explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2888: US Survey Foot

2024-01-31T19:18:08Z

172.70.86.140: /* UK & Ireland Survey Foot */ new section

Breaking news- the comic just got changed to 8,000.016[[User:TenGolf MathHacker|TenGolf MathHacker]] ([[User talk:TenGolf MathHacker|talk]]) 17:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

== UK & Ireland Survey Foot ==

Until the British Ordnance Survey adopted the metre
they used a foot of 0.304 800 749 1 metres.

2848: Breaker Box

2024-01-29T21:55:30Z

172.70.86.140: Removing incorrect incomplete-tag usages. Adding question regarding the meta-incompleteness.

{{comic
| number = 2848
| date = October 30, 2023
| title = Breaker Box
| image = breaker_box_2x.png
| imagesize = 560x776px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Any electrician will warn you to first locate and flip the house's CAUSALITY circuit breaker before touching the CIRCUIT BREAKERS one.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The explanation doesn't seem clear enough! (But neither is this incompleteness tag. Exactly ''what'' is it that is not clear? [signed - a further editor)}}
A {{w|distribution board}}, referred to as a "breaker box" here and also commonly referred to as a "fuse box", "breaker panel", "DB box", and many other names, is a metal box attached to a wall, usually in some maintenance area, containing multiple {{w|circuit breakers}} that distribute electricity to various parts of the building. A circuit breaker is an electrical switch, usually in the form of a small lever, which disconnects the circuit from the power source when opened. These breakers are designed to automatically open if too much electrical current flows through them. This is a safety measure to reduce the risk of damage, fire or electrocution in the event of a short circuit or an overloaded line. These breakers can also be opened manually, deactivating the circuit to allow electrical work to be done.

In breaker boxes, each individual breaker is typically labeled to let the operator know what that breaker controls. Typically, the circuit controlled by each breaker will feed an intuitive set of connections: a certain room, or set of rooms, or possibly a set of related services (like overhead lights, or all the outlets on one floor). Some large appliances will have a dedicated circuit and breaker.

However, in houses that have been rewired multiple times (or were poorly wired the first time), this can quickly become overcomplicated with seemingly random connections. Randall lives in Boston where much of the housing stock is from the late 1800s and early 1900s, and he is likely to live in a house with non-ideal wiring, which may have inspired this comic.

The comic satirizes these complex wiring setups, with multiple breakers "controlling" arbitrary things, including some that – in the classic style of xkcd – are puns on the word "breaker" or may be impossible to hook a breaker up to, getting progressively more absurd to the point of nullifying laws and "breaking" certain laws of physics.

===Table of the breaker labels===
{|class = "wikitable"
! Label next to breaker !! Explanation !! Note
|-
! colspan="3"|Left column of switches
|-
| Kitchen lights || The lights in the kitchen. || rowspan="3"| Standard items that could be separate
|-
| Living room lights || The lights in the living room.
|-
| Porch lights || The lights on the porch.
|-
| Bathroom lights and one surprise mystery outlet somewhere || The lights in the bathroom, but also a random outlet.
It is not uncommon for the power supplies to bathrooms (and other rooms with water connections) to be on a separate circuit. This is because water can potentially cause a short circuit, resulting in the breaker opening, and separate circuits minimize the impact and makes the problem easier to locate. These are called "GFCI" or "GFI" (Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter [https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/099_0.pdf]) circuits.

It is a standard to connect a bathroom outlet with another outlet also requiring a GFCI, such as basement or outdoors. Another option is that an electrician (or homeowner), having initially reserved an output from the box for such a limited use, may – while adding wiring – chooses to wire seemingly unrelated things into the same circuit. This may make sense (for example, an outlet near a non-bathroom sink or some other water source could reasonably be grouped with the bathroom), or it may simply be out of convenience from how long the wires needed to run (such as an outlet in the room adjacent to the bathroom). In either case, future residents and installers may not be informed of this, and therefore wouldn't realize that the outlet is grouped with that circuit.
| Standard or 'kludged'
|-
| North-facing appliances || colspan="2"|Peculiar and a bit complex to execute. Here's how it might have been set up:
# Install a breaker switch that is actually a mechanical switch to control a smart home automation instead of its normal function
# Replace relevant normal outlets with Wi-Fi-controlled smart outlets
# Use smart home software to create a custom group of all outlets that control all ''north-facing appliances''
# Set up a software automation to selectively toggle this user-defined group of smart outlets when triggered.
* Adding a matching appliance to the house would require editing the automation.

Alternative explanations:
* The switch may be physically wired only to outlets installed on a southern wall in the property (or ''all'' southern walls, for each room that requires them), and you'd ensure that everything connected to these exclusively north-facing outlets also faces directly away from the wall(s).
* The switch could control appliances on the north-facing walls of the house.

Note: "North-facing" has broad interpretation, as lax as northeast to northwest or as strict as {{w|Points of the compass#32-wind compass rose|north by east to north by west}}. It could also be as exact as perfect north, but this would render this breaker completely functionless unless an appliance happens to be ever-so-perfectly aligned.

|-
| Bathtub drain light || colspan="2"|Bathtub drains typically do not have lights, but this breaker provides power to that and only that. Why it isn't already considered a "bathroom light" is unexplained (unless it's for the bit of the pipe that is ''external'' to that room). Perhaps it is a sub-menu of bathroom breaker, but then its position on the panel is unusual in that it isn't next to the bathroom breaker.

It obviously cannot be the "surprise mystery outlet" already referred to earlier as being covered under the switch for the bathroom lights, much apart from it not being a socket/outlet.
|-
| Appliances whose names contain the letter "F" || colspan="2"|Another odd and amusing specification.

To make it work, one might use the "North-facing appliances" setup described above, but just with a different custom group of Wi-Fi-controlled smart outlets chosen to only control appliances with an "F' in their name.

Some common household appliances (kitchen and elsewhere) that this switch might control:
* coffee maker
* refrigerator
* freezer
* fan
* air fryer
* food processor
* waffle iron
* fabric steamer
* fireplace (electric)
|-
| {{w|Hot water heater}} || Usually just a heater that creates (and typically stores) hot water. But given that the next breaker controls the "Regular water heater", this breaker might actually control a water heater that pointlessly heats water that is ''already'' hot.
This is probably a joke about the fact that the common phrase "hot water heater" is [[technically]] redundant or misleading:
* Redundant because the simpler term "water heater" is enough to describe a device that produces hot water.
* Misleading because it's not the purpose of residential water heaters to heat water that is ''already'' hot.

Trivia: In some languages, "hot water" is a separate, single word, so "hot-water heater" can be accurate. One such example is Japanese, where "hot water" is simply referred to as "お湯" ("Oyu"), however this is taken a step further as "hot water heater" is referred to as "給湯器" ("Kyūtōki").
|rowspan="2"|Two "heaters"
|-
| Regular water heater || The heater for regular water. In context with the switch above, this label presumes it's for a heater for heating water that is not yet hot (usually called a "hot water heater", hence the joke). Alternatively, if we assume that a ''hot water heater'' is for ''making'' hot water, this heater must be for making “regular water”, whatever temperature that may mean. Further still, the difference in these labels may be speaking to the nature of the heaters themselves - it could be the case that one of the heaters is abnormally hot to the touch, where the other is a "regular" temperature, but are otherwise both capable of heating water just fine.
|-
| Outlets in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in || colspan="2"|This controls every outlet in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in, such as the dining room and kitchen and – depending on the "normal" habits of the inhabitants – other rooms such as the bedroom, bathroom, or living room (if not already covered by the "living room lights" switch above). Closets and single-purpose rooms such as the laundry room are presumably not included.
|-
| High-pitched hum generator || colspan="2"|Controls a high-pitched hum generator. This is a call-back to [[1590: The Source]], which was released just over 8 years before this comic.
|-
| The solution to the cryptogram below: || colspan="2"|Likely a pun on a "code breaker," something or someone that solves a code, such as Randall's cryptogram, a type of puzzle where a sentence has been encoded using a cipher, usually simple, and the goal is to determine the cipher and recover the original sentence from the encoded one. Randall has not actually written a cryptogram, simply making the label's text illegible to the audience.
2 other explanations:
* The identity of the electrical load sourced from this breaker can be found by solving the cryptogram.
* This switch enables or disables the code's solution somehow, perhaps toggling its knowability or solvability or turning on a computer for solving cryptograms.
|-
| Bugs || colspan="2"|Several interpretations are possible:
* Disable all software bugs in the house*
* Disable all insect bugs in the house – as an efficient form of pest control – perhaps using ultrasonic emitters that drive away bugs (may be a reference to [[2753: Air Handler]]) – or perhaps the house contains noise machines that play sounds of insects or other ways of simulating insects.
* Disable power to all covert listening devices, which would be able to be switched off if wired into the house's electrical grid.
* Disable the whole global category of bugs (insects, arachnids, and other small arthropods), in which case we'd have no more pests and we'd reduce disease like malaria and {{w|Lyme disease}}! Of course, food webs would also collapse, and our world would be overrun with waste.
* All of the above
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Though it's unlikely that it's what Randall is referring to, computer bugs switches actually exist. It's a feature in some video game emulators to either run an unofficial patched version or to stay true to the original system, for example to allow bug-exploit speedruns of a video game.
|-
! colspan="3"|Right column of switches
|-
| A whirring fan you didn't realize was on until now || colspan="2"|Fans generally produce a steady, low-level 'white' noise that people generally stop noticing. When such a fan is turned off, the absence of that noise is quickly noticed. Alternatively, the fan could be somewhere that cannot be heard, with the label on the switch serving as the only reminder of the fan's existence.

Shutting down a fan that you didn't realize was running could be worrisome for a couple of reasons: it could be serving an important function (like HVAC or server cooling) and cause a problem when it's off, or it may be a fan that wasn't supposed to be running, but had been for some time without being noticed.
|-
| Dishwasher || colspan="2"|A dishwasher may find itself with a separate circuit breaker for a few reasons. Commercial-grade dishwashers are often high-load appliances that require more power (incorporating powerful heating units and pumps). Residential-grade dishwashers may not be as energy-intensive, but if the house wasn't originally built with a dishwasher in mind, it is likely new wiring had to be added during its installation, resulting in a breaker that exclusively controls the dishwasher.

Though what "dishwasher" actually means may depend on what the "dishes" of the next switch might be, and thus what additional device may be required to ensure they remain clean. Even at the more trivial end of the interpretation (though not then explaining the following "dishes"), a busy restaurant might have an employee section equipped exclusively for the dishwashing role and separately supplied with power in a similar manner to that suggested for the bathroom.
|-
| Dishes || colspan="2"|Likely a pun on "breaking" dishes.

Of course, dinnerware and dishes are usually not powered devices and wouldn't require a circuit breaker at all; discovering they need their own circuit breaker separate from their dishwasher is a spoof of many common circuit breaker frustrations. Lastly it's also possible the switch powers/controls two or more satellite dishes.
|-
| Hallway lights || The lights in the hallway or hallways. || rowspan="3"|"Hallway" regions
|-
| Hallway outlets || The outlets in the hallway or hallways, presumably the same as the "Hallway lights" hallways. A common confusion when turning off breakers is separate wiring for outlets and lights in the same room. Though having the room go dark is a good mnemonic that it is unpowered, it is not a guarantee, and indeed, wiring them separately allows working on the outlets without having to do it in the dark.
|-
| Hallway floors || Yet another breaker for the hallways, presumably the same hallways as the previous two breakers, adding more confusion and frustration. This breaker has several potential interpretations:
#A master switch for all floors (stories) in the building which include hallways, e.g. the guestroom areas in a hotel, whilst possibly excluding the lobby and service levels
#Outlets in the floor
#Electric underfloor heating (heated bathroom floors are a feature in some houses)
#Electrification of the floors – not common outside of horror and heist movies
#Disabling all floors entirely, so everything resting on the floors falls through
|-
| Social media || colspan="2"|This breaker also has several potential interpretations of "taking a social media break" or "turning off social media":
#'Digital detoxes', where someone says "I'm going to take a social media break" and intends to deny themselves access to all their social media apps.
#A switch for a parent to turn off all social media entering the house to protect their kids and themselves, which references a type of specialized content filter available through Wi-Fi router settings, not traditionally a breaker box.
#A callback to [[908: The Cloud]]. Since most social media platforms are centralized services, it would be theoretically possible to hook up a switch to the main power supply of every server building at once, given some extremely long wires, a breaker capable of handling the abhorrently massive electric load, and agreement from every social media provider.<sup><i>([[1439|optional]])</i></sup>
#The theoretical desire by some to "turn off social media" for the world due to its harmful effects on society. As someone who lived before social media and saw its spread over two decades, Randall may be ruing the impacts of social media on civilization and channeling his desire to put the genie back in the bottle.
#Potentially a play on the phrase “breaking the internet”, meaning going viral on social media, though "breaking social media" is not an idiom.
|-
| State law || This and the next two items are a pun on "breaking the law."
Taken literally, it would either disable enforcement of State Law or nullify every single one, creating a state of lawlessness similar to the premise of the popular movie, "The Purge". It's unclear if this refers to Randall's state of Massachusetts or State Law as a general concept.

If the switch just nullifies State Law within the confines of the house, that would make the home a place where State Law could be broken without consequence.
| rowspan="2"|"Legal" items
|-
| Federal law || An extension of the previous entry. When discussing legal matters (taxes, regulations, etc.) it's not uncommon for state and federal authorities to issue their own statutes, often labeled "state" and "federal" respectively.

The ramifications of nullifying every US Federal law are immense. Disabling Federal Law while keeping State Law would theoretically fulfill the goals of the "States Rights" advocates, groups of conservatives across US history aiming to return Federal power to the States.
|-
| Second law of thermodynamics || The {{w|second law of thermodynamics}} means that things naturally move from order to disorder over time. It also says you can't take heat from a place that's cooler and use it to make a place hotter than the cooler place, unless you use some energy to do it. In short, without adding energy, only the hotter place can warm up the cooler one.

This law of physics was also explored in the What If? article [https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/ Fire From Moonlight].
| rowspan="3"|"Physics" items
|-
| Friction || {{w|Friction}} is the resistive force that opposes the relative motion or tendency of such motion of two surfaces in contact. Disabling friction would mean that all objects slide forever, and would destroy several things as well as make it much more difficult to move around and create energy. Being in a frictionless environment (and a vacuum, as physicists love...) was the subject of [[669: Experiment]].
|-
| Gravity || {{w|Gravity}} is a natural force that attracts two bodies toward each other, proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. Turning gravity off would have extremely dangerous effects, such as the loss of the atmosphere into space, all items being flung away from the Earth, and, perhaps most dangerous, the complete destruction of the planet.

Of course, if this switch is turned off, it may simply mean that objects within the house itself are no longer subject to gravity. This would be '''''far''''' less cataclysmic, and as a bonus, this would make it very different when moving around the house, making it easier to get to higher areas, and move objects, though impossible to place them without some other force being applied, and could prove to cause some problems once the breaker is turned back on, especially for things under said objects.
|-
| Circuit breakers || colspan="2"|Possibly the "master" breaker, controlling the main circuit that supplies power to all other circuit breakers. However, given the other surreal things this breaker box controls, turning it off may possibly make it impossible to turn it on ever again as the switch will no longer function once switched off (i.e.: If this was turned off, it would presumably turn off the functionality of the circuit breaker itself, if it was wired to include itself). Another interpretation is that turning off this breaker should supposedly make this breaker not able to control the power, which leads to a situation similar to the liar's paradox.

Moreover, if this circuit breaker disables all circuit breakers everywhere, it would result in global infrastructure collapse, halting essential services, including transportation, healthcare, and communication, and leading to widespread chaos.

Note that it might be a perfectly valid label if it refers to multiple subsidiary 'boxes', cascaded off this particular one, each containing one or more additional breakers for convenience or safety. e.g. units dedicated to a shed, garage or workshop room which save the need to traipse all the way to this box's utility cupboard location in the event of an otherwise easily resolved power issue.
|-
! colspan="3"|Title text
|-
| colspan="3"|The title text is about {{w|causality}} (not to be confused with {{w|casualty}}), and how to use this (unseen, located elsewhere) breaker along with the last shown switch that (de)powers the illustrated box.

Causality, in its simplest form, is the process of cause and effect, meaning that everything that happens only happens because something caused it to happen - in other words, every event is an effect caused by another event. For example, a bag of chips can't just fall onto the floor for ''literally'' no reason - it has to be caused by some other event, such as someone smacking it or a gust of wind blowing it down.

Turning off the circuit breaker using the CIRCUIT BREAKERS switch may lead to a loop, if the disabled breaker can no longer disable itself, leading to it turning back on, etc. Alternatively, turning off the CIRCUIT BREAKER switch might be a one-way street.

Turning the CAUSALITY switch from OFF back to ON might be unlikely to do anything if the circuit breakers upstream of it have been fully deactivated. The separation of cause and effect would ostensibly take precedence over the current switch setting. Turning off CAUSALITY first would prevent either the loop or the permanent disabling of circuit breakers, but would also have many other side effects, including letting switches potentially serve power even if there is no power being served ''to them'', or even spontaneously switching (on or off) without any intervention or reason.

The 'warning', from an electrician, could even be to locate the nominally ''off'' CAUSALITY switch in order to turn it ''on'', or else all other intended effects will possibly not end up being actually actioned. Either way, whether or not turning on/off causality would change the state of causality (at one stage or other being rendered ineffectual) is an exercise left for the reader.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[An open breaker box is shown. There are 26 labelled breakers, all of which are on, paired back to back in thirteen rows as a label, switch, switch and label.]
:Kitchen lights / A whirring fan you didn't realize was on until now
:Living room lights / Dishwasher
:Porch lights / Dishes
:Bathroom lights and one surprise mystery outlet somewhere / Hallway lights
:North-facing appliances / Hallway outlets
:Bathtub drain light / Hallway floors
:Appliances whose names contain the letter "F" / Social media
:Hot water heater / State law
:Regular water heater / Federal law
:Outlets in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in / Second law of thermodynamics
:High-pitched hum generator / Friction
:The solution to the cryptogram below: [Additional squiggled words that are too small/indistinct to read.] / Gravity
:Bugs / Circuit breakers

{{comic discussion}}

2884: Log Alignment

2024-01-23T07:59:58Z

172.70.86.140: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2884
| date = January 22, 2024
| title = Log Alignment
| image = log_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 351x312px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A video can have a log scale that's misaligned with both the time AND space axes.
}}

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

This comic jokes about how there isn't a rule in math that requires you to align log scale and graph axes. Therefore, the person who drew the graph in the comic decided to make it distorted. According to that person, this graph is still valid. Whilst a plot ''can'' be made according to measures not consistent with the graph axes, especially where [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Curvature-introduced-by-pen-type-recording-system-Comparison-of-a-raw-seismogram-showing_fig5_364100386 other factors dictate the plotting], it is more usual to make use of {{w|Graph paper#Examples|variant grid systems}} that are directly suited to your intended purpose (and stick to them).

The comic shows a background distribution of straight and parallel (but notably off-orthogonal) lines, such as might normally define the log-magnitude on a log-log or semi-log graph. But there are no perpendicular gradations ''and'' the bar graph drawn upon it appears to have no relation with the background, drawn distorted in an almost {{w|Salvador Dalí|Dalíesque}} manner as if a projection of one twisted in 3d space, both its bars and the base/vertical axes seem to have no relation to to the supposed underlying log-scale. However, with the slight exception of the bar tops crossing the log lines at an angle, and the curved vertical axis having {{w|Graduation (scale)|graduation ticks}} that bear no linear ''or'' log relation with the intersecting background, the distorted bars only travel unidirectionally across the underlying parallels and ''could'' feasibly be read as indicating a definitive magnitude (or range) of some kind. Or at least could with number-labels to give an idea of what values to associate with each log-line. That two bars appear from outside the frame of the comic (the base axis having fallen off the bottom) might not even matter, so long as we can work out what quality or sample each of the bars represents (being similarly unlabeled).

Skewed log charts are real and occur in fields of science with useful applications. For example, a diagram called a "Skew-T Log-P" chart depicts the relationship between temperature and pressure of a parcel of air in the atmosphere. On this chart, the x-axis is skewed with relation to the rest of the graph, and its isotherms, or lines of equal temperature, slant diagonally upwards and to the right of the diagram. The y-axis is normal and represents temperature on a log scale. A more detailed explanation can be found [https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/upperair/skew-t-log-p-diagrams here].

The title text further reinforces the concept of misalignment by stating that the time axis at the bottom of a video can be misaligned with the video itself and a log scale in that video.

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

:[Distorted bar graph on top of gray log scale lines in the background that are slightly tilted, with the lower ends on the left]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:There's actually no rule in math that says your log scales have to be aligned with your graph axes.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Bar charts]]

Talk:2879: Like This One

2024-01-11T16:49:44Z

172.70.86.140:

i'm very confused what "this gas molecule" or "this skin microbe" is meant to be; it doesn't seem like there would contextually be an obvious specific instance of either of those classes? looking forward to seeing the conjecture given in the explanation when it settles down - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:I believe it's referring to her holding her hand out to signify a (large number of) gas molecules. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.49|172.69.34.49]] 02:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
::ahh, what she meant was "like these ones"--ok, I understand what both would mean now. - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 03:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:::She's pointing at one molecule. Just because you can't pick it out of the mass doesn't change that. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:::: Indeed. And one wouldn't want to get the wrong idea about ''which'' molecule she might study. Obviously, there are a lot of N<sub>2</sub> ones, and a few O<sub>2</sub>s, but they're not necessarily of interest. The odd noble gas atom (if that counts as a molecule-of-one) or CO<sub>2</sub> would probably be the more useful, along with SO<sub>2</sub> / O<sub>3</sub> / other trace ones as what she might be indicating. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.79|141.101.99.79]] 05:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::In my head-canon, she's using her stick-figure hand to point out an exceedingly long nitrogen nanotube that she's manufactured. Could be interpreted as a threatening gesture, I suppose?
:::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
: I think that's the whole joke - such statements are inevitably true, but at the same time essentially meaningless. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.140|172.70.86.140]] 16:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Other possible instances would include "Hominids" and "False vacuums". I was sure it was going to end with, "Cartoons like this one." [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
: Also, neutrinos would go on the list [[Special:Contributions/172.68.144.217|172.68.144.217]] 10:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm a researcher studying potential apocalyptic events..." [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.115|172.70.90.115]] 09:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I’m a criminologist studying the behavior patterns of psychopaths.
::But wait, is the 'this one' referring to you, or me...? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.50|172.71.178.50]] 16:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm a researcher studying computer simulations…" (sadly, not actually the kind we are (maybe) living in but close enough) [[User:Brycemw|Brycemw]] ([[User talk:Brycemw|talk]]) 14:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm a researcher studying research topics..." [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I study logical paradoxes..." (¿"...like this one"?) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.180|172.69.43.180]] 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm a biologist studying key turning points in human evolution... like this one!" "Man - that is the worst pick-up line..."[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.71|172.70.90.71]] 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

== Do we really want to break down each bullet point? ==

We could probably do well to simplify it to just something saying the list contains things immediately surrounding the characters, part of their bodies, or intangible ideas commonly employed during normal conversation. It probably doesn't need to explain what sound waves are, for instance --[[User:Raviolio|Raviolio]] ([[User talk:Raviolio|talk]]) 15:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:If breaking them all down, perhaps better a simple table rather than each 'hanging off' a bullet-point. But then we're more committed to breaking them ''all'' down (including Title Text) with potentially several paragraphs per 'explanation column cell'. (My preference, this moment, would be to restore the simple bullet-list then follow with the "air molecules" expansion below in regular prose, perhaps briefly zoom through the others in a single para to follow that, if not just wikilink those and leave to be checked at will. But that's just based upon what the current text might best be formatted as.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.180|172.69.43.180]] 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
::The long exploration of exactly what interpretation of 'like' should be placed on Ponytail's remark that's currently attached to the bullet point seems rather peripheral to the joke. If anything ought to be explained, it's why each thing would (a) always be present (or at least, with rare exceptions like being in a spacecraft in deep space), but also (b) not be usefully identified by the remark.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.36|172.69.194.36]] 16:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

2871: Definitely

2024-01-03T12:40:18Z

172.70.86.140: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2871
| date = December 22, 2023
| title = Definitely
| image = definitely_2x.png
| imagesize = 463x461px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A really mean prank you can play on someone who's picky about words is to add a 'definitely->definitively' autocorrect rule to their keyboard.
}}

==Explanation==
The word "''{{wiktionary|definitely}}''" is commonly {{wiktionary|misspelt}}{{Actual citation needed}} because the {{w|vowel}}s in the middle syllables are reduced to unstressed {{w|centralized vowel}}s that [https://youtu.be/qu4zyRqILYM?t=111 can be spelled with any vowel letter], or are omitted completely. (The Wiktionary link gives three pronunciations, /ˈdɛf.ɪ.nɪt.li/, /ˈdɛf.ə.nɪt.li/, /ˈdɛf.nɪt.li/, which are just some of the differences you might encounter.) Remembering that it ultimately has a common root with "finite", and thus has the two 'i's, might not help if you also/instead perhaps link it in your head to "''define''" (which might erroneously lead to "''defin'''e'''tely''") and not "definition").

The comic gives twelve 'words' that the subtitle claims are all real, and gives their definitions, whereas in reality only the first (the definitely definitive spelling of "''definitely''") and the last (defying the trend by being the actual word "''{{wiktionary|defiantly}}''") are indeed so.

{| class="wikitable"
! Word
! Meaning
! Notes
|-
| Definitely
| Definitely
| This is a real word.
|-
| Definetly
| ''Almost'' definitely
| This "word" has a Wiktionary entry that indicates it is a common misspelling of "definitely."
|-
| Definately
| Probably
| This "word" has a Wiktionary entry that indicates it is a common misspelling of "definitely." This word has also been used previously in [[1238: Enlightenment]].
|-
| Definatly
| Probably not
| This "word" has a Wiktionary entry that indicates it is a common misspelling of "definitely."
|-
| Defenitely
| Not telling (it's a surprise)
|
|-
| Defintely
| Per the prophecy
|
|-
| Definetely
| Definitely, maybe
| This may reference one of {{w|Definitely Maybe (disambiguation)|several works}} in various fields of the arts.
|-
| Definantly
| To be decided by coin toss
|
|-
| Defanitely
| In one universe out of 14 million
| This references the film "{{w|Avengers: Infinity War}}". In this movie, Doctor Strange looks into the future and sees 14 million possible outcomes, but only one of them is favorable.
|-
| Defineatly
| Only the gods know
|
|-
| Definitly
| Unless someone cute shows up
|
|-
| Defiantly
| Defiantly
| This is a real word.{{citation needed}} However, "defiantly" may also be such a common misspelling because of spellcheck. Other mistakes are caught and can be corrected, but the substitution of a different real word is harder to identify as wrong, especially when the correction mechanism jumped the 'wrong way' in rendering a correct spelling. e.g., the misspelling "definatly" (with both substitution and omission errors separating it from the intended word) may be deemed incorrectly correctable to "defiantly" (a single transposition away from what was typed).
|}

The first three alternate 'words' listed do have Wiktionary entries that indicate they are common mis-spellings of the first, and the last has a secondary 'meaning' of possibly being such an error, but (as of the publication of this comic/edit) the words "''defenitely''", "''defintely''", "''definetely''", "''definantly''", "''defanitely''", "''defineatly''" and "''definitly''" are ''so'' wrong that they don't even have a corrective article created for them. Some of them don't even look like they'd even be sufficiently homophonic substitutes, though the actions of accent and dialect may indeed be capable of creating compatible (mis)elocutions for each.

The title text adds to the word confusion by suggesting the real word "''{{wiktionary|definitively}}''" (for which Wiktionary has a 'See also' link to "definitely") be made to be used (against the will of a word-wise individual) as a substitution for the original definitely definitive spelling. In certain contexts it even fulfils the same basic sense as the original and so may survive proofreading by a third party. Or even the author glancing through their own work, and the brain not twigging the increased number of riser-rich characters but mentally voicing the intended word anyway... Even if it is noticed, it may be considered more a "''{{wiktionary|thinko}}''" than a "''{{wiktionary|typo}}''" as it keeps happening, at least until the afflicted typist starts to pay close and distracting attention to their output.

This kind of [[:Category:Substitutions|substitution]] is a recurring subject on xkcd, with one of the more famous ones being [[1031: s/keyboard/leopard/]], where "''keyboard''" is replaced by "''leopard''" in the text.

==Transcript==
:[A list of 12 words with their meanings. The lines between the words and their meaning are aligned, with the words to the left being right-aligned. Above the 12 rows of words there are underlined captions:]
:<u>Word</u>   <u>Meaning</u>

:Definitely - Definitely
:Definetly - ''Almost'' definitely
:Definately - Probably
:Definatly - Probably not
:Defenitely - Not telling (it's a surprise)
:Defintely - Per the prophecy
:Definetely - Definitely, maybe
:Definantly - To be decided by coin toss
:Defanitely - In one universe out of 14 million
:Defineatly - Only the gods know
:Definitly - Unless someone cute shows up
:Defiantly - Defiantly

:[Caption below the panel:]
:People think the word "definitely" is often misspelled, but it's actually just several words with different meanings.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Substitutions]]

2875: 2024

2024-01-02T19:01:32Z

172.70.86.140: █▄ █▄█ █▄ ▀█▄

<div style="top: 0px; left: 0px; position: fixed; float: left; z-index: 99999;">
<div style="position: absolute;>
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg|frameless|2500px|link=]]
</div>
<div style="position: absolute; left: 800px;>
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg|frameless|2500px|link=]]
</div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: 400px;>
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg|frameless|2500px|link=]]
</div>
<div style="position: absolute; left: 800px; top: 400px;>
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg|frameless|2500px|link=]]
</div>
<div style="font-size: 80px; font-weight: bold; position: absolute;">
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
[https://encyclopediadramatica.online encyclopediadramatica.online]
</div>
</div>
== Headline text ==
<noinclude>:''This page refers to the comic named "2024". For comic #2024, see [[2024: Light Hacks]].''</noinclude>
{{comic
| number = 2875
| date = January 1, 2024
| title = 2024
| image = 2024_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x553px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It wasn't originally constitutionally required, but presidents who served two terms have traditionally followed George Washington's example and gotten false teeth.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by OBAMA'S TEETH - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In what starts off almost like a "[[:Category:Comics to make one feel old|doesn't time fly?]]" scene, the unstoppable progression of the calendar is observed, as [[Ponytail]] points out that it's now 2024. [[Cueball]], in response, notes that it is an election year, in this context a {{w|President of the United States#Election|US ''Presidential'' election}} year, which occurs every four years and has (in one form or other) since 1788. Ponytail then replies in some form of exasperated tone that they "keep on happening", which is true but (normally) unsurprising, even/especially with other major elections happening every two years, presumably not compared to how [https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/youre-joking-not-another-one/ some other democracies] might be less predictable/more frequent.

On top of this, Ponytail seems to have not been aware (or maybe has chosen to forget) the passing of two whole election cycles (and two newer incumbents) as the discussion focuses upon {{w|Barack Obama}}, the ''former'' US President. Ponytail seems to be quite behind the times as she asks if Obama is still president (he left office January 20th, 2017, which was 7 (!) years ago, a fact that Cueball cannot quite believe Ponytail is ignorant of). Ponytail states that she liked him, and wonders if he'll be up for taking on the position again. But Cueball states that he ''can't'' be made President again, having already served two terms, which Ponytail confirms by checking for herself the details of the {{w|Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}.

The humor in the comic comes in the second half; Cueball and Ponytail discuss whether Obama is the same person (like the mythical {{w|Ship of Theseus}}, most of his constituent cells are frequently replaced), with Ponytail looking into the possibility of Obama's re-election based upon philosophical/biological technicalities (as applied to the Constitution's words), rather than as legal/political convention might normally suggest. But when even that approach is seen to be wanting, requiring a wait significantly exceeding 30 years, Ponytail suggests negating that issue by having all of Obama's teeth removed and replaced with false teeth.

In order to facilitate the latter goal, Ponytail announces her intention to consult a dentist and (for exact reasons that can only be guessed at) a lawyer. Seeing where her current misplaced, and {{w|Dunning–Kruger effect|less than informed}}, zeal might be leading her, Cueball gives his prediction that the probable {{w|Supreme Court of the United States|ultimate legal arbiters}} of her plan might be unanimous in rejecting its validity (if not dissuading its attempt). SCOTUS being unanimous on an issue is now a [https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-conservative-majoritys-power-runs-deeper-than-the-blockbuster-cases/ comparatively rare event].

The title text references {{w|George Washington's teeth|George Washington's (in)famous 'false teeth'}}. Washington's dentures are often falsely claimed to be made of wood; in truth they were ''real'' teeth procured from other sources. Regardless, this would have likely resolved the rather specific problems established in the philosophical conundrum, and the title text claims that other presidents used this plan to get around the Constitutional limitations concerned in case they wanted to serve more than two terms.

However, no one has yet even ''needed'' to carry out this plan. Only one President has exceeded the limit; {{w|Franklin D. Roosevelt}} died in office during his ''fourth'' term, but he served prior to the 22nd Amendment and was thus unaffected by the rule, which was enacted six years after his death. (FDR did have a partial denture, but given that he retained some of his natural teeth, he did not engage in Ponytail's proposed scheme.) Presidents since then have definitely tried various schemes aimed at securing a second term, with both successes and failures, but nobody has yet planned ''this particular plan'' to achieve a third or beyond. Or at least one can assume that those that perhaps did (including, as noted, all those who were not yet 'required' to go to these lengths) failed to attain their goals for entirely different reasons.

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

:[Ponytail and Cueball are walking.]
:Ponytail: So this is 2024.
:Cueball: Yup. Guess it's an election year now.
:Ponytail: Again? Man, those just keep happening, huh?

:[Ponytail and Cueball now standing.]
:Ponytail: Who's the president these days, anyway? Is it still Obama?
:Cueball: What? No? He hasn't been... How do you not...

:[Ponytail and Cueball still standing.]
:Ponytail: Darn, I liked him. Is he running this time?
:Cueball: No, he's not allowed to.
:Ponytail: He's not? Why?
:Cueball: Constitution.

:[Ponytail checks her smartphone.]
:Phone: ''Amendment 22''
:Phone: No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice
:Ponytail: What?? C'mon...

:[Ponytail talking to Cueball.]
:Ponytail: Don't all your cells get replaced every seven years, Ship of Theseus-style? Is he even the same person?
:Ponytail: Maybe "no person shall be elected more than twice" isn't a prohibition, it's more of an observation, like "you can't step in the same river twice."

:[Zoom in on Cueball.]
:Cueball: Isn't the cell thing a myth?
:Cueball: I think tooth enamel has a turnover half-life of 30+ years. His teeth molecules are probably the same.

:[Ponytail heads off with a finger raised.]
:Ponytail: So if Obama just gets false teeth, he can run again! I need to talk to a dentist and a lawyer!
:Cueball: The Supreme Court is about to vote 9-0 to block your number.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Biology]]

2875: 2024

2024-01-02T19:00:46Z

172.70.86.140: >I CAN'T WAIT TO SIT ALL DAY ON THE COMPUTER WATCHING THE AMAZING DIGITAL CIRCUS WHILE LISTENING TO JEFRE CANTU-LEDESMA WHILE TYRONE FUCKS MY WIFE! THIS IS SO HECKIN' WHOLESOME! THIS CUTE ANIMATION STYLE IS SO POWERFUL ITS INVOKING MY INNER SPIRIT QUEEN

2875: 2024

2024-01-02T18:59:47Z

172.70.86.140: In conclusion, the sign is a subtle joke. The shop is called "Sneed's Feed & Seed", where feed and seed both end in the sound "-eed", thus rhyming with the name of the owner, Sneed. The sign says that the shop was "Formerly Chuck's", implying that the two

2875: 2024

2024-01-02T18:55:34Z

172.70.86.140: I'm only using one IP, the retarded sysops just forgot to enable X-Forwarded-For so my IP just shows as random Cloudflare ones.

2875: 2024

2024-01-02T18:53:46Z

172.70.86.140: "You will never win!" - 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓

Talk:2783: Ruling Out

2023-06-07T13:24:39Z

172.70.86.140:

Wow. the amount of citation needed tags is excessive. Here's a fun idea, do like that SMBC comic and actually find and give citations. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.72|172.69.70.72]] 19:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Bumpf
:Definitely. I fixed one (it should have been ''after'' the comma), during some other edits, but was sorely tempted to remove maybe two of them to just keep the funniest one(s). Whichever that(/they) might be. I expect they'll almost all evaporate in a future edit, though, as there's plenty of editting bound to be done. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.219|172.70.90.219]] 19:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

::Nice work to whomever on that! Xkcd never fails to make me smile if not LOL, and Explainxkcd never fails to teach cool facts. o7 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.147|172.69.134.147]] 21:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there has been serious scholarship about the habitable zone of some quasars. Let's see.... Here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2364/1/012057/pdf Not absolutely certain, but absolutely '''not''' ruled out. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.24|172.69.134.24]] 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:I think that Cueball's scientific team did a study to discount the possibilities of quasars in the habitable zone of a star, not of a habitable zone around a quasar.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.249|172.71.166.249]] 20:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
::A quasar could exist in the habitable zone of a star, and if it was particularly dim, it wouldn't make the zone inhabitable. There's no minimum brightness for quasars, is there? For example, [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/26] defines quasars in terms of relative magnitude, so I don't see why a tiny black hole with a small but sufficient accretion disk in translunar orbit couldn't qualify. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.162|172.69.134.162]] 20:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Relative to their ''entire galaxy!'' Fixed explanation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.175|162.158.166.175]] 09:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to properly describe the length of time the Moon's orbit of the Earth has been known. If you think that the moon orbits the earth, but you also think the sun, stars, and planets orbit the earth, do you actually have any way to justifiably say that you know that the Moon orbits the Earth? Also, is it worth pointing out the reasons that the moon is such an obvious thing to know about (i.e. its visibility and prominence to the naked eye, its cultural significance,...)?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.183|162.158.174.183]] 20:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:Interesting xkcd (sort-of) reference here. Back when What-If questions started being solicited, I sent in something (roughly) like "When trying to justify the original geocentric theory of the solar system, it is said that it had always 'looked like everything went round the Earth'... What would it have looked like if it had always looked like everything, including the Earth, went round the Sun?" ...which I'm pretty sure never got answered. Probably didn't spark enough possible scope for that good old xkcd magic. But I saw plenty of other good stuff, so no regrets on my part. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.251|172.70.162.251]] 23:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
::I think your question was particularly difficult to answer in any way other than "Everything ''does'' go around the sun. To see what that looks like, look up." I suppose your question (if I'm understanding what you may be looking for) may be stated otherwise as "How different would the movement of our Solar System need to be in order to make it obvious that everything revolves around the sun (to a layperson observer on Earth)"? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.194|172.70.206.194]] 14:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't see much difference between the two ways of putting it (unless you think your one means seeing the 'orbital rails' upon which everything encircles things, or something).
:::Maybe, though, a fairly visible (lunar-sized) satellite of Mars/Venus might be on the edge of discernability (not needing Galileo's assisted view of the Saturnian system, just the kind of patience that raw-eyeballing astronomers used with discerning 'close' stars from each other) thus demonstrating non-geocentrism much earlier and easier and somewhat more undeniable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.128|172.71.242.128]] 17:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
::::Terry Pratchett's Strata has exactly this - Venus has a naked-eye visible moon, so people on Earth figured out early on that "everything orbits something else" [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.88|172.70.91.88]] 08:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
::::My proposed question was meant to clarify, so it shouldn't be much different :-) I don't know what the answer would be, but my hope was to clear up that the question wasn't simply "What would it look like if the Earth revolved around the sun?" which is what I had originally interpreted the question as before I decided that it probably wasn't the question that was meant to be asked [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.90|172.70.210.90]] 17:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Maybe clunkily given here (really we need to see the original Q, not the half-recalled paraphrasing so many years after) but "in order to make it obvious that everything revolves around the [S]un" doesn't look like what you say you first read it as. So to bad writing (capital 'S'!) perhaps add bad reading, I suspect. But we're all fallible. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.171|172.70.91.171]] 17:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm not entirely convinced that "tectonically active black holes" is something that we're actually capable of ruling out [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.190|172.68.174.190]] 22:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
:Even if the black hole is tectonically active, its activity is in one direction only: forward, where you can never catch up to it. The damage is extreme, but it's held safely in the boundary of the singularity. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.203|172.70.130.203]] 01:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:I agree; black holes occupy a non-zero volume. Since the space below the event horizon has depth, I don't see any reason why the arrangement of mass inside could not shift. Indeed, the evidence of gravitational irregularities affecting their accretion discs, seems like evidence of nonhomogeneity within that volume. I think black holes probably ''do'' have "tectonic" activity!
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
::Counting all the volume within the event horizon (infinite, due to the infinite curvature), the density wouldn't support tectonics. The acretion disc is affected by what is on the verge of falling in (minus what has ''actually'' fallen in which just acts as a hairless 'lump'). Not sure you can call what happens in the disc as 'tectonics'... No pressures from below (the opposite) it's just interactions of decaying orbits. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 18:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Did anyone else see the connection between this comic and the NASA briefing yesterday on UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, their term for UFOs)? In the briefing they discussed that the approach they'd need to take is one of ruling out everything else instead of saying for certain that "this is a UAP". I think that's the entire intent of this joke - to comment on the NASA briefing. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.175.113|162.158.175.113]] 11:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the first two classes of object listed couldn't be 'ruled out' by a study, since they're non-existent by definition, and therefore can't be subject to any meaningful proof or disproof.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.87|172.71.242.87]] 15:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:While exoplanets in our solar system are non-existent by definition, ruling out earth-like stars does need some study to prove that earth is neither star nor sufficiently star-like. Note that you CAN find Jupiter-like stars. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:I think part of the joke is that the "study" is just a scientist saying "Yup, that can't exist." [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the entire point of including “habitable-zone quasars” was completely missed so far. It’s not that a quasar can’t have a habitable zone near it, even if that’s unlikely, nor is it that a quasar couldn’t be in a star’s habitable zone. It’s that SO WHAT IF IT IS? You couldn’t inhabit a quasar regardless what ‘zone’ it was in. If you were looking for a new home, you’d look at homes within a price range you could afford (not too expensive, but not TOO cheap). Looking for a quasar in the habitable zone of a star would be like asking a realtor to show you an active volcano within your price range. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.155|172.69.33.155]] 20:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
:Well ... "active volcano within my price range" is exactly what traditional Evil Overlord asks for. The smarter ones ask for volcanos which are non-active but can be made looking active. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
::Volcano?!? Most of us can't even afford a sinkhole. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
:::You need to up your evil overlord game, Zarquon. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.54|162.158.166.54]] 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
:::Afford? In Florida, many people get one for free. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the text at the bottom of the drawing, this also sounds like a reference to Hempel's paradox (aka raven paradox) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
[[User:Gisbert|Gisbert]] ([[User talk:Gisbert|talk]]) 21:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"has to be brighter than our Sun because it's part of the containing galaxy" (edit comment) - I interpret the spec differently. This makes a quasar far more unbalancingly relative, whereby perfectly valid quasars in the next galaxy over, or further, are considered nothing of the sort for (some/most/nearly all/..?) any residents of the quasar's own galaxy who just 'happen' to be (their equivalent of) 1AU from even a very non-descript star of their own that yet easily outshines their non-quasar galactic centre (at the equivalent time, even direction, of observation). And how does that juustify multi-quasar galaxies, where the output of one may (or may not, it could result in mutual exclusion) outshine the total power of the rest of the galaxy including the other potential one(s). Yet true examples exist, that are not just false bedfellows through near-occluding asterisms. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.127|172.70.90.127]] 10:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Just wondering. What would a rogue planet (clearly an exoplanet) that travels through our solar system be called? [[User:MDwayne|MDwayne]] ([[User talk:MDwayne|talk]]) 12:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
:Its page on Wikipedia is {{w|Rogue planet}}, as you named it, though I would gravitate (NPI!) towards the term Nomad. And noting that the category "Exoplanets" tends to exclude planetary-mass bodies unbound to extrasolar stars, so already really something else. (If we get better at studying them, perhaps ejected ones, i.e. "ex-exoplanets", ''might'' be brought into the fold, but any actual "failed sub-brown-dwarf" bodies were never planets to start with.)
:Such an itinerant visitor (unless it is lucky and somehow snags a gravitational reverse-slingshot to try at least a few orbits to try to become a new Solar planet; or we're unlucky enough that it collides with/deflects one or other of the current contingent and causes ourselves problems of some degree or other) would probably zoom through our system and out pretty quickly (in observational terms), and if it was happening frequentlt then the purturbations would probably be identified as aperiodic/randomly-orientated influences, so we're probably not likely to get one to even try to falsify that particular statement. Never say never but, even if you want to argue terminology, you might have to wait a while before seeing a non-solar planet do a "Bronson Beta/Zyra" (When Worlds Collide) and pass through, with or without the damage of the Bronson Alpha/Bellus partner. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.160|172.70.162.160]] 16:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

::Interesting response to my mildly sarcastic jab at part of the comic's content. I'm not sure, however, if your thesis statement about the definition of an exoplanet is set. Contradicting the claim that Wikipedia suggests a rogue planet cannot be an exoplanet, NASA suggests it is:[http://exoplanets.nasa.gov/what-is-an-exoplanet/overview/#:~:text=An%20exoplanet%20is%20any%20planet,are%20untethered%20to%20any%20star NASA Exoplanet] - in terms of this type of stuff, I give NASA an edge as a reference.
::With regards to any event that could happen, even if it is rare, still has a non-zero probability of happening. Who conceived we would witness Oumuamua? How much bigger would it have to be to be a planet? So, in the spirit of the topic, maybe it '''COULD''' be a legitimate area of study.[[User:MDwayne|MDwayne.ca]] ([[User talk:MDwayne|talk]]) 18:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
:::NASA is all well and good, when it comes to physical rocketry or the associated human-sphere of space, but I'd probably defer to the [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.09520.pdf IAU definition] as the (best current, terran) authority on the greater expanses of the universe. (It's hinted at, early on, but section 2.6 deals explicitly with this, then Section 3 Item 3 says it plainly, with possible modifications (that only reinforces this) in Section 4.)
:::That also helps with "how much bigger", re: Oumuamua, I suspect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.147|141.101.99.147]] 19:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
:The same as it would be called when it wasn't passing through our solar system. It wouldn't be in our system, even if it happened to be spatially coexistent, because the system is orbitally rather than spatially defined.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.140|172.70.86.140]] 13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

(New comment) I added a cite for Earth not a star {{unsigned ip|172.70.110.167|14:59, 5 June 2023}}
:In light of that, I removed the Citation Needed connected to that 'citation'. But I also made the link not include the highlight text bit (you've gone to the top link on a Google search, I imagine?) and also turned it into a much more aesthetic straight text link rather than a <sup>[number]</sup> thing that did it no favours. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.139|172.71.178.139]] 16:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

1357: Free Speech

2023-06-01T20:53:47Z

172.70.86.140: Replaced content with "{{comic | number = 1357 | date = April 18, 2014 | title = Free Speech | image = free_speech.png | titletext = I can't remember where I heard this, but some..."

{{comic
| number = 1357
| date = April 18, 2014
| title = Free Speech
| image = free_speech.png
| titletext = I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
}}

==Explanation==
Soy.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Politics]]