explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3094: Mass Spec

2026-04-06T08:42:02Z

180.181.251.74:

; Site issues
Took me about 10 goes to get to the page, and there's nothing here. And I can't even get to previous pages, they won't load! Is it broken forevers? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.176|172.71.154.176]] 04:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
:The site has been behaving erratically for at least the last four comics, but this is the worst it's been. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.109|172.68.22.109]] 06:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
::If you look at something like the New User stats, which is a handy indicator of traffic (albeit of overwhelmingly "spam accounts" created, that generally then do nothing), you can track the reduced number of 'regular spambot' traffic as having started roughly on 12/May. This agrees almost exactly with the usage stats (either a depression of 'normal traffic', or a notable increase in all traffic; or both as, like here, there's mild inconvenience for proper users while the background hum of traditional spambot attempts gets vastly cut down because they're more easily thwarted by the newly-overwhelming amount of scraping/whatevering going on) on other online places that I have an interest in, which each have had varying degrees of having been able to counter it.
::It's hard to discern from any of explainxkcd's statistics that I can easily get hold of and analyse, but in other places it seems like there's been a 24-hour cycle (and ''possibly'' a weekday/weekend difference) that seems to indicate that the most pressure is happening during some sort of 'business hours' cycle. Perhaps suggesting that it isn't just a massive web-trawling scraper left to run upon every site it finds, but actually might be a more semi-automated "click click click" by a regular workforce. It suggests ''maybe'' a Russian thing (give or take a specific time-zone/working pattern), though also goes down through the Black Sea area, the general area of Arabia and bits of East Africa. Or, others suggest, it's something is being deliberately done ''out'' of (local) working hours, in which case it would suggest that it's being thrown out from one or other TZ in North America (but doesn't actually fit the traditional tech-hubs of the west-coast).
::Without access to any original IP ranges (which can easily be faked/proxyed, if anyone cares to), no-one I've otherwise discussed this with can say for sure. But the consensus is definitely that ''some'' grand project was started from maybe the 10th of May and built up at least until the 13th, after which there seems to have been a sustained level of disruption.
::I've never had a "10 goes to get to a page" in this period of problems (surprisingly often, no retries needed; second go usually works, if necessary; third, maybe on occasion... fourth+ ''very'' rarely), but I also tend to wait a few seconds before retrying. And wait a few more seconds before re-retrying, if necessary. That way, I'm not adding to the server load unduly (remember, guys, if you ever ''are'' using a site-scraper, do remember to include a decent 'sleep time' between your pokes and prods; throttle your traffic, lest you throttle everyone elses!), and perhaps (if the culprits ''are'' using rough sleep-cycles between each batch of 'gets', or at least their automated systems are now hitting loads of 503s/etc and wisely backing off a bit from their own connectivity mess) you'll be luckier in five, ten, twenty seconds or so and now be requesting your (more legitimate) responses during a self-imposed lull in whatever process was previously overloading it.
::I feel your pain. But perhaps I'm just a bit more relaxed about the whole thing, having previously been very well used to [[598: Porn|slow modem]] connections or, if on a campus network, knowing that every now and then that the 'fat pipe' across the Atlantic might go down and severly reduce the ability to telnet sites on the other side of the Pond... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.168|172.70.58.168]] 12:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC) [ Unless I am given a reason to edit this again, I have needed... *0* ... repeat attempts to post this response (though the entirely responsive CAPTCHA didn't believe me until the third attempt at telling it what was motorcyles/bicycles, on the very first attempt!). Fingers crossed, eh? ;) ]
:::Ya know, this all sounds more and more like a {{w|I_Put_My_Blue_Genes_On|short story by Orson Scott Card}}, played out with bits instead of germs. Maybe we should all be laying in stocks of goose quills, charcoal, and birch bark. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.129|172.71.146.129]] 14:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I added a "We Need Help!" message to the Admin Requests page, and it took me 39 tries for the comment to successfully post. (Try 6 to post this, BTW.) -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 01:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

----

I believe the first way to weigh someone was a balance beam and goats (Doctor office balance scale). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.147|172.71.223.147]] 04:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
: I thought the original way to measure someone's weight was to shake their hand.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 11:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:Or to see if they weigh the same as a duck, of course. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Who am is quite munged. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.119|172.70.42.119]] 04:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
:Was quite munged: "[[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.119|172.70.42.119]] 04:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.164|172.68.245.164]] 04:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Unlike a bathroom scale, this apparatus measures mass, not weight. So apart from the obvious fact that it's not remotely sensitive enough, it would work on a space station. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.119|162.158.186.119]] 07:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they use the Archimedes principle? Lower person into a tub of water, measure volume of water that overflows, calculate weight of the water. That was known since 246 BC. [[User:Mschmitt|Mschmitt]] ([[User talk:Mschmitt|talk]]) 18:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
:That would measure volume, not weight. However, note that Archimedes principle was method to measure volume, which was not possible before, using already existing ability to measure weight. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
::Well, technically, if you force a body to fully submerge in water (noting how much of a full bath/etc of water you spill), then allow it to float naturally (noting how much extra water you can put back in - or just do it the other way round, see how much water you expel when floating and how much additional water when dunking), then this'll give you useful density, volume ''and'' weight information. At least if what you're measuring ''does'' float (and doesn't dissolve, etc). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.130|172.70.58.130]] 00:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, for some objects this might work. For humans, not so much, as humans BREATHE and with it, change volume AND density. Anyway, Archimedes were already able to measure weight, because method for that existed since 3rd millennium BC, using balance {{w|weighing scale}}s. He might've actually be submerging such scales in water as method to measure density, according to Galileo Galilei. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I suggest adding a few more measurements, "...then this'll give you useful density, volume, weight information ''and respiration rate''." ;) Of course, this is 'respiration weight whilst floating in water', which might acrually be lower than whilst standing/sitting in the dry, but only for those not previously traumatised by near-drowning, being a hydrophobe or unfamiliar with the the pleasures of a nice bath. Any of which might have been more or less of an issue in such a historic era. :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.169|162.158.216.169]] 23:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the history of dieting and 'health' programmes, it has to be significantly doubtful that a method being unsuitable, and even dangerous, would make it unpopular.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.21|172.68.229.21]] 08:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I would've thought that they measured the terminal velocity. That'd be easier.[[Special:Contributions/180.181.251.74|180.181.251.74]] 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:1115: Sky

2026-04-06T07:12:24Z

180.181.251.74:

As anyone who read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game_%28series%29 Ender's Game] know, "The enemy's gate is down". t must be noted that mentioned gate was in a zero-gravity environment so the usual definition of down being the direction gravitation is pulling us was not applicable. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The enemy's gate is down.
Also in Ender's Game, Ender makes reference to himself clinging to the earth just before he leaves it for the first time.
: you could also now say that the movie made a small reference to that concept, though the middle half of the book was reduced to a 4 or 5 minute montage of battle scenes and Ender and his army being woken up a few times... sigh... how could I have expected it to be better :-( [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 13:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the last panel might be a reference to {{w|Nietzsche}}'s quote: "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you".

Additionally, it might also allude to the law of gravity, as it operates in the realm of {{w|Cartoon physics}}. This interpretation would seem to match the 'perspective inversion' theme of the entire comic.[[Special:Contributions/123.237.156.4|123.237.156.4]] 08:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the comment about a bottomless hole is misleading but I am not certain. the mass of the walls of the hole as well as surrounding matter would create a definite gravitational force, as would any gases or liquids that fill the hole. There would be a point (or possibly surface or line) depending on the composition and shape of whatever the bottomless hole is in as well as the contents and shape of the hole itself where the net gravitational force is zero, with all areas surrounding this point (surface or line) having gravitational forces pointing in the direction of the point/surface/line, unless the hole is in a body that extends in one direction off into infinity, in which case the mass of the entire system would be continually collapsing into a black hole as the mass of the body is infinite.
:yuuuuup [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 13:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The comic also encapsulates a feeling about the sky. If you lie down in a flat area like the american southwest, all you can see is sky. All you can see is sky. All of the sudden, it feels like one little push could send you flying. You get the feeling that you are laying on a round, small surface, and are enveloped by a huge blue sky. In "Death comes for the Archbishop" There is a one line description of this feeling.

"The sky was as full of motion and change as the desert beneath it was monotonous and still, — and there was so much sky, more than at sea, more than anywhere else in the world. The plain was there, under one's feet, but what one saw when one looked about was that brilliant blue world of stinging air and moving cloud. Even the mountains were mere ant-hills under it. Elsewhere the sky is the roof of the world; but here the earth was the floor of the sky. The landscape one longed for when one was away, the thing all about one, the world one actually lived in, was the sky, the sky! --Death Comes to the Archbishop, Book VII, Ch. 4" [ http://www.en.wikibooks.org/wiki/American_Literature/20th_Century/Willa_Cather link title]

This comic seeks to describe that feeling of "The earth being the floor of the sky"
--[[Special:Contributions/71.81.151.163|71.81.151.163]] 00:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't his beret be shown on the ground? [[User:Xyz|Xyz]] ([[User talk:Xyz|talk]]) 19:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:[[291|Staples]]. [[User:Squornshellous Beta|Squornshellous Beta]] ([[User talk:Squornshellous Beta|talk]]) 14:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
:[[291|What Squornshellous Beta said]]. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 13:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else reminded of the Stone Tower Temple from Majora's Mask? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.63.180|173.245.63.180]] 08:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

;Add this to the incomplete explanations list
There's no coverage on the title text. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.90|173.245.54.90]] 02:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
:Done. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I added an explanation on the title text. Anyone can feel free to correct it as they see fit. [[User:Codefreak5|Codefreak5]] ([[User talk:Codefreak5|talk]]) 13:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's a reference to Patema Inverted or Upside Down? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.198|108.162.246.198]] 06:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There may be another theme here, too: That a seemingly bizarre and unintuitive but irrefutable interpretation of reality may become the accepted interpretation, with implications that overturn our world view. We already saw this with {{w|General Relativity}} and the {{w|Grand Unified Theory}}. Maybe Beret Guy has hit on a {{w|Theory of Everything}}? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.152|173.245.54.152]] 13:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a simpler conception of the above theorist's. In cartoons, knowledge about gravity can be ignored until it's pointed out. We have endless scenes of the coyote chasing the road runner off a precipice, whereupon he sees the road runner's sign telling him to look down. He does this, and only then plummets to the ground. So Beret Guy "infects" Megan with his conception of "down," but it takes until she looks "down" to succumb to his interpretation of reality, causing her to cling to her mailbox for dear life. The final frame is from her perspective, though it doesn't affect Ponytail (yet!). [[User:Tquid|Tquid]] ([[User talk:Tquid|talk]]) 21:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

;rewrite the explanation

there are plenty dictionary definitions and physics of the term "down" -- https://www.google.com/search?q=define+down&oq=define+down&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1959j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&qscrl=1 -- generally speaking "down" is in the direction you move from a higher point (of energy) to a lower point (of energy) -- so the explanation as it stand saying that "''there is no set rule for what is down''" is plainly wrong, and as the opening and defining argument of the explanation it warrant the entire explanation to be re-visited and re-written. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 17:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If I could fall into the sky, do you think time would pass me by? [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 16:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I kind of experience this too, but with tall buildings that have only one floor... Basically halls. Looking upwards in there can get me dizzy and give me fear of height. I feel like I might fall down there. The hall has to be well lighted and without a lot of things standing on the floor though, that ruins it. [[User:Sinni800|Sinni800]] ([[User talk:Sinni800|talk]]) 00:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And with ''trains'', down is away from the city.[[Special:Contributions/180.181.251.74|180.181.251.74]] 07:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)