explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3211: Amperage

2026-02-25T21:31:22Z

176.138.186.7:

Seems like this would be at least tangentially related to the Cursed Connectors series, although it's just the outlets and cords this time. [[User:Zakator|Zakator]] ([[User talk:Zakator|talk]]) 05:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I would assume that this is related to styropyro's latest video? [[Special:Contributions/142.126.42.193|142.126.42.193]] 05:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
: I’ll second the comment about the new styropyro video; it seems very likely that it inspired Randall to make this comic and is probably worth a mention. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:829C:47BD:C826:B8DB:5A5E:913A|2607:FB91:829C:47BD:C826:B8DB:5A5E:913A]] 07:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
: I think that's very likely - in literally every single group of nerds (eg xkcd-adjacent) I've seen people talking about it. I'd be very, very surprised if he hasn't at all seen it[[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 17:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

200 amps is NOT "an amount of electricity power"; The amp is a unit of electrical current, from which power can be derived by multiplying by voltage.[[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:7087:E602:3CBE:B25:5BFC:61BD|2001:8003:7087:E602:3CBE:B25:5BFC:61BD]] 07:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The current explanation seems to assume that Cueball is aware in advance of some of the problems his scheme is likely to cause, and is trying to forestall them. That seems unlikely - it's Cueball after all. It's far more likely that he has ''already'' melted all his wiring (and ruined his carpet), but just considers that a new engineering challenge to overcome. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It is amusing or instructional to consider how residential wiring would be engineered if the equipment and circuits were designed with a system that supplied constant current rather than constant voltage. Long ago carbon-arc streetlights were all wired in series and run at perhaps 6 or 8 amps. The "failure" mode is not a short circuit but an open circuit. Protective devices close the offending open. Perhaps Cueball would like to explore such a system, running megavolts at 500 amps, unless he already has. [[Special:Contributions/173.188.198.217|173.188.198.217]] 12:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand the theory of it, and it clearly doesn't cause any more electrical fires than home run circuits, but the UK's 32A ring circuits on 14 gauge wire will always make me raise an eyebrow. [[Special:Contributions/64.135.140.145|64.135.140.145]] 13:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:The US's pathetically wimpy system always raises an eyebrow for me. No wonder Cueball felt the need to upgrade his house. I would also be frustrated by not being able to run a kettle and a toaster on the same circuit simultaneously. No tea and no toast?? Sacrilege! [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:: >"frustrated by not being able to run a kettle and a toaster on the same circuit simultaneously." Why must it be the same circuit? The US NEC code calls for TWO 20A circuits in kitchen/pantry. US market kettles are, in your opinion, underpowered, 1500 Watts (or less!), so as to run comfortably on even legacy 15A circuits. The toaster goes on the other kitchen circuit. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Wow, two circuits are mandated?! That goes to show how dire the situation is with their limited available power. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 05:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Just use the stove for your Tea and Toast [[Special:Contributions/66.210.7.66|66.210.7.66]] 16:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Just microwave the lot and be done with it. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 21:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
: 2.5mm2 is actually more closer to a 13 gauge (which corresponds to 2.6mm2), and with it being in a ring so electricity has two ways to go it's more closer to what a 12 gauge (3.3mm2) would be able to hold. [[User:Sztupy|Sztupy]] ([[User talk:Sztupy|talk]]) 22:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

xkcd is a good distractor from everything that's going on with the world. Thanks, Randall! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] (BLM) 13:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Retired electrical engineer from a power distribution manufacturer here... The resistance in the wires doesn't increase all that much with increasing current. The increase in heat generated is proportional to the amount of current flowing through the wires squared. Double the current and the heat generated quadruples. Go from 15 amps to 500 amps and the heat generated by the resistance in the wires increases about 1100 times. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:7A0:8230:9DBF:A415:F8AF:7799|2600:1702:7A0:8230:9DBF:A415:F8AF:7799]] 17:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:Isn't heat generated proportional to current squared? or is that resistance. maybe im tripping[[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 17:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::Power lost as heat is determined by voltage drop in the line times current [P=IV] and since voltage drop equals current times resistance [V=IR] then heat is determined by resistance times current-squared [P=I*(IR)], so half current makes one quarter of the heat.[[Special:Contributions/57.140.28.40|57.140.28.40]] 18:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

120V AC at 15A would not be 1800W. 120V DC would, but the AC power is a sine wave, so to get the overall average power you need to divide by the square root of two. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1009:B1AC:BBBB:1D51:D689:1D5F:6A11|2600:1009:B1AC:BBBB:1D51:D689:1D5F:6A11]] 17:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
: To commenter above: 120V in the US is RMS voltage, so it's already divided.
: To original poster: "and inside his appliances and start a fire, even if there is no fault". Unless the appliance itself is drawing more than it's rated for (e.g. 15 or 20A (unlikely)) there's no reason the appliance's internal wiring would disintegrate because it's on a 500A circuit.
:I'm assuming the "cords" cueball refers to are extension cords (which are themselves overloaded) vs. appliance cords which shouldn't have any problem unless the appliance was already suffering some kind of short. [[Special:Contributions/74.76.64.197|74.76.64.197]]
::Absolutely correct. Appliances are designed with appropriate internal wiring, so if the appliance is drawing 500A the appliance can handle 500A. The cord from outlet to appliance is the issue here, as Cueball has already mentioned. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Could this perhaps be a reference to [[3198: Double-Pronged Extension Cord]]? [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 21:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing in the comic to suggest the internal wall wiring is melting or catching fire. I think we can assume Cueball has upgraded the internal wall wiring to match the breaker upgrades. Cueball is only enquiring about cords which don't catch fire, and "cords" are the external extension leads. Cueball doesn't say anything about internal wall issues. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

TL;DR this is a setup that would make Tim Taylor (from the sitcom {{w|Home Improvement (TV Series)|Home Improvement}}) jealous. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6011:853A:4DDA:3F9A:6297:AF9E:2340|2603:6011:853A:4DDA:3F9A:6297:AF9E:2340]] 04:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think 1000 MCM copper wire would be sufficient for the cords: https://www.cerrowire.com/products/resources/tables-calculators/ampacity-charts/ https://nassaunationalcable.com/products/1000-mcm-thhn-thwn-2-stranded-copper-building-wire [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C54:4E00:99C:67B7:D578:30ED:2471|2600:6C54:4E00:99C:67B7:D578:30ED:2471]] 04:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-13T11:15:54Z

176.138.186.7:

As heretical as it is, I almost want to keep the explanation just like this [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I wasnt going to ruin it, when I saw it like that. But now it's been expanded, I've added in my own thoughts on the subject. Namely elemental number-theory, i.e. the possibility of counting any item just like you count any other item, plus what's going on with the title text, including a slightly kludgy call-back to the fact that (''to have a budget'', that must have people succesfully counting expenditures and purchased values) the Exp. Maths Dept. has clearly trained people in the use of numbers enough for them to now be awkwardly snapping at the heels of the EMD querying the justifiability of at least one of their ongoing studies. (Not sure how long my thoughts will actually last, though, in the light of further editing. But I hope at least some of what I'm getting at will be successfully distilled into any more succinct version.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve apples! <*thunder rolls*> Ha! Ha! Ha! [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony! How did they count the twelve apples? 0,succ(0),succ(succ(0))..., I bet. This is already heavy math. (For example, what guarantees you that succ(0) exists and has exactly one value 1 and is the successor only of 0? Peano envy.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961|2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961]] 08:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact if you really want to nitpick, while most people would accept that 7+5=12 it is demonstrably false that my seven apples plus your 5 apples are equal to a pool of 12 apples. In fact it is demonstrably false that I even have 7 apples. Because no 2 apples are identical they can't be combined together. We may be willing to disregard such gross inaccuracies for the sake of, you know, being able to continue to survive for a little while longer, though. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 11:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-13T11:10:10Z

176.138.186.7:

As heretical as it is, I almost want to keep the explanation just like this [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I wasnt going to ruin it, when I saw it like that. But now it's been expanded, I've added in my own thoughts on the subject. Namely elemental number-theory, i.e. the possibility of counting any item just like you count any other item, plus what's going on with the title text, including a slightly kludgy call-back to the fact that (''to have a budget'', that must have people succesfully counting expenditures and purchased values) the Exp. Maths Dept. has clearly trained people in the use of numbers enough for them to now be awkwardly snapping at the heels of the EMD querying the justifiability of at least one of their ongoing studies. (Not sure how long my thoughts will actually last, though, in the light of further editing. But I hope at least some of what I'm getting at will be successfully distilled into any more succinct version.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve apples! <*thunder rolls*> Ha! Ha! Ha! [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony! How did they count the twelve apples? 0,succ(0),succ(succ(0))..., I bet. This is already heavy math. (For example, what guarantees you that succ(0) exists and has exactly one value 1 and is the successor only of 0? Peano envy.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961|2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961]] 08:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact if you really want to nitpick, while most people would accept that 7+5=12 it is demonstrably false that my seven apples plus your 5 apples are equal to a pool of 12 apples. In fact it is demonstrably false that I even have 7 apples. Because no 2 apples are identical they can't be combined together. We may be willing to disregard such gross inaccuracies for the sake of, you know, being able to continue to survive for a little while more, though. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 11:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T11:16:00Z

176.138.186.7:

{{comic
| number = 3177
| date = December 5, 2025
| title = Chessboard Alignment
| image = chessboard_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x289px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Luckily, the range is limited by the fact that the square boundary lines follow great circles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ALIGNED BISHOP. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The comic shows an overhead view of three chess boards side by side, with two players facing each other across most of the boards. Yellow squares (used to show the available or actual movement of a given piece) have been marked leading from the starting position of the middle board's right bishop (F1) to the upper-right. The path continues beyond the edge of the middle board, across four columns of empty space or unseen table, and ends in the top left corner (A8) of the right board. The right board has only one rook (black rectangle) while the other two boards each have two, so it is implied that the bishop has captured the rook. The text below jokingly claims that if you align chess boards exactly, pieces can cross the boundary like this. This is not legal in normal chess {{citation needed}}, but fits into Randall's long history of comics about unusual chess rules or boards.
The title text refers to the fact that chess boards are normally placed approximately level (parallel to the surface of the Earth). A perfect line of chessboards placed end to end on the surface of an Earth-sized sphere (or on perfectly placed tables on that sphere) would form a "great circle" - the longest possible path around that sphere. While nearby boards would appear to be in the same plane, the curvature of the earth would cause boards more distant than 3.57 meters away to be in planes so different that the squares would be more than a micrometer off from the ideal straight lines leading off the board. It is thus implied that each infinite-range piece's valid path is a straight line of virtual squares that eventually leads into space. Otherwise, the alleged rule would allow chess moves between boards that were kilometers (or even whole countries) apart in any vertical line. If following the great circle along the ground was considered a straight line, then it would also be possible for each side's rooks and queen to capture their counterparts in the other color's back row, just by moving backwards around the planet. This does not rule out motion to another board on another celestial body or spaceship, though delivery of a chess piece across this distance would be impractical{{citation needed}}. This is thus the second comic in a week about [[3174:_Bridge_Clearance|distances extending past typical boundaries]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

It doesn't happen often because it requires micrometer precision, but if two chess boards are '''''perfectly''''' aligned, it's actually legal to move pieces between them.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chess]]

Talk:3167: Car Size

2025-11-14T18:02:41Z

176.138.186.7:

It is I, broseph. [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 19:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:MY LETTERS ARE BIGGER THAN YOURS!!! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 20:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
tears of the kingdom be like [[Special:Contributions/128.135.204.243|128.135.204.243]] 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Did someone say {{w|Not Just Bikes}}? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A --[[Special:Contributions/62.0.12.1|62.0.12.1]] 20:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

On the (current) closing paragraph of the Explanation, note that (at least where I am) it is illegal to ride a bike on the footway, unless specifically signed and permitted as a shared/split pavement area. As a cyclist, I really wouldn't even want to (or to increase fellow motorists' misconceptions that they exclusively own the road) when it's a perfectly good highway, but 'people on bikes' seem to do what they like and perpetuate such misunderstandings. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.30|82.132.244.30]] 21:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:It's illegal here too, and I've added a note to that effect. As a cyclist, I do sometimes ride on sidewalks where sharing a road with cars is just too dangerous, but I try to be extremely cautious in my interactions with pedestrians. They've got the right of way; I don't. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::On top of often ill-conceived official cycle/pedestrian paths, I have a mild dislike for "cycle lanes", personally, as a sort of official "we really would prefer you to not be on the road, but we don't know what else to do with you, and it looks good when we add up the amount of 'cycle friendly' routes we have" kind of thing. With awareness (so no plugging your ears with headphones playing your 'tunez') most roads that I might use ''ought'' to be safe to cycle without badly implemented off-road/side-of-road segregation, and an overwhelming amount don't have such provision (riding to a cafe forty-plus miles away and circling round a different way back home, there's surprisingly few no-motor-vehicles opportunities to take).
::Even worse, though, is walking by a road with a 'perfectly good' clearly marked cycle lane (not particularly bad, compared to some instances, clean gutter and no bad grates) and some idiot on a bike rushes past me on the ''pavement'' (i.e. sidewalk), these days it often being an electrically-assisted, near silent bike (courtesy of Deliveroo/whoever), except that he's (assuming 'he', but it's a good chance) zooming past me, slightly ''uphill'', without pedalling at all... Technically, he's riding an electric motorcycle, and going at normal traffic speeds (and wearing a motorcycle-style helmet, so probably no point shouting at him as his ears are covered, if he hasn't also got earbuds in!) and ''definitely'' shouldn't be sharing the pavement with me (on the verge of needing a registration plate and paying insurance/tax for his e-moped).
::Of course, he'll act just as badly when he transitions back on the road, ignoring other traffic rules and barely avoiding become the jam on an asphalt smogasbord, various drivers cursing him and wishing ''all cyclists'' were off the streets. (The same drivers might well sneak through lights themselves, though "if it's quiet and nobody else is there", plus happily exceed the 20/30/40/50/60/70 mph limits on roads whenever they can, and don't have me driving ''at the limit'' in front of them when it's awkward for them to pass...)
::Not saying I'm perfect, but there are idiots out there with everything from no wheels (just two legs) up to perhaps 18-ish or whatever their juggernaut has, engines of whatever type or none, but I hope that I do my bit by being more considerate than most (except when it comes to dealing with inconsideration itself, when I internalise any joy I get about stopping others breaking the law for a few short moments) whether I'm walking, riding or driving. Though always trying to be aware of what the inevitably ever-present idiots out there will be doing. (Well, I couldn't do a thing about the time that a car pulled out in front of the bus I was a passenger in. But neither could the bus-driver, really, from what I could work out. Bus. Small car. Not a battle that I'd want to fight, on inertia alone.)
::Darn... this was not intended to be a holier-than-though rant, when I started, but I still don't regret it starting to go that way one bit... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.223|82.132.245.223]] 23:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:::''Starting'' to go that way?! Bro, you went full Jeremy Vine caller. Might I suggest that you grow up and realise that the ones you see are 100% of the ones you see, but that doesn't mean they are 100% of the picture. There is nuance. There are rules that are worth avoiding because that allows cyclists to get out of the way quickly – crossing in a way that a pedestrian is allowed to do, at a speed that a pedestrian can't, for example. Co-exist. High horses are far less welcome than cyclists. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 17:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
::::The marking of a 'red bit of asphalt' ahead of the line that cars are expected to stop at, to give cyclists that little extra space when the lights go green, is useless when motorists don't just drive into that space but seem to think the 'stop line' is where the ''driver'' should position themselves (long bonnet being well over that line, half way across the pedestrian crossing or even out into the road junction).
::::I blame bad driving for that (as a cyclist of decades experience, I have to ride defensively), but bad 'biking' doesn't help.
::::I'd much rather ride across a box-junction ''with'' traffic (when the lights allow) than do the slalom of hopping on and off the pavement 'at will' and either waiting for the pedestrian crossing (''ideally'' a proper Toucan, or even Pegasus, given that you normally should only walk your bike across a Zebra or Pelican/Puffin) or disobeying those lights too, at your own risk and giving inconvenience/annoyance to both wheeled and walking traffic.
::::I have a low opinion of the way 'helpful' cycle-infrastructure has been implemented, and a low (but understandable) opinion of how ignorant people are of the bicycle position in the Highway Code and all relevent laws (see Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, and all successive legislation, which establishes a bicycle as a road vehicle, and I do not want either my rights or obligations to be eroded, either legally or through misconceptions and misunderstandings).
::::I also know that I can drive at 70mph on a motorway (where there's no lesser limit applied to it by gantry signs and/or contraflow-protection signage) and, though I may be going faster than all HGVs, and possibly someone else happy to tootle along at 60ish (which I'm happy to do, too, but not in an overtaking lane unless its due to all the lanes being congested), there'll be traffic passing me at 80, 90 or maybe more in the outside (or middle!) overtaking lane. The only time it seems motorists will ''not'' exceed the limit (not just for a particular road, having not realised the local limit, but for ''every'' UK road) is where there are Average Speed cameras. (Site-only speed-cameras just have them maybe touch the brakes then speed up again afterwards. I've even been parked by the side of a road, by a 30-sign, and seen the approaching traffic ''really'' slam the brakes on on thinking my car (red) is a speed-trap, then speed back up once the guilty reaction has worn out. Stand in the very same place, inconspicuously and without any car, and nobody does it anything like that (probably going 70+ in the 60-zone, easing off to ''eventually'' 35-40 in the 30-zone).)
::::With the widespread ignoring of such laws, I am of course not surprised that people who may-or-may-not have even passed a driving test (or cycling proficiency test) are riding bikes badly. But I don't have to like it. And (like the title-text's forcing of 'lesser vehicles' off the road), I'd rather not have it rebounding upon those of us who ''aren't'' troublemakers.
::::It ''almost'' wants me to change my mind over the ideas of having "taxed, insured and registration-plated" cycles. But that is what other people suggest, probably to 'restore' the car's supremacy of the road (short-sightedly and ignorant of road-history) by making supposed nuisance-cyclists be made accountable (while they'll be shocked if they're ever stopped from going 30 in a 20-zone, or 90 in a NSL-zone).
::::This is no kneejerk opinion. I've been a cyclist for the best part of five decades (only marginally less than I've been walking, though I was also apparently first taken out in a cycle-trailer as a week-old baby) and a motorist for well over three. I've seen cycling become diminished as an everyday past-time and 'biking' spring up as a more elitish one (MAMILs, etc). And the rise of "Kensington Tractors", in the UK, but luckily it's still not heading inexorably down the comic's story. And if I can do my bit to evangelise for general law-abiding consideration and prick the conscience of ''all'' road users (and pedestrians), without myself causing problems to others (I don't count blocking those who intend to drive faster than my on-the-limit speed, just wait until I'm going slower than that because I don't want to spin off an icy road!), I will do so without apology. It doesn't have to be like that (cycling in Belgium is a dream, better even than the Netherlands, with not too shabby experiences from other countries from Denmark through to France), and really shouldn't be like the US, where even ''walking'' often seems to be an inconvenient eccentricity that's barely tolerated.
::::Ok, more enough of that. Most people reading this will never share the roads with me, anyway, even if you might. And Jeremy Vine has nothing to do with it. (Nor any of the Jeremies 'Kyle', 'Clarkson' or 'Corbyn', in their own ways. "Jeremy Hillary Boob, Ph.D.", ''perhaps''...) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.231.193|82.132.231.193]] 19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
::::: Translation for Yanks-- "''in England, “Kensington Tractors” (referring to expensive 4WD Land Rovers in the city, and Kensington, a posh district in London.)."'' --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 21:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty good comic [[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

As someone who lives in the UK, the title text comes across as a comment on the US attitude to jaywalking - where the "solution" to vulnerable road users (pedestrians) being put in danger by careless drivers is to make it illegal for the vulnerable group to using the road at all. US people, is it likely that Randall had something like that in mind?
(Unrelated, but when posting this I got a captcha asking me to identify bicycles...) [[Special:Contributions/87.115.222.218|87.115.222.218]] 00:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think so. I think he's just joking about not caring about peds at all. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 00:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

As a German, I take offense to this comic. ONLY CARS WILL SURVIVE THE APOCALYPSE! [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:652A:12CB:761D:93F6|2A02:2455:1960:4000:652A:12CB:761D:93F6]] 08:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The comic is a typical example of US-centric views. Car ownership in Europe was much lower 50 years ago than in the US. Most people were still stuck in the first panel.--[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:B425:E1E7:68BD:B213|2001:638:807:507:B425:E1E7:68BD:B213]] 10:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:...Because Randall is American? --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 14:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:Europe has been catching up to the US. In 1995, SUV sales were only 2%, but they were 54% in 2024. This is just a little lower than the US 58%. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:the concept of people buying bigger cars is western-centric in general. [[user:lett‪herebedarklight|raeb]] 01:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For those of you who keep a eX-Twitter account, someone posted a similar take that was so hilariously self-unaware: https://x.com/jerimiahlee/status/1758883775642059265 that people started one-upping him with larger and larger vehicles in quote posts, sometimes veering in chains that ended up with fictional vehicles, but my personal favorite on one-upmanship was the one who posted an image of a Takraf strip mine excavator… https://x.com/carl___spackler/status/1759646389376852009 [[Special:Contributions/89.83.116.217|89.83.116.217]] 15:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Pierre Lebeaupin

I realize this is US-specific, but the comic completely ignores the fact that vehicle manufacturers are incentivized by the US Government to increase the size of the cars they design, since the CAFE standards are graduated based on vehicle size. Larger vehicles are allowed to get lower MPG, so the bigger the vehicle you design, the less you have to worry about making it efficient. In fact, it's difficult to find a small vehicle for sale in the US. [[Special:Contributions/136.226.7.177|136.226.7.177]] 04:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Renault Twingo ? So I followed the link, and this is pretty obviously a gag video. Now I know I'm not hip and with it on all the best memes, but I don't see how this helps explain the comic, or is actually relevant or noteworthy. [[Special:Contributions/104.129.192.105|104.129.192.105]] 19:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
: I think you've answered your own question - it's there as a gag. And it is lampooning exactly the kind of sales talk that helps drive the trend in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that some electric scooters can reach speeds in excess of 80 km/h, which makes them a really serious threat to pedestrians or bicycles. (but less so than to the rider, obviously)