explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3068: Rock Identification

2025-03-27T00:01:29Z

198.41.236.163:

I made a transcript [[User:New editor|New editor]] ([[User talk:New editor|talk]]) 21:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
It might also imply that the geologist doesn’t know but just wants the $5 so comes up with an answer [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 00:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3019: Advent Calendar Advent Calendar

2024-12-03T00:01:01Z

198.41.236.163: Commenting on title text

Would this basically be triangle numbers? So on Christmas Eve you would open 300 windows?[[User:Tommyds|Tommyds]] ([[User talk:Tommyds|talk]]) 16:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes and no. It's not 12 days of Christmas (as mentioned in the title text), so only the overall number of gifts are a triangle number; you open 30 windows on Christmas Day. The 12 days ref is key as the song generates more gifts if taken literally even in 12 days -- 78 on the last day, 66 on the previous day, etc, for a total of 364. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 16:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice that this year The Advent calendars are correct. Normally, Advent calendars start at the 1st of December even if the Advent starts at a different day. But this year the Advent also starts at the 1st of December. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.172.40|162.158.172.40]] 16:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Donald Knuth wrote a paper for April 1984 Communications of the ACM that included an analysis of the complexity of 12 Days of Christmas. It's in the CACM archive https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/358027.358042. {{unsigned ip|172.70.211.144|16:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)}}

The explanation currently says "each day, he gets another advent calendar, which each contains 24-25 different items". I don't think that's correct; look at the picture: each day's calendar has one fewer item than the previous one. For example, the 24th only has 2 boxes and the 25th only has one. --[[User:Itub|Itub]] ([[User talk:Itub|talk]]) 17:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps each smaller advent calendar might also contain a smaller advent calendar and so on ...? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.199|172.70.90.199]] 17:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since the 1st has a calendar with a 1st, that would mean an infinite number of calendars just on the first day, so probably not. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.225|172.71.154.225]] 18:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::It could work out if you don't open the first window of a new advent calendar on the day that it is revealed. So on day 1, you open the first window revealing an advent calendar that starts on day 2. Then on day 2 you open the second window, revealing a second advent calendar and the first window of the day 1 advent calendar, revealing a third advent calendar. ... and so on. If my mental math on that is right, it's doubling every day, so 2^24 =~ 16M calendars in total? (I could be off by a day) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.69|172.71.147.69]] 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we just take a moment to appreciate whoever named the bot for this page? They wrote as follows: Created by 4 ENVELOPE BACKS 3 NERDS A-EDITING, 2 TURTLE BOTS, AND A FUNNY NEW XKCD. [[User:Willintendo|Willintendo]] ([[User talk:Willintendo|talk]]) 23:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The title text says 'may' twice, "per day may may [sic] seem absurd" --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 00:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

3010: Geometriphylogenetics

2024-11-12T01:37:59Z

198.41.236.163: Added incomplete transcript

{{comic
| number = 3010
| date = November 11, 2024
| title = Geometriphylogenetics
| image = geometriphylogenetics_2x.png
| imagesize = 316x391px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = There's a maximum likelihood that I'm doing phylogenetics wrong.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an UNUSUALLY POINTY CIRCLE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

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

Eight results are shown on the right: lopsided circle on Path 1, circle on Path 2, triangle on Path 3, parallelogram on Path 4, rhombus on Path 5, square on Path 6, rectangle on Path 7, and a pentagon on Path 8. The paths are listed in order top to bottom.
Path 3 and the triangle are bold black, while the other branches are dimmer. The paths are connected as follows: Path 2 and 3 are connected, then both connect together to Path 1; Path 4 and 5 are connected, as are Path 6 and 7, and these two paths are connected altogether; Path 8 is then connected to the branch containing Paths 4 to 7. All of Paths 1 to 3 are then connected to Paths 4 to 8, the branches all culminating in a single line on the left.

Caption below.

:The phylogenetic revolution continues:
:Triangles were long believed to be related to squares, but genetic analysis proves that they are actually very pointy circles.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Geometry]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-23T05:58:26Z

198.41.236.163:

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 58
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+4''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2892: Banana Prices

2024-02-12T02:35:08Z

198.41.236.163: "that line" is a pun?

Is it a linear extrapolation? Or does it only appear so because the Y axis is logarithmic? Inflation is logarithmic, since it's expressed in percentages. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:Well, the lines of extrapolation are (invoked as) linear, by dint of the height above the baseline being preconverted to a logarithmic function of the represented axial value. Rather than taking exponential-style extrapolation of data and 'happening' to linearise it through the subsequent transformation, it is almost certainly going to have been merely establishing some trend point(s) through which such an exponential would pass and using that to directly guide the linear plot that (on the converted scale) is the functionally equivalent result to doing it with ''every'' point. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.77|172.71.178.77]] 17:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, so... my reading of the comic after studying it for a while is that Randall is making a sophisticated meta-joke about 'lying with data" and unreliable precision and how easy it is to be fooled. He knows, of course, that this graph's "prediction" is completely arbitrary and is likely to be VERY wrong. He is intentionally breaking a whole set of statistical best practices in this graph. If so, I think this comic is one of the most-layerd and subtle he's ever done. You have to know a lot about statistical best practices to see what he's really doing here. .. What's so interesting to me is him using the voice of the caption-writer -- usually good ol' reliable Randall -- to actually be the butt of the joke. ... If someone wants to claim that this is more sarcasm than "unreliable narrator," I guess that's a reasonable interpreation, but the use of the word "probably" in the caption makes me think we're supposed to take the caption-writer seriously. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 18:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:I don't know, I think meta-humor is typically reserved for the title text. I think the comic is a cheap gag about bananas and that the line will eventually become outdated, and and it's oversimplified so that the logic of his joke is clear. The caption is written in a similar speech style to the quote, and I think the title text is Randall's admission that the graph isn't the best. I don't think flaws in the graph are intentional as part of some humor on graph design, just a consequence of making the graph clear enough to not be distracting from the joke. [[User:Kittyabbygirl|Kittyabbygirl]] ([[User talk:Kittyabbygirl|talk]]) 21:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:I think the comic is about how obvious it is that wealthy people are influencing our societies, because they know nothing about our lives, and then kind of how you can comment on that without as much lashback if you criticize yourself as well. Or course, people are getting less and less skilled as we more and more do what we are told and influenced instead of what we would find on our own. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.168|108.162.245.168]] 01:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Bananas are a special case: Basically we have a monoculture. With no genetic variations, bananas are highly vulnerable to the emergence of specialized pathogens and currently Panama 4 is threatening the Cavendish banana: https://www.theguardian.com/food/ng-interactive/2022/apr/14/climate-crisis-food-systems-not-ready-biodiversity So trying to fit this question of "will it go extinct soon?" into a smooth inflation price increase might be another butt of the joke

[[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.88|172.71.246.88]] 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Randall is way off-base here, by about an order of magnitude. The episode is about Bluth frozen bananas, which require refrigeration, chocolate, and custom labor; they also do not have the economies of scale of fresh bananas. The AD wiki says the prices are >$1; in "Top Banana," Maeby says they cost at least $1. In real life, frozen bananas cost $5 in LA, $8 at ice cream shops on LA-area beaches. This is a joke similar to the Pulp Fiction $5 milkshake; milkshakes have been much more expensive than that for years. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.149|172.70.207.149]] 19:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
: Randall sometimes ignores basic elements about how the real world works in order to make a nerdy joke or point. The comic last week about Black Hat being tracked 8,000 miles away by NIST is a good example of that. The whole thing rests on us entering into his (slightly) alternate universe with him. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 20:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
: The joke set up in the original TV show ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl_Qyk9DSUw|see here]) I think was about the wholesale price of bananas; Lucille says, "What could a banana cost? Ten dollars?". Then Michael replies, "you've never actually set foot in a supermarket, have you?" so certainly he thought she was talking about the banana stand's wholesale input cost rather than what they retail a frozen banana for [[User:NZUlysses|NZUlysses]] ([[User talk:NZUlysses|talk]]) 17:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I am tempted to say "Keep the change." "What from a fiver." "Yes the world is going to end."
At the time of the radio series, it would have been an excessive amount of change to give away.
They did not keep it for the film, when a fiver would barely pay for one of the six beers. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.23|172.69.195.23]] 19:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Using log scale here is not a joke. It's perfectly legit. Constant inflation is actually an exponential relation. For example, if prices go 10% up every year, in two years they won't be 20% higher but 21% because 1.10*1.10=1.21. And such an exponential relation becomes linear when plotted using a logarithmic y axis.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 21:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

With 34 Trillion debt I would not expect a US dollar to be worth a tenth of a banana in a time frame of hundreds of years - How far they can kick the can is unknown but I would guess years or at best decades over centuries. "what can not be paid back will not be paid back" A banana is worth a banana - it is the money that is losing value and to sustain this circus that must accelerate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.216|108.162.241.216]] 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As Pere points out, the logarithmic scale is in fact the correct scale for estimating the uncorrected price of an item, such as a banana. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.214|172.71.103.214]] 22:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The explanation is needlessly long and on occasion wrong. Some one tried to fix it by adding paragraphs in parentheses. If something is confusingly written or wrong it's generally best to rewrite instead of adding a paragraph.
In my eyes the comic is Randall's comment on the fact that agricultural products have become relatively cheaper by having price increases below the inflation rate. This is a long sgandingytrend since the beginning of industrialization and the only reason we can afford new other things than food. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.24|172.71.160.24]] 07:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"That line probably has another century or so left." There seems to me to be a pun here - 'that line' could refer to either the line(s) on the graph, which cross the $10 threshhold in a bit over century AND to the "how much could it cost" line of dialogue. In a century that line (of dialogue) won't be amusing any more since by that point - assuming the projection is correct - bananas WILL cost about $10, so the irony and humour will become lost.

== Bad stats? ==

Are these really 'statistical sins'?

Hot take but I agree with comments that it's reading too much into this comic to call it "a meta-joke about lying with data". Here are the supposed "sins" listed:

# false precision
# extrapolating an order of magnitude deeper into the future than is advisable
# assuming that a non-exponential quantity - prices - will grow exponentially
# referring to a logarithmic extrapolation as linear
# ignoring historical norms and high variability in making future predictions
# articulating multiple potential scenarios that are actually highly correlated with each other.

Taking them one by one:

> 1. false precision

Projecting prices hundreds of years into the future is farcical, for sure, but I'm not sure that's "false precision". "False precision" would be saying "on January 6 2254 this joke will finally be stale". But the comic gives a very imprecise (and wrong!) range "another century or so". If anything the precision of the projection is downplayed.

> 2. extrapolating an order of magnitude deeper into the future than is advisable

This one is true, and is the source of the humor.

> 3. assuming that a non-exponential quantity - prices - will grow exponentially

Inflation _is_ an exponential process, _by design_. Monetary policy holds the explicit aim--more or less upheld since the 1980s--to keep long-range inflation within a low and positive percentage around the 2% mark. That is the aim. There are periods of higher (and lower!) inflation but overall, the Fed has been successful at keeping long-run inflation within the target range for the last 40 years or so in which inflation targeting has been the dominant monetary policy paradigm. And growth on a constant percentage rate in a series just _is_ exponential growth; that's what exponential means.

> 4. referring to a logarithmic extrapolation as linear

idk maybe. The graph is on a log scale but a log scale has the quality of allowing us to visualize an exponential trend on a straight (linear) line. That's the beauty of it. I don't think there's a "sin" here.

> 5. ignoring historical norms and high variability in making future predictions

What historical norms are being ignored here exactly? Long-run inflation is fairly stable. To the degree there's a sin here, it's already covered by (2).

> 6. articulating multiple potential scenarios that are actually highly correlated with each other.

idk can anyone find a quote from their preferred statistical Bible to support the idea this is a sin? To my mind, showing that multiple distinct models converge on an approximate answer is a very good way to test convergent validity of a prediction. There are problems with presenting models as independent when they are not in order to give a false impression of a consensus. I don't think using three different inflation series as alternative models is doing that.

So maybe 1 or 2 of the sins alleged are real, imo. [[User:NZUlysses|NZUlysses]] ([[User talk:NZUlysses|talk]]) 17:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like parts of this explanation were written by ChatGPT. The unnecessary bulleted list, "looks like a wry observation", "using the ignorant tone [...] to wryly acknowledge", "overall", "in truth". This is an unusual tone for this wiki but not unusual for a chatbot.

Its kind of hilarious. Maybe we should keep it. [[User:Ystem|Ystem]] ([[User talk:Ystem|talk]]) 18:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The explanation (as of this writing) is wildly overcomplicating things. The simple, straightforward idea that it will probably take a century for Lucille to be correct is the most likely intent of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.225|172.71.174.225]] 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that correlations of projections are a problem. Often the future projections are "best case, worst case, most probable case", or at least 25th/50th/75th percentiles of a whole glob of simulated predictions, and will be highly correlated (but divergent, thus representing a potential uncertainty or highlighting when actuality confounds even the edge conditions). 
In this graph, those are three trends that ''might'' (in different amounts of specificity) direct the onward trend of the actual figure, depending upon what factors dominate. Bananas might be 'less price-rising than fruit', which in turn might be 'less price-rising than the general economy' (taking the projections at face value), but if the relative inexpensiveness of bananas hits a 'floor' (by general fruit terms or the wider economic issues) and fails to be disproportionately discounted as it clearly(!) has been then it would be forced to 'jump tracks' to a similarly (but more so) rising cost now parallel to where the successor projection was leading. (That's before other price-shocks like Banana Extinction or Inflationary Recession make the naïve trends of any or all of the lines completely wrong.) 
An example of an actually uncorrelated trend would be something Moore's Law-related, which would apparently be allowed here (by the "sin" objections), though it's difficult to say how that would be any more relevent than what actually is there. Of course, understanding (or explanation) of the potentially confounding (and hopefully relevent) co-dependent extrapolations plays a part in this. But this isn't even a significant "bad graph, just for the sake of laughs" element, IMO. If anything, it's the very squiggly nature of the historic data being projected off into 'likely directions' (dominated by the most recent true-instantaneous-gradient, which is clearly curved upards from any historic rolling average) without any consideration that the future-line might turn out to be just as 'squiggly' (except that it might be mostly rattling around between the upper and lower 'estimates', even as ''their'' true paths also rattle around... the most litteral 'banana price' trend obviously rewriting itself ''as'' the actual banana-price line). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.20|172.69.194.20]] 16:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the commenters above, and I removed all the “unreliable narrator” and bad stats stuff. I was assuming he was being “Bluthian” about the whole graph, but now I realize there’s not much evidence for that. Hopefully it’s better now. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 21:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Separately: Can non-hyphen-dash editors [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2892:_Banana_Prices&diff=334823&oldid=334816 consider this edit reason] as a suggestion. If I see two words separated by just a line, it litterally screams of being a hyphen (even when it is typographically different). I will gladly dash (or even "&mdash;") an inadvertent hyphen-as-a-dash (or a two-hyphens-as-a-dash!), but to have no spacing makes it then tend towards dash-as-a-hyphen. And unnecessary when, as in these cases, sometimes a simple commaing will serve the same purpose. And parentheses can also be used when already there's too much commaing to be easily read in, out and across the various commas that might be there, with the advantage of clarifying the ins-and-outs of the rhetorical flourishes. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.20|172.69.194.20]] 16:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

2876: Range Safety

2024-01-03T15:31:22Z

198.41.236.163: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2876
| date = January 3, 2024
| title = Range Safety
| image = range_safety_2x.png
| imagesize = 565x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Range Mischief Officer has modified the trajectory to add a single random spin somewhere in the flight, but won't tell us where.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a RANGE MISCHIEF POLICE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A {{w|Range Safety}} officer is responsible for ensuring that the flight of a missile or launch vehicle (such as the rocket depicted) is safe. This involves tasks such as the creation of a launch corridor that is clear of any aircraft or ships, as well as ensuring that atmospheric conditions are favorable for a launch. In this comic the Range Safety Officer has noticed reports of thunderstorms downrange, and has ordered a hold as conditions are no longer favorable for a launch.

A Range Danger Officer is not an actual position, but if it were, they may be responsible for ensuring that the flight of the vehicle is dangerous. Flying into the biggest thunderstorm may qualify as dangerous.

The title text also mentions a Range Mischief Officer, who presumably is responsible for mischief (generally defined as minor/playful annoyance). Introducing a random unknown spin may qualify as the spin shouldn't affect the flight too much, but would make everyone else nervous about the flight.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[A rocket is on a launchpad with a tower near it. Voices are coming from a nearby building.]
:Voice: There are reports of thunderstorms in the downrange area.

:Voice: The Range Safety Officer has ordered a launch hold.

:Voice: But the Range '''''Danger''''' Officer wants to launch the rocket toward the biggest thunderstorm.
:Voice 2: Okay, why do we even '''''have''''' that position?

==Trivia==
* '''This trivia section was created by a BOT'''
* The [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/range_safety.png standard size] image was uploaded with a resolution/size larger than the supposed 2x version.
* This may have been an error.

{{comic discussion}}

2876: Range Safety

2024-01-03T15:28:05Z

198.41.236.163: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2876
| date = January 3, 2024
| title = Range Safety
| image = range_safety_2x.png
| imagesize = 565x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Range Mischief Officer has modified the trajectory to add a single random spin somewhere in the flight, but won't tell us where.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a RANGE MISCHIEF POLICE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A {{w|Range Safety}} officer is responsible for ensuring that the flight of a missile or launch vehicle (such as the rocket depicted) is safe. This involves tasks such as the creation of a launch corridor that is clear of any aircraft or ships, as well as ensuring that atmospheric conditions are favorable for a launch. In this comic the Range Safety Officer has noticed reports of thunderstorms downrange, and has ordered a hold as conditions are no longer favorable for a launch.

A Range Danger Officer is not an actual position, but if it were, they may be responsible for ensuring that the flight of the vehicle is dangerous. Flying into the biggest thunderstorm may qualify as dangerous.

The title text also mentions a Range Mischief Officer, who presumably is responsible for mischief (generally defined as minor/playful annoyance). Introducing a random unknown spin may qualify as the spin shouldn't affect the flight too much, but would make everyone else nervous about the flight.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Voice: There are reports of thunderstorms in the downrange area.

:Voice: The Range Safety Officer has ordered a launch hold.

:Voice: But the Range '''''Danger''''' Officer wants to launch the rocket toward the biggest thunderstorm.
:Voice 2: Okay, why do we even '''''have''''' that position?

==Trivia==
* '''This trivia section was created by a BOT'''
* The [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/range_safety.png standard size] image was uploaded with a resolution/size larger than the supposed 2x version.
* This may have been an error.

{{comic discussion}}

850: World According to Americans

2023-12-16T05:08:58Z

198.41.236.163: /* Table of items in the map */ Correcting Virgin Islands, adding "Hispañola"

{{comic
| number = 850
| date = January 21, 2011
| title = World According to Americans
| image = world according to americans.png
| titletext = It's not our fault we caught a group on their way home from a geography bee. And they taught us that Uzbekistan is one of the world's two doubly-landlocked countries!
}}
*A [http://xkcd.com/850_large/ larger version] of this image can be found by clicking the image at xkcd.com - the comic's page can also be accessed by clicking on the comic number above.

==Explanation==

{{notice2|'''This article may contain something offensive to non-Americans.''' ''An edit war has occurred'' If you are in doubt, please [[Special:Random|do not read]] further.|image=semi-protection-lock.png}}

There's a somewhat well-circulated image on the internet entitled "[http://google.com/search?q=the+world+according+to&tbm=isch The World According to Americans]" which plays on the stereotype of the ignorant American. In it, the entirety of Eastern Europe and most of Asia are entitled "commies" and the Middle-East as "evil-doers," and so on. Later, other people created similar maps to re-do the concept. It later spread to other cultures.

This comic is an anti-joke playing on that idea. You expect to see something which plays on the {{w|stereotypes}} that exist in American culture of various parts of the world. However, instead, the map is remarkably well-informed, and shows how sampling bias can be used to conflate results. See below the [[#Table of items in the map|table of items in the map]].

The title text jokes that it was "not their fault" that the Americans involved were coming from a {{w|National Geographic Bee|geography bee}}. On the other hand, if even apparent geography buffs use vague labels such as "rest of South America" and "various former Soviet states" instead of using more detailed labels, the average American are likely even less geographically knowledgeable. (Although, as the illustrators wrote below Cape Horn, the reason they did not draw Antarctica or many South American, Middle Eastern and British countries and the lack of detail may be because the people who asked them to draw this map were beginning to 'look impatient' since they did not get the expected ignorant result.)

A {{w|landlocked country}} is a country that does not border any major bodies of water. Furthering the concept, a {{w|Landlocked_country#Doubly_landlocked|doubly-landlocked}} country is a country that not only has no connection to water, but is only bordered by ''other'' landlocked countries. As the title text states, there are only two such countries in the world as of 2012: {{w|Uzbekistan}} and {{w|Liechtenstein}}. This is the type of fact that may be stereotypically expected of a geography bee competitor.

===Table of items in the map===
{| class="wikitable"
!style="width: 25%;"|Annotation
! Further details
|-
| Hey so what projection should we use? I’ll aim for "Robinson".
| Any flat [[977|map projection]] of a sphere must have inaccuracies. {{w|Mercator projection}} displays shapes well at the expense of size. For example, Mercator's Greenland appears larger than South America, but is actually one eighth the size. {{w|Gall-Peters projection}} does the opposite, showing accurate surface area with distorted ("awful") shapes. {{w|Robinson projection}} compromises between shape & size for aesthetics; hence Greenland is "still too big".
|-
| Did you know Maine is actually the US state closest to Africa?
| The distance is about 5076 km (~3754 mi). Measurement points are {{w|Sail Rock (disambiguation)|Sail Rock (Maine)}}, the most eastern point of the USA, and a point which seems to be the most southern (and as such western) point of el-Beddouza Beach, {{w|Morocco}}. It's not the most western point of Morocco (or Africa), though.
|-
| Hispañola
| For some reason, the map labels the island of {{w|Hispaniola}} using an archaic and now rarely-used spelling of its name.
|-
| Do we have to label all the Virgin Islands?
| Which are {{w|Virgin_Islands#Larger_Islands|9 larger}} and about 100 {{w|List of Caribbean islands#British Virgin Islands|smaller}} {{w|List of Caribbean islands#United States Virgin Islands|islands}} - surely a lot of labels. The location of the label suggests this actually refers to the larger chain of islands which makes up the {{w|Lesser Antilles}}.
|-
| French, and I think Dutch and English
| The three separated areas are (from west to east) {{w|Guyana}} (former British colony), {{w|Suriname}} (former Dutch colony) and {{w|French Guiana}} (still officially part of France). The former two often switched between French, Dutch and British colonial rule. The latter was French most times except for a short Portuguese episode.
|-
| Brazil (Portugese-speaking)
Rest of South America (Spanish-speaking)
| In green is Portuguese-speaking (misspelled) Brazil, and in blue are the Spanish speaking Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina.
|-
| {{w|Greenland}} (Still too big!)
Yeah, but the Peters map is awful
| Relating back to the choice of map projection, the apparent size of Greenland is one of the most commonly known projection based inaccuracies. The {{w|Gall-Peters projection}} shows accurate surface area, but with distorted ("awful") shapes.
|-
|Scandanavia
| A typo of {{w|Scandinavia}}. The area shown includes Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark, but the actual area of Scandinavia excludes Finland. The Scandinavian peninsula countries include Norway, Finland, and Sweden, and those can be collectively (and nerdily) referred to as "Fennoscandia."
|-
| Western Europe
Eastern Europe
| The line here approximately follows that of the {{w|Iron Curtain}} that separated the {{w|Warsaw Pact}} states (the Soviet Union and other Communist allies) from the {{w|NATO}} (US-allied) and neutral states. However, all of Germany is included in Western Europe (when during the Cold War it was divided into East and West Germany) while Austria (which was officially neutral in the Cold War but closely tied to the West and therefore blocked off from its Communist neighbors) is marked as Eastern Europe. Here, Eastern Europe also includes the {{w|Balkans}} (the southern peninsula east of Italy), which are usually considered separate. During the Cold War, the Balkans were divided between Soviet-allied Albania (which later left the Pact) and Bulgaria, NATO-allied Greece and Turkey, and Yugoslavia, which was a neutral Communist state. It's also worth noting that there should be a blob of Russian red in the middle of Eastern Europe, representing the Russian exclave of {{w|Kaliningrad oblast}}.
|-
| British Isles
Ireland
| Although {{w|Ireland}} belongs to the {{w|British Isles}} geographically, it does not belong to the {{w|British Islands}} politically. That may be the reason why Ireland is labeled additionally - to show it's known that Ireland does not belong to the {{w|United Kingdom}}. {{w|Northern Ireland}} does, though.
|-
| Rainforest DRC
| The area shown is actually not completely the {{w|Democratic Republic of the Congo}} (DRC), but since one of the persons who made this map says they don't know the African map very well (see statement below), it's fairly accurate. Also the area called rainforest is somewhat larger than the area depicted as {{w|tropical rainforest}} on Wikipedia, although this might be due to {{w|deforestation}} and {{w|desertification in Africa}}
|-
| So this is one of those things where you point out our ignorance and stereotypes?
Yeah – I mean I freely admit I don’t know the African map very well, which speaks volumes in itself.
| Here two of the persons involved in drawing this map discusses what their lack of knowledge about Africa says about them. The African portion of the map is for sure the most poorly labeled, which lends weight to the stereotype of the 'Ignorant American'. Although it has to be mentioned, that the geography of Africa is in general not well known - at least within the Western world. So that's not really an American thing, here. The few countries which are labeled here mostly are well known because of their unstable political situation or because of their remarkable location. The labeled locations (and the presumably reasons of their "publicity") are west to east, north to south: {{w|Morocco}} ({{w|Arab Spring}}, location), {{w|Algeria}} (Arab Spring, {{w|Algerian Civil War|Civil War}}), {{w|Sahara|Sahara Desert}} (largest hot desert of the world), {{w|Sudan}} ({{w|Second Sudanese Civil War|Civil war}}, Arab Spring), {{w|West Africa}} ({{w|West Africa#Postcolonial eras|Lots of Civil wars}} and thus bad humanitarian situation, {{w|Blood diamond|Blood diamonds}}), {{w|Somalia}} ({{w|Somali Civil War|Civil war}}, {{w|Piracy in Somalia|pirates}}), {{w|Lake Victoria}} (largest lake of Africa, quite remarkable even at large scale maps (as here)), {{w|Mozambique}} ({{w|Mozambican Civil War|Civil war}}), {{w|Angola}} ({{w|Angolan Civil War|Civil War}}) and {{w|Madagascar}} (one of the worlds large island at the east coast - quite remarkable).
|-
| Cape Horn
| {{w|Cape Horn}} is the southern tip of ''South America'', not ''Africa''. The southern tip of Africa is called {{w|Cape Agulhas}}.
|-
| Should we include {{w|Antarctica}}?
Let’s not – these guys are looking impatient
| Here it is made clear that those who came with this assignment are getting impatient since their project of proving how little Americans know about the world has failed miserably. It also shows that if some labels or parts are missing, then it could be because of this and not for lack of knowledge. This is also a joke on the lack of labels that would be required for the map of Antarctica. Drawing Antarctica and labeling it would probably take less time than having the discussion about whether to include it, and then writing that discussion on the map.
|-
| {{w|Aral Sea}} (Gone)
| Formerly one of the largest fresh-water lakes of the world, now actually not completely gone, but almost.
|-
| Various former Soviet states
| Which are (west to east) {{w|Kazakhstan}}, {{w|Turkmenistan}}, {{w|Uzbekistan}}, {{w|Tajikistan}} and {{w|Kyrgyzstan}}. The former {{w|Soviet Union|Union of Soviet Socialist Republics}} was dissolved in 1991 and thus the {{w|Cold War}} ended.
|-
| Middle East
| Drawn here to include {{w|Egypt}} and {{w|Turkey}}. Whether these should be included depends on whether you mean the phrase ''Middle East'' politically or geographically. They are both Muslim countries, but geographically Egypt is in Africa and Turkey is usually not included because of its close affiliation with Europe.
|-
| Boxing Day quake
Wait, "Boxing Day"? There’s no way you’re American.

I read BBC News, OK?
| On December 26, 2004, a {{w|2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami|huge earthquake}} struck off the coast of Indonesia, causing severe tsunamis. December 26, the day after {{w|Christmas Day}}, is celebrated as {{w|Boxing Day}} in the UK, Canada, Australia, and some other English-speaking countries, but not the US. As such, the earthquake became known as the Boxing Day Quake.
One of the people who came asked these people to draw this map picks up on the use of 'Boxing Day' as something no American would say and questions if this person is, in fact, American. But an American reader of {{w|BBC News}} (part of the British Broadcasting Corporation) may start to use the phrase "Boxing Day" about the Tsunami.
|-
| India -> Mostly Muslim
India -> Mostly Hindu
| In general {{w|India}} is separated in {{w|Religion in India|two religious groups}}. Muslims in the north-west, Hindus in the rest. As visible on the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_in_India.svg map] in Wikimedia Commons, the area with a predominant Muslim population is far smaller (and mostly concentrated to Kashmir) than depicted in the comic.
|-
| Tibet (contested)
| The area was annexed by the {{w|People's Republic of China}} in the 1950s. Since then there are {{w|Tibetan independence movement|moves to gain}} some degree or other of independence. The marked area is fairly inaccurate, though. Today's {{w|Tibet Autonomous Region}} (former {{w|Kingdom of Tibet}}) is roughly the southern half of the marked area extended a bit to the south-east.
|-
| Kamchatka Peninsula, but I admit I only know this one from Risk
|''{{w|Risk (game)|Risk}}'' is a board game played on a map of the world, where players own territories and battle each other for world domination. The person in the comic admits to knowing {{w|Kamchatka Peninsula}} only from the territory "Kamchatka" in the game. Kamchatka is notable among the territories in the game because it and Alaska are connected, despite being on opposite sides of the board- a fact that can easily be overlooked.
|-
| Koreas
| The two Koreas are the "{{w|Democratic People's Republic of Korea}}" (North Korea) and the "{{w|Republic of Korea}}" (South Korea).
|-
| Japan, duh.
| Well...{{w|Japan}}.
|-
| Taiwan (actually called "The Republic of China" – it's complicated).
| This is a reference to the complicated political history of {{w|Taiwan}}. After the {{w|Chinese Civil War}}, the Nationalists fled {{w|mainland China}} for the island of Taiwan and set up a {{w|martial law in Taiwan|martial law}} there, vowing to return. In the intervening 70 years or so, Taiwan eventually began to transform into a democracy, being a self-governing state in its own right, but hasn't shed the name, or the animosity with the new rulers of mainland China. According to Americans, China and Taiwan are {{w|Taiwan Relations Act#Since 2000|separate countries}}, but many other nations do not feel able to treat with the latter to that degree, given the political pressures from the former. The government of China claims ''de jure'' {{w|Political status of Taiwan|sovereignty of Taiwan}}, even though there is ''de facto'' separation of governance, and the island is not represented as a sovereign territory by the United Nations …hence the "it's complicated" tag. There is also a missing end-paren here, which is likely a typo. The tag "it's complicated" is one of the options for relationship statuses on Facebook, and denotes two people whose relationship defies the usual labels. In this case, it is the relationship between the "countries" which is complicated.
|-
| Sulawesi
| As a running gag, the island of {{w|Sulawesi}} (formerly known as Celebes) is depicted in several map-like drawings and charts (see [[256: Online Communities]], [[273: Electromagnetic Spectrum]], [[802: Online Communities 2]], and [[1555: Exoplanet Names 2]]). Of course, there are good reasons to show it on an actual world map like the one here.
|-
| Paupa New Guinea
| A spelling mistake of {{w|Papua New Guinea}}.
|-
| Phillipines
| A spelling mistake of the {{w|Philippines}}.
|-
| Southeast Asia
| {{w|Southeast Asia}} is a region in Asia, which includes Buddhist-majority countries of Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, Muslim-majority countries of Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, and Christian-majority countries of the Philippines and Timor-Leste. However, in this map, Indonesia is depicted separately from the rest of SE Asia.
|-
| Malaysia
| Malaysia is a country in Southeast Asia (it is not known why it was excluded on the map)
|-
| Indonesia
| Indonesia is another country in Southeast Asia (it is not known why it was excluded on the map).
|-
| Sri Lanka
| Sri Lanka is a small island country near India.
|-
| Tasmania
| Tasmania is an Australian state.
|}

==Transcript==
:THE WORLD
:According to a Group of
:'''AMERICANS'''
:who turned out to be unexpectedly good at geography, derailing our attempt to illustrate their country's attitude toward the rest of the world.

:[Left to right, up to down.]

:[North of Canada.] Hey so what projection should we use?
:I'll aim for "Robinson."

:[North America.] Alaska; Canada; Hudson Bay; Québec; United States
:Did you know Maine is actually the US state closest to Africa?; Bermuda (British!)

:[Central America.] Baja California (Mexico); Mexico; Central America; Panama Canal; Gulf of Mexico; Cuba; Hispañola; POR.; Jamaica
:Do we have to label all the Virgin Islands?

:[South America.] Rest of South America (spanish-speaking); Brazil (portugese-speaking); French, and I think Dutch and English; Tierra del Fuego

:[Greenland.] Greenland (still too big!); Yeah but the Peters map is awful; Iceland

:[Europe.] British Isles; [https://iecasimile.com/ Ireland]; Gibralter; Scandanavia; Western Europe; Eastern Europe; Black sea; Middle East

:[Africa.] Morocco; Algera; Sahara Desert; West Africa; Sudan; Rainforest DRC; Lake Victoria; Somalia; Angola; Mozambique; South Africa; Cape Horn; Madagascar

:[West of DRC.] So this is one of those things where you point out our ignorance and stereotypes?
:Yeah – I mean, I freely admit I don't know the African map very well, which speaks volumes in itself.

:[West Asia.] Russia; Aral sea (Gone); Various former Soviet states; Afghanistan & Pakistan; India; Mostly Muslim; Mostly Hindu

:[Indian Ocea.] Sri Lanka; Boxing Day Quake
:Wait, "Boxing day"? There's no way you're American.
:I read BBC News, OK?

:[East Asia.] Mongolia; Tibet (contested); China; Southeast Asia

:[Pacific Ocean.] Kamchatka Pennisula, but I admit I only know this one from Risk.
:Koreas; Japan, duh.; Taiwan (actually called "The Republic of China." – it's complicated.); Phillipines; Malaysia; Indonesia; Sulawesi; Paupa New Guinea; Australia; Tasmania; New Zealand

:[South of Africa.] Should we include Antarctica?
:Let's not – these guys are looking impatient.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Maps]]
[[Category:Board games]]