explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2534: Retractable Rocket

2025-04-16T18:44:40Z

172.71.241.18: /* Explanation */ That particular "than" didn't make sense, presumed meant to be "thanks". Renamed "rocket (booster)" as "rocket-base", because "rocket-like-telescopically-extending-booster-into-space-whilst-still-stood-on-the-pad" was far too long... ;)

{{comic
| number = 2534
| date = October 27, 2021
| title = Retractable Rocket
| image = retractible_rocket.png
| titletext = Hard to believe that for so many years once they were fully extended we just let them tip over.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic documents another of [[Beret Guy]]'s [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|absurdist ventures]]. He explains to [[Megan]] that "we" (possibly [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business|his company]]) are testing their new "retractable" rocket.

{{w|Reusable launch system|Reusable rockets}} are a growing industry, as they are more economically viable in the long run – though technically much more difficult to operate – than rocket boosters that are just discarded after use (which have been standard throughout the majority of space-faring history). Thus, Megan is understandably confused about Beret Guy's assertion that theirs is "retractable", asking if he misspoke. In typical fashion, he assures her that he did not misspeak, with a single "No" without further explanation.

They proceed to watch the rocket "launch", proving that it is indeed ''retractable''. In fact the rocket does not launch, but merely ''extends'' – apparently all the way to the {{w|International Space Station}} (ISS), a height of over 400 km (over 250 miles) – before retracting, as promised, to its original position. The top part, with the astronauts in it, has been left in space. Presumably, it is docked to the ISS, as the crew onboard the ISS welcome them in panel 4.

Of course, it would not be possible to magically extend a rocket this far.{{Citation needed}} The top would need to be moving very fast compared to the bottom part, or it would bend westwards and break, and even with the strongest material a fully extended, very thin, presumably, hollow structure with a payload on top would {{w|buckling|buckle}} very soon after extension began. Also, the ISS moves at 27,600 km/h (17,100 mph) compared to the ground under it, making an orbit in about one and a half hours. So making the tip follow this long enough to dock would be even more impossible.

Beret Guy's retractable rocket has more than a few similarities to a {{w|space elevator}} which has been discussed in real life. The chief difference is, a space elevator is only extended once (and most likely this would be down from space, not extended upwards), and never retracted unless it needs to be dismantled. Randall has referenced space elevators in [[697: Tensile vs. Shear Strength]]. A more similar theoretical means to attain orbit is that of the {{w|space fountain}}. He has also examined the problems of a solid metal object extending through the atmosphere in the ''[[what if? (blog)|what if?]]'' article ''{{what if|157|Earth-Moon Fire Pole}}''.

The current method of sending rockets into space requires huge amounts of fuel, and the more fuel you attempt to carry, the heavier the rocket, leading to more fuel being required, etc. ({{w|Tsiolkovsky rocket equation}}), which makes the current method inefficient. Alternate methods are being explored, such as using a slingshot ({{w|SpinLaunch}} had a successful test flight of a smaller scale launcher just days before this comic was published, probably the influence for this comic), theoretical {{w|space elevators}}, or this comic's impossible retractable rocket idea, all of which would leave the majority of the "fuel" requirements on Earth or elsewhere rather than having to carry heavy fuel with the rocket. The only fuel carried might be minimal amounts for course adjustments once in space rather than large amounts used to get there. However, many of these methods are less flexible than rockets; the space elevator, for instance, operates on the basis of constant angular velocity relative to the Earth's axis of rotation, meaning that it cannot launch payloads directly into low-earth orbit, polar orbits, or many other orbits frequently used by satellites for their desirable characteristics, and satellites intended for these orbits might still need to carry considerable amounts of fuel, even if less than that required to launch directly from the ground.

The title text parodies the 'old' single-use boosters. It appears that the predecessors to the 'retractable rockets' were capable of controlled extension only. Once they had lofted the payload to orbit, they were then allowed to fall over, destroying them in the process so they could not be used again just like booster rockets. However, if a 250 mile/400 km high construction just fell over, it would be much more difficult to avoid other damage, thanks to the rocket-base, than for just a few small booster rockets falling out of the sky. This comic was released four days before (and possibly refers to) SpaceX's {{w|SpaceX Crew-3|Crew-3 mission}} to send astronauts to ISS with a reusable rocket on 31 October 2021.

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy and Megan is talking. Behind them near the horizon is a tall rocket on a launchpad.]
:Beret Guy: We're testing our new retractable rocket.
:Megan: You mean reusable?
:Beret Guy: No.

:[A zoom in on the launchpad and rocket. It has the appearance of having a long first stage, a second stage with slightly wider fairing and an Apollo-style capsule with escape-tower atop it all. There is a directionless speech-bubble at the top depicting a count down voice.]
:Count down: Three...Two...One...Liftoff!

:[Same view as before, but while the base of the rocket-stack remains stationary, the first stage is apparently elongated, with a hint of a bend to the right, to raise the total height to which the upper-stage and capsule assembly reaches almost to the top of the panel.]

:[In a wider panel, with the base to the left, the first stage is now elongated far enough to disappear off the top of the center of the frame, thus clearly bending to the right. Two peoples voices are indicated as coming from the space capsule far above, as it reaches it destination.]
:Voice 1: Hi, welcome to the ISS!
:Voice 2: Hello!

:[The final panel shows the same view as in the third panel. The first stage is now retracting, and has similar length as in the third panel, but the capsule is no longer atop the 'second stage' fairing. Four movement lines above the top of the retracting rocket indicates that it is returning back to the original position.]

==Trivia==
In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/5/57/20211028040721%21retractable_rocket.png original version of the comic], "retractable" was misspelled as "retractible" both in the image and in the comic title. Has been documented on the web archive. You can see the wrong title [https://web.archive.org/web/20211028014542/https://xkcd.com/ here].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Beret Guy's Business]]
[[Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Rockets]]
[[Category:Comics edited after their publication]]

Talk:3073: Tariffs

2025-04-10T09:36:50Z

172.71.241.18:

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

Uh, still no April fools [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 23:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
:The April fools is the president the U.S. Elected. (note: I am Usanian)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.232|172.70.214.232]] 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I have good news [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I felt like using all caps is a good idea for explanations, since the comic itself is all caps [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 00:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
: Please don't. If you did that, then all of the other explanations and transcripts would have to be edited to all-caps, which makes it harder to read. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Doesn't just about ''every'' xkcd comic use all-caps? That would make pretty much the entire wiki unreadable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.35|172.71.155.35]] 04:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::Plus, there are very few uses of lowercase letters. It just doesn't make sense. [[User:Whoa|Whoa]] ([[User talk:Whoa|talk]]) 21:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with the explanation? It's showing this weird string of letters: expDia thud enzo Isla idiosyncrasies talk 3totheaudienceandtheotherswhoareyouheresoearlyinthedayafterMittenslefttodois sign up for both ofuscan'twaitforthemostparttobeabrightandwarmwelcomeandIhopethatyouwillfindapenthatwillOrbitz pap [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23 7 April 2025 EST
: Vandals --[[User:Btx40|Btx40]] ([[User talk:Btx40|talk]]) 00:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::I'm getting a few Cloudflare messages that the server isn't responding. I'm used to explainxkcd giving straight 503s, etc, but this is the kind of thing (code 522, in at least one case) that you get only when an active pressure (crap-spamming, etc) is being applied. I'm wondering if there's some pushback from the pro-tariff (or at least 'pro-Donald') online community. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 11:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, just HOPEFULLY, we can prevent the comment section from devolving into insults like https://xkcd.com/1756/: I'm With Her. [[User:Thehydraclone|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone|talk]]) 01:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I concur, though I want to stress that I think it's very important that we try to make this comic explanation as neutral as possible. Is it possible to not show a bias towards either side of the issue? Randall's comic obviously has a point of view, but perhaps the explanation on this site can be a little bit more neutral. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 11:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:You stink! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.181|172.70.91.181]] 13:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comic [[2566]] was supposed to be a joke... --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.175.87|172.68.175.87]] 03:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"venmo" needs explaining. Apparently it's some sort of USAian proprietary payment system? And I think Ponytail's company is providing a service (which the USA exports of lot of), rather than selling equipment - services usually not being captured by simple trade figures for goods. And in order to post here I have to identify features of foreign street scenes in order to train a monopolist's proprietary image recognition system. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.115|162.158.216.115]] 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Ah, didn't read this first, but I ''just'' put a link in for that (slightly awkwardly, but best I could - expecting a later editor to better phrase/place it). Hadn't heard of it, myself. Presumably Leftpondians know about it a lot more, perhaps most do, given how much business it gets/facilitates ''only'' in the US. Anyway, consider me one of those that learnt something new today! (Not that I can, or would, use it, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.71|172.70.163.71]] 13:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added this comic as an answer to a Politics.SE question. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/60191/does-it-make-sense-to-treat-trade-deficit-as-tariffs/60229#60229 [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This is unironically the best explanation of Trump's tariffs I've seen --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.171|162.158.212.171]] 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I had a Facebook friend post almost the exact same analogy the day before this comic was released. So it is an idea that is out there. But since Trump do not care for the people who elected him, it is not his problem that everything gets more expensive in the US --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Midwit take from Randall that fundamentally misunderstands that the goal is to bring back manufacturing capability to the USA. Warren Buffett proposed these exact tariff measures 20 years ago and is only now saying they're bad because Orange Man Bad Amirite. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.75|16:43, 8 April 2025}}
:I've just read the paper you linked, which suggests issuing tradable / saleable import certificates to create a liquid market incentivizing a trade balance, one which is not country or industry directed at all and has, basically, nothing to do with Trump's "plan." They are not "the exact same" at all, and I'm not surprised that someone using "orange man bad" language is engaging in deception. {{unsigned ip|172.69.214.221|17:24, 8 April 2025}}
:Are you even sure you *want* to bring back manufacturing of all kinds to the USA? Do you understand what that entails? Every single sane economist on earth has been telling Trump from the start that this is an astonishingly bad idea, but he refuses to listen. Then again, every single sane climate scientist has been doing the same thing, and nobody listens to them either. All fitting, then.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.136|172.70.243.136]] 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:And what exactly is wrong with domestic manufacturing? Don't get me wrong, I don't consider (R) good, but the concept of "they're all just stupid" doesn't explain anything in the real world. {{unsigned ip|162.158.103.81|10:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}
::Well. It makes as much sense for the USA to manufacture iPhones domestically as it does for you to grow your own wheat and sunflowers and gather rock salt and process all that to bake bread. The world economy works by distributing work and relying on specialization. Doing everything on your own is grossly inefficient and it's simply impossible to keep up your standard of living that way.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.178|172.71.172.178]] 10:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Another response is that if you're determined to prove that your country doesn't need to trade with the rest of the world (at an extreme, what NK is trying to do, though majorly propped up by China despite this), the rest of the world might decide that it doesn't need to trade with you.
::The US has been (successfully) pursuading much of the world that it is a vital part of the world economy for a long time, and benefited more from it than cold, hard balance sheets could ever show. (Even in 'not friendly' nations, there has been cultural soft-power arise from the value of american denim jeans or records or even just the idea that there are more ways to do things than their current despotic ruler would openly admit to.) You could always find places to spend black-market dollars in Moscow, Havana or any place in any "Democratic Republic" (that's neither democratic nor strictly a republic) you could mention, and to the overall net benefit of the US. As well as being friendly to friendly countries, it has been insidious to those less than amicable (at a governing level).
::There's probably something to be said for not ''entirely'' relying upon third party countries (or at least not entirely upon ''singular'' third party countries, or entire political blocks/'blocs') that could suddenly put you under pressure regarding vital resources and components. Look at the hoops that Russia had to jump through, dependant upon China (and even NK!) for resources it was suddenly in need of. But the US was already in the position to be trading with any and all parts of the world (that it chose to), the ''cost'' was that maybe it couldn't sell quite as much worth in the form of cadillacs to a small group of islands that provided it with a given value of fish, but the value is that they'll ''keep on'' preferentially selling fish (that obviously the US can make use of).
::Now... Well, such fish that may be caught might go elsewhere, the world markets shuffle about, perhaps China gets more fish (perhaps NK does?) if it has demands for them, or perhaps it no longer seems worthwhile fishing so much from those islands. If there's nothing else for fishermen to do, maybe they'll go elsewhere to find something, but don't expect them to immigrate to the US and fish there, 'internally'. Not with the recent policies on immigration. So, the US probably has fewer fish, China has more soft-power (and probably hard-power, too) and the world adjusts to a state where in trying to win 'trade wars' against the whole world, the US has surrendered most of its trading power to the kind of countries that were previously trying hard to become its equals (and now become its superiors).
::If the current guy was ''really'' serious about "Gina" being his trading opponent, he'd work specifically against their influence, not actually make it more likely to increase. And that doesn't fit well with trying to split China and Russia again (even if he's making Russia and the US comrades in arms, again, in a separate deal).
::Before anyone points at the ungainly notice about bias/slanted opinion, I'm just outlining an interpretation here that shows contradictions in the scheme of the ultimate "re-on-shoring of ''everything''" drive being nothing but good. There's probably a better balance. Possibly not a guaranteed win:win, but at worst a lose-least:lose-least one. But such a Prisoner's Dilemma situation can't happen when one of the prisoners seems to only believe in win:lose results, so that they always aim (however wrongly) only for a maximised return on their side, resulting in an unsatisfactory lose:lose (or even lose:gain, to their own disadvantage) outcome. Also, I'm not 'Merkin myself. I'd ''rather'' a stronger US than various other nations getting stronger, actually, and that's why I'm worried that the world may pivot in ways that (openly, at least) the current US Administration don't actually want.
::But global trade is hard. "Who would have though it to be so hard..." Who knows where this will lead (especially if it strays out of the purely financial sphere, which of course it is already doing). Simply restoring manufacturing to the US is not the simple panacea that some might suggest. Aluminium (yeah, I know, but that's my spelling) can be made far cheaper in Canada than in the US and that's not going to change within four years (maybe not fourteen, could take more than forty!) and this and all the other supply-ripples won't happen fast enough (especially with far too much stick and practically no carrot) to fulfil the aspirations being espoused. So you absolutely can't take the current plans at face value. I'd be surprised if most of the ones touting them even believe them, and there must actually be more ulterior motives behind the wrecking-ball that's being unleashed, to which they're in more of a position to benefit from. (Time will tell, maybe. Perhaps it'll all work like a charm, but I'd heavily bet against it if I actually had the resources to significantly benefit out of the future failure, and yet couldn't do anything to reverse it.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.110|172.71.241.110]] 11:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There should be a "don't feed the trolls" banner at the top of the discussion. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:There's already a "Don't be a jerk!" rule noted at the bottom. Could just move it to the top, I suppose. (Or better, just move it to the top only for topics that are likely to lure people into acting like jerks. Good way to tell whether a given strip is going to upset a lot of people...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.96|172.70.42.96]] 22:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::made a notice about it up top '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::TORI! YOU'RE BACK! [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm from Germany, with the opposite issue. I never understood why having an export surplus should be a good thing. Let's make a bilance. OUT: Cars, machines, chemicals,... IN: Little printed paper snips (or little bytes if paid more modern). Sounds like a bad swap to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.186|162.158.112.186]] 07:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Former Financial Times and World Bank economist Tim Harford's "Undercover Economist" pop-econ books explain this quite well. (I don't think I can do Harford's explanation justice here but I shall try; any mistakes are my own) Germany wants to trade (for example) oil with OPEC, but all it has to trade are (for example) BMWs and OPEC doesn't want enough BMWs relative to how much oil Germany wants. So, Germany sells the extra BMWs to America in return for US dollars (the international currency for oil trading) and uses the US dollars to buy the oil. Economically, a BMW factory is basically a machine that converts steel into petrol via a really roundabout process. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 18:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Randall saw the most recent video from StandUpMaths. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.161|16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure if it was actually intended, but it seems that everyone missed the potential second meaning in the last frame. It's possible that Ponytail was referring to lidar diodes as a heat source used to cook the pizza, and Cueball either mistakenly or sardonically responded as if the mentioned diodes was instead suggested as a topping. That might also be a jab at political discussion, which is often full of spirited rebuttals based on misinterpretations of the opposing side's comments. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to lock comment sections? I feel like it would be especially helpful in comics like these. And while Reddit is usually not a good example for anything them locking the comments for contentious content (hehe) is actually a really good idea. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.75|172.68.12.75]] 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:The talk page ''could'' be semi-protected (to various degrees: admin-only editing, autoconfirmed-only editing) by an admin (your best bet would be to ask [[User:Kynde]]). I would recommend against such drastic moves for the moment, as the vandalism and trolling isn’t that bad (''yet''). If it does get worse, I’ll make sure to send a message to Kynde. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Fair enough, haste never gets anyone anywhere and it'd appear unjustified to do something that severe if it isn't that bad enough. But if it gets to the level of the I'm With Her comment section and nobody has asked for it to be locked, I'll ask Kynde like you asked. In any case, I'll wait. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.147|172.71.223.147]] 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I cannot agree that Reddit (or any site's) locking of comments is a good idea; it's a declaration of failure better dealt with by not having anything there at all except a statement that the topic is outside the scope acceptable by one's site. Even worse though, ''removing'' comments that are not abusive, promoting harm, etc, while leaving others that may be either similar or inverse, ''especially'' for difficult topics, is UNACCEPTABLE from any forum hoping to host discussion of anything the least bit controversial. '''Removing non-violating comments is even worse than locking threads, which is also bad.''' I'm outta here & probably won't be back; unhealthy moderation practices make for unhealthy discussions. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Eh? There don't appear to have been any comments removed so far, and the discussion above leans towards ''not'' doing anything if possible. So you're leaving because people aren't doing things you don't want them to do? Seems... odd. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 08:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, explainxkcd has gone off the cliff, and not just on this particular article, but repeatedly, and it’s getting worse and worse. I'm not going to edit it myself, but might I suggest a rule of thumb? If it isn’t necessary to help some understand the COMIC, then don’t put it in there in the first place! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.176|172.69.23.176]] 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Repeatedly"? By what criteria? Obviously in your opinion, anyway, and I'm not going to tell you what to think (or try to guess what you're thinking), but I believe you're being subjective. Nice to hear from you, though. Please do come by again some time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.226|141.101.98.226]] 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Seconded. This really should be the policy. I have strong political opinions like just about everyone (and like everyone, I certainly think that my views are logically derived from cold hard objective facts), but I have refrained from editing this page because I am VERY aware that it would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, and detract from the purpose of this website. "Explain xkcd" is for explaining xkcd, it's not a a platform to persuade the internet to adopt your political opinions. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 20:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:I really don't know what you guys are talking about, at least regarding the explanation for this specific comic. I believe the contributors have done a pretty good job keeping the explanation pretty close to neutral, except maybe it might be just a little opinionated in one paragraph. Most of the "extra" explanation in there provides some necessary background that may not be quite as obvious to future readers. Any leaning toward one opinion or another is mostly an explanation of the leaning attributed to the characters by the author himself. If you have a specific rebuke against a portion that seems more opinionated or subjective, either tag it in the explanation without changing the explanation itself, or bring up the specifics in this discussion. Please try not to bash this whole site and the contributors because of your own opinions. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 00:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how best to integrate it into the explanation, but I think https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations should be cited somewhere in the article, and I think it should be stated in more explicit terms that Trump's reciprocal tariffs are based on what is effectively a calculation of the United States' trade deficits with other countries. I think the article would benefit from more explicit descriptions and coverage of the tariff announcement for posterity, as I can imagine someone being really confused about this 10 years from now. I think reactions and backlash should be mentioned to provide context, but the article shouldn't get too detailed with any justifications for said reactions, so as not to take a side. Right now I feel that the article is a bit too in-the-weeds with explaining exactly what tariffs are and what a trade deficit is without providing context for why the comic is politically relevant, which I think is necessary to understand the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.166|162.158.62.166]] 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

At the moment the article says that "Donald Trump claimed that if the U.S. has a trade deficit with another country, then the U.S. is getting ripped off." This claim seems pretty ridiculous, but I have no idea whether it is what Mr. Trump said. Since the whole cartoon seems based on this premise, I think it would help to have a citation to make this clearer for posterity. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.109|172.71.150.109]] 05:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:It's pretty much his whole schtick on this. Googling gives numerous direct reports or videos of his rhetoric where he says, often visible in the summary (or, with videos, subtitle/surtitles on the thumbnail view). I included an actual quote, thought that better than linking to BBC News (annoying those who don't trust the BBC as a source), Fox News (annoy those who don't trust Fox as a source), etc... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.42|172.71.26.42]] 08:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::It would be better to link it to a source though, rather than just leaving it as an unevidenced quote.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 08:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Choose ''your'' prefered source and example of the quote, then. Not hard to find. (Or to have tripped over and generally get blasted with over the last week or so, if you've not been avoiding newspapers, blocking news notifications and avoiding all TV/radio news in anticipation of an upcoming film release.) As long as it isn't the National Enquirer or The Onion, it'll probably do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.18|172.71.241.18]] 09:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3056: RNA

2025-02-26T17:55:57Z

172.71.241.18:

I really hate that feeling when you need an explanation for at least a couple frames but you're too early to read it and too dumb to write it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.27|172.68.3.27]] 14:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:I know, I really wish I knew about RNA so I could just kinda do it. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 15:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The 2040's guess in the title text is wild, and would be SO cool if we were able to discover that in 20 years. {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.139|14:49, 26 February 2025}}

oh God [[User:Definitely Bill Cipher|⯅A dream demon⯅]] ([[User talk:Definitely Bill Cipher|talk]]) 15:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

1960s: central dogma of molecular biology; 1980s: discovery of catalytic self-splicing RNA; 2000s: genomic sequencing and discovery of diverse array of non-coding RNAs; 2040s: extrapolation of RNA hypothesis, with aside to notion that life may have arisen multiple times (earlier instances extinguished by large impacts) {{unsigned|Jhonts|15:34, 26 February 2025}}
:...or assimilation of function (or extinction by superior RNA, but then we'd not see any signs, whilst maybe there were provable mergers between 'different' original systems). Maybe why there are three shared bases between DNA and RNA, but two unique ones, or other interesting aspects that create puzzles. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.139|172.71.178.139]] 17:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Should the transcript point out the changes in the poster in each frame? Maybe in the later frames those are RNA rather than DNA. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:It's unlikely to be RNA, since RNA is usually single stranded. According to a quick search, it can sometimes be double stranded as a secondary structure or in some viruses. [[User:Solid Kalium|Solid Kalium]] ([[User talk:Solid Kalium|talk]]) 15:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)