explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1418: Horse

2023-05-17T23:52:30Z

172.71.154.158: No, sorry. This is apparently unrelated to the comic.

*May the horse be with you Luke.
*The horse is strong with this one.
*I felt a tremor in the horse.
Why did he forget SW. That is not like Randall ;) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
: I gotta think maybe Randall's making a subtle statement that Star Wars just ain't so relevant these days... [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
::They are all news headlines [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 17:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
: Yeah, I'm surprised that the mouseover-text wasn't "Use the horse, Luke." or something. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.183|162.158.69.183]] 14:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

----

Following up on the title text... "Why was he suspended?" "Due to allegations of excessive horse."

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.201|173.245.56.201]] 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Siuntio

So I linked it to the old substitutions page - gjgfuj [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.219|108.162.250.219]] 10:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Like the "Clouds-to-butts" plugin for Chrome. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.231}}
:More information in Reddit [http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/24odjt/cloud_to_butts_extension/]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 14:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a modified version of Cloud-to-Butt plugin [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0mswga09c5uf9h4/cloud2butt2.xpi?dl=0 to my dropbox]. All credit for coding/programming goes to [https://github.com/DaveRandom/cloud-to-butt-mozilla Steven Frank], its creator - I just unpacked the XPI file, added the Force->Horse and force->horse text replacement (while of course still keeping "the cloud" going to "my butt" because that is awesome) and then repacked it. You can install it in Firefox like any other .XPI file. Enjoy! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.221|108.162.221.221]] 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

:I edited your comment. I suppose you meant "Force->Horse" but it was written "Horse->Horse", probably as a consequence of the plugin in action. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

----

Would it be funny the other way?
*The force population has been in decline since the industrial revolution
*Rules of polo: You need a force.
*People do not like it when there is force in their beef.
*A force is running at 9 meters per second and tries to catch up with a car (from physics textbook)

I do ;) —[[User:Artyer|Artyer]] ([[User talk:Artyer|talk]]) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
:+1 for the reference to a certain beef production incident in europe [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.61|141.101.70.61]] 17:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

----
Correctforcebatterystaple [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.163|173.245.56.163]] 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I originally (earlier today) read it as "Iraqi Air [FH]orse grow'''l'''ing"... Which made less sense than I'd have expected, but I couldn't unread it until just now. Still surreal, but at least not outright Dada[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.233|141.101.98.233]] 00:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"A police horse is a constituted body of persons empowered by the state to enhorse the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder. (...) Law enhorsement, however, constitutes only part of policing activity." --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.161|141.101.104.161]] 07:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

maybe the officer suspended from horse was a reference to the police officer who shot a black person? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.106|108.162.254.106]] 07:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Aqua teen hunger horse. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.226|108.162.246.226]] 00:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

----

I had previously posted a grumpy comment here (now removed) --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry, but that's totally wrong. The discussion section is meant to replace what used to be the old blog's comments section, and is for any discussion relevant to the comic. If you're new here, there's a section on the main page titled "New Here?" which explains the basics of explainxkcd, and it's worth checking out. It also lists the handful of rules we have, including the fact that the discussion page is for talking about the comic. [[User:Az|Az]] ([[User talk:Az|talk]]) 06:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry about that, and thanks for the pointer. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

----
Explanation Quarks:
Sorry, could not resist... [[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 11:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How about the portion of the Police Horse who are on forceback? {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.170}}

Last time XKCD featured one of these text replacements, people started posting scripts for implementing the text replacement automatically in browsers. I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 22:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

:A few comments back... [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

http://bitcoinshell.mooo.com/users/noiob/dev/horse.user.js Here you go. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.179|141.101.104.179]] 16:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

----
Interestingly, a sound change from an initial /f/ to /h/ happened in the evolution of Spanish. Examples: fornax --> horno, ferrum --> hierro, factus --> hecho. Of course, all h's subsequently went silent. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.171}}

Cueball is using a desktop computer. Perhaps this will be the last desktop in xkcd? In the last 8 months its been all laptops. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.99}}

That first one certainly hits differently now. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.145|172.70.90.145]] 21:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
:Only by some order of magnitude or so. Without looking up the exact dates, the comic was likely topically soon after the initial Crimea-grab and initiation of the 'hot' Donbas internal conflict with the 'rebels'. Including a somewhat more covert presence of actual Russians, back then, but only to 'deniable' levels, and even then not convincingly so to anybody who cared.
:Maybe it makes it less funny, now, or should have been considered less funny then, but I'm not sure this makes it so that it is/was bad-humour. Doesn't change the reality, for better or worse, though.
:Future readers may be more shocked, or more bemused, of course. I can only wave to The Future (hiya!) and hope they properly understand our current and prior perspectives. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.137|162.158.159.137]] 23:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

----
I'm no linguist, but "Force" rhymes with "horse". [[What If]] the word "force" as a ''verb'' get replaced by "horse"? Also there is "''horse''power" which measures power, not force. And, you know, the phoneme "f" and "h" sound very similar in some languages. [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 08:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

2738: Omniknot

2023-02-17T08:17:26Z

172.71.154.158: /* Explanation */ define terms where used

{{comic
| number = 2738
| date = February 15, 2023
| title = Omniknot
| image = omniknot_2x.png
| imagesize = 358x288px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Gordian knot is an omniknot tied using every bend in the Ashley Book of Knots, and then for extra security the upper rope at every crossing is connected to the lower with a randomly-chosen hitch.
}}

==Explanation==

{{incomplete|Created by THE KNOTTED OMNIBOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do KNOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic jokes that if you have several potential {{w|knot}}s which could be tied in a given situation, rather than being forced to choose one, you can simply use all of them and create the comic's "Omniknot." The prefix omni- means "all", and so the "all-knot" is the knot containing all the other knots (...that one knows).

Knots in the middle, from top to bottom:
* {{w|Granny knot}}: A knot that easily comes undone in isolation; usually the result of an improperly tied reef knot. Based upon the visible ends of rope (followed through further knots), could technically be considered a {{w|Grief knot}}.
* {{w|Reef knot}}: Also known as the square knot, one of the most commonly tied by amateurs. But a poor and possibly dangerous choice as a load-bearing bend, as it has a tendency to {{w|Knot#Capsizing|'capsize'}} and untie itself, if the ropes aren't inhibited by other adjacent knots. (A "bend" is a knot that connects two ropes or lines.) Could also be described as a {{w|Thief knot}}, from the visible continuation of the 'ends' as followed through other elements of the omniknot.
* {{w|Sheet bend}}: Similar to the bowline, a popular, all-round good choice, especially if one rope is thinner than the other (the loop should be on the thinner rope).
* {{w|Double sheet bend}}: A more secure version of the previous knot, especially if one rope is much thinner than the other.
* {{w|Carrick bend}}: A very good bend, especially if both ropes are similar in kind and thickness. 

On the sides are {{w|bowline}}s and each rope is terminated by a {{w|figure-eight knot}}.

The {{w|Gordian Knot}} mentioned in the title text is a knot which purportedly was extraordinarily complex and nearly impossible to untie. According to legend, when Alexander the Great was faced with the knot, he simply drew his sword and cut it in half, thereby "untying" it and solving the unsolvable. The Gordian Knot is now used as a linguistic metaphor to describe a problem whose solution, rather than being to directly solve it head-on, involves working around or otherwise bypassing its apparent constraints, or simply one that is so complex as to be practically intractable.

{{w|The Ashley Book of Knots}} is an encyclopedia describing thousands of different knots. Though it is now dated, because it was written before the widespread adoption of synthetic fiber rope, it is still considered the reference in knot tying. Using all bends from the book and as many hitches would make the final result very complex indeed. Randall proposes here that this was the true origin of the mythical Gordian Knot. A "hitch" is a knot that connects a rope or line to something like a post, loop, or shackle.

In practice, it is knot recommended to use overly complex knots, as they provide little in terms of additional security compared to a simpler, well-chosen knot. The ease of tying and untying, especially in less than ideal conditions, is also an important factor to consider. If strength is more important than the ease of tying and untying, {{w|Rope splicing|splices}} should be considered instead of knots, as they don't weaken the rope as much.

==Transcript==
:[Two ropes tied together with several different kinds of knots. The ropes enter from left and right. The left rope proceeds to go up where the right rope goes down. But then they interact to form five knots in the middle of the drawing. Following each rope will show the left to interweave the right rope from top to bottom, and vice versa. At the bottom the left rope swings back to where it began going up, ties a knot with itself at the start and the end of the left rope then goes to the right of this knot and ends in another small knot. Similarly the right rope goes back to the right at the top and forms a similar knot with itself, before the end of the rope goes left and ends in the same type of small knot as the left rope. There are thus five knots using both ropes, and two knots on each rope with itself, and the entire thing is yet another combined titular Omniknot, for ten knots in total. There is a caption below the panel:]
:If you know several knots and can't figure out which one to use, just tie one of each.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Fiction]]

2719: Hydrogen Isotopes

2023-01-06T09:37:01Z

172.71.154.158: /* Explanation */ oops lol!

{{comic
| number = 2719
| date = January 2, 2023
| title = Hydrogen Isotopes
| image = hydrogen_isotopes_2x.png
| imagesize = 442x250px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Oops, All Neutrons is also known as Neutral Quadrium, Nydnonen, and Goth Tritium.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BREAK ROOM DE BROGLIE MICROWAVE USER. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{W|Hydrogen}} is the simplest of the chemical atoms, usually consisting of an electron orbiting a lone proton, but with two other naturally occurring {{w|isotope}}s. This comic shows real and humorously fictional forms of hydrogen, generally depicted according to the {{w|Discovery of the neutron#Proton–neutron model of the nucleus|Chadwick model}} of the atom; see [[2100: Models of the Atom]] for details.

{| class="wikitable"
! "Isotope"
! Real?
! Description
|-
|Hydrogen
|Yes
|Hydrogen-1 is the most common isotope of hydrogen, with one proton and one electron, ordinarily depicted with the electron orbiting the central proton. It is also occasionally known as protium.
|-
|Deuterium
|Yes
|{{w|Deuterium}} is the second most common isotope of hydrogen, with one electron and both a neutron and proton in its nucleus. About one of every 6,760 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium. Its chemical symbol is D, or [[2614: 2|2H]], and it's also called heavy hydrogen or hydrogen-2.
|-
|Tritium
|Yes
|{{w|Tritium}} is the third most common isotope of hydrogen, with an electron orbiting a nucleus of one proton and two neutrons to give it an atomic mass of about three {{w|Dalton (unit)|daltons}}. It is radioactive with a half-life of about twelve years and is very rare (but not as rare as unbound "instant hydrogen" neutrons). It can also be designated as hydrogen-3, with the symbol T or, more often, 3H.
|-
|Ium
|Only in the lab
|This is a free electron orbiting around nothing. Following the naming of the heavier hydrogen isotopes, where a prefix designating the number of {{w|nucleons}} is followed by the suffix "-ium", the lack of a nucleus is designated here by the absence of a prefix. A free electron will not circle around nothing but ''will'' react to electromagnetic fields. A {{w|Penning trap}} can confine electrons to move in circles.
|-
|Wheelium
|No
|This fictional form consists of a proton, electron and neutron orbiting around nothing, with the appearance of all rotating as if on a wheel rim. The neutron could bind to the proton, but will more likely {{w|Elastic_scattering#Nuclear particle physics|elastically scatter}} away.
|-
|Instant hydrogen (ready in 15 minutes)
|Yes, but rare[https://radioactivity.eu.com/phenomenon/neutronic_radiation]
|This is just a single neutron. An unbound neutron will decay into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino, with a mean lifetime of just under fifteen minutes. The proton and electron ''can'' form into a hydrogen atom, but that only happens [https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/1207 about four times in a million]. The name is likely a reference to "instant" food, such as noodles, which are reduced for convenience and can be quickly reconstituted when required.
|-
|Hydrogen (maximum strength)
|No
|This fictional isotope consists of an electron, a proton, and what appear to be at least 14 neutrons. It can not be created by natural or artificial means,{{Actual citation needed}} but if it was, it would immediately decay by {{w|Nuclear drip line|dripping}} most all of the neutons away, producing a large amount of energy. "Maximum strength" may be a reference to over-the-counter medicines that contain the largest quantity of active ingredients permitted.
|-
|Oops, All Neutrons
|Extremely unlikely
|This fictional form consists of four neutrons, with one orbiting around a group of three. As the existence of {{w|tetraneutron|tetraneutrons}} is still uncertain, their possible configurations are unknown, but the depicted configuration is very unlikely given the characteristics of fundamental forces. The name is probably a reference to an American breakfast cereal called {{w|Cap'n Crunch#Variations|Oops! All Berries}}, which has also been referenced in [[2256]].
|}

The title text provides three other names for Oops, All Neutrons:
# "Neutral Quadrium": {{w|Isotopes_of_hydrogen#Hydrogen-4|Quadrium}} is the extremely rare artificial isotope hydrogen-4, with a proton and three neutrons.[https://www.chem.ccu.edu.tw/~hu/Web_Lib/articles/Muonium+H2_Science_2011.pdf][https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GodesRcontrolled.pdf] The proton and electron have been replaced with neutrons.
# "Nydnonen" is the word "hydrogen" with three consonants replaced by the letter 'n' so that it has four of them, representing the four neutrons.
# "Goth Tritium": All the particles in the depiction are black, resembling typical {{w|gothic fashion}}, and in the same configuration as the particles of tritium.

==Transcript==
:[Eight drawings of different versions of hydrogen atoms are shown. They are arranged in two rows of four. The depictions use the planetary model version with for instance a negative electron (with a "-" written inside a small circle) orbiting a positive proton (with a "+" written inside a larger circle) and a black neutron depicted as a circle of the same size as the neutron, as in the second atom - Deuterium. Each has a label underneath. Here, they are listed in reading order:]
:[An electron orbiting a proton:]
:Hydrogen

:[An electron orbiting a proton connected with a neutron:]
:Deuterium

:[An electron orbiting a proton connected with two neutrons, so that they form a triangle:]
:Tritium

:[An electron orbiting nothing:]
:Ium

:[An electron, a proton and a neutron placed equidistant from each other on the same circular orbit around nothing:]
:Wheelium

:[A single neutron:]
:Instant Hydrogen (ready in 15 minutes)

:[An electron orbiting a proton connected with many neutrons, 13 visible with six touching the proton which are in front. Four more are close to those six and mostly shown and then three are only just visible behind the others. Looking closely there are also two smaller dots near the edge indicating at least two more, for 15 that can be seen. And several more would be behind the visible neutrons if this forms a spherical shape. The electron's orbit just barely goes around the outer neutrons:]
:Hydrogen (maximum strength)

:[Four neutrons, arranged like the particles in Tritium but with a neutron orbiting a triangle of neutrons.]
:Oops, All Neutrons

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

2719: Hydrogen Isotopes

2023-01-06T09:35:37Z

172.71.154.158: /* Explanation */ actual citation needed

{{comic
| number = 2719
| date = January 2, 2023
| title = Hydrogen Isotopes
| image = hydrogen_isotopes_2x.png
| imagesize = 442x250px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Oops, All Neutrons is also known as Neutral Quadrium, Nydnonen, and Goth Tritium.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BREAK ROOM DE BROGLIE MICROWAVE USER. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{W|Hydrogen}} is the simplest of the chemical atoms, usually consisting of an electron orbiting a lone proton, but with two other naturally occurring {{w|isotope}}s. This comic shows real and humorously fictional forms of hydrogen, generally depicted according to the {{w|Discovery of the neutron#Proton–neutron model of the nucleus|Chadwick model}} of the atom; see [[2100: Models of the Atom]] for details.

{| class="wikitable"
! "Isotope"
! Real?
! Description
|-
|Hydrogen
|Yes
|Hydrogen-1 is the most common isotope of hydrogen, with one proton and one electron, ordinarily depicted with the electron orbiting the central proton. It is also occasionally known as protium.
|-
|Deuterium
|Yes
|{{w|Deuterium}} is the second most common isotope of hydrogen, with one electron and both a neutron and proton in its nucleus. About one of every 6,760 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium. Its chemical symbol is D, or [[2614: 2|2H]], and it's also called heavy hydrogen or hydrogen-2.
|-
|Tritium
|Yes
|{{w|Tritium}} is the third most common isotope of hydrogen, with an electron orbiting a nucleus of one proton and two neutrons to give it an atomic mass of about three {{w|Dalton (unit)|daltons}}. It is radioactive with a half-life of about twelve years and is very rare (but not as rare as unbound "instant hydrogen" neutrons). It can also be designated as hydrogen-3, with the symbol T or, more often, 3H.
|-
|Ium
|Only in the lab
|This is a free electron orbiting around nothing. Following the naming of the heavier hydrogen isotopes, where a prefix designating the number of {{w|nucleons}} is followed by the suffix "-ium", the lack of a nucleus is designated here by the absence of a prefix. A free electron will not circle around nothing but ''will'' react to electromagnetic fields. A {{w|Penning trap}} can confine electrons to move in circles.
|-
|Wheelium
|No
|This fictional form consists of a proton, electron and neutron orbiting around nothing, with the appearance of all rotating as if on a wheel rim. The neutron could bind to the proton, but will more likely {{w|Elastic_scattering#Nuclear particle physics|elastically scatter}} away.
|-
|Instant hydrogen (ready in 15 minutes)
|Yes, but rare[https://radioactivity.eu.com/phenomenon/neutronic_radiation]
|This is just a single neutron. An unbound neutron will decay into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino, with a mean lifetime of just under fifteen minutes. The proton and electron ''can'' form into a hydrogen atom, but that only happens [https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/1207 about four times in a million]. The name is likely a reference to "instant" food, such as noodles, which are reduced for convenience and can be quickly reconstituted when required.
|-
|Hydrogen (maximum strength)
|No
|This fictional isotope consists of an electron, a proton, and what appear to be at least 14 neutrons. It can not be created by natural or artificial means,{{actual citation needed}} but if it was, it would immediately decay by {{w|Nuclear drip line|dripping}} most all of the neutons away, producing a large amount of energy. "Maximum strength" may be a reference to over-the-counter medicines that contain the largest quantity of active ingredients permitted.
|-
|Oops, All Neutrons
|Extremely unlikely
|This fictional form consists of four neutrons, with one orbiting around a group of three. As the existence of {{w|tetraneutron|tetraneutrons}} is still uncertain, their possible configurations are unknown, but the depicted configuration is very unlikely given the characteristics of fundamental forces. The name is probably a reference to an American breakfast cereal called {{w|Cap'n Crunch#Variations|Oops! All Berries}}, which has also been referenced in [[2256]].
|}

The title text provides three other names for Oops, All Neutrons:
# "Neutral Quadrium": {{w|Isotopes_of_hydrogen#Hydrogen-4|Quadrium}} is the extremely rare artificial isotope hydrogen-4, with a proton and three neutrons.[https://www.chem.ccu.edu.tw/~hu/Web_Lib/articles/Muonium+H2_Science_2011.pdf][https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GodesRcontrolled.pdf] The proton and electron have been replaced with neutrons.
# "Nydnonen" is the word "hydrogen" with three consonants replaced by the letter 'n' so that it has four of them, representing the four neutrons.
# "Goth Tritium": All the particles in the depiction are black, resembling typical {{w|gothic fashion}}, and in the same configuration as the particles of tritium.

==Transcript==
:[Eight drawings of different versions of hydrogen atoms are shown. They are arranged in two rows of four. The depictions use the planetary model version with for instance a negative electron (with a "-" written inside a small circle) orbiting a positive proton (with a "+" written inside a larger circle) and a black neutron depicted as a circle of the same size as the neutron, as in the second atom - Deuterium. Each has a label underneath. Here, they are listed in reading order:]
:[An electron orbiting a proton:]
:Hydrogen

:[An electron orbiting a proton connected with a neutron:]
:Deuterium

:[An electron orbiting a proton connected with two neutrons, so that they form a triangle:]
:Tritium

:[An electron orbiting nothing:]
:Ium

:[An electron, a proton and a neutron placed equidistant from each other on the same circular orbit around nothing:]
:Wheelium

:[A single neutron:]
:Instant Hydrogen (ready in 15 minutes)

:[An electron orbiting a proton connected with many neutrons, 13 visible with six touching the proton which are in front. Four more are close to those six and mostly shown and then three are only just visible behind the others. Looking closely there are also two smaller dots near the edge indicating at least two more, for 15 that can be seen. And several more would be behind the visible neutrons if this forms a spherical shape. The electron's orbit just barely goes around the outer neutrons:]
:Hydrogen (maximum strength)

:[Four neutrons, arranged like the particles in Tritium but with a neutron orbiting a triangle of neutrons.]
:Oops, All Neutrons

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

2719: Hydrogen Isotopes

2023-01-03T07:47:29Z

172.71.154.158: /* Explanation */ what would happen

2719: Hydrogen Isotopes

2023-01-03T07:14:35Z

172.71.154.158: Scroll down

2716: Game Night Ordering

2022-12-28T03:04:00Z

172.71.154.158: reword based on what's reasonable

{{comic
| number = 2716
| date = December 26, 2022
| title = Game Night Ordering
| image = game_night_ordering_2x.png
| imagesize = 293x471px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = One good trick, if you get called on a fake service, is to build a working version of it and mention it again the next week.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BORED FOOD.NET DRIVER BETWEEN DELIVERIES. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is poking fun at the proliferation of apps and internet services such as for [https://builtin.com/consumer-tech/food-delivery-companies food delivery] and [https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/best-ways-to-send-money money transfer]. The characters are discussing which to use during an evening of tabletop gaming. The group has a running competition to see who can mention fake apps or services without being called out. The idea being that since there are so many, it is difficult to remember which are real.

[[Cueball]] mentions three food delivery services, {{w|Grubhub}}, {{w|DoorDash}}, and Food.net, and [[Ponytail]] asks him to reimburse her using {{w|Venmo}}, {{w|PayPal}}, or Yahoo Cash. Cueball expresses skepticism about Yahoo Cash, after which Ponytail admits it's a fake service and is thus obligated to pay for Cueball's meal. (Incidentally, Yahoo does provide a money transfer service to facilitate private party gambling on {{w|fantasy sports}}, called [https://sports.yahoo.com/wallet/dailyfantasy/referafriend/ Yahoo Fantasy Wallet], but it uses PayPal.) Food.net, which Cueball mentioned without being called out, is not a real service; https://food.net exists but is "not available for use," and is not related to food.

Based on Ponytail's offer, if someone is correctly called out then they apparently must pay for the player who caught them, but what happens when a player isn't caught (e.g. when Cueball mentioned Food.net) isn't clear. The rules might be similar to variants of the card game often known as "{{w|Cheat (game)|Cheat}}," in which a successful bluff merely allows play to continue on until someone is caught bluffing or incorrectly accuses another player.

The title text offers a tip for winning the competition after being called out for mentioning a fake service: building a working version of it and then mentioning it again the next week. While it could be possible to prototype a user interface and possibly use it to perform food deliveries with a very limited number of drivers in a small area, or provide a front end interface to an existing money transfer service with strong API support, building a full-fledged viable service for either in a week is humorously beyond the reach of typical gamers.

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

:[Cueball, Megan, and Ponytail are sitting at a table to order food. Cueball is on his phone, and Ponytail, sitting opposite, on her laptop.]
:Cueball: What should we use to order? Grubhub? DoorDash? Food.net?
:Ponytail: I'll do Grubhub; you can send me money. Do you do Venmo? Paypal? Yahoo Cash?
:Cueball: Yahoo Cash ''has'' to be fake.
:Ponytail: Yes. Dang. I'll get your share.
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Our game night has an ongoing competition to see who can mention the most fake apps and services without getting called on it.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Games]]

2713: Data Point

2022-12-21T00:11:10Z

172.71.154.158: /* Explanation */ never say never.

{{comic
| number = 2713
| date = December 19, 2022
| title = Data Point
| image = data_point_2x.png
| imagesize = 315x409px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In general you should only include your single best data point in the paper. The rest of the data can go in the supplementary materials.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a REALLY COOL DATA POINT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

When scientific measurements are made, the conclusions are almost always based on many data points observed in relation to each other. The comic jokes that a single data point can somehow be of such interest in isolation that the other data may be disregarded. In reality, a single datum can almost never represent what the information in the related data taken together indicate.

[[Randall]]'s caption states that a figure illustrating a single datum thus constitutes a "science power move." (Similarly to the [[:Category:Science tip|science tips]] of previous comics.)

This is most likely intended as factitious satire, because the purpose of a chart or graph figure is to present multiple data which would be less clear than tabular or textual data, so there is rarely any reason to devote a figure to a single datum, regardless of its importance. (A counterexample might be when an interesting {{w|eigenvector}} or {{w|matrix decomposition}} is characterized, but either would only occur when such a datum is highly dimensional.) It also could be a joke about papers which only highlight particularly interesting or significant data without including the background measurements or similar mundane information necessary to fully understand or reproduce the findings. While there are [https://www.aje.com/en/arc/data-not-shown-4-reasons-omit-figure-or-table/ accepted reasons for this practice,] it can be annoying when trying to follow an otherwise useful procedure or comparing aspects of the results the authors did not anticipate.

The title text suggests relegating all the other data to supplementary materials, presumably to avoid detracting from the single "cool" datum.

==Transcript==

:[A graph is shown. There are regularly spaced unreadable labels along both axes. In the center there is a single data point with short symmetrical vertical error bars. The graph is dominated by a round white center behind the point from where brilliant white lines emanate out radially in all directions, filling most of the background area, and looking like a star or the sun. Beneath the graph there are two lines of unreadable caption text to the left, next to a rectangular legend box on the right with one dot, indicating the data point, and an unreadable label. Above the graph it is titled:]

:Figure 2.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Science power move: When one of your data points is really cool, devote a whole figure to it.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

2713: Data Point

2022-12-20T10:06:04Z

172.71.154.158: /* Explanation */ subjective interpretation and incorrect description of the caption; reword

{{comic
| number = 2713
| date = December 19, 2022
| title = Data Point
| image = data_point_2x.png
| imagesize = 315x409px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In general you should only include your single best data point in the paper. The rest of the data can go in the supplementary materials.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a REALLY COOL DATA POINT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

When scientific measurements are made, the conclusions are almost always based on many data points observed in relation to each other. The comic jokes that a single data point can somehow be of sufficient interest in isolation that the other data may be disregarded. In reality, a single datum can almost never represent what the information in the related data taken together indicate.

[[Randall]]'s caption suggests such a figure constitutes a "science power move." (Similarly to [[:Category:Science tip|science tips]] of previous comics.)

This is most likely intended as factitious satire, because the purpose of a chart or graph figure is to present multiple data which would be less clear than tabular or textual data, so there is never any reason to devote a figure to a single datum, regardless of its importance. It is could be a joke about papers which only highlight particularly interesting or significant data without including the background measurements or similar mundane information necessary to fully understand or reproduce the findings. While there are [https://www.aje.com/en/arc/data-not-shown-4-reasons-omit-figure-or-table/ accepted reasons for this practice,] it can be annoying when trying to follow an otherwise useful procedure or comparing aspects of the results the authors did not anticipate.

The title text suggests relegating all the other data to supplementary materials, presumably to avoid detracting from the single "cool" datum.

==Transcript==

:[A graph is shown. There are regularly spaced unreadable labels along both axes. In the center there is a single data point with short symmetrical vertical error bars. The graph is dominated by a round white center behind the point from where brilliant white lines emanate out radially in all directions, filling most of the background area, and looking like a star or the sun. Beneath the graph there are two lines of unreadable caption text to the left, next to a rectangular legend box on the right with one dot, indicating the data point, and a n unreadable label. Above the graph it is titled:]

:Figure 2.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Science power move: When one of your data points is really cool, devote a whole figure to it.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

2708: Mystery Asterisk Destination

2022-12-09T01:37:46Z

172.71.154.158: 859

{{comic
| number = 2708
| date = December 7, 2022
| title = Mystery Asterisk Destination
| image = mystery_asterisk_destination_2x.png
| imagesize = 288x248px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you ever see the † dagger symbol with no unmatched footnote, it means the writer is saying the phrase while threatening you with a dagger.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT*. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.†}}

This comic is a reference to the use of asterisks and other symbols for footnotes or endnotes. It indicates that when asterisks appear after words without corresponding footnotes, they are in fact referring to this comic.

It offers closure for missing footnotes (not entirely dissimilar to [[391: Anti-Mindvirus]], and so has an effect opposite of the unmatched parenthesis in [[859: (]].

In many contexts, an asterisk or a dagger does not refer to a footnote, and consequently does not constitute a mystery asterisk or dagger even if alone. These include programming languages and math, which regularly use asterisks for various reasons such as for the multiplication operator, as well as dates of birth and death, which particularly in some European countries is indicated with an asterisk and a dagger respectively.

The title text reveals that unmatched instances of † (a dagger; a symbol for a secondary footnote) are threats being made by the author to the reader with a physical dagger. As of this writing, it states "If you ever see the † dagger symbol with no '''''un'''''matched footnote…", forming a double negative. This is likely a typo. A likely reading appears to be “…dagger symbol with no matching footnote…”. However, if this is the case, then it means that Randall is threatening the reader with a dagger.

==Transcript==
:[A blank panel with text at the bottom.]
:'''*'''Whenever you see a mystery asterisk that doesn't have a matching footnote, it points here.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2707: Astronomy Numbers

2022-12-06T18:16:00Z

172.71.154.158: 14-20 words

First time I've ever seen a completely blank page. [[User:IJustWantToEditStuff|IJustWantToEditStuff]] ([[User talk:IJustWantToEditStuff|talk]]) 20:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:Everyone's enthralled by ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.35|172.69.22.35]] 04:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's also notable that something weighting 12 solar masses will collapse into black hole on it's own, unless it resist collapse through thermal pressure like stars. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
: But not cats, because cats have hair, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem black holes have no hair]. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.186.94|172.71.186.94]] 18:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Earth moves relative to the sun at 66,000 MPH. In what frame of reference is it 65 MPH? It isn't like Randall to get a number wrong. Maybe the magnitude of the distance from Earth to Sun changes at a closer rate, but even this is nearly 180 MPH if I'm calculating correctly. [[User:Mannerisky|Mannerisky]] ([[User talk:Mannerisky|talk]]) 21:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
: You're thinking orbital speed, she's talking orbital oscillation. That is, the speed at which the distance between earth and sun changes. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.240|198.41.242.240]] 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC) ADDITION: Orbital oscillation has both a mean/average factor and a current factor (which is at it slowest while at the apsides, and given the context the one being calculated) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.85|198.41.242.85]] 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I get the sense that the thing that they're planning for January 1st is a precisely-timed new year's party and nothing to do with space exploration. {{unsigned|172.71.242.156}}

; Obligatory ChatGPT explanation

:'''Me:''' The following is a transcript from the latest xkcd comic. Please write an explanation of the comic: ''[transcript copied verbatim from [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2707:_Astronomy_Numbers&oldid=300614#Transcript its current state] omitted]''

:'''[https://chat.openai.com/chat ChatGPT:]''' In the xkcd comic, Ponytail and Cueball are discussing Earth's orbit around the sun. Ponytail notes that Earth will be approaching the sun at a rate of 65 miles per hour on January 1st. Cueball responds, "Weird?" Ponytail explains that they usually see only complex and incomprehensible numbers in astronomy, and seeing a "normal" number like 65 miles per hour feels wrong to them. This reflects the common perception that numbers in the sciences, especially astronomy, are often complex and difficult to understand. Earlier in the comic, Ponytail also expresses skepticism at a "normal" number when Megan in coat tells them that their cat weighs 12 lbs. Ponytail suggests that it must actually weigh either 10-20 or 1040 instead. Megan responds by saying that the cat's weight is actually 3x10-30 solar masses, which Ponytail finds more acceptable.

I wish superscipts would survive copy-paste, but I have to admit it's better than the esoterica-laden verbosity that's up now.
::Superscripts? You could have easily added the <nowiki></nowiki>''whatever''<nowiki></nowiki> to your copypasta. Not much work (much less work than my having to <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> this explanation for you), especially given how much other typing you seem to have done... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.58|172.70.91.58]] 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure you understand. I only typed the 14-20 word prompt prefix. The explanations above and below were generated by ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

:[Take two, using the prompt prefix, "The following is the wikitext transcript from the latest xkcd comic. Please write an explanation of the comic in wikitext. The title text should be explained in a seperate paragraph at the end:"

::'''ChatGPT:''' In the latest xkcd comic, two characters are discussing an elliptical orbit and the rate at which Earth is approaching the sun. One character, Ponytail, is suspicious when she sees a normal number (65 miles per hour) in their calculations and suggests that scales in astronomy should all be incomprehensible. This is a reference to the fact that astronomical numbers are often very large or very small, and can be difficult for non-astronomers to comprehend.

::Earlier in the comic, Ponytail is at the vet with her cat, and the vet tells her that the cat weighs 12 lbs. Ponytail finds this ridiculous, as nothing weighs 12. She suggests that the cat must weigh 10-20 or 1040 instead. The vet then tells her that the cat weighs 3x10-30 solar masses, which Ponytail finds more acceptable.

::The title text jokes about adopting a cat that weighs 12 solar masses, which would be extremely large. Laser pointers would love chasing it, as it would be an impressive target.

:Meh.]

I propose we create a [https://beta.openai.com/examples/default-summarize bot to summarize the transcript] with the text-davinci-003 API and paste it into the top of discussion whenever the Transcript is expanded more than 10%. Yays and nays? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 03:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Yea.''' Both have a few serious but easily noticed and easily correctable flaws, but both are far better than the borderline-trolling six paragraph wall of text for the simple, silly joke we have at the moment. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.245|172.69.33.245]] 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it as big as 65 mph? Where did the 65 mph figure have come from? A formula? Taking a linear change from minimum velocity (-500 m/s 12 weeks earlier), 4 days before the perihelion gives 86 kph (53 mph), three days gives just 64 kph (40 mph). But those are surely too big, since the rate of change of radial velocity would be slowest around perihelion and aphelion. I wouldn't expect the above-calculated rate of change until weeks out from perihelion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.5|172.68.210.5]] 08:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Surely the really weird thing is an astronomer using non-SI units? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 09:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Just changed the "weight" of the Earth to the "mass", in the explanation. Apart from anything else, the weight of the Earth standing on a typical human('s feet?) is ''exactly equal'' to the weight of a typical human standing on the Earth. And things would be screwy, if not. And don't try to 'weigh' the Earth upon the surface of a duplicate Earth, that invokes a number of Health And Safety violations, at minimum, and the results would be questionable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.58|172.70.91.58]] 11:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted the title text not as the 12-solar-mass star bending the light from laser pointers, but the laser pointers *themselves* "following" the star because they're close enough to it to orbit said star (or at least, on hyperbolic trajectories influenced by the star). [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2707: Astronomy Numbers

2022-12-06T18:15:03Z

172.71.154.158: reply

First time I've ever seen a completely blank page. [[User:IJustWantToEditStuff|IJustWantToEditStuff]] ([[User talk:IJustWantToEditStuff|talk]]) 20:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:Everyone's enthralled by ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.35|172.69.22.35]] 04:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's also notable that something weighting 12 solar masses will collapse into black hole on it's own, unless it resist collapse through thermal pressure like stars. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
: But not cats, because cats have hair, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem black holes have no hair]. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.186.94|172.71.186.94]] 18:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Earth moves relative to the sun at 66,000 MPH. In what frame of reference is it 65 MPH? It isn't like Randall to get a number wrong. Maybe the magnitude of the distance from Earth to Sun changes at a closer rate, but even this is nearly 180 MPH if I'm calculating correctly. [[User:Mannerisky|Mannerisky]] ([[User talk:Mannerisky|talk]]) 21:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
: You're thinking orbital speed, she's talking orbital oscillation. That is, the speed at which the distance between earth and sun changes. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.240|198.41.242.240]] 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC) ADDITION: Orbital oscillation has both a mean/average factor and a current factor (which is at it slowest while at the apsides, and given the context the one being calculated) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.85|198.41.242.85]] 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I get the sense that the thing that they're planning for January 1st is a precisely-timed new year's party and nothing to do with space exploration. {{unsigned|172.71.242.156}}

; Obligatory ChatGPT explanation

:'''Me:''' The following is a transcript from the latest xkcd comic. Please write an explanation of the comic: ''[transcript copied verbatim from [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2707:_Astronomy_Numbers&oldid=300614#Transcript its current state] omitted]''

:'''[https://chat.openai.com/chat ChatGPT:]''' In the xkcd comic, Ponytail and Cueball are discussing Earth's orbit around the sun. Ponytail notes that Earth will be approaching the sun at a rate of 65 miles per hour on January 1st. Cueball responds, "Weird?" Ponytail explains that they usually see only complex and incomprehensible numbers in astronomy, and seeing a "normal" number like 65 miles per hour feels wrong to them. This reflects the common perception that numbers in the sciences, especially astronomy, are often complex and difficult to understand. Earlier in the comic, Ponytail also expresses skepticism at a "normal" number when Megan in coat tells them that their cat weighs 12 lbs. Ponytail suggests that it must actually weigh either 10-20 or 1040 instead. Megan responds by saying that the cat's weight is actually 3x10-30 solar masses, which Ponytail finds more acceptable.

I wish superscipts would survive copy-paste, but I have to admit it's better than the esoterica-laden verbosity that's up now.
::Superscripts? You could have easily added the <nowiki></nowiki>''whatever''<nowiki></nowiki> to your copypasta. Not much work (much less work than my having to <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> this explanation for you), especially given how much other typing you seem to have done... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.58|172.70.91.58]] 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure you understand. I only typed the prompt prefix. The explanations above and below were generated by ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

:[Take two, using the prompt prefix, "The following is the wikitext transcript from the latest xkcd comic. Please write an explanation of the comic in wikitext. The title text should be explained in a seperate paragraph at the end:"

::'''ChatGPT:''' In the latest xkcd comic, two characters are discussing an elliptical orbit and the rate at which Earth is approaching the sun. One character, Ponytail, is suspicious when she sees a normal number (65 miles per hour) in their calculations and suggests that scales in astronomy should all be incomprehensible. This is a reference to the fact that astronomical numbers are often very large or very small, and can be difficult for non-astronomers to comprehend.

::Earlier in the comic, Ponytail is at the vet with her cat, and the vet tells her that the cat weighs 12 lbs. Ponytail finds this ridiculous, as nothing weighs 12. She suggests that the cat must weigh 10-20 or 1040 instead. The vet then tells her that the cat weighs 3x10-30 solar masses, which Ponytail finds more acceptable.

::The title text jokes about adopting a cat that weighs 12 solar masses, which would be extremely large. Laser pointers would love chasing it, as it would be an impressive target.

:Meh.]

I propose we create a [https://beta.openai.com/examples/default-summarize bot to summarize the transcript] with the text-davinci-003 API and paste it into the top of discussion whenever the Transcript is expanded more than 10%. Yays and nays? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 03:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Yea.''' Both have a few serious but easily noticed and easily correctable flaws, but both are far better than the borderline-trolling six paragraph wall of text for the simple, silly joke we have at the moment. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.245|172.69.33.245]] 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it as big as 65 mph? Where did the 65 mph figure have come from? A formula? Taking a linear change from minimum velocity (-500 m/s 12 weeks earlier), 4 days before the perihelion gives 86 kph (53 mph), three days gives just 64 kph (40 mph). But those are surely too big, since the rate of change of radial velocity would be slowest around perihelion and aphelion. I wouldn't expect the above-calculated rate of change until weeks out from perihelion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.5|172.68.210.5]] 08:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Surely the really weird thing is an astronomer using non-SI units? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 09:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Just changed the "weight" of the Earth to the "mass", in the explanation. Apart from anything else, the weight of the Earth standing on a typical human('s feet?) is ''exactly equal'' to the weight of a typical human standing on the Earth. And things would be screwy, if not. And don't try to 'weigh' the Earth upon the surface of a duplicate Earth, that invokes a number of Health And Safety violations, at minimum, and the results would be questionable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.58|172.70.91.58]] 11:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted the title text not as the 12-solar-mass star bending the light from laser pointers, but the laser pointers *themselves* "following" the star because they're close enough to it to orbit said star (or at least, on hyperbolic trajectories influenced by the star). [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-26T03:38:51Z

172.71.154.158: /* Explanation */ new organism names

{{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, "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 almost always contain the author(s) 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 likely will 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. Research articles which do present and test a hypothesis are usually written in [https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/centers/writing/writing-resources/how-to-write-an-apa-research-paper 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 intial submission with a catchy clickbait title might get more prompt attention from editors and reviewers.

In the title text, the {{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}}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.{{cn}}

==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 two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
: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 bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
: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]]

Talk:2701: Change in Slope

2022-11-23T01:18:08Z

172.71.154.158: /* Raw Data */ Randall's method

I am an occasional data scientist, and I can confirm this is why we have monitor stands that tilt. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.50|172.71.94.50]] 16:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The third e in "neeed" in the title text seems to be a typo
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 16:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think Randall may have added it to represent that the speaker prolongs the "e" sound for emphasis, although that's usually done with 4-5 e's. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::I had to double-check this, myself (presumed the 'Bot created the lage faithfully, but went straight to source to see if I needed to find a vandalism post to revert). May need a comment (to prevent hypercorrection, if not to note the implied emphisis) and certainly will if it turns out to be a typo and gets corrected (for which I'm sure a future checker will discover Randall's revisiting, but then worth a note to that effect). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I guess Randall fixed it, because I'm only seeing 2 'e's in the title text. Just updated it on the wiki. [[User:Zman350x|Zman350x]] ([[User talk:Zman350x|talk]]) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Bender Bot was one of the main characters in Futurama. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Just donning my unnecessary pedantry hat for a moment: his name is Bender Bending Rodriguez --[[User:192·168·0·1|192·168·0·1]] ([[User talk:192·168·0·1|talk]]) 23:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple(?) of authors used the word(s) "(point of) inflection", which is {{w|Inflection point|not really suitable}} for a join between two straight segments. Was tempted to talk about "discontinuity", but that really only applies to the meta-slope (derivatives, to one degree or other) where it suddenly jumps (at a point), or the derivative's derivative has jumps (as it enters and leaves the smoothly linking curve). Hope it works well enough how I left it, though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.176|162.158.142.176]] 21:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For anyone curious, I used an image editor to turn the entire comic sideways and [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/525939879805190154/1044395695525875712/xkcd_sideways.png it actually does seem to work,] to some degree anyway. [[User:SuperSupermario24|SSM24]] 23:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Added; thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.230|172.71.158.230]] 00:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

: If you don't mind sharing: which program did you use? Did you tweak things like relative distance / camera FOV, to effectively select a specific point in the continuum that makes up the {{w|Dolly Zoom}} effect, and at the limit on one end results in {{w|orthographic projection}}? (Edit 10 minutes later: a better article to look at is {{w|Perspective distortion (photography)}}) Or did you just leave it at whatever the default is? Can you recreate the image with the two extremes, and share them? And lastly - can you upload the image (and potentially the new images) to the wiki directly, so they can be embedded in the page? Thanks! --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 17:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This one shows the beauty of Explainxkcd: people reading the explanation are likely to learn accessible methods of substantial practical utility. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, if it works for picking out lumber at Lowe’s, why not for graphs, too? - MadMarie
:There was an old bit of explanation that related it to examining physical objects (for dent/bend-removal in metalwork, I think it was) that got wiped out by a later edit. Though I'm considering my own version, now generalised to cover your experience, as it seems quite relevant/analogous to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the 1st explanation needs to go touch grass and learn how real people talk, pissed me off so much I just effectively rewrote the whole thing from scratch [[Special:Contributions/172.71.202.46|172.71.202.46]] 06:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Intrigued, looking at the first explanation (give or take that person's initial small errors/omissions) I personally find it more to the point than what it has become. Not to say the complete rewrite was wrong, but it got it not that much closer to the mythical perfection. IMO. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.169|141.101.76.169]] 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Going in a different direction than "this is silly" - if we ignore the "viewing point/parallax" issue, doing a change of basis like this is similar to linear methods like [SVD https://hadrienj.github.io/assets/images/ch12_svd/ch11_SVD_geometry.png] & [https://jakevdp.github.io/PythonDataScienceHandbook/figures/05.09-PCA-rotation.png PCA], and considering the graph as a mappingg in a "higher dimension" is similar to the "kernel trick" popularized by [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wqSTBCguVyU/maxresdefault.jpg Support] [https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*gtF6KeL7b9zNHd7pXtC1Nw.png Vector] [https://dinhanhthi.com/img/post/ML/support-vector-machine/svm-3.jpg Machines] 11:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

== Raw Data ==

I love this cartoon. This is definitely something that was relevant in my work!

At my old job I had some commercial or public-domain software for extracting the raw data behind a scatter plot. If anyone has something like that handy, I would love to see someone extract the data behind the graph on the left, so that we can:
1. Apply the affine transformation which generates the image on the right with the tilted paper.
2. Apply the statistical tests which Randall Munroe is alluding to.

:Knock yourself out:
{{cot|Digitized data courtesy https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/}}
<pre>
0.000000, 0.015366
0.001887, 0.000000
0.002830, 0.041488
0.024528, 0.060695
0.033019, 0.014597
0.038679, 0.009988
0.044340, 0.072220
0.047170, 0.055317
0.050000, 0.072220
0.064858, 0.092964
0.070215, 0.117001
0.088207, 0.088354
0.091037, 0.122928
0.091037, 0.109099
0.100943, 0.140215
0.103773, 0.165338
0.106603, 0.178246
0.128891, 0.171331
0.147641, 0.196685
0.146226, 0.187465
0.162264, 0.215124
0.180188, 0.264910
0.182452, 0.218812
0.202830, 0.275052
0.204245, 0.261222
0.208490, 0.272747
0.217923, 0.293491
0.227358, 0.267369
0.230322, 0.234880
0.241744, 0.311930
0.256603, 0.344199
0.262263, 0.338930
0.299056, 0.376467
0.308254, 0.420261
0.313206, 0.417956
0.336791, 0.456371
0.344338, 0.433322
0.355659, 0.456371
0.367923, 0.496323
0.374055, 0.503237
0.388206, 0.503237
0.389621, 0.514762
0.409433, 0.533201
0.412263, 0.525518
0.415093, 0.540884
0.432074, 0.555328
0.446225, 0.599275
0.443395, 0.588519
0.449526, 0.537811
0.449055, 0.588519
0.468866, 0.609263
0.487263, 0.627702
0.490093, 0.636922
0.516979, 0.670727
0.523448, 0.697179
0.519809, 0.662276
0.548111, 0.697618
0.551413, 0.740642
0.550941, 0.689935
0.565092, 0.726813
0.572168, 0.724508
0.576413, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.763691
0.601177, 0.785588
0.604714, 0.791350
0.625335, 0.775545
0.643394, 0.817473
0.664620, 0.855119
0.688812, 0.871693
0.688003, 0.821643
0.710374, 0.925035
0.707544, 0.806716
0.715091, 0.888156
0.717921, 0.880473
0.724148, 0.976665
0.749054, 0.927010
0.757544, 0.961913
0.763204, 0.959608
0.783016, 0.983426
0.781601, 0.971133
0.797166, 1.028756
0.802827, 1.031060
0.805657, 0.999560
0.821223, 0.966523
0.822638, 0.957304
0.842449, 1.038744
0.843864, 1.028756
0.859431, 1.049500
0.865091, 1.058719
0.876411, 1.077159
0.882072, 1.086378
0.889147, 1.077159
0.901883, 1.024914
0.904714, 1.017231
0.908605, 1.100208
0.913204, 1.107122
0.936553, 1.130171
0.937261, 1.116342
0.967447, 1.159370
0.969806, 1.205310
0.978301, 1.104817
0.983956, 1.101525
1.000000, 1.167820
</pre>
{{cob}}
:104 points. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Can someone please check my work https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1c_7Qj3S1VXtL-AckfSfHCd4ofGYYDYH5 and tell me if I'm doing it right? I'm pretty sure I don't really know what I'm doing. I kind of cargo cult-coded the Savitzky-Golay filter stuff linked from the explanation and have zero understanding of what's actually going on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 21:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Here's how Randall seems to be suggesting to do it, based on the light gray figures: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1Ru90DAxHO9zzXrx-_4P28UJ_8MaHT0RL -- Can someone please help fix the residuals on the second plot? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2699: Feature Comparison

2022-11-17T01:45:34Z

172.71.154.158: IRC

The image has changed. Now Mastodon includes USER-RUN INSTANCES (though I believe it should also have a check next to DOESN'T REQUIRE CENTRAL SERVER).

I tried googling "wikipedia feature comparison chart". Instead of finding a page explaining how these charts work, I got a chart comparing different wiki softwares. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course, it wouldn't be hard to make apps on smartphones support mesh networks ... however, the manufacturers and app developers prefer to work hard to make sure they don't work without being connected to internet and serving advertisement. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Direct Although ...] -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of wrongness about this matrix. Besides that mastodon instances can be run by user (which is fixed):
* Mastodon does not support file transfer. You can only upload images, and ''not'' even all image formats—webp is not supported. Some other ActivityPub servers support file upload, but then it's not Mastodon.
* IRC also doesn't support file transfer afaik.
* Mastodon and SMS don't require a central server
* Discord, Reddit, and Slack doesn't have user-run instances
* Discord doesn't have builtin games last time I checked. The games are by the bots,

"IRC itself is a teleconferencing system, which (through the use of the client-server model) is well-suited to running on many machines in a distributed fashion. A typical setup involves a single process **(the server) forming a central point** for clients (or other servers) to connect to, performing the required message delivery/multiplexing and other functions." – J. Oikarinen, D. Reed; Internet Relay Chat Protocol; RFC 1459; May 1993. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 01:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

2697: Y2K and 2038

2022-11-11T19:03:32Z

172.71.154.158: /* Transcript */ u/l.c.

{{comic
| number = 2697
| date = November 11, 2022
| title = Y2K and 2038
| image = y2k_and_2038_2x.png
| imagesize = 527x190px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's taken me 20 years, but I've finally finished rebuilding all my software to use 33-bit signed ints.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Y2K-BRICKED BOT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The Y2K bug, or more formally, the {{w|year 2000 problem}}, was the computer errors caused by two digit software representations of calendar years not correctly handling the year 2000, such as by treating it the same as 1900 or 19100. The {{w|year 2038 problem}} is a similar issue with timestamps in {{w|Unix time}} format, which will overflow their signed 32-bit binary representation on January 19, 2038.

While initial estimates were that the Y2K problem would require about half a trillion dollars to address, there was widespread recognition of its potential severity several years in advance. Concerted efforts among organizations including computer and software manufacturers and their corporate and government users reflected unprecedented cooperation, testing, and enhancement of affected systems costing substantially less than the initial estimates. On new years day in 2000, few major errors actually occurred. Those that did usually did not disrupt essential processes or cause serious problems, and the few that did were usually addressed in days to weeks. The software code reviews involved allowed correcting other errors and providing various enhancements which likely made up for the the cost of merely correcting the date bug.{{Actual citation needed}}

It is unclear whether the 2038 problem will be addressed as effectively in time, but documented experience with the Y2K bug and increased software modularity has allowed many otherwise vulnerable systems to already upgrade to wider timestamp and date formats, so there is reason to believe that it may be even less consequential and expensive.

The title text refers to replacing the 32-bit signed Unix time format with a new, 33-bit time and date format, which is very unlikely as almost all computer data structure formats are allocated no more finely than in 8-bit bytes. Taking 20 years to develop and implement such a format is not entirely counterproductive, as it would add another 48 years of capability.

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

[A timeline rectangle spanning from 2000 to 2038 divided into two halves. The first is labeled "Recovering from the Y2K bug" and the second labeled "Preparing for the 2038 bug." An arrow labeled "Now" is pointing approximately at the year 2022.]

[Caption:] By now you should have finished your Y2K recovery and be several years into 2038 preparation

{{comic discussion}}