized phenomena like dark matter and dark energy - raising questions about the nature of existence itself.

No matter how you study the universe, it's complicated.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
:[Cueball gestures at a particle, represented as a dot with motion lines around it.]
:Cueball: Everything is made of tiny particles. If I understand those, I'll understand everything!
:[The comic splits into two branches.]
:[Condensed Matter Physics branch]
:[Cueball is fretting over a cloud of particles.]
:Cueball: Oh no.
:Cueball: Simple particles can combine to produce complex behaviors.
:[Quantum Field Theory branch]
:[Cueball is fretting over the same particle as in the first panel.]
:Cueball: Oh no.
:Cueball: '''''These particles aren't simple!'''''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]