explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3039: Human Altitude

2025-01-20T22:32:52Z

172.71.182.48: formatting

{{comic
| number = 3039
| date = January 17, 2025
| title = Human Altitude
| image = human_altitude_2x.png
| imagesize = 508x495px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I wonder what surviving human held the record before balloons (excluding edge cases like jumping gaps on a mountain bridge). Probably it was someone falling from a cliff into snow or water, but maybe it involved something weird like a gunpowder explosion or volcano.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT HILARIOUSLY STUCK IN A TREBUCHET- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic purports to show the altitudes of humans over time, starting from a little after 1700. The conceit is that it indicates the ''single'' most altitudinous individual at any given time, so does not follow any particular person but would switch focus to whichever representative of humanity becomes "the highest up" (whether by rising above the previous leader, or by remaining high as the other loses their own elevation). There will necessarily be a degree of artistic interpretation and presumed trajectory of this particular marker, although the general trend of the line appears to be inspired by (some) actual factual realities. It uses a [[Log Scale | logarithmic vertical scale]] in order to indicate the finer details of 'low level' altitudes, yet fit the highest achievements onto the page. The measurements do not count altitude ''due'' to the ground beneath them, so a resident of {{w|Tibet}} or the {{w|Andes|high Peruvian Andes}} (for example) does not normally gain any particular advantage.

Prior to 1783, the {{w|Montgolfier brothers#Piloted flight, autumn_1783|first confirmed ascent}} of a human in a balloon, the line's high-points are indicated to be due to "various falls", i.e. a person who ''was'' on the top of a particularly high building/cliff/tree suddenly finding themselves (for an instant or two, at least) the person 'lucky' enough to be considered the furthest above the ground (it is at times like this that living at a higher absolute altitude ''might'' grant an 'advantage' to the individual who suddenly discovers their previously high standing-spot to no longer be as reliable as they thought). It also suggests that "catapult accidents", such as accidentally, or maybe [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov/01/highereducation.students not so accidentally] being caught in a sling on a {{w|trebuchet}} when it is fired (indicated as "hilarious") may also contribute to the (momentary) gain in altitude. The limit to this period's ability to exist at altitude appears to be around 100 metres, which is perhaps mostly what a particular precipitous (and precarious) cliff-top might contribute to the situation. Only the eventual punchline of the title-text even hints at whether any of these feats might have been survivable, perhaps the minimum requirement is merely that the individual be alive (to still be considered a person) at the point they are at their claimed height — if the resulting return to ground level is fatal, usually this will happen upon meeting the surface, by which point they are already no higher than all other humans.

Once {{w|balloon}} flights start, heights of up to 10km are attained. And though there were some {{w|List of ballooning accidents|dangers}} from this, as early aeronauts discovered, it might at least now be presumed that some of these peaks were attained by individuals who had previously marked a prior instantaneous altitude on the graph.

Shortly after the 1900s, {{w|airplanes}} dominate the graph. And the rise in utility of passenger aircraft (before World War 2; but especially afterwards, following a period where regular and extended high-altitude flight has been experienced by bomber pilots of various nations) ensures not only that there are people attaining greater and greater altitudes, but also that there are also always ''other'' people in the air, ensuring that the lesser 'maximum altitude' periods still have people a significant number of kilometres in the air.

Interestingly, the lower-limit, all the way up to the invention of the airplane, seems to stay at about two metres (around 1881, the lowest marked position seems to be only slightly above 1 metre), which might represent the possibility of there always being at least ''someone'' climbing up a ladder and/or jumping off of a hay-cart. This does not, of course, discount the very real possibility that there are persons about to attain greater altitude, as the parts ''between'' the lowermost fluctuations obviously represent periods of someone having yet greater vertical displacement.

Once {{w|spaceflight}} becomes a thing (interestingly, marked around the late 1960s, though it actually started in April 1961), that greatly increases the upper spikes for the (implied) duration of the {{w|Orbital spaceflight|orbital flights}}.

The {{w|Apollo Program}} is then indicated by both label and a notable spike as (between {{w|Apollo 8}} in December 1968 and {{w|Apollo 17}} in December 1972), men from Earth were sent around the Moon and attained altitudes 'above the Earth' of approximately 400,000km in the process. Note that the disclaimer "(very approximate)" in the chart's title also applies here, as the graph shows fewer spikes than actual Moon orbitings or landings performed.

Since the end of the original Moon landings, the upper spikes settled down quite significantly back to 'only' generally low orbital distances, but the very latest era, marked "Space Station", seems to coincide with the current continuous inhabitation of space, which officially started in November 2000. Since that date, there has ''always'' been someone at approximately 400km altitude (give or take [https://www.heavens-above.com/OrbitHeightPlot.aspx?Width=1600&Height=1000&satid=25544&startMJD=51111&endMJD=61000 changes in the orbit], and of the terrain below), with occasionally some yet higher person(s) on certain missions (e.g. servicing the {{w|Hubble Space Telescope}}, May 2009 at 515km). The graph does not ''seem'' to show the blip created by {{w|Polaris Dawn}}'s 1,400 km 'new record' of September 2024, but this may be ''just'' off the right-hand edge of the graph.

Though the historical validity is sometimes argued, it is interesting to note that (as early as the 6th century CE), experiments with man-flying kites may have produced (semi-)brief spikes in the altitude record for the time.
Also, workers and bell-ringers in medieval cathedrals, or attendants at the Lighthouse of Alexandria, would have been substantially above the "tens of meters" level. Moreover, the Eiffel tower has been open to visitors since its opening in 1899, which would have ensured some people to be at at least 276m, during the opening hours. This indicates that people standing on buildings and tall structures do not count for the purpose of the graph, and combined with the fact that tornadoes can lift people high in the air and touch them down alive (though the latter stipulation ''may'' not even be required). It may be that Randall excluded cases in which the person was standing on a permanent structure, considering that as an equivalent to varying terrain. Perhaps he also refuses to count cases that are difficult to substantiate/quantify, such as those caused by violent winds, although the graph ''does'' convey the impression of an omniscient and absolute certainty beyond the more broad historical basis it outlines.

The title text talks of record-holders who survived, and the possible circumstances. Amongst these circumstances would include anyone who had to leap a narrow gap above a deep drop, momentarily having an extreme height above the ground directly below them, without the absolute certainty of fatality (though still open to risks) of stepping off a similarly high cliff-top. (As of the date of the comic, the record for jumping off a cliff into water --- and surviving, albeit with minor injuries --- appears to be 58.8 meters. This was officially set in 2015, but there seems to be no particular reason some couldn't have done it earlier if they wanted to. The Tomb of Hunting and Fishing, c. 520 BCE, has a fresco showing someone diving off a cliff with other people watching. Unfortunately, they neglected to include a height scale.) Randall considers these as 'edge cases', and ponders what more violent events may have literally propelled someone to a notable height. It is unlikely that he is entirely serious about his two suggestions. A gunpowder explosion would be dangerous enough at the {{w|Hoist with his own petard|start of the process}}, leaving the unfortunate individual probably not in any condition to appreciate the remaining trajectory. The possibility of ''any'' survivable event being triggered by close proximity to a {{tvtropes|LavaSurfing|volcanic eruption}} is unlikely, and even less possible to prepare for.

Unlike the rapidly fluctuating line of the graph, a graph of the human altitude ''record'' would stay level except when incremented by a new attainment being reached, effectively drawing directly across from a given high-point in the trace until a new peak crosses it, then starting again from the top of ''that'' peak. The further stipulation of survivability would be represented by a lower line (only given the level of the tip of a new fluctuation once it is ratified that the individual concerned has survived their return to ground level, unsurvivable events not changing things). A lowest-upper-limit line could also be drawn using the low-tips of all fluctuations, representing the greatest height above the ground for which, from any given time onwards, there is always now at least one person higher. Currently, this would be at the lowest level of the orbit by the ISS but, if the ISS is abandoned prior to any further habitat in space (or beyond), this may need to be retroactively lowered to jet-plane altitudes (assuming they stay the dominant factor that they are, in the absence of space-inhabitation).

A ''different'' line to plot, which may also be the interpretable intent of the title text, could be the highest height visited by a ''still living human''. Though no currently surviving human can have ever held a record "before balloons", in the time prior to balloons there will have been individuals alive who had survived heights (and perhaps also their resulting falls) who would have been still living for at least some of the time that they technically held the record. This trace would follow (most of?) the graphed upward fluctuations to their tips, then stay at least this high for only as long as the individual remain alive. This could end almost immediately (their death occurring at height, due to exposure, or upon their terminal return to ground-level), or else for the rest of their long and fulfilling future life (or until someone else superseded them). But upon their demise, whenever that might be, any record that they might still have held would revert back down to whatever attainment ''another'' still-living human had established (which need not have previously featured on any graph, while those with greater marked achievements were still alive). Some of this graph would have a very similar look to [[893: 65 Years]], but in different ways and for different reasons; it would attain 'Moon height' from the very first orbit of Apollo 8 until the last death of an Apollo astronaut (from missions 8 and 10 to 17), assuming no {{w|Human mission to Mars|greater records}} are set before that point, then be reliant upon any living Artemis crews (or those from any {{w|Chinese space program#Near future development|equivalent}}) to sustain the "living record".

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

:Height above Earth's surface of the highest-altitude human over time
:(very approximate)

:[A line graph is shown, with frequent spikes on the line. The y-axis is a logarithmic scale from 1 meter to 1,000,000 km. The x-axis shows years from about 1710 to 2025.]

:[Label between 1720s and 1780s, maximum height is roughly 100 meters:]
:Various falls and hilarious catapult accidents

:[Label with multiple arrows, from 1780s to 1910s, maximum height is roughly 10 km:]
:Balloon flights

:[Label with multiple arrows, from 1910s to 1960s, maximum height increases to roughly 100 km:]
:Airplane flights

:[Label with arrow, in the late 1960s, maximum height is roughly 500 km:]
:Spaceflight

:[Label with arrow, in the 1970s, maximum height is roughly 500,000 km:]
:Apollo Program

:[Label between 1990s and 2025, the average height after 2000 is roughly 500 km:]
:Space station

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Aviation]]

1092: Michael Phelps

2023-11-12T18:22:14Z

172.71.182.48: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1092
| date = August 8, 2012
| title = Michael Phelps
| image = michael phelps.png
| titletext = [shortly] ...he ate ALL of it!?
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Michael Phelps}} is an American {{w|Olympics|Olympic}} swimmer, who could easily be considered the best swimmer worldwide: he is the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time, with 28 medals, 23 of them gold (won in the 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 summer Olympics, so it would have been 18 Olympic gold medals at the time the comic was published). He was most dominant in the 2008 Beijing Olympics where he won gold in all of the eight events in which he competed, the record for a single games.

[[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] find that the Olympic medalist is in Megan's pool. He refuses to leave, and is too fast to be caught. Cueball brings in boxes of {{w|Jello}} Mix to fill the pool with, thereby gelifying the pool and trapping Phelps or forcing him to leave.

However, according to the title text, after having waited the time necessary for the water to gelify (roughly 2 to 4 hours), Cueball realizes that Phelps has eaten all of the resulting Jello. This may be a reference to Phelps being used to eating [https://web.archive.org/web/20101113024452/http://www.michaelphelps.net/michael-phelps-diet/ impressive food quantities (about 12,000 calories daily)], to keep up with his strenuous exercise regimen; or it may be a reference to pictures of Phelps smoking from a bong that arose after the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China, as Marijuana use is often associated with an increased appetite. Otherwise, the text may simply be a reference to Phelps being capable of achieving super-human feats, such as devouring an entire pool full of Jello.

Interestingly enough, just pouring Jello powder into a pool would not solidify the water into Jello. The water would have to be boiled, then quickly chilled, for the Jello to set correctly. As Randall is a scientist, he should have known this; therefore, it's possible that he purposefully ignored this fact in favor of the humor. Michael Phelps' top speed is also only around 2.3 m/s, which can easily be outrun by anyone on land.

The title text may be referenced by [[1628: Magnus]], where people are thrown into strange contests with others, for example a hot dog-eating contest against the championship race horse Secretariat.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball standing outside their en-Phelps-ified swimming pool.]
:Cueball: Why is Michael Phelps in your backyard pool?
:Megan: I don't know. He's been there all day. ''Go home, Michael!''
:Michael Phelps: Woo! 18 gold medals!

:[Megan and Cueball break out a pair of pool nets and unsuccessfully try to snag Phelps.]
:Cueball: Can you get him?
:Megan: He's so '''''fast'''''!
:Phelps: Ha hah! Can't catch me!
:''Splash splash''

:[Cueball heads off to fetch something.]

:[Cueball returns with a hand truck full of Jello mix.]
:Phelps: Oh crap.

{{Comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Talk:2852: Parameterball

2023-11-10T15:33:06Z

172.71.182.48:

added transcript and a kinda crappy explanation [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 17:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
: added a bit of crappy info to the explanation. also hi nqh [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 17:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
: added crappy edits. also do i have an account or… [[User:TenGolf MathHacker|TenGolf MathHacker]] ([[User talk:TenGolf MathHacker|talk]]) 19:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the tennis court in upper right look about 50% larger than normal to anyone else? The ping-pong table definitely looks too small, about half size. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

: I'd say the the upper right is similar width to a tennis court but is 25% longer. The lower left looks to be similar width to table tennis / ping pong but is about half as long. So the explanations for those need revising. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 18:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

: My first reaction to the upper right was very clear: “Aha, Randall means that the players are scaled down to 20cm! Therefore ''parameter''ball.”--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.89|162.158.87.89]] 23:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have some neat plans for that Incomplete template. Get ready for an occasional change to something random that uses anything but metric... [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 18:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
: mobile account here, first of many implemented [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.48|172.70.42.48]] 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
If no limits, then neutron star or black hole ball exists as much as more non lethal games. {{unsigned ip|172.71.151.139|00:06, 9 November 2023}}

Could the title text be talking about the mass of a bowling ball, rather than then density? If the diameter of a bowling ball is 20cm and the diameter of a table tennis ball is 4cm, which is consistent with a quick Google search, than the volume of the bowling ball is around 125 times as big as the table tennis ball (because we have to cube it for three dimensions). Let's assume a bowling ball is 12 pounds, which is about average. Therefore, a ping pong ball with the density of a bowling ball would weigh much less than a pound. A 12 pound table tennis ball, however, could easily cause equipment damage. [[User:Thexkcdnerd|Thexkcdnerd]] ([[User talk:Thexkcdnerd|talk]]) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:I'm sure a one-pound table tennis ball could do sufficient damage to destroy a racquet, but I guess there's really only one way to find out, and I don't know where to find a one-pound ping pong ball. Or is it pingpong? Ping-Pong? pingPong? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.62|172.70.214.62]] 05:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
::Originally "gossima", with hard rubber balls, even before "whiff-waff" (or "wiff-waff" or "whiff-whaff" or something). First ''properly'' marketed as "ping-pong", in its recognisable form though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.122.115|172.71.122.115]] 09:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
::A snooker/pool ball would probably have similar density to a bowling ball. I can well imagine equipment (and bodily) damage playing table tennis with a snooker ball. {{unsigned ip|172.71.242.37|13:23, 9 November 2023}}
:Isn't the bowling ball a reference to the 'bowling ball on a sheet' metaphor for the distortion of space-time by the gravitational fields of massive objects?[[Special:Contributions/172.71.123.146|172.71.123.146]] 09:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:Also, isn't the density of a bowling ball also a changing parameter in the game of ten-pin bowling? Don't have bowling balls different weights, and unlike nine-pin bowling a fixed volume/size, and thus a variable density? It doesn't really matter for the explanation but describing the end point with an item that itself is variable isn't really helpful. The entries giraffe, screwdriver and large board game board are having the same problem. "A large boulder the size of a small boulder" https://twitter.com/SheriffAlert/status/1221881862244749315 [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
::The size isn't fixed, but yes, the weight can be changed by varying the size ''or'' density (within limits), and they can even have varying density within the ball.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.244|172.69.194.244]] 17:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:Yes, too dense a ping-pong "ball" (e.g. a pebble) is able to damage the foam coating of a "more professional" racket models. As a kid I have had been yelled at by the PE teacher for such horseplay and I have been given a basic and inferior plywood-and-thin-rubber model (with the rubber peeling off) as a punishment. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.250|162.158.102.250]] 13:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the screwdriver measurement relate to the drink or the tool?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.245|172.69.194.245]] 09:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The explanation claims that the max density depicted is that of a bowling ball. However, the balls in the first three panels look much too light for that, and the ball in the fourth would probably have crushed the player if it was that dense. I would guess a solid rubber ball would be a better estimate (although the one in the second panel is hard to judge).[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.83|172.71.242.83]] 11:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Only now have I learned that links can exist in the incomplete explanation text. It seems self-evident now,, but still. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.142|172.68.58.142]] 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Can each player choose a different raquet[sic] size? None of the examples suggest this. Also, is the construction of the racket a parameter? Tennis rackets have woven strings in the racket head, which a really tiny ball could pass through, and would have trouble controlling something marble-sized. Ping-pong paddles have a solid head with a rubber surface, which nothing larger than atomic size is likely to pass through. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
: The racquets they're using in the different panels are different sizes, and the title text says that 'players don't learn the [ball density] until after '''choosing their raquets''' Or do you mean could the two players have different racquets ''from each other''?.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.205|172.70.91.205]] 09:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that people keep editing the EXPLANATION NEEDED template made me realize we should have an archive for that purely for the lols [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.14|172.71.30.14]] 15:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
: That's a bet [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 16:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
::I didn't think anyone would actually do that, thanks! =) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.178|172.71.30.178]] 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Was actually planning on doing it earlier today, but this reminded me about it [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 17:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I wonder how long this will keep going. My guess is that I'll be the only one still doing it when the next comic gets released [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.178|172.71.30.178]] 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
: I have a few more to push out (wink) [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 17:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This would make a GREAT video game.... - [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.113|172.71.254.113]] 09:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Idea: To avoid edit spam, we make another copy of the page meant for parameter editing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.140|108.162.238.140]] 12:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
:Idea: We don't bother. I ''had'' collected a whole lot of Incomplete non-BOT versions (from the point just before someone removes them, mainly) and was going to put them up in ''my'' userpage (once I bothered to get one), but I don't think it's worth kt. And, in this case, it's just self-promotion to alter one when not making any other valid change. I prefer spontaneity in my humor, not "trying to one-up the last person". Personal opinion, YMMV. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.245|172.69.194.245]] 13:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the misspelling is anything more than a typo of "racquet". The French derivation is an interesting side note, but it seems like a leap to say it's "likely" Randall's intention. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.174|172.70.38.174]] 15:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
:Randall ''has'' just made plain typos, but he's also several times made deliberate 'errors' with actual reference to his love of language/writing and skill. And, given his US-spelling bias, it's a strange leap to a Anglo-French mish-mash if he just miswrote (in typing ''and'' comic-lettering) something quite so far from his 'normal' version. On balance, having had no part in that particular bit of wording, I think "likely" is a good hedge by the one who wrote that. And still perfectly allows for it to be a typo, if it was. (But keep an eye out for revised comic/alt-text!) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.48|172.71.182.48]] 15:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

1823: Hottest Editors

2023-11-05T19:15:01Z

172.71.182.48: Add to Emacs category

{{comic
| number = 1823
| date = April 12, 2017
| title = Hottest Editors
| image = hottest_editors.png
| titletext = Elon Musk finally blocked me from the internal Tesla repository because I wouldn't stop sending pull requests for my code supporting steering via vim keybindings.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic has a play on the word 'Editor'. The editors from 1995 to 2015 are software text editors, and the editor(s) from 2020 onward are genomic editing techniques that edit {{w|DNA}}.

Text editors are popular among programmers and computer scientists to edit machine-readable text, as well as other digital files.
Two of the earlier editors, {{w|Vim (text editor)|Vim}} and {{w|Emacs|Emacs}}, traditionally use the keyboard (rather than the mouse) to perform common actions (like scrolling, marking text, saving, and searching).
As Vim and Emacs use different keyboard commands in different styles, proficiency in one editor does not make it easy to use the other.
The "{{w|Editor wars}}" refers to Vim and Emacs users debating heavily over which of the two editors is the best (keyboard bindings is just one argument). This debate was previously mentioned in [[378: Real Programmers]].
More modern editors (including Notepad++ and Sublime Text) mainly use keyboard shortcuts that are global to the operating system, again different from Vim and Emacs.

{{w|Notepad++}} is a popular text and source code editor, initially released in 2003 and available only for the Windows platform. 
{{w|Sublime Text}} is the current "most popular" text editor according to this comic; it was released in 2008. 
Sublime Text, Vim, and Emacs are cross-platform.

The 2020 editor '{{w|CRISPR}}' is not a text editor, but a technique used to edit DNA in a pre-existing genome. The technique has experienced a surge of recent attention in the media (beginning with the 2016 publication of [http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(15)01705-5 ''"The Heroes of CRISPR"''] and [http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crispr-patent-decision-20170215-story.html litigation] over the patent ownership), suggesting it may become the most popular "editor" in years to come. The joke lies in the comic intentionally not distinguishing between text/code editing and genome editing.
It may also suggest that we will not be editing digital plain-text files, but DNA in 2020, possibly due to very recent advances in {{w|DNA digital data storage}}.

Many pieces of software that contain editing functions (in text boxes, on command lines, etc.) offer Emacs and/or Vim keybindings: the keys will be (roughly) the same as in Emacs or in Vim, so that someone familiar with one of those editors can use the keyboard without learning something new.
The comic suggests that in 2025, the Vim key-bindings will be the most popular for editing genes using CRISPR.
This creates a comical effect: CRISPR is a technique that operates on genes and not on digital hardware, so it does not use a keyboard per se. Consequently, it is surprising that CRISPR would have key bindings. The comic also suggests that in 2025, Vim will make a comeback in DNA editing, thus having 'won' the battle with Emacs.

The title text says that Randall has been banned from the code base of {{w|Tesla, Inc.|Tesla}}, as he keeps sending {{w|pull request}}s (code changes) to steer a Tesla car using Vim keybindings. Not only does this seem implausible, but it seems dangerous to steer a car with a (computer) keyboard. The arguably most important keybindings of a text editor are those to move the editing location (the cursor) around. Vim classically uses the '''h''', '''j''', '''k''', and '''l''' keys for ''left'', ''down'', ''up'', and ''right'' functions, although it also supports the arrow keys present on modern keyboards. To use these in a vehicular context, up and down would probably, as in many racing games, be mapped to acceleration and braking, respectively. One additional problem with using essentially binary inputs (key pressed or not) as a replacement for a car's steering wheel is achieving different degrees of direction change. Pressing, say, the '''h''' key could either cause the car to turn its wheels left by a pre-set, fixed amount, or it could turn them left the more the longer the key is held down. There has been a [http://www.autoblog.com/2017/02/20/doom-porsche-911-infotainment-hack/ spoof] based on the reverse principle, however.

==Transcript==
:[A short list with a heading above a line and below that a list of seven years increasing with 5 years intervals. After each year are gray lines that leads to the name of an editor, except for the first two years, where there is a two row square bracket around the first entry;]
:<big>Hottest Editors</big>
:--------------------
:1995-2000—[Emacs–Vim Editor war]
:2005—Vim
:2010—Notepad++
:2015—Sublime Text
:2020—CRISPR
:2025—CRISPR (Vim keybindings)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Elon Musk]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Emacs]]

Talk:2741: Wish Interpretation

2023-02-22T23:43:11Z

172.71.182.48: don't wish for money

To all you people reading the discussion, why can't I add my own person page? I mean, is a year too new? I think I know, [[User:No Idea If There's A Character Limit LMAO|(but I'm not completely sure.)]] ([[User talk:No Idea If There's A Character Limit LMAO|talk]]) 23:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, a banknote created by a genie would be counterfeit, although the odds of legal trouble over $20 are nonetheless low. 23:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)