explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3063: Planet Definitions

2025-05-22T12:08:36Z

172.70.86.115: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3063
| date = March 14, 2025
| title = Planet Definitions
| image = planet_definitions_2x.png
| imagesize = 653x1435px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Under the 'has cleared its orbital neighborhood' and 'fuses hydrogen into helium' definitions, thanks to human activities Earth technically no longer qualifies as a planet but DOES count as a star.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The first paragraph is too complex and doesn't directly address the comic.}}

This comic addresses the {{w|IAU definition of planet|controversy of whether of Pluto is a planet}} and explores many definitions, most of them humorous and nonsensical, of what a planet could be. The 2006 redefinition of Pluto as a dwarf planet is a common theme on xkcd, occurring also in [[473: Still Raw]], [[482: Height]], [[1020: Orion Nebula]], [[1093: Forget]], [[1458: Small Moon]], [[1551: Pluto]] and [[1555: Exoplanet Names 2]].

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin:auto"
!colspan="2"|Definition !! # of planets !! Explanation
|-
! Traditionalist
| {{w|Pluto}} is a planet
| align=center | 9
| Until 2006, there was {{w|IAU definition of planet#Background|no official definition of a "planet"}}, but most people considered there to be nine, including Pluto, which was discovered in 1930. As astronomy advanced and larger objects like {{w|Eris (dwarf planet)|Eris}} were found, the {{w|International Astronomical Union}} redefined a planet as something that clears its orbit — disqualifying Pluto and Eris, now called "{{w|dwarf planets}}". This upset many who grew up learning Pluto was the ninth planet. Ironically, scientists are now searching for a new {{w|Planet Nine}}, which could again challenge the current definition.
|-
! Modern
| Pluto is not a planet
| align=center | 8
| When the IAU redefined what a planet is in 2006, Pluto no longer qualified as a planet since it wasn't able to clear its neighborhood around its orbit.
Using the modern, and recently official, definition of a planet, only eight celestial objects qualified: {{w|Mercury (planet)|Mercury}}, {{w|Venus (planet)|Venus}}, {{w|Earth (planet)|Earth}}, {{w|Mars (planet)|Mars}}, {{w|Jupiter (planet)|Jupiter}}, {{w|Saturn (planet)|Saturn}}, {{w|Uranus (planet)|Uranus}} and {{w|Neptune (planet)|Neptune}}.
|-
! Expansive
| Dwarf planets are planets
| align=center | 17+
| This category also includes nine other bodies that aren't dominant within their orbits, including the ones that are considered to have compacted into fully solid bodies {{w|Dwarf planet#Most likely dwarf planets|as defined by Grundy ''et al.''}}: {{w|Ceres (dwarf planet)|Ceres}}, Pluto, Eris, {{w|Makemake}}, {{w|Haumea}}, {{w|Gonggong (dwarf planet)|Gonggong}}, {{w|Quaoar}}, {{w|Orcus (dwarf planet)|Orcus}} and {{w|Sedna (dwarf planet)|Sedna}}.
The basis for this viewpoint is the possible alternative re-evaluation that the IAU could have adopted, in that all newly discovered things ''like'' Pluto (being considered a planet at the time) should therefore be considered a planet. Indeed, Ceres had been observed some time before Pluto and had been called a planet (or a "minor planet") within both scientific and public realms.
|-
! Ultratraditionalist
| Only the classical planets are planets
| align=center | 5
| The {{w|classical planets}} are objects found and considered by the Greek astronomers in classical antiquity to be considered planets. Their definition of "planet" considered visible objects that move across the sky relative to the fixed stars, the original word itself being translated as "wanderer".
There are seven classical planets, but this included the Sun and Moon. If one considers only the ones that also fall under either the IAU's definition of a planet (and so ''less'' traditional) or the convention before that, then there would be only five. Being mostly true to the spirit of the historic naming convention, this would be a conservative but 'valid' version of the criterion.

Notably, Earth itself is not considered a planet by these criteria as, from the perspective of anyone who might even consider such things, it is not wandering the heavens. Or even in the night skies at all, but always underfoot.
|-
! Condescending
| Only giant planets are planets; the rest are big {{w|asteroid}}s
| align=center | 4
| This definition may refer to the {{w|giant planets}}, planets much larger than the {{w|Earth}}. Only the four outer (IAU-defined) planets fall under this definition. Relegation of anything smaller, including our own planet, is an extreme attitude.
Incidentally, most of the initial [[:Category:Exoplanets|exoplanets]] discovered were, by practical necessity in their detection, also only of the "giant planet" kind.
|-
! Simplistic
| Anything gravitationally round is a planet
| align=center | 37+
| The Wikipedia {{w|list of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System}} has thirty-seven objects. It includes the Sun, eight planets, nine dwarf planets, nineteen {{w|Natural satellite|moon}}s, but falls short of also highlighting all of the smallest visible objects (per Universalist, below).
This definition is essentially ''part'' of the actual current definition of a planet, leaving out the main factor that disqualifies Pluto, orbital dominance.
|-
! Grounded
| Only objects a spaceship has landed on are planets
| align=center | 10
| This list includes objects in the Solar System that a spacecraft has {{w|List of landings on extraterrestrial bodies|performed a soft landing on}}. The list includes {{w|Venus}}, Earth, {{w|Mars}}, the Moon, {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}}, the comet {{w|Churyumov-Gerasimenko}} plus the asteroids {{w|433 Eros|Eros}}, {{w|25143 Itokawa|Itokawa}}, {{w|162173 Ryugu|Ryugu}}, and {{w|101955 Bennu|Bennu}}.
The justification for this seems to be that we must 'touch' the object before we consider it as worthy of being classified as more than a mere blob (or dot) in space.

It could be argued that Jupiter and Saturn also count, due to the {{w|Galileo (spacecraft)|Galileo}} and {{w|Cassini–Huygens|Cassini}} spacecraft respectively, which plunged into the atmospheres of those planets.
|-
! Regolithic
| Anything covered in dirt and ice and stuff is a planet
| align=center | Infinite
| This list excludes the {{w|gas giant}}s and {{w|ice giant}}s. The list would likely include all other planets, plus all dwarf planets, asteroids, moons, comets and {{w|Oort cloud#Structure and composition|trillions of other objects}} in the {{w|Oort cloud}} that are larger than a few particles in size. (Not strictly infinite, but uncountably many for all practical reasons.)
This is effectively the opposite of the "condescending" definition: every object in the Solar System except the Sun is included in one definition or the other.
This is also an extension on the "Grounded" classification. In this case we ''could'' meaningfully touch the object, with predominantly atmospheric bodies being not considered so.
|-
! Lunar
| You can't be a planet if you don't have a moon
| align=center | 12+
| Only some objects in the solar system have known moons orbiting them. The value given may be {{w|List of natural satellites|the number of planets and dwarf planets}} that have moons, excluding {{w|Haumea}} for not {{w|hydrostatic equilibrium|being spherical}} despite having moons.
Adopting this definition would suggest that a planetary body is not worthy of the name if it doesn't demonstrably dominate its orbit by having at least one satellite of its own.

If this statement were "You can't be a planet if you don't have a Moon", ''only'' the Earth would qualify.
|-
! Solipsistic
| Earth is the only planet
| align=center | 1
| {{w|Solipsism}} is the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Randall extrapolated this idea to mean that only one's own planet that they are standing on is sure to exist.
This relies on a more philosophical and/or semiotic assessment than any scientific one.
|-
! Judgemental
| Only the prettiest ones are planets
| align=center | 6
| This list is likely formulated from Randall's own perception of the prettiest planets in the Solar System. Seven objects are highlighted: Earth, Jupiter, one of Jupiter's moons (likely {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, based on [[1547: Solar System Questions]]), Saturn, one of Saturn's moons (possibly Iapetus or Phoebe), {{w|Triton (moon)|Triton}} and Pluto.
The subjectivity of this version of the definition makes it unlikely that a consensus of this form could be established.
|-
! Empiricist
| Only worlds that I, author of this table, have personally seen are planets
| align=center | 12
| This list may refer to the celestial objects in the Solar System that have been visible at night for the author (or that the author has never seen the Sun), probably going so far as using an optical telescope (which could be a hobbyist one, perhaps Randall's own, or from time granted on a major institutional installation) but not any more indirect method that uses a camera/screen or historic images of any kind. Apparently Randall has seen Uranus, which technically [https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-see-uranus-in-night-sky ''is'' visible to the naked eye] under the very best viewing conditions, but these conditions are rare and it requires knowing exactly where to look. Jupiter's {{w|Galilean moons|four largest moons}} are [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112024151/http://denisdutton.com/jupiter_moons.htm technically visible to the naked eye] but hard to distinguish due to Jupiter's brightness, while Neptune is considered too faint to see even if you know where to look. It appears that Randall has never used a telescope to see Neptune.
As a different form of subjectivity, the value of this grouping's criteria is questionable, but not uncommon in other 'softer' sciences.
|-
! Marine biologist
| Only objects with oceans are planets
| align=center | 6+
| This list includes Earth, {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}}, {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, Titan and {{w|Enceladus}}. These have had the presence of significant liquid identified from measurements of their magnetic/electric fields, but see the "Maritime" entry.
There is a resemblance, here, to a loose understanding of what a "world" is, i.e., one that possesses various distinct 'terrains' beyond mere dry (and possibly considered featureless) rock. A marine biologist would, of course consider a marine (if not pelagic or bathyspheric) environment to be an essential element of any world.
|-
! Maritime
| Only objects with ''surface'' oceans are planets
| align=center | 2
| In the comic, only Earth and Titan are highlighted. Earth is the only body known in the solar system to have liquid water on the surface significant enough to be called an ocean. Titan's cold and dense atmosphere notably maintains surface 'seas' of methane and nitrogen, while other moons (given as additional in the prior item) seem to have their liquid water beneath either whole-surface ice caps or otherwise deep under the surface.
From the narrower point of view of a sailor, for example, there is no benefit in considering water hidden away far beneath the surface, and it might as well not be there. In contrast, it's possible that a well-prepared mariner could sail the strange seas of Titan, as easily as (or easier than) {{w|Dragonfly (Titan space probe)|an aircraft}} might fly through {{what if|30|its skies}}.
|-
! Universalist
| They're all planets
| align=center | Infinite
| This list claims that all objects are planets, with all drawn items (also presumably all undrawn/undrawable items) being marked as such, including the Sun. Giving up on any thought of exclusivity, this unconventional view willingly inducts all objects into consideration, with an effectively equivalent claim to an infinite count as with the Regolith definition.
|-
! Existentialist
| What if {{w|outer space|space}} ''itself'' is a planet???
| align=center | ''Duude''
| This list is different from the list above as it claims that all of space, rather than only the objects existing in space, are planets. The interjection ''Duude'' expresses one's amazement at this 'revelation' and replaces the number count — and is sometimes used to imply [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=duuuude the speaker is high] on marijuana or other mind-altering drugs.
The strange stretch of imagination, as prompted by some narcotic or other, abandons all pretense at sensibly sorting everything into "planet" or "not planet", as not only is everything a planet, but so is the nothing ''between'' these titular planets. However, the more serious subject of {{w|black hole cosmology}} holds the view that the observable universe is the interior of a black hole.
|-
! Spiteful
| ''Only'' Pluto is a planet
| align=center | 1
| This list is a malicious play on the demotion of Pluto by demoting all other planets except Pluto instead, leaving Pluto as the only planet in the solar system.
This is the taxonomic equivalent of refusing to play and taking your ball home to spite those who you think don't deserve to enjoy themselves.
|-
! {{w|Star}} (title text)
| Earth is a star
| align=center | 2 stars
| In May 1934, Mark Oliphant, Paul Harteck and Ernest Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory published an intentional deuterium fusion experiment and made the discovery of both tritium and helium-3. This is widely considered the first experimental demonstration of fusion. Randall considers that this and subsequent human-induced fusion makes Earth fall into the category of a star, and hence not a planet. Also, the IAU definition of a planet requires that the planet has cleared its "orbital neighborhood" of other objects — objects must either be captured as moons or have their orbits disrupted such that they are flung away.
Under this definition, one could humorously argue that recent human activities, launching into space ''new'' non-orbiting objects like the James Webb Space Telescope, technically disqualify Earth from being a planet, as the orbital neighborhood is no longer completely clear. By changing not only the definition, but the term being defined, this drifts yet further from any consensus view on the original question and into a typical punchline absurdity.
|}

==Transcript==

:[A table with 3 columns, and 17 rows below the the header row, labelled "Definition", "# of planets" and "Solar system".]
:[In each row, the first column has a single word, in bold, then a descriptive sentence. The second column has a digit or other 'value'. The third column is a not-to-scale drawing of the Solar system, featuring the Sun, various 'planetary' bodies and an apparently selective sample of moons and asteroids, as follows: The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth with the Moon, Mars with its two moons (Phobos and Deimos), a small selection of some asteroid belt bodies (Ceres in the midst of other, smaller, examples), Jupiter and four of its moons (likely the Galilean moons: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto), a ringed Saturn and usually one of its moons (probably Titan) or two (possibly Enceladus or Iapetus, as required), Uranus and four or five of its moons (likely to be Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon, but one of these (shown upon the face of Uranus) only appears in some iterations of the base image), Neptune and one of its moons (probably Triton), Pluto and one of its moons (Charon, the main companion body possibly considered as fellow twin-dwarf instead), four more plutoid or Kuiper Belt objects (too little context to identify, but possibly Haumea, Makemake, Eris and Sedna, in distance order), the first two of them with distinct moons/companions indicated (the exact identities entirely dependent upon which main objects they are partnering).]
:[Each row's illustrated solar system has individual combinations of green highlights applied to the otherwise repeated diagram.]
:[Row 1: Definition:] Traditionalist: Pluto is a planet [Number:] 9 [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto]
:[Row 2: Definition:] Modern: Pluto is not a planet [Number:] 8 [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune]
:[Row 3: Definition:] Expansive: Dwarf planets are planets [Number:] 17+ [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres (in Asteroid Belt), Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the further main bodies]
:[Row 4: Definition:] Ultratraditionalist: Only the classical planets are planets [Number:] 5 [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn]
:[Row 5: Definition:] Condescending: Only giant planets are planets; the rest are big asteroids. [Number:] 4 [Highlighted: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune]
:[Row 6: Definition:] Simplistic: Anything gravitationally round is a planet [Number:] 37+ [Highlighted: The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, Ceres (without other asteroids), Jupiter + moons, Saturn with Titan, Uranus and its moons, Neptune with its moon, Pluto and the four further dwarf planets, your mom]
:[Row 7: Definition:] Grounded: Only objects a spaceship has landed on are planets [Number:] 10 [Highlighted: Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, five (non-Cererian) asteroids and Titan]
:[Row 8: Definition:] Regolithic: Anything covered in dirt and ice and stuff is a planet [Number:] [infinity symbol] [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, Ceres with all other asteroids depicted in the Asteroid Belt, the moons of Jupiter, the sole representative moon of Saturn, the moons of Uranus, the moon of Neptune, Pluto, Charon (Pluto's ’moon’/twin-dwarf companion) and all remaining dwarf planets together with their illustrated moons]
:[Row 9: Definition:] Lunar: You can't be a planet if you don't have a moon [Number:] 12+ [Highlighted: Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and three of the other dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt, including one with no obviously drawn moon]
:[Row 10: Definition:] Solipsistic: Earth is the only planet [Number:] 1 [Highlighted: The Earth]
:[Row 11: Definition:] Judgemental: Only the prettiest ones are planets [Number:] 6 [Highlighted: The Earth, Jupiter with one of its moons (not identified), Saturn, one of ''two'' Saturnian moons in this image and Pluto]
:[Row 12: Definition:] Empiricist: Only worlds that I, author of this table, have personally seen are planets [Number:] 12 [Highlighted: Mercury, Venus, The Earth, The Moon, Mars, Jupiter with its four moons, Saturn and Uranus]
:[Row 13: Definition:] Marine biologist: Only objects with oceans are planets [Number:] 6+ [Highlighted: The Earth, three Jovian moons, the two illustrated Saturnian moons]
:[Row 14: Definition:] Maritime: Only objects with [next word in italics] surface oceans are planets [Number:] 2 [Highlighted: The Earth and Titan]
:[Row 15: Definition:] Universalist: They're all planets [Number:] [infinity symbol] [Highlighted: All drawn objects, including The Sun and all other objects including all the moons/asteroids]
:[Row 16: Definition:] Existentialist: What if space [next word in italics] itself is a planet??? [Word:] ''Duude'' [Highlighted: The whole third column cell]
:[Row 17: Definition:] Spiteful: [next word in italics] Only Pluto is a planet [Number:] 1 [Highlighted: Pluto]

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/6/66/20250314195557%21planet_definitions_2x.png original version of the comic], there were two errors that would later be fixed. The "Traditionalist" definition highlighted Neptune's satellite {{w|Triton (moon)|Triton}} instead of Pluto. The images of the Solar System for the "Traditionalist" and "Modern" definitions were swapped, resulting in Pluto being incorrectly highlighted in "Modern" and omitted in "Traditionalist".

*The "Judgemental" definition has seven colored objects instead of the stated six. This mistake has not yet been fixed.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Comics edited after their publication]]

Talk:590: Papyrus/Font

2025-05-08T12:17:53Z

172.70.86.115: Undo revision 376659 by 162.158.162.103 (talk) Unsigned non-sequitur.

I feel so papyrus [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe this is the only page that is not categorized. .-. Category:Jokes would be fine :) --[[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 03:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
:Funnily enough, before I fixed it (see history), this page was categorised as a comic so we had one more comic in the categories. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Time traveling Sphere

2025-05-08T12:15:20Z

172.70.86.115: Could be said better, but what this replaces wasn't complete/grammatical.

In this series we are introduced to the time traveling Sphere, a floating black energy sphere from the future. It speaks fluent English and seems to come from very far into the future and it calls Earth "your planet" so seems like it did not originate on Earth (or else considers the changes over time make Earth and/or the Sphere-people distinctly different in ''its'' later era). See more about these strange things in the explanation for the comics.

It is a rare type of series not seen before in xkcd.

A similar talking floating energy sphere was seen before in [[1173: Steroids]]. And the AIs in [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]] and [[2635: Superintelligent AIs]] are similar except the central part are differently shaped. The Steroids sphere could be a different time traveler or aliens race or even AI, but the AIs seems unrelated to the other two spheres. A different floating sphere, an oracle, is shown in [[3085: About 20 Pounds]].

'''Click''' to expand for a more detailed explanation:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed leftAlign" style="width:100%"> 

The two comics came out in consecutively released comics, but not two days in a row, but in the regular release schedule Monday and Wednesday, but then stopped there. Other "real" series where more than one comic in the series came out in the same week always came in groups of five with five releases in a week, one every regular weekday.

The comics in the ''Time traveling Sphere'' series have titles that do not relate to each other, except the fact that both comics titles are a noun followed by a field of research that refer to sciences that look into the past with {{w|Paleontology}} and {{w|Archaeology}}. Only other clear series with such differing names are the [[:Category:Android|Android]] series, but those two comics were not released in the same week (although within two weeks of each other), and the word Android goes again in both comics binding them together. In the ''Time Traveling Sphere'' only the Sphere and the fact that [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] continues their discussion with it from the first comic in the second comic makes it clear that these two comics are a series.
</div> 

[[Category:Comic series]]
[[Category:Time travel]]

Talk:2251: Alignment Chart Alignment Chart

2025-04-19T09:16:32Z

172.70.86.115:

OK, hope someone will now explain it after I created this page. I'm lost on this one ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Arrgh, edit conflict! [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 11:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Punnet Square is ''also'' a meme template...[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.229|162.158.154.229]] 15:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely remember Randall to refer to the clay-sand diagram (or whatever it is called) as his all time favorite diagram on what-if somewhere. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:You vaguely remember "Starsand" from https://what-if.xkcd.com/83/ with the quote "Fortunately, there's a wonderful chart by the US Geologic Survey that answers all these questions and more. For some reason, I find this chart very satisfying—it's like the erosion geology edition of the electromagnetic spectrum chart." directly applicabe to this chart[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I fear any attempt to "explain" the CIE chromaticity diagram will devolve into arguments about why Randall chose it. I have found that folks outside the world of optics or neurooptical studies have a hard time understanding why the raw colors available in single wavelengths comprise that short curvy line inside the full colorspace. The way our brain processes the relative signal strengths from the different types of retinal cones is quite amazing. [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:CGW I'm shocked! Surely you know that single-wavelengths are the curvy outer boundary while the inner curvy line shows the response to blackbody spectra. ;-) -Fred [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.61|173.245.52.61]] 19:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks for that; I was about to question the statement myself. All in all, I feel the current explanation of the chromaticity diagram doesn't really explain much, and seems unnecessarily biased to boot. I know just enough about chromaticity to think it's wrong but not enough to correct it. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 19:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
:::I agree that explanation isn't great, if it's not improved when I have free time tonight I'll take a stab at it. Or maybe CelloCGW will, since he IS an optics guru (which is why I had to raz him).[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.61|173.245.52.61]] 20:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fred - mea culpa. I should think before writing. Fortunately :-), the ratio of the colorspace to any 1-dimensional line's area is still infinite! [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 20:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC) .... now that someone did post some explanation of CIE, more comments. The current CIE spec may be paywalled, but it has changed little if at all over the last 40 or 50 years, so it's not all that hard to get the values. There are several sites (naturally I've lost the URLs) which provide algos to convert HSM to RGB to HSV and so on. See Wikipedia, https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/003/cie.15.2004.tables.xls , and similar repositories [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 20:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

:I redid the CIE explanation - focusing on describing the diagram, rather than one thing it might get used for (e.g. black body). I think the diagrams on the right are labeled chaotic because they are not some neat geometric shape over-all. I didn't really follow much of what was there, so feel free to revive some of it if it seems useful. (My background in color theory comes from computer science and graphics, rather than from physics or hardware design.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.201|162.158.107.201]] 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
::It's better! Though it might be nice to explain what the x and y coordinates on the CIE diagram represent. (I personally have no clue, even after perusing Wikipedia.) As for chaoticness and shape, really CN and CE are the one two that aren't simple geometric shapes; even CG is a trapezoid. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 15:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with 4th and 5th edition, but should the "Good/neutral/evil:" axis eplanation be changed to "selfless deeds or selfish deeds"? Good and evil are highly subjective ("One person's 'freedom fighter' is another person's 'terrorist'.") but at least in 5e the axis is explained as risking/sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others (Good) vs. sacrificing others for your own benefit (Evil). Also, the explanation of the CN character may benefit from dividing which parts of the explanation are "chatoic" vs "neutral". Finally the "lacking rhyme or reason" part of chaotic is highly debated within D&D circles. There are certainly people who play that way, but there are also others who feel that chaotic characters have just as much motivation and goals as a lawful or neutral character just that part of their motivation is to act contrarily to Tradition/Authority. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.54|162.158.186.54]] 14:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

: It seems from this page that even nerds tend to interpret the alignment system by the ‘common sense’ meaning of the names instead of the detailed explanation. I once simply went through the Wikipedia article, which cited the second edition IIRC: ‘lawful’ means sticking to ''some'' code of conduct, whereas ‘chaotic’ is a pure opportunist or behaves randomly. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ indeed mean selfless vs selfish deeds, but afaik in one of the official explanations ‘evil’ meant exercising authority over others—so all managers would be ‘evil’ automatically. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 16:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure the phase diagram is for Water - that has nine solid phases. Surely it is merely a simple example.
[[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As an interesting note, this comic's alt-text also ends with a period inside of a quote. This was discussed at length in the previous comic. [[User:Agrasin|Agrasin]] ([[User talk:Agrasin|talk]]) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just upset that both a soil diagram and the QAPF were included, but not the TAS. Where's the love for extrusive igneous rocks? [[User:Mergelong|Mergelong]] ([[User talk:Mergelong|talk]]) 18:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I offer my condolences and wish luck to the person who's going to make a transcript of this comic. [[User:Aasasd|Aasasd]] ([[User talk:Aasasd|talk]]) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"lawful heterozygous silty liquid" Is this not him being Lawfull, having inherited different forms of a particular gene from each parent, and basically a bag full of salt water? [[User:Nappy|Nappy]] ([[User talk:Nappy|talk]]) 07:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A phase diagram was also used in https://what-if.xkcd.com/138/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.7|162.158.89.7]] 08:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The phase diagrams for oxygen and radon look similar to the Lawful Neutral one here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.166|172.68.34.166]] 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it coincidence that the evil chaotic diagram looks a bit like a brain? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.9|162.158.158.9]] 10:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Made a "real" one using actual picts from the internet based on this comic ... but ALSO using his comic. Meta, meta, meta, maybe? https://imgur.com/gallery/CagOh8s

I'm fairly certain that Randall is classifying himself using the Omnispace classifier, rather than referencing "the true neutral, neutral good, lawful good, and lawful neutral charts in the Alignment Chart Alignment Chart." as the current description suggests. If you look at the Omnispace classifier, Silt, Liquid, Heterozygous, and Lawful Good all share a common point on the chart. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.207|172.69.68.207]] 17:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why the explanation claims that the chart in the comic is missing the low central vowel ä. The official IPA chart does not include this vowel, and the use of a diaresis to indicate centralization, like all other diacritics for indicating relative articulation, are given in a separate section from the main chart. Granted, the vowel chart on Wikipedia does include ä, but there is no reason that we should expect XKCD to do the same. That said, the omission of ɐ is quite odd, and seems to be an error. {{unsigned|IcarusProblem|01:40, 12 December 2023}}
== Omnispace Classifier ==

I think the Omnispace Classifier is meant to be a horrific Frankenstein amalgamation of the other 8 kinds of chart. Theoretically it can "classify anything" since it can classify anything the other 8 can, but practically it would obviously be totally useless, or at least a lot less useful than just using the specific chart that works for the situation. [[User:Pureawes0me|Pureawes0me]] ([[User talk:Pureawes0me|talk]]) 12:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In the description of the Omnispace Classifier, saying "the diagram created for this comic is considered to be chaotically evil." is wrong. The diagram created for this comic is ''not'' an Omnispace Classifier, it is an alignment chart. It's even in the title "Alignment Chart Alignment Chart". [[User:Pureawes0me|Pureawes0me]] ([[User talk:Pureawes0me|talk]]) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
:I concur. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 15:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel the "Omnispace Classifier" is actually chaotic evil due to its mishmash of axes, which change randomly in topic and direction depending where you look on the graph. --[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 17:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

== Chart Position Rationale ==

The page currently tries to explain each chart's position based on the content of the chart, e.g. the political compass chart is lawful because politics relates to laws. I think this is wrong: the charts are arranged based on their properties ''as charts''. It's not based on whatever it is they represent. This feels more in character with how Randall tends to do things. It also avoids making a bunch of value judgments about various topics. [[User:Khaim|Khaim]] ([[User talk:Khaim|talk]]) 23:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible explanations for each chart:
* Soil chart: Information-dense, continuous, triangular
* Punnett square: Simple, square
* IPA vowel chart: Irregular shape
* Phase diagram: Square, continuous
* Alignment chart: "A is A"
* CIE chromaticity diagram: Irregular shape, ''curved'', nonlinear
* Political compass: Square (lawful), highly subjective, not very useful
* QAPF rock diagram: Diamond shape is misleading since it's actually two ternary charts stuck together, not very useful (unless you're a geologist?)
* Omnispace classifier: Totally made up, irregular, completely useless
[[User:Khaim|Khaim]] ([[User talk:Khaim|talk]]) 23:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:I agree with this, and it's how I first interpreted the comic.--[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 23:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
:Well, the point is to make any connection to both axis of the chart. Your explanations do not do that properly either. e.g. for IPA vowel chart "Irregular shape" does not explain why it would be considered "good", while it is one of maybe more possible reasons for being considered chaotic. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 07:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

== XKCD Alignment Chart ==

A while back, I was searching for an XKCD alignment chart, with no success, so I made one. It is not perfect, so I'm wondering what other opinions on the alignment of the characters are.

Lawful Good- Beret

Neutral Good- Ponytail

Chaotic Good- Mrs. Roberts

Lawful Neutral-Cueball

Neutral Neutral- Megan

Chaotic Neutral- White hat

Lawful Evil- Hairy

Neutral Evil- Danish

Chaotic Evil- Black Hat

--[[User:Fallencrow305|Fallencrow305]] ([[User talk:Fallencrow305|talk]]) 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

:What about Help I'm trapped in a drivers license factory Elaine Roberts? --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 15:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
::Or Hairbun? Or Science Girl? Here are my predictions: Elaine - Chaotic Good, Hairbun - Lawful Good, Science Girl - Lawful Neutral --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 16:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

:What? How can Beret Guy be anything other than chaotic?— {{unsigned|}}

:You did:
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! Lawful !! Neutral !! Chaotic
|-
! Good !! Beret || Ponytail || Mrs. Roberts
|-
! Neutral !! Cueball || Megan || White Hat
|-
! Evil !! Hairy || Danish ||Black Hat
|}
:'''[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|speak]] | [[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|museum]]) 18:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)'''

...while I see the slight logic of moving the above section away from the Main Page "Talk", it is only associated with this Explanation by having a common subject. Perhaps should have been re-asserted under a suitable bit of the Community Portal, or the (Talk of the) umbrella page for all characters? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.147|172.70.86.147]] 15:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Punnett square is neutral because the effect of a genetic combination can be good (resistance to HIV) or evil (Huntington disease). [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I object to the soil chart being lawful good. Two of the categories are concave. You can mix sandy loam with sandy loam and get loam, or silt loam with silt loam and get silt. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 07:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Popping by here only because of someone discovering a couple of redirect pages were not done, due to failure of the 'BOT of the day. (Was it really only four-and-a-half years ago that we were still pre-theusafBOT?) Good catch, that user! Of course, I still wonder what the Omnispace Classifier Classifier would rationalise as (as per the Omnispace Classifier, but with a subordinate Omnispace Classifier also added to the other eight... perhaps even a recursive OC-Clqssifier, in turn an OCC-Classifier). Idle thought, only, whilst I was noting the wikifixes just done! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.18|172.70.162.18]] 12:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

== Changed into Charts ==
* 2nd - Punnett square replaced as Keyboard Layout
* 5th - Alignment Chart replaced as Periodic Table
* 7th - Political compass replaced as [[Skew-T Log-P]]
* 8th - QAPF rock diagram replaced as [[Extended NFPA Hazard Diamond|NFPA Hazard Diamond]]
* 9th - Onmispace Classifier replaced as Multiplication Table--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.219.78|172.71.219.78]] 02:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
:What are you saying? Also, don't put your signature text in the header (moved). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.115|172.70.86.115]] 09:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

3076: The Roads Both Taken

2025-04-15T17:15:53Z

172.70.86.115: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3076
| date = April 14, 2025
| title = The Roads Both Taken
| image = the_roads_both_taken_2x.png
| imagesize = 361x362px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = When you worry that you're missing out on something by not making both choices simultaneously by quantum superposition, that's called phomo.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Simultaneously created by and not created by SCHRÖDINGER'S LYRICIST - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a parody of the first and fourth stanzas of {{w|Robert Frost}}'s 1915 poem "{{w|The Road Not Taken|}}". The joke is that, while the human narrator of Frost's poem (presumably Frost himself), confronted with two paths, could only take one of them, and is left to [[584: Unsatisfied|contemplate the consequences of his choice]], the photonic narrator of the parody, thanks to {{w|Quantum superposition|quantum physics}}, is not compelled to choose one path over the other, and is left to contemplate the {{w|Wave interference#Quantum interference|consequences of that choice}}.

The title text humorously conflates FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out), the human concern over lost opportunities from choosing one path over another (or choosing neither) with PHOMO (presumably PHOton Missing Out), the photonic concern over lost opportunities from choosing both paths at once, instead of one only, or none.

This comic was posted on April 14, [https://www.quantum.gov/happy-world-quantum-day-2025 World Quantum Day].

{| class="wikitable"
!Original stanza
!Parody
!Explanation
|-
|Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And ''sorry I could not travel'' both ''And'' be one traveler, ''long I stood'' ''And looked down one'' as far as I could ''To where it bent'' in the undergrowth;
|Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And ''so of course I traveled'' both ''Though'' be one traveler, ''still I could'' ''Explore down both'' as far as I could ''Beyond the bends'' in the undergrowth;
|This may be possible due to the fact that photons are light particles.
|-
|I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took ''the one less travelled by,'' And that has made ''all the difference.''
|I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took ''them both and recombined,'' And that has made ''interference.''
|
|}

The parody maintains the same rhyme scheme as the original, ABAAB, except for the fourth line of the last stanza. "recombined" doesn't rhyme with "sigh" and "I", although it shares the vowel in the last syllable (this is a form of {{w|assonance}}).

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

:[A photon recites a poem:]
:Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
:And so of course I traveled both
:Though be one traveler, still I could
:Explore down both as far as I could
:Beyond the bends in the undergrowth...

:...I shall be telling this with a sigh
:Somewhere ages and ages hence:
:Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
:I took them both and recombined,
:And that has made interference.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Photon poetry

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

3073: Tariffs

2025-04-10T08:21:34Z

172.70.86.115: /* Explanation */ So many possible links. No idea which citation would satisfy everyone, so directly quoting just one of his actual quotes instead.

{{comic
| number = 3073
| date = April 7, 2025
| title = Tariffs
| image = tariffs_2x.png
| imagesize = 681x809px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = [later] I don't get why our pizza slices have such terrible reviews; the geotextile-infused sauce gives the toppings incredible slope stability!
}}

==Explanation==

{{notice|This comic and explanation is about present-day politics and {{w|Donald Trump|Donald Trump, the current President of the United States}}. Additionally, the comic is about a political policy point that has disparate viewpoints which are both backed by extensive study and rarely implemented well. Please {{w|WP:DFTT|don’t feed the trolls}}, meaning that you don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, {{w|WP:RBI|revert, block and ignore}}. If you are not an admin and need assistance in blocking someone, send a message to [[User:Kynde]] or [[User:Theusaf]]. As with these contentious topics, please do not edit if you believe you have a conflict of interest or might be writing in a biased and slanted manner (in regards to both major American political parties). Be {{w|WP:BOLD|bold}}, but not reckless. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t {{w|WP:CIVIL|attack people}}, and always {{w|WP:AGF|assume good faith}}. Thanks, '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{incomplete|Created by a SPOILER FOR AVATAR 2 (Rosebud is his Ikran) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Explanation of the consequences of stopping imports (the last panel) is needed. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a parody of the tariffs that US president {{w|Donald Trump}} {{w|tariffs in the second Trump administration|imposed in April 2025}}, which were announced shortly before the comic's release. [[Cueball]] describes the tariffs to [[Ponytail]]. Cueball uses a pizza analogy to describe why the plan has garnered widespread disapproval for several seemingly illogical decisions.

In early 2021 ponytail blocked news sites to avoid {{w|spoiler (media)|spoiler}}s about ''Avatar 2'' (officially titled ''{{w|Avatar: The Way of Water}}''). ''Avatar 2'' was released on December 16, 2022, but she did not re-enable notifications until April 2025. This means that she has missed all news since 2021, including the re-election of Trump in 2024. She is surprised that Donald Trump is still the president in early 2025. She may be under the impression that Trump refused to step down when [[Joe Biden]]'s presidency officially began on Jan. 20, 2021. Trump made repeated false claims that {{w|2020 United States presidential election#False claims of fraud| the election was "stolen"}} shortly after the 2020 elections, indicating his reluctance to accept the results. On one hand, a U.S. president serving nonconsecutive terms has only happened once before; {{w|Grover Cleveland}} served from 1885 to 1889 and again from 1893 to 1897. On the other hand, only {{w|Franklin D. Roosevelt}} ever had more than two four-year terms, and that was before the {{w|Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd Amendment}} made it even less of a possibility that one could have started a third ([[2875: 2024|without getting false teeth, that is]]). Previously, in [[2396: Wonder Woman 1984]], ponytail also blocked news to avoid movie spoilers.

Ponytail has further missed Trump's wide-ranging tariffs, and the attending news coverage that has served to introduce many people to what tariffs are and how they work. Cueball attempts to explain by comparing the U.S. with the Geotechnical Survey company that Ponytail works for, as they are both producers of goods and services, and comparing the countries the U.S. imports from to a pizza place, since the U.S. primarily imports lower value consumer goods and materials used to make the goods that the U.S. then exports, similar to how pizzas feed the workers in Ponytail's company.

A trade deficit occurs when party A buys more from party B than they sell to party B. Donald Trump, the president of the United States at the time the comic released, claimed that if the U.S. has a trade deficit with another country, then the U.S. is getting ripped off and the other country must be punished. ("They ripped us off left and right. But now it's our turn to do the ripping.") In the comic, Cueball mockingly echoes Trump's belief to better explain his policies. As Ponytail explains, there is nothing wrong with having a trade deficit if you think you are getting your money's worth for what you are buying — specifically, looking purely at a "trade deficit" on paper does not tell you if the crediting partner is purchasing ''services'' from or offering other benefits to the debtor partner.

Many countries trade; a trade deficit with one country may be offset by a trade surplus with other countries. As long as countries maintain overall balance of trade, a trade deficit with one country is of little significance. The U.S. can benefit from a trade deficit in some cases: the flow of foreign capital (like factory machinery) into the country can allow for more development, and some kinds of production are dangerous or polluting relative to the value of the goods produced. In addition, up to today, the U.S. treasury commands the world's most common reserve currency, which is also the currency used for most world trade, making outflow of foreign currency not really a problem.{{Actual citation needed}}

A tariff is a tax on imports from another country. Most politicians try to balance tariffs carefully, for instance to keep domestic products competitive with imported goods. In contrast, Donald Trump introduced tariffs aggressively with the aim to "punish" countries with which the United States had a trade deficit. He claims that tariffs on goods manufactured abroad will encourage domestic manufacturing in order to avoid these tariffs, which will then provide more middle-class jobs. Many worry excessive tariffs will artificially inflate costs of products from other countries, leaving consumers with even higher prices (especially prices of goods which the United States cannot wholly produce domestically). Additionally, if other countries retaliate with tariffs (typically more well chosen ones, specifically targeting products that the U.S. wants to sell more than the other country needs to buy them) it could result in a "{{w|trade war}}".

In the comic, Cueball proposes that Ponytail impose a tax or "tariff" on the pizza store until they start buying from Ponytail's company. ({{w|Venmo}} is a payment platform; it's not like [[2716: Game Night Ordering|Yahoo Cash]] was an option anyway) Notably, the tariff is applied on the people who deliver the products to Ponytail's company, just like in real life. Ponytail notes that such a tariff might discourage pizza store from selling to her, which Cueball considers (in his position as devil's advocate for the whole concept) a victory. Nations have very little control of where the products they export go. Instead, it is left up to the companies (the delivery companies, in this case) to decide where to produce (or procure) the goods. What tariff proponents often omit, is that companies will simply pass on the costs associated with tariffs to the purchaser, making the pizza more expensive for the consumer, with no benefit to the supplier. In practical terms, the pizza company may stop taking orders from this company, having other customers that are easier to deliver to. Even if there's a saturated pizza industry, with several pizza outlets all vying for the local business, it may be easier to compete for the slightly smaller 'rest of the town' market, perhaps even to offer deliveries to places previously outside their area, than to pay the survey company.

Ponytail notes that the pizza company has little use for her company's land surveys, unless they are constructing their own stores. Ponytail suggests surveying pizzas using their equipment, which would serve little purpose.

Real world countries like China or Canada which, as of 2025, procure a substantial amount of goods from the U.S. The U.S. used to be a dominant producer of consumer goods up until the 1970s, after which companies started offshoring production that utilized low-skilled labor to third-world countries. In contrast, Ponytail's company likely has never been a producer of food. {{w|LIDAR}} is a technique using lasers to measure distances. Ponytail's company is using the technology to do surveying. In the final panel and title text, Cueball suggests that they use their LIDAR components to make their own pizzas, which would be inedible and potentially toxic.{{Citation needed}} Cueball may be referencing the annoyance Italians have at unconventional pizza toppings.

The title text references slope stability, or the ability of an inclined slope to withstand movement. Toppings often slide off poorly-made pizzas when it is being eaten, leading to dissatisfaction. {{w|Geotextile}}s are permeable fabrics used for support and various other functions. The narrator claims that geotextiles prevent toppings from sliding off the pizza. However, very few geotextiles are edible{{Citation needed}}, which may reference [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o Google's AI suggesting using non-toxic glue to ensure cheese doesn't slide off].

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail walks over to Cueball while looking at a phone in her hand. Cueball, sitting in an office chair, is leaning back on the chair and turns his head towards her. He is at his desk with his laptop open in front of him.]
:Ponytail: You know how I blocked all news sites at the start of 2021 to avoid spoilers for Avatar 2, and then forgot to start checking them again?
:Cueball: Yeah, we've been meaning to talk to you about that...

:[Ponytail, still holding the phone, stops in front of Cueball and looks at him. He has turned his chair around to face her, having his back to the desk with the laptop.]
:Ponytail: Well, I just checked the news for the first time, and why is the economy tanking?
:Cueball: Uh, the president is mad at other countries and imposed lots of tariffs.

:[Zoom in on Ponytail's head. Cueball's reply comes from a starburst on the right edge of the panel.]
:Ponytail: Wait, who's the president now?
:Cueball (off-panel): Donald Trump.
:Ponytail: ...Still??
:Cueball (off-panel): No, again.

:[Back to the previous setting, Ponytail is no longer holding the phone.]
:Ponytail: OK, fine, what's a tariff? Why is he doing this?
:Cueball: You know that pizzeria your company orders from? They don't buy anything from '''''you''''', right?
:Ponytail: Why would they? We do geotechnical landscape surveys.

:[Zoom in on Cueball who holds both his arms out wide. Ponytail's reply comes from a starburst on the left edge of the panel.]
:Cueball: Right, so they're ripping you off! '''''You're''''' paying '''''them''''' tons of money, and what are '''''you''''' getting for it?
:Ponytail (off-panel): I mean... pizza?
:Cueball: See? They're not helping '''''your''''' business at all!
:Cueball: What a ripoff!

:[Back to the previous setting, Ponytail has her hand under her chin.]
:Ponytail: What would they even buy from us? I guess we could survey a pizza...
:Cueball: Yes, perfect! You refuse to let the delivery driver past your security desk unless they Venmo you for an equivalent value of LIDAR scans.

:[Zoom in on Ponytail's head. Cueball's reply comes from a starburst on the right edge of the panel.]
:Ponytail: Wouldn't they just stop taking our orders?
:Cueball (off-panel): Perfect, balance restored!

:[Back to showing both of them in the same position but the desk is not shown.]
:Ponytail: OK, but I still want pizza.
:Cueball: Can you just make one? You have all that gear.
:Ponytail: I don't think pizza made with LIDAR diodes would be very good.
:Cueball: Ugh, why is everyone so picky about toppings?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Donald Trump]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:669: Experiment

2025-04-05T15:13:58Z

172.70.86.115:

I'm a science grad student, so these kinds of comics in particular I'm having fun writing for... (now if only I were writing my dissertation instead...) [[User:Bplimley|Bplimley]] ([[User talk:Bplimley|talk]]) 10:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
:You're turning these out really quickly. This is good stuff! '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
One can throw something to change one's motion in a frictionless vacuum.[[User:Username2|Username2]] ([[User talk:Username2|talk]]) 00:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
If the black hat REALLY cared about physics, he would have put a spherical cow inside the frictionless vacuum room. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.138.178|172.68.138.178]] 20:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
:the infinite plane of uniform density might be a reference to Nerd Sniping - [[User:Bb777|Bb777]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 23:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::[[356: Nerd Sniping]] - [[User:Bb777|Bb777]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 23:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I have a question about this comic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but friction isn't affected (or effected, see xkcd 326: Effect an Effect) by the presence of air, so wouldn't the physicist still be able to walk? He still would die, though, because you can only stay conscious in a vacuum for 10-15 seconds, and it would be nearly impossible to open the door in the vacuum.
[[User:CKcoolidge|CKcoolidge]] ([[User talk:CKcoolidge|talk]]) 03:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)CKcoolidge
:It's basically a shortcut for "on a frictionless surface in a vacuum" (with possibly some other caveats, in some scenarios, depending upon exactly what's being modeled and why). If you think about it, the vacuum can't ever really ''have'' a friction at all (at least this side of some fairly exotic reactionless propulsion ideas), so best treat that interpretation as a tautology.
:That said, there are worse understandings. Like vacuum==weoghtlessness, or at least lunar-strength gravity, but the moment you're inside the airlock you have full 1G of gravity. A cinematic convention, of course, where you handwave the less SFX-based 'indoor' scenes, or handwave some gravity-plate dookickey, or the hard-SF ones lampshade with magnetic/velcro footwear (the 'badly hard-'SF ones might even grant things in earthbound vacuum chambers an undue weightlessness, with nary the briefest of nods to ''anti-''gravity generators somehow being coupled to the airlessness).
:Which of course makes a layman confused over what's realistic and what isn't. I suppose you could argue that Randall's choice of words could be better, but it ought to be a "YKWIM" situation for those like us who perhaps see what trope he's invoking, and shouldn't bother those who take the handwaving at first value without staring too deeply into that particular abyss. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.115|172.70.86.115]] 15:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

3071: Decay Chain

2025-04-03T11:36:56Z

172.70.86.115: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3071
| date = April 2, 2025
| title = Decay Chain
| image = decay_chain_2x.png
| imagesize = 312x595px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you have an old phone in a drawer, and you listen very carefully, you can occasionally hear the occasional tap of an emitted SIM card hitting the side of the drawer as the phone transmutes to a lower-end model.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Bot that has decayed to an Automoton - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic suggests that as iPhones get heavier (as model iterations get higher) they, like heavier chemical elements, become unstable and susceptible to decay. In science, some atoms decays into other atoms, releasing some energy in the process. This comic humorously explore how an iPhone would decay if decaying works the same, which is obviously absurd as iPhones are not radioactive and thus aren't subject to atomic decay.

The difference between iPhones undergoing {{w|alpha decay}} (vertically downwards, in the diagram) is the change in model number from a higher one to one two steps lower (equivalent to the change in {{w|atomic number}} when two protons leave the nucleus in a helium ion), except for the step involving the iPhone X which apparently exists instead of a "9" model. The {{w|mass number}} of atoms would reduce by four (that of the He2+), though no evidence is given as to how the respective masses of the phones actually changes.

The process of beta minus decay (in elements, the effective conversion of a neutron into a proton and a free electron) raises the atomic number by one whilst removing an excess 'neutral' term, by emiting the negatively charged {{w|beta particle}}. In the terms of iPhones, this is represented by the removal of a brand-name modifier (usually denoting additional features included within the same model range) in order to perform a version-upgrade but now being closer to that new range's most basic release of model. This is represented by a sideways and upwards step. The decay step from the iPhone 13 Pro to the iPhone 14 Plus, which is missing a symbol, is clearly one of the beta minus decay steps.

(After alpha or beta decay, atoms may then emit {{w|gamma radiation}} as they rearrange their atomic state without changing their composition, but this process does not change the element in any meaningful way. It also will occur when neutron capture and/or atomic fission has occured, which is generally considered outwith the natural decay chain of any such isotope, and can also result from nuclear fusion.)

The title text suggests that the "alpha particle" of the iPhone is a {{w|SIM card}}, and that alpha-decaying phones will emit one of these each time (despite few phones having more than two, and most working ones only having one, but perhaps that's part of the mystery of telephonic {{w|Nuclear transmutation|transmutation}}). The sound of an old phone, sitting in a drawer, ejecting the unnecessary SIM is likened to the slow click of a {{w|Geiger counter}} being prompted to register the decay particles ejected from a decaying radioisotope. Presumably, without the sound, one would never otherwise know if the phone even ''had'' decayed without {{w|Schrödinger's cat|opening the drawer}} to find out.

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

Flow chart:
iPhone 16 pro max

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Physicists believe that an iPhone 16 Pro Max will, if left alone long enough, eventually decay into an iPhone 7, the heaviest stable model.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Smartphones]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-20T13:22:37Z

172.70.86.115:

The one currently posted has Pluto highlighted in the second box and not highlighted in the first box. Too hard to tell if it's trolling or a genuine mistake. :-D

:Apparently a mistake since it's fixed now. [[User:HughNo|HughNo]] ([[User talk:HughNo|talk]]) 19:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And the first one also has a moon hilighted instead I think?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.5|162.158.126.5]] 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Was about to write the same. The coloring in the first two lines arund Pluto seem wrong (or mistankingly switched). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.246|172.71.222.246]] 16:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This, this is the hill I will die on. I was radicalised by this paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 Moons Are Planets: "Scientific Usefulness Versus Cultural Teleology in the Taxonomy of Planetary Science"]
In short; planets are what planetary scientists study. Round things with the *good stuff*: atmospheres, oceans, volcanoes (of lava or water ice) (see diagram page 53).
Pluto, Titan, Ceres, Io and Europa are all in the sweet spot where you're not so small you're just a lump of rocks who happen to be stuck together into a lump, and not so large you're just a mostly undifferentiated mass of fusing hydrogen/helium plasma.
And it's consistent with our pre-20th Century understanding of what a planet is, whereas the IAU definition is trying to preserve 19th Century astrology. An amazing read and a strong recommend for anyone who cares about this subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.138|172.69.79.138]] 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Ooh, thank you! That was fascinating and I'm head-canonizing that definition now. –[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 23:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this sort of count as pi-related for pi day? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 17:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:he doesn't do themed comics anymore 😔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:: Sure he does. [[2962]] and [[2969]] weren't too long ago. Seems like it, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.222|172.71.182.222]] 03:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't understand either the "he doesn't do themes" bit, or the full nature of the reply, frankly. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.122|172.68.205.122]] 22:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I was somewhat disappointed to get to the end of the table without seeing either an astrology or Sailor Moon joke. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that Uranus is marked under "Empiricist" because of the "Randall has seen Uranus" joke? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.178|172.70.42.178]] 18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The "{{w|Classical planet|Classical Planets}}" should be 7, including the Sun and the Moon.
:The average distance of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth must be slightly farther away than the orbit of the Sun around the Earth, since the Moon lags behind the Sun a little more each day, but the orbits must cross or we would never have a solar eclipse :P [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Regolithic one depend on the exact definitions of "dirt", "ice", and "covered"? It seems that an argument could be made that the giant planets also count there but have a much thicker atmosphere on the outside, and disqualifying because of the atmosphere could exclude others like Earth depending on the exact threshold used. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Has Randall not seen the sun before?
:I'm impressed that he has seen Uranus (unless that actually is a joke), especially if he saw it unaided (apparently it actually can be barely seen with the naked eye if the conditions are incredibly good). [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Could the sun be classified as a "world"? --[[User:MothWaves|MothWaves]] ([[User talk:MothWaves|talk]]) 19:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I assumed he meant "seen directly with my eyes", so that a photograph would not count, but looking through a telescope during an astronomy night at the local University would count. And he hasn't looked *closely* at the Sun, because of the need for eye protection. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically, spacecraft have landed on Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn. Just not in a survivable manner. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Have we really not sent anything directly into the Sun yet? [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::The most "into the Sun" we've done is [https://science.nasa.gov/mission/parker-solar-probe/ the Parker Solar Probe], and it hasn't attempted to 'land' there (apart from that being effectively impossible, even beyond the likes of Cassini's final fall "onto" Saturn). It's also ''very hard'' to even send things into the Sun, because the direct method would need you to send a craft from Earth backwards at the same speed as the Earth orbits forwards (or very close to that), otherwise all you can do is fall ''past'' it and loop back up again. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 01:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:No one even knows if Jupiter and Saturn have a *land* to land on. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::Sstill subject to further study, but the crushed and burnt (and probably unrecognisable) remains of the probes will be 'landed' (or floating on top of any layer that they're ultimately more buoyant than) down there, somewhere (unless they're totally ablated away, but there'll probably be ''some'' fragments of hi-tech metal frame, even if no circuit boards or metal foils survive) Should there be a form of life in existence down in the depths of the gas-giant's mass, with any curiosity to them, I imagine they'll be wondering what this new variety of 'space rain' is, that's totally unlike the usual ex-asteroidal/cometish stuff that they must occasionally get punching down through from the inaccessible upper reaches above their native environment. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68|162.158.74.68]] 19:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the Pluto error in Traditionalist and Modernist images were fixed. I now see Pluto highlighted in traditionalist and Pluto unhighlighted in Modern. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.91|172.68.7.91]] 19:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

indeed, it seems fine now, i removed my earlier comment--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.116|162.158.233.116]] 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

//Jean-Luc Margot wrote a serious planet definition proposal// in 2024 as a starting point for community conversations and welcomes feedback. In 2019 I wrote a small article myself on planet and moon classes simply by size. //Mondklassen "wwwahnsinn"// (in German).
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.108|162.158.159.108]] 19:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm disputing that there has never been a formal definition of "planet" prior to 2006 - the ancient Greek definition of "wandering [relative to seemingly-fixed stars] points of light in the night sky" seems formal enough to me. I marked it {{tl|actual citation needed}}. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 19:52, 14 March 2025‎
: I've reworded the sentence to say "in modern times" so we aren't making unfounded and likely-incorrect claims about antiquity. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else strongly dislike the term '''natural satellite''' replacing ''moon''? Under the new nomenclature, only Earth's moon is 'the Moon'. All other moons are now merely natural satellites. Phobos, Deimos, Ganymede, are no longer considered moons. My biggest problem with the new definition is that planets themselves are natural satellites of stars. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.225|172.71.182.225]] 20:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely that the Saturnian moon highlighted in the Maritime definition is Titan, since it has liquid seas and lakes on its surface. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.5|172.69.6.5]] 21:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I've noted in the Transcript that (despite apparently being ''identical'' pre-highlight drawings in all other ways, or at least very consistently reproduced), Saturn is given one moon ''most'' of the time, but two moons on occasion. Similarly, Uranus's moons (spread from upper-right to lower-left) do-or-do-not include the dot (in one case suffering a highlighting) moving across the face of the planet. From an analytical perspective, I'm wondering if Randall did indeed copypaste the 'normal' iillustration, but then have to manually add in "whoops, I forgot I need to highlight a further item thaat I haven't already drawn" into some of the established copies, touching up where necessary (and maybe where still not necessary too). ...But I'm not sure it matters what he did or did not do. It's just an observation about the result. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190|172.69.79.190]] 23:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, Titan's present in all the diagrams, and a second moon of Saturn shows up when highlighting is necessary. The bonus "Marine Biologist" planet is clearly Enceladus, but the bonus "Judgemental" planet doesn't line up with it: presumably it's one of Saturn's other moons. Which one? My wild guess is Iapetus. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.27|172.68.150.27]] 01:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you, but was it really necessary to include a snide dig at Baby Boomers? Not a BB myself - I'm gen X, if we're using those facile labels - but surely we don't need to encourage intergenerational resentment and conflict. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.116|172.68.174.116]] 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC) 
As a historian, I strongly disagree with the snide definition of tradition. (No, not a BB.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 07:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's a direct quote from a prior comic, that whoever wrote it in the first placce ysed, so I've rewritten it to perhaps ''not'' look quite so much like some editor's own grudge/snidiness (which it may or may not be, but not without Randall giving justifiable precedent to say it). Maybe can be tweaked further, but it might be a shame to lose the inter-comic referential humour that (regardless of tone) is staple for this site. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.109|162.158.74.109]] 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::I wrote it. No snideness intended. I thought the connection was topical. Unfortunately, thanks to the "Okay boomer" phenomenon, any reference to the generation comes across as condescending. The "Tradition" strip was published in 2011, and the phrase rose to popularity in 2019. It, like [[36]], is just one of those things that is not standing the test of time. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.89|172.70.47.89]] 20:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe we're currently missing part of the joke in the mouseover text. Not only is Earth now a star because of human fusion, it's also no longer a planet, because, due to human satellites and spacecraft, it no longer clears its orbit.
[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.42|198.41.227.42]] 06:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the usual singular of criteria criterion? According to my dictionary, a criterium is a type of cycling race.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.100|172.71.26.100]] 09:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:Indeed. Maybe a thinko, though, rather. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.139|172.69.79.139]] 11:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I am curious why only one of the Galilean moons counts as pretty, and I wonder which one (either Ganymede or Callisto, given where its drawn). They are all pretty to me, I like how surprisingly distinct they look from one another.
[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 13:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Re title text: With the launch of the JWST, Earth has no longer cleared its orbital neighborhood, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.57|172.70.176.57]] 14:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I tend to go by an expansive definition myself, considering all dwarf planets "planets" in my eyes. But I'm not like, arguing with the IAU's definition, this is just how I prefer to think of them, because dwarf planets are really cool. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.140|172.70.126.140]] 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

In the title text explanation, there's no mention of the inclusion of the phrase about Earth clearing its orbital neighborhood. I think this has something to do with all of our man-made satellites that have not been cleared from Earth's orbital neighborhood. Does anyone else think that's an important part of the title text and needs to be explained? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I like the "Recognizable" criteria. Something is a planet if it orbits the Sun and there exists at least one photograph of the object that a reasonably knowledgeable layperson can correctly identify. That would mean that all of the IAU defined planets are planets (except maybe Mercury), and that Pluto became a planet in 2015. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.141|172.68.245.141]] 14:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
:...there's a risk that Uranus and/or Neptune ("or both... hang on... which one's supposed to be bluer..? and is this one of those miscalibrated images or not..?") might drop out of the Recognisable grouping. And the Moon would be added, unless you arbitrarily banned near-side images, in which case it'd be demoted to "dunno" except by particularly adept selenophiles who probably even know the far-side, and limbs, like the back of their own hands. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 16:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

A definition I thought up a while ago that I'm pretty proud of is that a planet is an object that is not a star or moon, has a stable orbit around a star, and that has a larger mass than the largest moon in its solar system. (a moon is defined as having a barycenter inside an object that directly orbits the Sun). That way, there is a clear, natural, distinction of larger bodies and smaller ones that conforms to the public thinking of a planet as large and not a moon. By my definition, the planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. (Though Mercury is famously smaller in radius than the moons Ganymede and Titan, it has more mass -- and given that mass grants greater gravity, I consider mass to be more important). My wider category of a world is for all star-orbiters that have differentiated layers, so the worlds in the Solar System would be (I think) Mercury, Venus, Earth, the Moon, Ceres, Vesta, Jupiter, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, Io, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Charon, Quaoar, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Eris, and Sedna. This would be a harder category to assign than planet and a bit more fuzzy -- which plays in to the fuzzy use of world already existing -- but is still more clear cut than "gravitationally rounded" as no object is a perfect sphere and the strict definition of hydrostatic equilibrium means Mercury is not a planet. Of course, since no exomoons have been discovered as they are very hard to find, all exoplanets discovered would be planets -- which is nice and uncomplicated and natural for the human to assume that the bodies are planets. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.145|108.162.245.145]] 18:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
: Having the status of bodies be contingent on what is going on elsewhere seems even more problematic than current arguments over where artificial lines between categories should be drawn. In theory, Jupiter could capture a passing wandering planet and, under your system, instantly demote a bunch of the current planets to non-planets, even though nothing about them has actually changed.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.219|172.70.160.219]] 09:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
:: And, in a way, that's what happened to Pluto. Nobody was really bothered about it not having 'cleared' Neptune from its orbit (or, it appears, consider it a problem that Neptune hasn't cleared Pluto from its own, so already a partial fudge of meaning there) when it was an acceptible planet. Maybe the runt of the litter (comparing disfavourably against even some moons, including our own), but most people were happy to slide with it as one (with perhaps a bit more attention on Ceres, too, once more), even as it became clear that its own largest moon was more co-binary, and that there were a number of other (lesser) plutoids doing the same sort of thing. The 'sudden appearance' (i.e. realisation of) a larger (now dwarf-)planet changed that.
:: I mean, I'm not advocating for either turn of terminology (though I definitely grew up, and lived most my adult life, ''knowing'' that Pluto was a planet), but taxonomy of all kinds is tricky. Just ask Linnaeus. As more information overturns how we group things, even when the realities of the things we group don't themselves change. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 11:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

'''"Modern" vs "Current"'''. Does anyone feel frustrated when people confuse "modern", "contemporary", and "current"? "Modern" is post-1500, "contemporary" is the age someone lives in, and "current" is 'today'. Throughout 75 years of the modern era, Pluto 'was' considered a planet. Is anyone willing to shift non-canonical usage of "modern" to "current" in the article? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.28|172.71.95.28]] 15:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
: "''Modern" is post-1500''" -- '''Museum of '''Modern''' Art''', 1929/1930 until today (essentially Pluto's reign); works to 1885 --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
:: {{w|Modernity#Scientific}}. It varies a bit field by field, but in science, philosophy, and history, "modernity" begins around 1500. Western History is divided into classical antiquity, middle ages, and modernity. Oh, and Copernicus, father of modern (non-classical) astronomy? He lived 1473-1543. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.170.4|104.23.170.4]] 02:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I added a bunch of Wikipedia citations. I went by the WP rule (citation needed) of linking the first non-parenthesized instance of a word/phrase. That does make for some awkward things, like lists with only some of the items linked, and the {{w|natural satellite|moon}} link in a mention under '''Simplistic''' rather than on the more relevant '''Lunar'''.
–[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 22:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:That all went to pot a bit, anyway, when it was all transformed into a sortable table. (I'm a big fan of a handy table, in the right circumstances, but I'm not sure it was necessarily the better format in this case.) What might be best, in demanding a tabled case, is to have a table ''of objects'' (both displayed and referenced), and then explain in which comic-table rows they do (or should, or ''maybe'') appear. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.115|172.70.86.115]] 13:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

According to the "simplistic" definition, the rings themselves (also round) are separate planets. If the simplistic definition had merely been "spheroidal" rather than "round", they would not be. I'd love to see a version of the chart where Saturn is green, but the rings are white. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.166|172.71.99.166]] 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Utratraditionalist version of the solar system have 7 planets (including the Sun and the Moon)? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.136|172.68.245.136]] 15:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that it is now considered a dwarf planet, and a lot of people, and perhaps the world itself, are unhappy, would it not be appropriate to rename it Grumpy?{{unsigned|Jmbryant|12:22, 18 March 2025}}

I wonder if this comic was tangentially inspired by the fairly recent discovery of a further 128 (suspiciously round number, that..!) moons of Saturn, making it now having well into the 200 'moons', on top of its ring-debris. And the possibility of the IAU having to weigh in and now officially decide what a ''moon'' is, especially in contrast to all the material in Saturn's rings (maybe broken up ex-moons, possibly raw material for future moon-clumps). One would suspect a version of "clear the area around the planet it orbits", and a (looser?) threshold of hydrostatic equilibreum/sphericity might be the starting point. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.221|172.69.43.221]] 13:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There should be a “Dayist” list of objects that have a day of the week named after them: Sun (Sunday), Moon (Monday), Mercury (Tuesday), Jupiter (Wednesday), Mars (Thursday), Venus (Friday), and Saturn (Staurday).
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.67.147|172.69.67.147]] 19:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was a proponent(ish) of the "Condescending" view "He said he'd take all four rocky planets in our solar system — Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus — and call them dwarf planets rather than admit Pluto to the planet club."- https://www.space.com/29960-stephen-colbert-pluto-neil-tyson-video.html [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.168|172.70.42.168]] 21:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The reactionary traditionalists ought to be told that if Pluto is a planet, then so is Eris, so even then, there would not be nine planets, but 10. (No mention on whether it's in the 8th dimension) -- {{unsigned|KeithTyler|22:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)}}
:''Two'' planets: Pluto and Eris. And, as with "King Buns", Pluto is the most important! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.115|172.70.86.115]] 13:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3024: METAR

2024-12-13T20:13:23Z

172.70.86.115:

OMG RANDALL ADDED AN AO3 REFERENCE '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I love the things I learn from these things[[User:Rustykid52|Rustykid52]] ([[User talk:Rustykid52|talk]]) 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Was the explanation of wind speed written by a European? The punctuation after "18" is a comma, not a period, so they it means over 18 thousand knots. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"38.08 inches of mercury" seems a very high pressure, even for a station that is well below sea level. (1290 hPa Pressure around the dead sea is typically 1060hPa).. Is that physically realistic, or is it part of the joke? I know funnel clouds, freezing and volcanic ash in the same location are unlikely outside of the apocalypse, but can be justified by the rule of funny. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 20:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)