explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2950: Situation

2024-06-24T22:01:41Z

172.70.86.9:

For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Noting that in all cases ''except'' the Tacoma Narrows, the design flaws were but a part of the issue, with operational decisions at the time playing a big part in the designed-in risks becoming reasons for an actual incident. The bridge could never have been "run safely", once built, unlike trying to ignore bunker fires whilst speeding through iceberg-alley or conducting stress tests in parallel with other non-standard procedures or just not refusing to conduct flights under certain weather conditions. Yes, the other things, by skipping the 'bad end' they actually had, would still be susceptible to future incidents (lessons not now having been properly learnt, or even known to be learnable, so still liable to being mishandled).
:But the only thing that could have saved the Tacoma bridge was to have been so much more alert (and less 'amused') by Galloping Gerti and immediately rushed into developing the better analytical models that could lead to an expensive in-situ retrofit (as with the Millenium Bridge, across the Thames, though that didn't have unavoidable wind issues and ''could'' be managed 'at leisure', whilst being made safer). And, without the rather spectacular demonstration of failure, it was probably not on the cards to 'not do nothing', even if it wasn't already too late to avert history in any reasonable way.
:It's human hubris/failings (at various levels) in each case, of course. But operational and design-time errors do more damage in combination than either by themselves. (Case in point, no deaths from the bridge collapse... actually handled pretty well, considering.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.95|172.68.35.95]] 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It would have been so easy to draw a dam about to burst just behind the ocean liner {{unsigned ip|172.70.43.54|20:22, 24 June 2024}}
:Any particular dam-burst? There are many, but I'm not sure that we have an 'iconic' one... There's perhaps Taum Sauk, Vajont Dam, Brumadinho dam, El Cobre, Uttarakhand, Dale Dike Reservoir or Derna, picking a selection of notable ones. You couldn't count the deliberate Operation Chastise breaches or the (probably-)deliberate Kakhovka Dam one, nor all those 'nearly a disaster' ones (like Ulley and Toddbrook, two relatively recent concerns). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2947: Pascal's Wager Triangle

2024-06-23T19:25:40Z

172.70.86.9:

Apparently, if two people are writing a first draft at the same time, the wiki appends one to the other. Welp. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 02:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:If you add another one it puts it beside the second, and you have Pascal's explanation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.102|172.70.85.102]] 08:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Some religions (such as my own) prohibit polytheism, so that's an added wrench in the works. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.119|141.101.98.119]] 06:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
: I think MOST religions are quite strict about the idea that you are supposed to CHOOSE single religion, preferably the one in question, and not trying to cover all bases by believing in multiple ones. Which is the answer to Pascal's Wager: choosing wrong God is likely to result in worse punishment than choosing none, so better NOT believe. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:: Well, it might be considered a bad "memetic trait" to have "as well as believing in our thing, you can believe in anything else". (Much as a number of holy books include the instruction that you should not change anything when copying the book, and this would clearly be a "dominant meme" as soon as someone spontaneously thinks to add it to a previously mutable version of the text.) Although there's syncratic religions which are effectively a case of "{{w|Horizontal gene transfer|horizontal meme transfer}}", philoso-evolutionarily.
:: But polythesitic pantheons aren't unusual within a (structurally singular) religion. The three branches of abriamic religion ("There is no god but Jehovah", "There is no god but God (sic)", there is no god but Allah", at least unless you start going into the prevalence of trinitarianism and "praying to individual saints") and I ''think'' Sikhism is rather good at "everything is but an aspect of the one..." (even when it comes to considering other religions' own ideas, and thus nominally folding ). But multi-deity (and zero-deity) religions/beliefs/etc are quite widespread, so an exclusivity of "my god" might be considered rare. (Though, numbers-wise, Christianity (in all its flavours) and Islam (ditto) add up to just over half of the world's population, perhaps being generous with 'habitual followers' rather than just the most devout. So it would be fairly accurate to say that most ''people'' are living under a (theoretically) quite strict monotheistic situation. Not that they all agree with each other quite what 'the singly god' is (even within themselves, ask a Protestent what they think about what a Catholic thinks, as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emo_Philips#Die,_heretic! the famous joke about this goes]; and that's definitely not solely a Christian trait), although that's not what we're counting. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.54|172.71.242.54]] 21:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
: This reminds me of a novel (I think it was Arthur C. Clarke's ''3001: The Final Odyssey'') where in the distant future, all religions ended up merging into two - one where there is ''at most'' one god and one where there is ''at least'' one god. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
: A surprisingly large number of religions actually don't care if you additionally are a member of another religion. Happens all the time in eastern Asia.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.173|162.158.212.173]] 21:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What if there is a God, but they don't want you to believe in them?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.35|172.70.86.35]] 11:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:Or a God, but they have impostor syndrome? [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:Or a God, and he just wants to screw over us all (not in the Yivo sense, mind you)? (Under this condition, all three outcomes are possible: he wants us to believe, he wants to hide, he couldn't care less) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.174|198.41.242.174]] 08:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

How did the middle Cueball on line 3 not realize that both Gods he was being asked to believe in are the same God (since the ones on line 2 both got it from the same Cueball on line 1)? Is there also a game of Telephone going on? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:Tbf there's no clarification by the Line 2 guys that they're talking about the same God. It makes sense that he'd assume they're different. If two different religious people told you at the same time "My God is real" and you'd never really been exposed to religion or atheism, you would assume they were talking about two. Forgive me if I made any unfair assumptions here. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:Look at the schism in Islam and the huge number of divisions in Christianity. That it may be the same god and same basic religion doesn't mean that it isn't presented entirely differently. For example (what I'm familiar with), Roman Catholic versus Church of England. Similar, but also completely different. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.118|141.101.69.118]] 19:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: Presumably each person interprets the diety slightly differently [[User:mouse|mouse]]

>>then there is minimal cost to drawing one anyway<< I argue that drawing a complete pascal's triangle will take infinite time and infinite resources. Which is slightly above "minimal cost"
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61|108.162.221.61]] 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:The use of the words "complete" and "infinite" while referring to the same thing is funny to me. I don't know why, though. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 13:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I very nearly inserted the following 'argument' paragraph in the Explanation, but decided that it perhaps was a bit of a 'belief' of my own.
(A more realistic approach could be to just outwardly conform to the social expectations of the society to which you belong. With or without any actual core belief, which cannot be tested in any realistic manner during your lifetime, maintaining a performative cohesion with your neighbours and acquaintences would still benefit you in avoiding standing out from the commonly accepted ideology. This may still count as a 'belief' (desirable or undesirable) should this stance ever come to be judged by any deity, with your ultimate fate probably being mirrored by others that you know who are in your exact same ideological position and merely outwardly perpetuting the 'accepted' demonstrations of faith. Assuming that the society's religion is not a self-destructive one, you would have as good a lifetime as circumstances would generally allow, with the ''possibility'' of an afterlife that is at least not uniquely bad for you; unlike the smart-arse who presumes to know what the single best theological stance is and then has to rationalise their attempt to cynically play the odds upon Judgement Day, against a deity who fully understands their base motivations and may even take far less kindly towards a Wagerer than with someone who never ever tried to 'believe' but at least was generally and secularly philanthropic in a way that the deity might be pleased by.)
I stand by the logic, as far as it can ever be taken (without knowing anything useful about the actual mind of God/gods it has to be tested against) but it got a bit long as a 'minor philosophical interlude'. And if the Ultimate Arbiter does ''not'' like Bill-And-Ted-ism (i.e. "be excellent to each other") and getting along with your community, instead prefers more outstandingly misanthropic worldly behaviours (because the only 'heavenly' afterlife is more Valhalla than Asphodel Meadows; anyone who even mildly disappoints goes to the Hades/Tartarus equivalent) without actually clueing us in on this particular Ineffable Plan, then the fate of many (who ''don't'' make earthly lives more miserable for the rest of us) is pretty much doomed from the start and even the most perfect Pascalian Wagerer probably never managed to stand on the right side of the philosophical barrier either. This whole argument is not even a novel philosophy, of course, but it's mine. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.56|172.69.195.56]] 16:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't the exact wording of the alt text not technically call for a classic Pascal's Wager, but rather an inverted triangle where there is only one number at the bottom, two in the row above the bottom, et cetera? (Since there have to be two numbers above every number: the traditional exception for the top row and the numbers at the sides isn't present.) Given such a triangle, wouldn't the only possible solutions be all-0, all-positive-infinity, or all-negative-infinity, which certain readings of "number" might restrict to the all-0 solution? [[User:WingedCat|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat|talk]]) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

'''''PROBLEM''''': Currently, the transcript includes a recreation of the triangle, nicknaming the Cueballs C1 through 15, laid out in a triangle. This seems too visual for the transcript. The thing is, it seems like a major goal of the transcript is for blind people, who have a reader program read them the transcript, and they follow XKCD solely in this way. Wouldn't a reader program render this as "C1 C2 C3..." etc? Giving no indication as to the layout? As the fix feels rather clunky and I'm not 100% sure this is an issue, I felt I should mention it first before enacting change. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:Extended the Transcript to perhaps help cater for this issue. Maybe too wordy. Maybe a mistake to mention what ''isn't'' there (except in explaining the full spirit of the diagram). But hopefully more mentally re-constructable by anyone with a visual imagination. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.9|172.70.86.9]] 19:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

2947: Pascal's Wager Triangle

2024-06-23T19:22:30Z

172.70.86.9: /* Transcript */ Further edits, as per noted prior problems with the Transcript as previously describing. Could perhaps be refined. Might be wrong to mention what *isn't* there but 'logically' might be, though this is to the spirit of full description...

{{comic
| number = 2947
| date = June 17, 2024
| title = Pascal's Wager Triangle
| image = pascals_wager_triangle_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x802px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In contrast to Pascal's Wager Triangle, Pascal's Triangle Wager argues that maybe God wants you to draw a triangle of numbers where each one is the sum of the two numbers above it, so you probably should, just in case.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT WHO BELIEVED THE N BOTS ABOVE HIM - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic is a conflation of {{w|Pascal's Wager}} and {{w|Pascal's Triangle}}. It's structured as a layout that emulates Pascal's triangle, an infinite triangle of numbers where the top number is 1 and each value below is the sum of the adjacent number(s) above it. The second row has two 1s (each the sum of the single 1 above), and the third row has a 1 (the sum of a single 1 in the second row), a 2 (the sum of both 1s above it), and another 1, and so on. It plays important roles in binomial expansion, probability theory, and other areas of math. While {{w|Blaise Pascal}} did not invent the triangle, it is named after him (an example of {{w|Stigler's law of eponymy}}).

<center>
{|style="text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; border: none;"
|-
|colspan=5|
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''seed'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=5|
|-
|colspan=4|
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''… + 1'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''1 + …'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=4|
|-
|colspan=3|
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''… + 1'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''1 + 1'' '''2'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''1 + …'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=3|
|-
|colspan=2|
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''… + 1'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''1 + 2'' '''3'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''2 + 1'' '''3'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''1 + …'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=2|
|-
|
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''… + 1'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''1 + 3'' '''4'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''3 + 3'' '''6'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''3 + 1'' '''4'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|''1 + …'' '''1'''
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40px;"|…
|
|-
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40x;"|
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40x;"|⋮
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40x;"|⋮
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40x;"|⋮
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40x;"|⋮
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40x;"|⋮
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40x;"|⋮
|colspan=2 style="width: 60px; height: 40x;"|
|}
</center>

Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument proposed by the same Pascal. Essentially it says that if God exists, both the rewards for believing in God and the punishment for nonbelief are infinite; if not, the cost of belief and benefit for nonbelief are negligible. Therefore, if there is a finite possibility that God exists, however small, one should believe in God. One problem with that is that there may be more than one God to believe in, even if only one truly exists. Which one of all the possible Gods should you choose to believe in could be problematic, if the real God insists that you only believe in Him and punish you for believing in any other gods (even if you somehow also believed in Him). A further problem is that committing to any particular belief in a deity is not a totally zero cost option, and thus effects your life in many needless ways if you subscribe to any particular practice of religion not actually required by any extant god(s), even if any of them exist in the first place.

The comic merges the two Pascalian concepts: each Cueball is wagering his proof of a god or gods to the Cueballs below him, thereby creating Cueballs that believe in the sum of the number of gods of the Cueballs above them. In the second row, the two Cueballs each believe in one god, as intended by the original Cueball. However, in the third row, the Cueball in the middle interprets the two proofs offered to him as proving the existence of two gods. Theoretically, this expansion would continue for all integers as the triangle grows, giving rise to a belief in escalating numbers of gods going down and towards the middle of the triangle. This is clearly not the intent of the first Cueball, who simply wagered the proof of his one god, but he has no control over the situation below him.

It is unclear why the Cueballs behave in this fashion, instead of treating all the proofs as proving the existence of the same god. Perhaps each one rewords their arguments for god(s) sufficiently to make them sound different than other gods. This is not without precedent. Scholars of comparative mythology believe that the religion of Proto-Indo-European peoples splintered into many disparate religions of Europe and West Asia; for instance, {{w|%2ADy%C4%93us#%22Sky-Father%22_epithet|Dyeus phter}} (sky father) became Zeus in Greece and Jupiter in Italy.

This comic may be referencing a common counterargument to Pascal's Wager — that it works equally well for ''any'' hypothetical god which offers eternal paradise for one action and eternal damnation otherwise. This can even include hypothetical gods with contradictory criteria for entrance into paradise. In this case, the Cueballs apparently chose to believe in all the deities they've heard of in order to cover their bases.

The title text suggests that everyone should draw a proper Pascal's Triangle, since there is a possibility that God wants you to do so, and if they do then the benefits of pleasing God or the costs of displeasing God could be high, whereas if they have no such desire then there is minimal cost to drawing one anyway. The failing of this logic is that God may have a positive preference for you ''not'' to draw a Pascal's Triangle (though at least according to the Catholic Church this is unlikely, as Pascal himself is on the way to {{w|beatification}}.)

Pascal's Wager was previously mentioned in the title text of [[525: I Know You're Listening]].

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

:[Cueballs, each holding some document, are shown in a triangular arrangement, with arrows pointing from upper to lower Cueballs:]
:[At the top, row 1 has a Cueball, unnamed but described below as "C1", holding a piece of paper with a crossed-square shape possibly resembling a Punnet Square diagram and with a speech-bubble]
:C1: Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:[Two arrows lead diagonally down-left and down-right from C1 to the second row, having two similarly drawn Cueballs (differing only by slight changes in pose) described here as "C2" and "C3"]
:C2 & C3: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:[Two arrows lead down from each of Row 2's Cueballs to three similar Cueballs on Row 3, "C4", "C5" and "C6", the central Cueball being the target of arrows from both of the predecessors, and the speech-bubbles partly obscuring the predecessor Cueballs and the lines of the arrows]
:C4 & C6: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C5: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''two''' gods!
:[Two further arrows lead down from each Row 3 Cueball to a total of four Row 4 Cueballs, all but the edge ones having two incoming arrows, "C7" to "C10"]
:C7: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C8 & C9: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''three''' gods!
:[C10 has no visible bubble, as there is no room for one in-frame, and is itself also slightly obscured by C9's bubble, but would logically be considered to have a "believe in my (singular) god" monologue]
:[Continuing the pattern, Row 5 has "C11" to "C15" Cueballs (with only a small amount of leg visible above the lower edge of the comic frame), each is led to by diagonal arrow(s) originating from the Row4 Cueballs]
:[C11 and C15 have no visible speech bubbles, due to being even more edge-adjacent and C15 even reaching off the edge of the frame with his 'punnet paper', but can be assumed to have a "believe in my god" statement]
:C12 & C14: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''four''' gods!
:C13: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''six''' gods!
:[No further arrows or Cueballs can be visible, and no further speech-bubbles obscure Row 5, but without any reason to believe they aren't just off frame]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Pascal's Wager Triangle

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-01T00:40:46Z

172.70.86.9: Some necessary signing (including some duplicate signing due to split paragraphs and then a mid-way reply made without any attempt to clarify).

I'd say a bicycle is way less dangerous than a car [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 1/4)
:Considering only the two vehicles themselves, I would probably agree with you but this comic is about convenience and danger of various means of transport. Wouldn't you agree that using a bicycle for transport in crowded city traffic is rather more dangerous to the cyclist than using a car is to the driver? {{unsigned ip|172.69.60.138|21:46, 31 May 2024}}
:It depends on whether you're comparing worst case injuries versus injury rate. Since airliners are considered one of the safest, I think it's injury rate. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I would not count "died because plane crashed onto road" into car dangers, as I would not count F1 driver death into the same bucket as car commuters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 3/4)

So I would do the same for bikes. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 4/4)

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

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

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

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

777: Pore Strips

2024-05-31T13:46:39Z

172.70.86.9: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 777
| date = August 9, 2010
| title = Pore Strips
| image = pore_strips.png
| titletext = I'm sure they're a harmful tool of the cosmetics-industrial complex and all, but my goodness do those strips ever work to pull gunk out of your pores. I was shocked, disgusted, and vaguely fascinated by the result.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic shows a box of "Deep-cleaning pore strips," which are a skin-care product designed to clean your pores. You stick them on your face, wait a while, and then rip them off. When they come off, a whole lot of disgusting gunk, like dirt and body oils, is allegedly lifted out of your pores with them. The kind shown in the comic, however, is "deep cleaning", and rips out not only the user's pore gunk, but also his entire skull. However, the skull looks extremely clean, so the cleaning has probably worked.

The title text indicates that while Randall is aware that pore-cleaning strips are useless and possibly harmful products created to make money by "solving" something that isn't actually a problem, they seem quite effective at getting things out of the pores on a person's nose. In reality, pore strips only remove excess material (dead skin, oil, dirt, etc) from the surface of the skin, and do not effectively clean one's pores. Randall appears to be unaware of this fact, though this dishonesty on the part of the manufacturer may tie in to the potentially malicious nature of the 'cosmetics-industrial complex' (see below).

The title text refers to the cosmetics industry as the "cosmetics-industrial complex", which is a play on the term "{{w|military-industrial complex}}", coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th president of the United States.

==Transcript==
:[A box of pore strips, marked "deep cleaning."]

:[Cueball examines the box.]

:[Cueball applies strip to face.]

:[Cueball pulls on strip.]

:[Cueball pulls skull out of head with pore strip.]

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

2929: Good and Bad Ideas

2024-05-08T15:42:44Z

172.70.86.9: /* Table of the entries */

{{comic
| number = 2929
| date = May 6, 2024
| title = Good and Bad Ideas
| image = good_and_bad_ideas_2x.png
| imagesize = 595x522px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = While it seemed like a fun prank at the time, I realize my prank fire extinguishers full of leaded gasoline were a mistake.
}}

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

This is a scatter plot comparing how good an idea sounds to how good the idea is. For example, leaded gasoline sounded like a good idea due to its anti-knocking effects, but is a bad idea due to lead toxicity. Fake prank fire extinguishers both sound bad and ''are'' bad, as they can make a dangerous situation worse. Putting mold on infections sounds like a bad idea, but some molds, like ones containing penicillin, have helpful antibiotic effects.

The title text combines leaded gasoline and a fake prank fire extinguisher into something worse than either. The fire extinguisher is fake and releases flammable material onto the fire, and there is additional lead toxicity.

===Table of the entries===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Idea !! What it means !! How good it sounds !! How good it actually is !! Explanation
|-
|{{w|Leaded gasoline}}||Adding {{w|Tetraethyllead|tetraethyl lead}} as an antiknocking agent to allow for increased performance||++||---||Leaded gasoline was introduced in the early 1920s to allow higher pressures and temperatures in an engine without causing {{w|Engine_knocking|detonation (knocking)}}, allowing for increased fuel efficiency and engine performance; it also works to prevent engine valve wear. In essence, it artificially raises the {{w|octane rating}} of the fuel, reducing the need for fuel refinement, thus reducing waste and/or expense. Lead, however, is both toxic and bioaccumulative, meaning that lead released into the air over decades built up to harmful levels in people (as well as other animals) and almost certainly contributed to a host of health issues. Some scientists even suppose that {{w|Lead–crime hypothesis|crime levels are influenced by lead exposure}}. (It should be noted that this only "[sounded] like a good idea" due to deliberate campaigns to obscure the known dangers).
|-
|{{w|Bloodletting}}||Releasing "bad blood" from the veins||---||---||You need (most of) your blood. Losing [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542273/ more than 15%] of a person's total blood volume results in adverse effects. Bloodletting has been performed as a medical procedure for at least 2000 years until the 19th century. The idea was to withdraw blood to balance the body's "humors". Despite this long history, the notion that bleeding someone is bad seems like basic common sense, and it's now well-understood that blood-letting (outside of {{what if|98|certain rare and specific cases}}) does no good, causes significant harm and quite certainly causes many deaths when it is used.
|-
|{{w|Asbestos}}||Mineral which does not burn, tolerates extremely high temperatures and forms small fibers. These qualities make it excellent for insulation and fire protection||+++||---||Asbestos was used extensively in ships and buildings throughout most of the 20th century. Unfortunately, the microscopic fibers that make up asbestos greatly increase the risk of {{w|Asbestosis|lung disease}} and cancer when inhaled, causing its use to be banned in most countries.
|-
|Extension cords with prongs on both ends||allows easy connection between 2 female connectors||0 (neutral)||---||Prongs on both ends would make it easier to plug the extension cord in on either side. But once plugged into an outlet, the other end becomes a serious shock hazard, as seen in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L08LjkN1k70 this Backyard Scientist video].
|-
|Stair kayaking||Riding down a flight of stairs in a {{w|kayak}}||--||---|| Stair kayaking is a stunt where a person positions a kayak at the top of a flight of stairs and then, using their paddle to push off, [https://youtu.be/46BjHAxgddU?t=154 rides the kayak down the stairs]. This poses significant easily foreseeable risks of injury or death, as well as being very bad for the kayak, which is designed to ride on {{w|Kayak|water}}, not stairs.{{Citation needed}}
|-
|Fake prank fire extinguishers||Intentionally placing empty or otherwise non-functional {{w|fire extinguisher|fire extinguishers}} as a {{w|practical joke}}.||---||---|| The idea of placing fake fire extinguishers as a prank, presumably so that a person who thinks they are grabbing a real fire extinguisher will instead find a decoy, sounds very dangerous and potentially life-threatening for many people, and it would be highly dangerous. In the United States, (and presumably most countries), this would also be a felony in most, if not all, jurisdictions. An example of a similar situation, although not intended as a prank, can be found [https://twitter.com/ThatSamWinkler/status/1657154071051239424 here].
The title text expands this idea by having the prank fire extinguishers filled with (leaded) gasoline. This is literally adding fuel to the fire.
|-
|Always saying what you think||...regardless of the feelings of others or other considerations||++||--||Openness and honesty are seen as positive character traits in people. However, taking it to the extreme of ''always'' telling people what you think about them, can lead to awkward or unpleasant situations. It may harm your relationship with the other person if they don't like what you think, or they may reply without concern for ''your'' feelings or other considerations. Keeping negative thoughts to yourself or telling "white lies" can be considered a better alternative in some situations.
|-
|Replying to spammers||Clicking on the "Reply" button from {{w|spam email}}s and writing (and sending) a reply (or worse, clicking on the links in these emails)||--||--||At best, you confirm your email address and identify yourself as someone likely to respond to such unsolicited messages and so encourage the spammers to deluge you with even more messages. At worst, the spammer may use your correspondence to extract sensitive information about you or make you a victim of a scam.
|-
|{{w|Solar car}}s||Having {{w|Solar panel|solar panels}} on the car's surface (mostly hood and roof) for power generation||+++||-||Powering electric vehicles with solar panels seems like an excellent idea: it would provide free power with no increased land use, and theoretically could allow a vehicle to operate indefinitely without being fueled or charged. However, such vehicles couldn't operate without batteries (due to power requirements, weather conditions, shade from roadside features and nighttime driving), so they'd have increased complexity compared to plug-in or hybrid cars. Adding solar panels would add cost, weight, manufacturing complexity and maintenance requirements. Solar panels on moving cars are less efficient than in stationary installations and subject to damage from both collisions and road debris. Solar cars do exist (the {{w|World Solar Challenge}} is a competition for such cars), but as a practical form of transportation, the negatives likely outweigh the positives.
|-
|Heelies||{{w|Heelys}} are shoes with an inline skate wheel embedded in the sole, at the heel. ||+||-||Heelys allow the wearer (usually children) to shift between normal walking and rolling like being on skates. This sounds like fun but [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Exercise/story?id=3242181&page=1 has been suggested] to be a potentially significant injury risk.
|-
|Prequels||A work of fiction (mostly movie) telling the "story before the story" of another work of fiction.||+++||-||More of a good story sounds great on the surface, and audiences who are invested in a set of characters and/or a setting often love the idea of finding out what led up to certain events. But there are several pitfalls. Any spin-off of a popular property risks becoming a low-quality cash grab. Prequels, specifically, are constrained by the fact that they have to lead to the story that's already been released, which can lead to contrived storytelling. There's less room for suspense since the future of the storyline has already been established. There's a tendency to invent or fill in detailed backstories, which can undermine character arcs, and/or destroy the mystery and nuance of certain characters. And, since they tend only to be made where the original is already well-received, regression to the mean tends to mean they are more likely than not to fail to live up to expectations. Prequels can be good, of course, but there are a lot of ways they can go wrong.
|-
|Transitions® lenses||A brand name for {{w|Photochromic_lens|photochromic lenses}} in glasses, which get darker (like sunglasses) in bright light.||+||-||Photochromic lenses are clear lenses that darken when exposed to UV light, then turn clear again when the exposure is removed. The advantage is that wearers of glasses don't need to buy separate (prescription) sunglasses. However, the process is relatively slow (about a minute) so not so useful when there is a quick succession of shade and bright light, perhaps in a forest or when driving. If used in a car, the windscreen filters out UV light to some degree, which prevents the glasses from darkening as required. Finally, the process is temperature dependent, so in hot weather the glasses don't become as dark, and in cold weather they might stay dark for too long.

Additionally, the following should be considered. UV-conscious people protect their face against UV light, so the skin doesn't form wrinkles and ages slower. Sunscreen is difficult to apply around eyes without getting the substance on eyeballs (cosmetic substances should not get there). One of the reasons behind wearing sunglasses may be to protect skin around eyes from forming so called {{w|wrinkle|crow's feet}}. Under UV-filtering sunglasses, UV-activated transitions contact lenses will not darken defeating their purpose. At the same time transitions contacts are typically at least twice as expensive as the regular ones.
|-
|Cutting pizza in squares||Cutting (a presumably round) pizza in squares||-||-||Most people cut pizza into wedges and hold it by the crust. Cutting it into squares could allow for more pieces to be shared, if the resulting wedges would be too thin to be practical. However, pieces near the center will have no crust to hold it by, getting cheese and sauce all over your fingers. Cuts around the edge will probably leave smaller leftover scraps which are mostly crust. While hardly a disaster like the other items in its quadrant, square pizza pieces are just not very useful and rather inefficient. Cutting a rectangular pizza into squares might not suffer from the problems above, but, unless the pizza itself is square and cut only into four squares, some people will end up with a higher crust-to-topping ratio than others. Cutting a round pizza into squares is popular in Chicago and is sometimes called tavern-style or party-cut and some<nowiki>[</nowiki>''{{w|Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions|who?}}''<nowiki>]</nowiki> consider it the real Chicago style pizza rather than deep dish pizza.{{Dubious}}
|-
|{{w|Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)|Project Orion}}||Study by the U.S. government looking into nuclear pulse propulsion for spacecraft.||---||-||Using repeated nuclear explosions to generate motion sounds bad for both the spacecraft and everything else, especially with a ground launch, but there are ways to address a lot of the concerns, so it isn't as bad as it sounds. Project Orion's theorized specific impulse and thrust would also be far higher than anything chemical rockets can accomplish. The efficiency of Project Orion is extremely low, however, and the {{w|ablation}} issues are extremely difficult to overcome.

See also [[2423: Project Orion]].
|-
|Soup||{{w|Soup}}||0 (neutral)||0 (neutral)||Soup is probably one of the oldest foods created by prehistoric cooks. Many people enjoy it, though some consider many soups somewhat lacking as a meal on their own, or boring.
|-
|Combo washer dryers||A device that combines washing machine and laundry dryer into one device||+++||+||Better at space efficiency, but worse at each task than separate devices, and unable to do both tasks in parallel (useful when you have more than one batch of laundry).
|-
|Cutting sandwiches diagonally||Cutting sandwiches diagonally||+||+||[https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a32690399/triangles-rectangles-best-way-cut-sandwich-math/ Generally] [https://www.npr.org/2009/11/28/120914097/rectangles-vs-triangles-the-great-sandwich-debate regarded] as the superior way to slice a sandwich, providing more aesthetically pleasing display of the contents, better support in the hand and fewer all-crust bites. Required in the assembly of a club sandwich,{{actual citation needed}} where the diagonal components are stacked again.
|-
|{{w|Diverging diamond interchange}}s||Road junction where the two (sets of) lanes cross over to switch sides (so if you normally drive on the right, now you drive on the left), then switch back to normal after the junction||-||+||Highway engineers believe the shape improves safety and traffic flow through the interchange because switching to the other side facilitates merging to and from the other road in the junction. However, the shape appears to be insanity to an unfamiliar driver.
|-
|Toasting sandwiches||Making a sandwich first and then cooking it, as in a dedicated {{w|Pie_iron|sandwich toaster}}, a {{w|toaster oven|toaster oven}}, frying pan or under a grill.||++||++||The grilled cheese sandwich is a familiar form to most people, and many other sandwiches are improved by toasting as a final step. Others, such as the {{w|western sandwich|Western}} or {{w|club sandwich|club}} are prepared using toast. The {{w|peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich|Elvis}} is a specific case of a sandwich that normally wouldn't be toasted, but is improved by it - peanut butter, bacon, banana, and jelly, with the assembly lightly fried.
|-
|{{w|Crumple zone}}s||Designated areas of a car that crumple in case of a crash. ||--||++||Most people's intuition would be that stronger cars are safer, and intending parts of a vehicle to collapse ''by design'' might seem crazy. But engineered crumple zones are designed to absorb the kinetic energy in a vehicle collision, and do so in such a way as to protect the integrity of the passenger cabin. The result is that the occupants experience less intense deceleration and ideally without the damage significantly compressing the shell around them. This significantly reduces the danger of injury or death from crashes.
|-
|{{w|Sliced bread}}||Bread, sliced by the baker before packaging for sale||+++||++||It's far more convenient for making sandwiches or toast, but unfortunately pre-sliced bread will go stale faster and some applications may be better off thicker or thinner than the slices provided. Sliced bread is often used as a comparator for how good something is, using the phrase 'the best thing since sliced bread'.
|-
|Pizza||{{w|Pizza}}||++||++||Pizza is a widely popular dish throughout much of the world, uncontroversial {{w|Anchovies_as_food|except}} {{w|Pineapple|certain}} [https://www.taste.com.au/recipes/nutty-choc-pizza-fresh-berries/2c0220a4-8463-45ff-b2ba-ac7e5012a006 toppings].
|-
|Eating citrus fruit while at sea||Having a supply of {{w|citrus fruit}} on long sea journeys, especially during the {{w|Age of Sail}} ||0 (neutral)||+++||For a long time, {{w|Scurvy|scurvy}} was a danger to sailors, who generally subsisted on a monotonous diet of shelf-stable foods with low vitamin content while on long voyages. Most citrus fruits are rich in vitamin C, which prevents scurvy. Eating orange or lemons doesn't seem like a significant activity one way or the other, but it's an easy way to prevent a disease that causes serious ill-health and possibly a painful death.
|-
|Putting mold on infections||Seemingly a reference to the ancient practice of pressing moldy bread against infected wounds||---||++||While this sounds like a good way to get a fungal infection, with the correct mold this is a primitive way to obtain an antibiotic. Certain fungi naturally produce antibiotic substances, and this is where humans discovered {{w|penicillin}}.
|-
|Wheels on luggage||Some luggage bags have small wheels inset on their frame and a carrying handle.||+++||+++||A relatively simple fitting for rigid or semi-rigid luggage that substantially eases its transport over long distances on flat surfaces such as travel terminals.
|-
|{{w|Heat pump}}s||A technology that moves heat energy from a cold area to a warm area, most familiar as the technology that keeps a refrigerator cold. It can be used to heat a home interior in winter or cool it in summer.||++||+++||Unlike traditional furnaces, heat pumps do not generate heat (beyond a small overhead). Instead, they move existing thermal energy from a coolable environment across to a warmable one. This allows a space to be heated with significantly less energy use than a furnace or resistance heater that just generates heat 'from scratch'. Because these units are operated by electricity, they can provide heating with renewable energy (potentially using {{w|thermal energy storage}} for load-shifting), reduce or eliminate the need for natural gas connections, and prevent several risks that come with traditional furnaces (such a carbon monoxide leaks and fires). In addition, heat pumps can operate in the reverse direction as air conditioners, so a single unit can be designed to both heat and cool a building. It sounds like a good idea and works out pretty well in real life.

See also [[2790: Heat Pump]].
|-
|{{w|Laser eye surgery}}||Surgical techniques using lasers for precision cutting in the eyeball.||-||+++||In the popular imagination, lasers are often thought of as something used for destroying their target. Firing them into people's eyes, then, does not sound like a great idea. However. this technology has substantially improved the eyesight of millions of people worldwide by allowing the treatment of eye problems otherwise only corrected by lenses or entirely untreatable. Randall has previously commented on laser eye surgery, amongst other ideas both good and bad, in [[1681: Laser Products]].
|-
|{{w|Fecal transplant}}s||Transfer of the gut microbiome of a healthy person to the sterilized gut of an ill person.||---||+++||The gut microbiome is a collection of bacteria that lives in our guts. It can influence our health. It is responsible for the last stages of digesting our food. It can also produce neurotransmitters that are carried by blood to our brain influencing our behavior. A healthy microbiome can be destroyed by bad eating habits, unhealthy lifestyles, acquired infections or the use of antibiotics. The important part is the composition of different species of bacteria that compromise the biome. Sometimes it may be necessary to completely sterilize the gut and then take a sample of a healthy biome from another person. A sample is enough as the bacteria will multiply. As long as the patient eats correctly, the microbiome after transplant should develop correctly.

It sounds bad because we tend to think of our feces as something gross, to be discarded, and other people's bacteria as infectious. It is called fecal transplant as our feces contain about 50% of gut bacteria, but nowadays the sample usually takes the form of a coated pill that is applied rectally.
|-
|}

==Transcript==
:[Two axes with double arrows cross each other in the middle. At the end of each arrow, there are labels. Scattered over the chart are 28 entries. Below these entries are given for each of the four quadrants, plus three that are on the Y-axis. For each quadrant the entries are listed in reading order, top to bottom left to right.]

:[X axis from left to right:]
:Sounds like a good idea
:Sounds like a bad idea

:[Y axis from top to bottom:]
:Actually a bad idea
:Actually a good idea

:[Top left quadrant (sounds like a good idea, actually a bad idea):]
:Leaded gasoline
:Asbestos
:Always saying what you think
:Solar cars
:Heelies
:Prequels
:Transitions® lenses

:[Top middle (actually a bad idea):]
:Extension cords with prongs on both ends

:[Top right quadrant (sounds like a bad idea, actually a bad idea):]
:Bloodletting
:Fake prank fire extinguishers
:Stair kayaking
:Replying to spammers
:Cutting pizza in squares
:Project Orion

:[Center (neutral):]
:Soup

:[Bottom left quadrant (sounds like a good idea, actually a good idea):]
:Combo washer dryers
:Cutting sandwiches diagonally
:Toasting sandwiches
:Sliced bread
:Pizza
:Wheels on luggage
:Heat pumps

:[Bottom middle (actually a good idea):]
:Eating citrus fruit while at sea

:[Bottom right quadrant (sounds like a bad idea, actually a good idea):]
:Diverging diamond interchanges
:Crumple zones
:Putting mold on infections
:Laser eye surgery
:Fecal transplants

==Trivia==
*A much leaner version of this comic appeared in the first [[What If? (book) | "What If?" book]], chapter "Weird (and Worrying) Questions from the What If? Inbox, #9".

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Scatter plots]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Food]]

2929: Good and Bad Ideas

2024-05-08T12:38:20Z

172.70.86.9: /* Table of the entries */

{{comic
| number = 2929
| date = May 6, 2024
| title = Good and Bad Ideas
| image = good_and_bad_ideas_2x.png
| imagesize = 595x522px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = While it seemed like a fun prank at the time, I realize my prank fire extinguishers full of leaded gasoline were a mistake.
}}

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

This is a scatter plot comparing how good an idea sounds to how good the idea is. For example, leaded gasoline sounded like a good idea due to its anti-knocking effects, but is a bad idea due to lead toxicity. Fake prank fire extinguishers both sound bad and ''are'' bad, as they can make a dangerous situation worse. Putting mold on infections sounds like a bad idea, but some molds, like ones containing penicillin, have helpful antibiotic effects.

The title text combines leaded gasoline and a fake prank fire extinguisher into something worse than either. The fire extinguisher is fake and releases flammable material onto the fire, and there is additional lead toxicity.

===Table of the entries===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Idea !! What it means !! How good it sounds !! How good it actually is !! Explanation
|-
|{{w|Leaded gasoline}}||Adding {{w|Tetraethyllead|tetraethyl lead}} as an antiknocking agent to allow for increased performance||++||---||Leaded gasoline was introduced in the early 1920s to allow higher pressures and temperatures in an engine without causing {{w|Engine_knocking|detonation (knocking)}}, allowing for increased fuel efficiency and engine performance; it also works to prevent engine valve wear. In essence, it artificially raises the {{w|octane rating}} of the fuel, reducing the need for fuel refinement, thus reducing waste and/or expense. Lead, however, is both toxic and bioaccumulative, meaning that lead released into the air over decades built up to harmful levels in people (as well as other animals) and almost certainly contributed to a host of health issues. Some scientists even suppose that {{w|Lead–crime hypothesis|crime levels are influenced by lead exposure}}. (It should be noted that this only "[sounded] like a good idea" due to deliberate campaigns to obscure the known dangers).
|-
|{{w|Bloodletting}}||Releasing "bad blood" from the veins||---||---||You need (most of) your blood. Losing [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542273/ more than 15%] of a person's total blood volume results in adverse effects. Bloodletting has been performed as a medical procedure for at least 2000 years until the 19th century. The idea was to withdraw blood to balance the body's "humors". Despite this long history, the notion that bleeding someone is bad seems like basic common sense, and it's now well-understood that blood-letting (outside of {{what if|98|certain rare and specific cases}}) does no good, causes significant harm and quite certainly causes many deaths when it is used.
|-
|{{w|Asbestos}}||Mineral which does not burn, tolerates extremely high temperatures and forms small fibers. These qualities make it excellent for insulation and fire protection||+++||---||Asbestos was used extensively in ships and buildings throughout most of the 20th century. Unfortunately, the microscopic fibers that make up asbestos greatly increase the risk of {{w|Asbestosis|lung disease}} and cancer when inhaled, causing its use to be banned in most countries.
|-
|Extension cords with prongs on both ends||allows easy connection between 2 female connectors||0 (neutral)||---||Prongs on both ends would make it easier to plug the extension cord in on either side. But once plugged into an outlet, the other end becomes a serious shock hazard, as seen in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L08LjkN1k70 this Backyard Scientist video].
|-
|Stair kayaking||Riding down a flight of stairs in a {{w|kayak}}||--||---|| Stair kayaking is a stunt where a person positions a kayak at the top of a flight of stairs and then, using their paddle to push off, [https://youtu.be/46BjHAxgddU?t=154 rides the kayak down the stairs]. This poses significant easily foreseeable risks of injury or death, as well as being very bad for the kayak, which is designed to ride on {{w|Kayak|water}}, not stairs.{{Citation needed}}
|-
|Fake prank fire extinguishers||Intentionally placing empty or otherwise non-functional {{w|fire extinguisher|fire extinguishers}} as a {{w|practical joke}}.||---||---|| The idea of placing fake fire extinguishers as a prank, presumably so that a person who thinks they are grabbing a real fire extinguisher will instead find a decoy, sounds very dangerous and potentially life-threatening for many people, and it would be highly dangerous. In the United States, (and presumably most countries), this would also be a felony in most, if not all, jurisdictions. An example of a similar situation, although not intended as a prank, can be found [https://twitter.com/ThatSamWinkler/status/1657154071051239424 here].
The title text expands this idea by having the prank fire extinguishers filled with (leaded) gasoline. This is literally adding fuel to the fire.
|-
|Always saying what you think||...regardless of the feelings of others or other considerations||++||--||Openness and honesty are seen as positive character traits in people. However, taking it to the extreme of ''always'' telling people what you think about them, can lead to awkward or unpleasant situations. It may harm your relationship with the other person if they don't like what you think, or they may reply without concern for ''your'' feelings or other considerations. Keeping negative thoughts to yourself or telling "white lies" can be considered a better alternative in some situations.
|-
|Replying to spammers||Clicking on the "Reply" button from {{w|spam email}}s and writing (and sending) a reply (or worse, clicking on the links in these emails)||--||--||At best, you confirm your email address and identify yourself as someone likely to respond to such unsolicited messages and so encourage the spammers to deluge you with even more messages. At worst, the spammer may use your correspondence to extract sensitive information about you or make you a victim of a scam.
|-
|{{w|Solar car}}s||Having {{w|Solar panel|solar panels}} on the car's surface (mostly hood and roof) for power generation||+++||-||Powering electric vehicles with solar panels seems like an excellent idea: it would provide free power with no increased land use, and theoretically could allow a vehicle to operate indefinitely without being fueled or charged. However, such vehicles couldn't operate without batteries (due to power requirements, weather conditions, shade from roadside features and nighttime driving), so they'd have increased complexity compared to plug-in or hybrid cars. Adding solar panels would add cost, weight, manufacturing complexity and maintenance requirements. Solar panels on moving cars are less efficient than in stationary installations and subject to damage from both collisions and road debris. Solar cars do exist (the {{w|World Solar Challenge}} is a competition for such cars), but as a practical form of transportation, the negatives likely outweigh the positives.
|-
|Heelies||{{w|Heelys}} are shoes with an inline skate wheel embedded in the sole, at the heel. ||+||-||Heelys allow the wearer (usually children) to shift between normal walking and rolling like being on skates. This sounds like fun but [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Exercise/story?id=3242181&page=1 has been suggested] to be a potentially significant injury risk.
|-
|Prequels||A work of fiction (mostly movie) telling the "story before the story" of another work of fiction.||+++||-||More of a good story sounds great on the surface, and audiences who are invested in a set of characters and/or a setting often love the idea of finding out what led up to certain events. But there are several pitfalls. Any spin-off of a popular property risks becoming a low-quality cash grab. Prequels, specifically, are constrained by the fact that they have to lead to the story that's already been released, which can lead to contrived storytelling. There's less room for suspense since the future of the storyline has already been established. There's a tendency to invent or fill in detailed backstories, which can undermine character arcs, and/or destroy the mystery and nuance of certain characters. And, since they tend only to be made where the original is already well-received, regression to the mean tends to mean they are more likely than not to fail to live up to expectations. Prequels can be good, of course, but there are a lot of ways they can go wrong.
|-
|Transitions® lenses||A brand name for {{w|Photochromic_lens|photochromic lenses}} in glasses, which get darker (like sunglasses) in bright light.||+||-||Photochromic lenses are clear lenses that darken when exposed to UV light, then turn clear again when the exposure is removed. The advantage is that wearers of glasses don't need to buy separate (prescription) sunglasses. However, the process is relatively slow (about a minute) so not so useful when there is a quick succession of shade and bright light, perhaps in a forest or when driving. If used in a car, the windscreen filters out UV light to some degree, which prevents the glasses from darkening as required. Finally, the process is temperature dependent, so in hot weather the glasses don't become as dark, and in cold weather they might stay dark for too long.

Additionally, the following should be considered. UV-conscious people protect their face against UV light, so the skin doesn't form wrinkles and ages slower. Sunscreen is difficult to apply around eyes without getting the substance on eyeballs (cosmetic substances should not get there). One of the reasons behind wearing sunglasses may be to protect skin around eyes from forming so called {{w|wrinkle|crow's feet}}. Under UV-filtering sunglasses, UV-activated transitions contact lenses will not darken defeating their purpose. At the same time transitions contacts are typically at least twice as expensive as the regular ones.
|-
|Cutting pizza in squares||Cutting (a presumably round) pizza in squares||-||-||Most people cut pizza into wedges and hold it by the crust. Cutting it into squares could allow for more pieces to be shared, if the resulting wedges would be too thin to be practical. However, pieces near the center will have no crust to hold it by, getting cheese and sauce all over your fingers. Cuts around the edge will probably leave smaller leftover scraps which are mostly crust. While hardly a disaster like the other items in its quadrant, square pizza pieces are just not very useful and rather inefficient. Cutting a rectangular pizza into squares might not suffer from the problems above, but, unless the pizza itself is square and cut only into four squares, some people will end up with a higher crust-to-topping ratio than others. Cutting a round pizza into squares is popular in Chicago and is sometimes called tavern-style or party-cut and some<nowiki>[</nowiki>''{{w|Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions|who?}}''<nowiki>]</nowiki> consider it the real Chicago style pizza rather than deep dish pizza.{{Dubious}}
|-
|{{w|Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)|Project Orion}}||Study by the U.S. government looking into nuclear pulse propulsion for spacecraft.||---||-||Using repeated nuclear explosions to generate motion sounds bad for both the spacecraft and everything else, especially with a ground launch, but there are ways to address a lot of the concerns, so it isn't as bad as it sounds. Project Orion's theorized specific impulse and thrust would also be far higher than anything chemical rockets can accomplish. The efficiency of Project Orion is extremely low, however, and the {{w|ablation}} issues are extremely difficult to overcome.

See also [[2423: Project Orion]].
|-
|Soup||{{w|Soup}}||0 (neutral)||0 (neutral)||Soup is probably one of the oldest foods created by prehistoric cooks. Many people enjoy it, though some consider many soups somewhat lacking as a meal on their own, or boring.
|-
|Combo washer dryers||A device that combines washing machine and laundry dryer into one device||+++||+||Better at space efficiency, but worse at each task than separate devices.
|-
|Cutting sandwiches diagonally||Cutting sandwiches diagonally||+||+||[https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a32690399/triangles-rectangles-best-way-cut-sandwich-math/ Generally] [https://www.npr.org/2009/11/28/120914097/rectangles-vs-triangles-the-great-sandwich-debate regarded] as the superior way to slice a sandwich, providing more aesthetically pleasing display of the contents, better support in the hand and fewer all-crust bites. Required in the assembly of a club sandwich,{{actual citation needed}} where the diagonal components are stacked again.
|-
|{{w|Diverging diamond interchange}}s||Road junction where the two (sets of) lanes cross over to switch sides (so if you normally drive on the right, now you drive on the left), then switch back to normal after the junction||-||+||Highway engineers believe the shape improves safety and traffic flow through the interchange because switching to the other side facilitates merging to and from the other road in the junction. However, the shape appears to be insanity to an unfamiliar driver.
|-
|Toasting sandwiches||Making a sandwich first and then cooking it, as in a dedicated {{w|Pie_iron|sandwich toaster}}, a {{w|toaster oven|toaster oven}}, frying pan or under a grill.||++||++||The grilled cheese sandwich is a familiar form to most people, and many other sandwiches are improved by toasting as a final step. Others, such as the {{w|western sandwich|Western}} or {{w|club sandwich|club}} are prepared using toast. The {{w|peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich|Elvis}} is a specific case of a sandwich that normally wouldn't be toasted, but is improved by it - peanut butter, bacon, banana, and jelly, with the assembly lightly fried.
|-
|{{w|Crumple zone}}s||Designated areas of a car that crumple in case of a crash. ||--||++||Most peoples' intuition would be that stronger cars are safer, and intending parts of a vehicle to collapse ''by design'' might seem crazy. But engineered crumple zones are designed to absorb the kinetic energy in a vehicle collision, and do so in such a way as to protect the integrity of passenger cabin. The result is that the occupants experience less intense deceleration and ideally without the damage significantly compressing the shell around them. This significantly reduces the danger of injury or death from crashes.
|-
|{{w|Sliced bread}}||Bread, sliced by the baker before packaging for sale||+++||++||It's far more convenient for making sandwiches or toast, but unfortunately pre-sliced bread will go stale faster and some applications may be better off thicker or thinner than the slices provided. Sliced bread is often used as a comparator for how good something is in the phrase 'the best thing since sliced bread'.
|-
|Pizza||{{w|Pizza}}||++||++||Pizza is a widely popular dish throughout much of the world, uncontroversial {{w|Anchovies_as_food|except}} {{w|Pineapple|certain}} [https://www.taste.com.au/recipes/nutty-choc-pizza-fresh-berries/2c0220a4-8463-45ff-b2ba-ac7e5012a006 toppings].
|-
|Eating citrus fruit while at sea||Having a supply of {{w|citrus fruit}} on long sea journeys, especially during the {{w|Age of Sail}} ||0 (neutral)||+++||For a long time, {{w|Scurvy|scurvy}} was a danger to sailors, who generally subsisted on a monotonous diet of shelf-stable foods with low vitamin content while on long voyages. Most citrus fruits are rich in vitamin C, which prevents scurvy. Eating orange or lemons doesn't seem like a significant activity one way or the other, but it's an easy way to prevent a disease that causes serious ill-health and possibly a painful death.
|-
|Putting mold on infections||Seemingly a reference to the ancient practice of pressing moldy bread against infected wounds||---||++||While this sounds like a good way to get a fungal infection, with the correct mold this is a primitive way to obtain an antibiotic. Certain fungi naturally produce antibiotic substances, and this is where humans discovered {{w|penicillin}}.
|-
|Wheels on luggage||Some luggage bags have small wheels inset on their frame and a carrying handle.||+++||+++||A relatively simple fitting for rigid or semi-rigid luggage that substantially eases its transport over long distances on flat surfaces such as travel terminals.
|-
|{{w|Heat pump}}s||A technology that moves heat energy from a cold area to a warm area, most familiar as the technology that keeps a refrigerator cold. It can be used to heat a home interior in winter or cool it in summer.||++||+++||Unlike traditional furnaces, heat pumps do not generate heat (beyond a small overhead). Instead, they move existing thermal energy from a coolable environment across to a warmable one. This allows a space to be heated with significantly less energy use than a furnace or resistance heater that just generates heat 'from scratch'. Because these units are operated by electricity, they can provide heating with renewable energy (potentially using {{w|thermal energy storage}} for load-shifting), reduce or eliminate the need for natural gas connections, and prevent several risks that come with traditional furnaces (such a carbon monoxide leaks and fires). In addition, heat pumps can operate in the reverse direction as air conditioners, so a single unit can be designed to both heat and cool a building. It sounds like a good idea and works out pretty well in real life.

See also [[2790: Heat Pump]].
|-
|{{w|Laser eye surgery}}||Surgical techniques using lasers for precision cutting in the eyeball.||-||+++||In the popular imagination, lasers are often thought of as something used for destroying their target. Firing them into people's eyes, then, does not sound like a great idea. However. this technology has substantially improved the eyesight of millions of people worldwide by allowing the treatment of eye problems otherwise only corrected by lenses or entirely untreatable. Randall has previously commented on laser eye surgery, amongst other ideas both good and bad, in [[1681: Laser Products]].
|-
|{{w|Fecal transplant}}s||Transfer of the gut microbiome of a healthy person to the sterilized gut of an ill person.||---||+++||The gut microbiome is a collection of bacteria that lives in our guts. It can influence our health. It is responsible for the last stages of digesting our food. It can also produce neurotransmitters that are carried by blood to our brain influencing our behavior. A healthy microbiome can be destroyed by bad eating habits, unhealthy lifestyles, acquired infections or the use of antibiotics. The important part is the composition of different species of bacteria that compromise the biome. Sometimes it may be necessary to completely sterilize the gut and then take a sample of a healthy biome from another person. A sample is enough as the bacteria will multiply. As long as the patient eats correctly, the microbiome after transplant should develop correctly.

It sounds bad because we tend to think of our feces as something gross, to be discarded, and other people's bacteria as infectious. It is called fecal transplant as our feces contain about 50% of gut bacteria, but nowadays the sample usually takes the form of a coated pill that is applied rectally.
|-
|}

==Transcript==
:[Two axes with double arrows cross each other in the middle. At the end of each arrow, there are labels. Scattered over the chart are 28 entries. Below these entries are given for each of the four quadrants, plus three that are on the Y-axis. For each quadrant the entries are listed in reading order, top to bottom left to right.]

:[X axis from left to right:]
:Sounds like a good idea
:Sounds like a bad idea

:[Y axis from top to bottom:]
:Actually a bad idea
:Actually a good idea

:[Top left quadrant (sounds like a good idea, actually a bad idea):]
:Leaded gasoline
:Asbestos
:Always saying what you think
:Solar cars
:Heelies
:Prequels
:Transitions® lenses

:[Top middle (actually a bad idea):]
:Extension cords with prongs on both ends

:[Top right quadrant (sounds like a bad idea, actually a bad idea):]
:Bloodletting
:Fake prank fire extinguishers
:Stair kayaking
:Replying to spammers
:Cutting pizza in squares
:Project Orion

:[Center (neutral):]
:Soup

:[Bottom left quadrant (sounds like a good idea, actually a good idea):]
:Combo washer dryers
:Cutting sandwiches diagonally
:Toasting sandwiches
:Sliced bread
:Pizza
:Wheels on luggage
:Heat pumps

:[Bottom middle (actually a good idea):]
:Eating citrus fruit while at sea

:[Bottom right quadrant (sounds like a bad idea, actually a good idea):]
:Diverging diamond interchanges
:Crumple zones
:Putting mold on infections
:Laser eye surgery
:Fecal transplants

==Trivia==
*A much leaner version of this comic appeared in the first [[What If? (book) | "What If?" book]], chapter "Weird (and Worrying) Questions from the What If? Inbox, #9".

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Scatter plots]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Food]]

2922: Pub Trivia

2024-04-19T15:37:53Z

172.70.86.9: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2922
| date = April 19, 2024
| title = Pub Trivia
| image = pub_trivia_2x.png
| imagesize = 422x666px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Bonus question: Where is London located? (a) The British Isles (b) Great Britain and Northern Ireland (c) The UK (d) Europe (or 'the EU') (e) Greater London
}}

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

(I might have accidentally deleted something important when I was consolidating things)
Many pubs have trivia nights, where patrons form teams and compete to best answer questions about a range of topics. Cueball has apparently been hired by one bar to infiltrate other bars' quiz nights and write particularly bad questions for them, which he has accomplished using different strategies. The idea is that by making the trivia nights at other pubs horrible, he will drive business to the pub that hired him.

The comic shows [[Cueball]] reading off bad trivia questions which are either confusing or don't have an answer.

1. Which member of {{w|BTS}} has a birthday this year?

Problem: Multiple answers

BTS is a {{w|K-Pop}} group. Every member would have a birthday each year. In fact, all humans have a birthday every year. (Unless you were born on leap day and trying to be pedantic, or it was a year when {{w|Gregorian calendar|the calendar changed}}.) Since this comic was published in 2024, even the possible February 29 exception does not apply (and no BTS member was born on February 29).

A more usual type of question might be to ask which member celebrates a particular milestone birthday in the current year.

2. How many sides does a {{w|platonic solid}} have?

Problem: Multiple answers

There are five {{w|Platonic solids}}, with 4, 6, 8, 12, or 20 faces (colloquially called sides) in {{w|Euclid|Euclidean}} {{w|Euclidean geometry|3-space}}. The solids have, respectively, 6, 12, 8, 30, and 30 edges (also occasionally called sides colloquially).

More usual questions might be 'How many Platonic solids are there?' or 'What is the highest number of faces on a Platonic solid?'.

3. What is the smallest lake in the world?

Problem: Arguable

Unknowable as there are many small bodies of water in the world, and determining which is the smallest while still being large enough to count as a {{w|lake}} is a complicated question.

An acceptable question might ask what is recognised by the Guinness World Records as the world's smallest lake.

4. Which Steven Spielberg movie features more shark attacks? {{w|Jaws (movie)|Jaws (1975)}} or {{w|Lincoln (movie)|Lincoln (2012)}}

Problem: Trivial

Jaws is a famous movie about a killer shark, and features at least five fatal shark attacks. Lincoln is a movie about the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, containing zero shark attacks{{cn}}. Unlike the previous unanswerable questions, this is a question that no reasonable person could get wrong.

5. How many planets were there originally?

Problem: Ambiguous

5 billion years ago, in the nascent solar system, there were countless {{w|planetesimal|planetesimals}} that would eventually form the planets. The ancient Greeks named seven planets: the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Eventually, it was decided that the Earth is also a planet, and that the Sun and the Moon were not. Uranus and Neptune were eventually discovered, followed by Ceres, Vesta, Juno, and Pallas, all of which were considered planets prior to the invention of the term "asteroid". Then Pluto was discovered, and the count of "planets" stabilized at 9 until 2006, when the discovery of Kuiper Belt objects larger than Pluto led to creation of the term "dwarf planet", leaving us with 8 known planets and 5 known dwarf planets. Today there are also thousands of known exoplanets (planets that orbit stars other than the sun).
The joke here is that "originally" is so poorly defined that it could mean anywhere from 0 (the number of planets prior to formation of the solar system) to infinity (number of planets in the universe if the universe is indeed infinite).

6. What {{w|NFL}} player has scored the most points outside of a game?

: Problem: No answer

: American football has a somewhat complicated scoring system, and record keeping involves (for instance) crediting the 6 points for a touchdown to both the receiver and the passer in some situations. This question does not address any of this complexity, but adds a new level of ambiguity as the "points" a player can score outside of a game are undefined. Is it any points scored in any game at all (e.g. Scrabble or Root?) except football, or is it points that are not part of any game at all (e.g. "Wow, you made a good point, I need to reconsider my position.")

7. The {{w|Wright brothers}} built the first airplane. Who built the last one?

Problem: Unknowable

Since airplanes are built continuously, there is no way to know who built the most recent one. Alternatively, if 'the last one' means 'the last one ''ever''', then it probably hasn't been built yet (and hopefully won't be built for a long time).

8. Is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?

Problem: Unknown, and possibly unknowable

This is {{w|Goldbach's conjecture|an open question}} in math.
Known as Goldbach's Conjecture, mathematicians widely believe that it is true, and it has held true for every number we've checked (and we've checked a great many numbers) but since almost all numbers have never been checked, we can't generalize that it will hold for ALL even numbers without proof. Since it is {{w|Gödel's incompleteness theorems|known}} that something can be true but impossible to prove or disprove, this may be the situation forever.

9. Not counting {{w|Canberra}}, what city is the capital of {{w|Australia}}?

Problem: No answer

Canberra is the capital of Australia. Sydney is larger and possibly more famous, so that asking the capital of Australia would be a good trivia question: people who know their capitals would respond with Canberra and less knowledgeable people would guess Sydney. Australia is divided into states and territories, each with its own capital, but this would leave multiple equally valid answers to the question. There is a cheeky answer too: "A".

10. Who played the drums?

Problem: Ambiguous

Lots of people have played {{w|drum|the drums}}{{cn}}, through the ages.
If this question asked who played the drums for a particular band or on a particular album, track, or performance, it would be an example of a good trivia question. As it is, it has many possible answers and no way to choose between them.

The alt-text bonus question: Where is {{w|London}} located? (a) The {{w|British Isles}} (b) {{w|Great Britain and Northern Ireland}} (c) The {{w|UK}} (d) {{w|Europe}} (or 'the {{w|EU}}') (e) Greater London

Problem: Multiple answers

All choices are technically correct as they are various geographical areas that include the city of London, England. (d) incorrectly conflates Europe, a geographical area that London is located in, with the EU, which the UK (and consequently London) has not been in since {{w|Brexit}} in 2020.


|}

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

{{comic discussion}}

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-26T15:54:13Z

172.70.86.9: /* Explanation */ Did I do that? Never mind, correcting.

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a {{w|hypothesis}} and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}}, {{w|puffery}} and insufficiently descriptive title of "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly promotional and insufficiently descriptive clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity due to the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]]. The title of a research article describing a novel organism will often contain the author(s) proposed {{w|Linnaean taxonomy|Linnaean}} name for it, which is granted as their prerogative within certain limitations.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8808/]

{{w|Empirical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' almost always state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which usually do not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s'', which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}}'', which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports'' (or ''{{w|case study|case studies}}'' — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of empirical analysis), which present data and a chronicle of its collection often without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''{{w|Conference proceeding|conference papers}}'', which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers'', which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways in prior work; ''{{w|Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|syntheses}}'', which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''{{w|Comparison|comparative studies}}'', which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''{{w|Interpretive discussion|interpretive}} papers'', showing a different perspective on previous work; ''{{w|technical report}}s'', which may present information on a specific procedural topic or progress and results, if any, in a field; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays'', which are intended to argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals'', which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical or logic research papers which don't involve empirical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an empirical investigation or a technical report. Empirical research articles which do present and test a hypothesis are usually written in [https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/writing-a-research-report-in-american-psychological-association-apa-style/ American Psychological Association (APA) style].

Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an empirical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they may be more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters" or "communications" as observational reports are often published. However, research articles describing the discovery of new {{w|microbe}}s in prestigious peer-reviewed journals are often published as observational reports,[https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004029][http://calamar.univ-ag.fr/mangroveSAE/articles/2022/Volland%20et%20al%202022.pdf][https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10482-021-01656-x] so Megan's concerns may be unfounded; even if so, the editors of any reputable journal would almost certainly require a far more descriptive and less overtly promotional title from Cueball. The question remains whether an initial submission with a catchy clickbait title might get more prompt attention from editors and reviewers.

In the title text, a {{w|conflict of interest}} statement says that the authors hope their results are correct because "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential conflict of interest usually refers to the authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict between the authors' {{w|Extrinsic motivation#Extrinsic|extrinsic motivation}}s and factors influencing the accuracy and neutrality of their work; in fact it claims the opposite, an alignment between their {{w|intrinsic motivation}}s and the goal of producing high quality work, which should go without saying.{{Citation needed}}

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to text boxes above them, showing a paper title followed by a cursor:]

:Paper title:
: ''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the title has changed:]

:Paper title:
: ''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-26T15:53:18Z

172.70.86.9: /* Explanation */ Commablitz, plus.

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a {{w|hypothesis}} and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}}, {{w|puffery}} and insufficiently descriptive ttitl of "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly promotional and insufficiently descriptive clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity due to the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]]. The title of a research article describing a novel organism will often contain the author(s) proposed {{w|Linnaean taxonomy|Linnaean}} name for it, which is granted as their prerogative within certain limitations.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8808/]

{{w|Empirical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' almost always state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which usually do not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s'', which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}}'', which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports'' (or ''{{w|case study|case studies}}'' — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of empirical analysis), which present data and a chronicle of its collection often without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''{{w|Conference proceeding|conference papers}}'', which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers'', which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways in prior work; ''{{w|Dialectic#Hegelian dialectic|syntheses}}'', which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''{{w|Comparison|comparative studies}}'', which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''{{w|Interpretive discussion|interpretive}} papers'', showing a different perspective on previous work; ''{{w|technical report}}s'', which may present information on a specific procedural topic or progress and results, if any, in a field; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays'', which are intended to argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals'', which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical or logic research papers which don't involve empirical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an empirical investigation or a technical report. Empirical research articles which do present and test a hypothesis are usually written in [https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/writing-a-research-report-in-american-psychological-association-apa-style/ American Psychological Association (APA) style].

Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an empirical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they may be more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters" or "communications" as observational reports are often published. However, research articles describing the discovery of new {{w|microbe}}s in prestigious peer-reviewed journals are often published as observational reports,[https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004029][http://calamar.univ-ag.fr/mangroveSAE/articles/2022/Volland%20et%20al%202022.pdf][https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10482-021-01656-x] so Megan's concerns may be unfounded; even if so, the editors of any reputable journal would almost certainly require a far more descriptive and less overtly promotional title from Cueball. The question remains whether an initial submission with a catchy clickbait title might get more prompt attention from editors and reviewers.

In the title text, a {{w|conflict of interest}} statement says that the authors hope their results are correct because "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential conflict of interest usually refers to the authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict between the authors' {{w|Extrinsic motivation#Extrinsic|extrinsic motivation}}s and factors influencing the accuracy and neutrality of their work; in fact it claims the opposite, an alignment between their {{w|intrinsic motivation}}s and the goal of producing high quality work, which should go without saying.{{Citation needed}}

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to text boxes above them, showing a paper title followed by a cursor:]

:Paper title:
: ''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the title has changed:]

:Paper title:
: ''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2698: Bad Date

2022-11-15T06:49:13Z

172.70.86.9:

{{comic
| number = 2698
| date = November 14, 2022
| title = Bad Date
| image = bad_date_2x.png
| imagesize = 666x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "Even split between us, this will pay way better than the Jumanji sponsorship I came into the date with."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT CAPITALIZING ON ITS SOCIAL LIFE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a spoof of Internet {{w|Influencer marketing|influencers}}. These are people with large social media followings who mention products in their videos in exchange for payment from the companies that produce these products, as a form of advertising.

In the comic, Megan and Cueball are not intentionally making a video, but someone around them is streaming a video of their date, because they were having an argument about the movie {{w|Jumanji}}. Megan realized that they can capitalize on this by getting a sponsor.

The argument then shifts to whether they're going to sleep together after the date. Cueball says he won't go home with Megan because she doesn't have the [[2096|mattress brand sold by their sponsor]]. She responds by pointing out a feature of that brand: their same-day delivery policy. This argument could easily be a TV commercial for the mattress, though Cueball's ultimate retort suggests (whether he wants it to or not) that that there still won't be a "happy ever after" conclusion to this play-acting, either fictionally or once real life resumes.

The title text hints, however, that Megan was already before the date going to promote the {{w|Jumanji (franchise)|Jumanji franchise}}, for her own gain. Megan's realization that she could not discuss this subject since Cueball had not seen it leads to her initial reaction starting their date to be shared, but not for the reason she had anticipated. But then when she sees they are still going viral, she is ready to use this new situation to bring in a lot of "mattress money". And as it turns out even when splitting with Cueball she will earn more. Since Cueball presumably came into the date with the intention of finding a romantic partner rather than gainin a sponsorship, he will probably get even less happy with Megan. Alternatively, as he plays along with her in the last frame, he sees this as an acceptable or even preferable arrangement (considering that the date wasn't going all too well in the first place).

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are sitting at a table in a restaurant with their meals still on their plate and filled wine glasses. Megan hands her cellphone over the table to Cueball.]
:Megan: ''Psst -- this date is going so badly that the people around us are posting it live. ''
:Megan: ''Look.''

:[Zoom in just on Cueball in his chair. He is holding the cellphone while he sees a video. What the video shows is shown above him in a frame. The "video" window shows a scene from earlier in their date. And below the picture there is a title and below that an eye with the number of followers shown. In the scene they are sitting as in the first panel, but both has their arms raised. Cueball's arms towards Megan and she has her arms above her head. Small lines from above her head from where her speech line comes out indicates that she is agitated and speaks loudly.]
:Megan in video: Unbelievable - Have you even ''seen'' Jumanji?
:Video caption: Date disaster 252k following
:Cueball: ''Oh no.''

:[Zoom in on Megan in her chair.]
:Megan: ''But it's okay: I got us a sponsorship.''
:Megan: ''You just need to play along...''

:[Scene expands to include the two nearest people at the two nearby tables. Both are typing frantically at their phones, (indicated with vibration lines on either side of their phones), using both hands, to document the date disaster live. Ponytail is to the left of them with food on her plate and a glass of water on her table and Hairy is to the right with a wine glass on his table. Cueball has raised one hand with a finger pointing up. Megan points a finger towards Cueball but is looking down at her phone held up in the other hand, to check their following.]
:Cueball: I could '''''never''''' go home with someone with such bad taste in mattresses. I need the soft support of the ProFirm 3000.®
:Megan: Wait, I can order one! With same-day delivery, it can-
:Cueball: '''You had your chance.'''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

Talk:870: Advertising

2022-11-06T16:29:45Z

172.70.86.9:

Am I confused, or is the the third graph wrong with the independent and dependent variables. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.95|172.68.132.95]] 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
But the Geico commercial doesn't say up to, it says 15% or more... ~Jfreund
:That may depend on your region. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.30|108.162.216.30]] 03:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
:Saying that something "could save you 15% or more" and saying it "could save you ''up to'' 15% or more" are the same thing. Both statements take into account the very real possibility that some percentage less than 15 could be saved.[[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that Geico says "'''Could''' save you..." (In combination with "up to", the "could" should be "will".) [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 03:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A justification for "The more you buy, the more you save" is that the more discounted products you buy, the more money you save as opposed to buying them at list price. For things we will buy anyway (e.g. food), it may be true. --[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 20:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
:Added to the article. --[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 04:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
::It doesn't work when the items can expire. [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 14:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::it does to a certain point- my family can eat a lot of food before it expires, especially if it's something we like. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.163}}
:It's true if calculated in price-per-unit-bought. A 100-pack of something often costs less than 10 packs of 10 each. Still, without the "per item" qualifier, it's not really a true statement.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.55.16|172.70.55.16]] 16:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant comic Randall. I wonder what your next one is about.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 00:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the title text imply that Randall realised nothing is truly free and concluded that Santa wanted something from him, prompting his parents to reveal the big secret? (I conclude this based on Randall claiming that these two events are related) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.49|141.101.104.49]] 21:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that "up to x or more" must necessarily be true, how can it be "construed as false advertising?" Meaningless advertising, yes; false, no.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 04:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just spent 2% of my life looking for the fine print to that FREE* drink
(* given during time of kidney-harvesting scam test. Limit one per customer. No purchase necessary to win. Please see rules to apply.)[[User:Beastachu|Beastachu]] ([[User talk:Beastachu|talk]]) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the expression in panel 2 be (x+1)/n, not x/(n+1)? If we define Y as how much each person pays, then the company would earn $YN. YN > X ---> YN = X + 1 ---> Y = (X + 1)/N.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.144|162.158.255.144]] 03:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
:Randall defines N as the number of people ''other than you'' who read the flier. Therefore the total number of people who got the flier is N+1. The advertiser spent $X to produce the flier and assuming that it wants to make a profit on the advertisement, it needs to make at least X/(N+1) on average for each person that gets the flier. Given this your equation should be $Y(N+1) > X not $YN > X because the total number of people is N+1. Obviously Y(N+1) > X ---> Y > X/(N+1), which is exactly what we already found out. I'm not really clear on how you get the transformation YN > X ---> YN = X + 1.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.60.11|162.158.60.11]] 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
::I just came across this comic and noticed, that the 2nd one is not necessarily true, as the add can also have influence on other people who not read it (e.g. me telling my brother to come with me to the great place offering free oranges), and also they do not care if it is money moving in from me or other places. If they e.g. just harvest my data, the money flows from a company buying my data to them.--[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've always been "mathematically annoyed" by 'X% off' signs (like "40% off"). OFF from what? From the price they asked for beforehand? But they couldn't sell this particular unit for that price; maybe they didn't even sell any unit at that price (and, even if they did, they clearly got more units to sell than available buyers at that price). So, the X% off is from a meaningless seller-wishful-thinking number, not anything resembling a fair market value (where willing sellers and willing buyers meet). [[User:Danshoham|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham|talk]]) 03:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
:You forget, that the fair market value is usually found in a process, in which the buyer goes in with a low price and the seller with a high price, until they find the "fair" price, somewhere in between. Part of this process can be to advertise, as a seller, that you are now willing to try finding the sweet spot x% below what was originally asked. So this is very much in line with the usual concept of supply and demand. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
:At least one local art supplier offers 40% off list price for custom frames. All the time. (Except when they run a 60% off sale.) It's % off of list price, not necessarily what it would actually be sold for. Unfortunately the same is true of some medical billing in the US - most basic blood tests are "billed" for $200+, but the insurance discount brings it down to <$20, before the insurance company pays anything.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.55.16|172.70.55.16]] 16:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:You could also have a "[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lossleader.asp loss leader]" kind of situation, where the reduced price does represent a loss to the seller, as an attempt to attract customers who may also purchase other, more profitable items. [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 14:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The one that annoys me is "save x% off Y!" You would SAVE x% ON something, or GET x% OFF something - not SAVE x% OFF! [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 14:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
: I think I actually mentioned this in an Edit Summary for something, recently (not sure where or when, except probably this wiki, and no expectation of it actually even being noticed... But, as we're talking about it now...): "Up to 50% off!" Effectively "We may or may not discount anything, but certainly there's nothing at ''less'' than half the pre-deal price...", but it pulls the mental levers in a more attractive way than it should do. (And is a subset of the "Up to 15% or more" item in the first panel, as I have just realised by looking at the comic related to this Talk page.)
: On the 'really the wrong way round' front, I have a mental flinch whenever I see a bus service plastered with something like "<this scheduled service> Every 15 Minutes Or More!" - ironically, often seen on a Sunday when its route is actually reduced to an arrival every hour (which is indeed more than 15 minutes!), for a far shorter total timespan of the day, or the fancy route-branded bus is actually conspicuously doing the Sunday service of a completely different route (also at lowered frequency) than its weekday/possibly-Saturday commuter/shopping/etc provision, just because unspecifically-liveried vehicles are being maintained and this is one of the free ones currently available and unnecessary for its branded-route. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.172|172.70.90.172]] 16:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)