explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

53: Hobby

2015-10-04T12:20:50Z

199.27.128.68: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 53
| date = January 23, 2006 
| title = Hobby
| image = hobby.jpg
| titletext = The only one of these games I really played was Area 51
}}

==Explanation==
This is the second in the "[[My Hobby]]" series of ''[[xkcd]]'' comics.

This comic humorously compares the rules of light gun cabinet arcade video games with real life.

[[Randall]] suggests that his hobby is going to drug busts with the expressed purpose of getting shot as an innocent bystander, thereby causing the police to lose 100 points. Since the comic represents Randall's "hobby", and the person does not look like any of the main characters, the person lying lifeless in a pool of blood must represent him.

Drug busts are events where police attempt to catch drug dealers, suppliers, and financiers in situations with enough evidence to convict them. In the style of arcade video games being examined, drug busts are usually depicted as chaotic events with villains, innocent bystanders, captives, and allies popping up like spring loaded targets at a shooting range in a setting with lots of places to hide. If you don't shoot a target sufficiently quick, you will be shot, so it is common to shoot the wrong targets. To compensate for this these games often deduct points. This is often frustrating, as it requires a number of points to get more ammo or complete the level.

Often the games deliberately encourage you to shoot the innocent making the act seem suicidal. The comic image suggests the police would lose 100 points for such an act in the real world. Obviously, doing this in real life would be a really bad idea, as the hobbyist would quickly be killed.

The title text refers to the game "{{w|Area 51 (1995 video game)|Area 51}}" which was a popular shooter arcade game from 1995 (although a console/PC game {{w|Area 51 (2005 video game)|of the same name}} was released in 2005) which was one of many cabinet arcade games which featured a light gun which allowed players to aim at the screen and shoot in a realistic control mechanic. The title text confirms that the comic is referring to these light gun cabinet games specifically.

The title text of [[188: Reload]] references this strip.

==Transcript==
:[A person with hair lies on the ground in a pool of red blood. At the top of the panel there is a caption. Then a text. And above the person there is a score with small lines around to indicate that it has just appeared over the body.]
:My hobby:
:When the police bust drug hideouts, I sneak in and hide. Then I jump out and startle them into shooting me so they lose points.
:-100

==Trivia==
*This was the 51st comic originally posted to [[LiveJournal]].
**The previous was [[52: Secret Worlds]].
**The next was [[55: Useless]].
*Original title: "My Hobby"
**As is also the caption in the comic, but the "My" was lost in the xkcd title.
**It is part of the last six comics on LiveJournal which all had a title without the word "Drawing" in it.
**The five other comics had the exact same title on both sites.
**Apart from the [[:Category:First day on LiveJournal|thirteen first comics]] posted to LiveJournal, there were only three other comics without the word "Drawing" in the title before these last six.
*There were no original [[Randall]] quote for this comic.
**However, Randall did reply to this comment by "SpEnSe" on LiveJournal:
:::"I'm reminded of Area 51 where you accidently kept shooting the cops in the back...over and over again.
:::Brilliant."
:*Randall made the following reply:
:::"That was actually precisely the game I was thinking of. I remember my brother playing that game all day at the arcade when we were little.
:::Fuckin' innocents."
:*This comment is reflected in the title text on xkcd.
*This comic was one of the last 11 comics posted on LiveJournal.
**These 11 comics were [[:Category:Posted on LiveJournal after xkcd|posted both on LiveJournal and xkcd]] after the [[xkcd]] site opened on the 1st of January 2006.
**The first six comics were posted on both sites on the same day. But not this one.
*For some reason [[54: Science]] was posted before this one on LiveJournal on the 18th of January 2006
**It first came out a week later on xkcd on the 25th of January 2006.
**This was the day that [[53: Hobby]] were released on LiveJournal.
**But [[53: Hobby]] had already been released on xkcd two days earlier, the same day as [[52: Secret Worlds]] came out on LiveJournal, on Monday the 23rd of January 2006 .
**The release date here on explain xkcd uses the first release date, so that is the one on xkcd.
*After the mishap with [[54: Science]] the next three comics up to this one came out on LiveJournal a release day later.
**First with the next (and last) comic released on LiveJournal, [[55: Useless]], did the two sites release the same comic on the same day again.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal| 51]]
[[Category:Posted on LiveJournal after xkcd]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Video games]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]

1377: Fish

2014-06-10T02:47:39Z

199.27.128.68: /* Explanation */ wrt fermi paradox: "high likelihood' -> 'high estimates of the likelihood'

{{comic
| number = 1377
| date = June 4, 2014
| title = Fish
| image = fish.png
| titletext = [Astronomer peers into telescope] [Jaws theme begins playing]
}}

==Explanation==
The {{w|Fermi Paradox}} is the contradiction that arises between high estimates of the likelihood of {{w|extraterrestial life}} and the fact that no evidence for it has thus far been found.

[[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] are having a conversation regarding this — since new planets are found all the time around distant stars, Cueball comments that this makes it an even greater paradox. Megan suggests that perhaps our search for extraterrestrial life is like looking at a patch of ocean floor looking for a fish. The diver knows that there must be a fish somewhere, but is unable to actually find it. She then goes on to ask why the fish would be hidden — i.e. camouflaged, and what it means about the remaining fish. The suggestion is that the fish would be hidden to avoid being eaten by predators, and perhaps the reason no extraterrestrial life is sending any sign of existence back is that they fear they might be destroyed soon after they revealed their location. Maybe they have even actively tried to hide the presence of their entire planet if they obtain the technological means. This potentially refers to the [http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/gif/1983QJRAS..24..283B/0000296.000.html Deadly Probes scenario] where a space faring species has developed deadly probes that self replicate and spread through the void between the stars - homing in on radio signals and destroying young civilizations in the cradle...

The camouflaged fish could be identified by using more sophisticated technologies like infrared cameras. Looking at the Earth from space beyond {{w|Low Earth orbit}} only with the naked eye wouldn't show any hint to our {{w|ecosystem}}. This is like the actual possibility in astronomy when observing {{w|Exoplanet|exoplanets}} — the nature of those more than 1,500 known planets is unknown due to the lack of better technologies to the scientists. And there are a couple of hundred Billion planets at our galaxy still camouflaged to human scientists.

The final panels take the metaphor further, suggesting that there is literally a planet sized shark swimming through space eating planets, and since the view is panning away from earth and over to the shark, the shark seems to be heading our way... So it looks like Earth is the next fish, presumably because we did not reach a high enough technology level in time to recognize the danger and hide.

This also explains the title text that has the theme from the movie ''{{w|Jaws (film)|Jaws}}'' playing while astronomers look into their telescopes. This may also be a reference to the film ''{{w|Alien (film)|Alien}}'', which was pitched with the three word proposal "''Jaws'' in Space."

{{w|Stephen Hawking}} famously warns, “If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans.” Even {{w|Carl Sagan}} called the practice of Broadcasting and Signaling presence of Life on Earth “deeply unwise and immature,” and recommended that “the newest children in a strange and uncertain cosmos should listen quietly for a long time, patiently learning about the universe and comparing notes, before shouting into an unknown jungle that we do not understand.”

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are walking down a hill.]
:Cueball: The Fermi paradox keeps getting worse. If planets are common, where '''is''' everybody?

:Megan: Imagine you're a scuba diver looking at the ocean floor. You know there's a fish there, but you can't see it. Why?

:Cueball: Maybe the fish looks like sand.
:Megan: Yeah...

:[Zoom out to the Earth from space.]
:Megan: ...and what would that tell you about the ecosystem?

:[The Earth is moving out of the panel and then a shark is shown swimming through space towards Earth.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Sharks]]

Talk:1374: Urn

2014-05-28T10:10:13Z

199.27.128.68: The urn could contain both the ashes and the balls, as the teacher does not use any modifiers like "only". IE: Meg could have imagined these balls being added to an urn are already has knowledge of. It would be nice if the explanation clarified this

The urn could contain both the ashes and the balls, as the teacher does not use any modifiers like "only". IE: Meg could have imagined these balls being added to an urn are already has knowledge of. It would be nice if the explanation clarified this possibility. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.68|199.27.128.68]] 10:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Adam

I interpreted the "with replacement" part of the title text as Megan wanting to have her grandfather back.--[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 08:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
: I now realize she just wants to put the ashes back, it's so obvious it hurts. #overthinkingit --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 09:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The calculation for "with replacement" is substantially shorter (and thus easier and less tedious) than without. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 09:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
: Depends on whether you disregard the order in which the balls are drawn or not. -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 10:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A bot wrote all of these?!--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.46|108.162.215.46]] 09:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
: I guess I'll have to remove "understanding xkcd" from my list of working Turing tests then... -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 10:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

1374: Urn

2014-05-28T08:05:12Z

199.27.128.68: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1374
| date = May 28, 2014
| title = Urn
| image = urn.png
| titletext = Can this PLEASE be drawing with replacement?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page.}}
A common scenario for teaching elementary probability theory is the situation of drawing coloured balls from a container, such as a bag, hat, or as here, an urn.

An urn is also used to contain the burnt ashes following cremation. Megan, when asked to imagine drawing balls from an urn, fantasises that the urn contains not the coloured balls, but human ashes, and is concequently shocked.

Randall has recently explored the joke of someone, when asked to imagine something, taking the fantasy beyond what is expected in the comic [[Like I'm Five]]

The title text refers to two scenarios that can be imagined in the coloured ball experiment: The balls may be replaced between each drawing, or not. If they are replaced then each draw is independent of the previous. Megan would prefer to put the ashes back into the urn.

==Transcript==
[Cueball is standing in a classroom with Megan at a desk.]

Cueball: Imagine that you're drawing at random from an urn containing fifteen balls - six red and nine black.

Megan: OK. I reach in and... ''My grandfather's ashes?!? Oh god!''

Cueball: I... what?

Megan: '''WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO ME?!?'''

{{comic discussion}}

1338: Land Mammals

2014-03-24T04:27:13Z

199.27.128.68: sp

{{comic
| number = 1338
| date = March 5, 2014
| title = Land Mammals
| image = land_mammals.png
| titletext = Bacteria still outweigh us thousands to one--and that's not even counting the several pounds of them in your body.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The division of animal blocks are clear but only 6 are labeled. Some qualified guesses as to how the other (at least the largest) blocks are divided should be possible... What about the layout of the blocks?}}

This comic is a [[Nerd Sniping]] by [[Randall]] to his viewers. This explain tries to figure out the missing parts.

The comic shows the total weight of mankind and all other land mammals.
Only a few centuries ago humans, and their pets and livestock, come to occupy such a great proportion of the earth's land mammal mass.

Per the diagram, there are 358 million tons of humans, 864 million tons of pets and livestock, of which 520 million tons comes from cattle, and 34 million tons of wild animals; for a total of 1.3 billion tons.

As of March 2014, the world population was about 7.16 billion people<sup>[https://www.census.gov/popclock/ 1]</sup> and so the comic assumes an ''average human'' weighs 50 kg: 7.16 billion people × 50 kg = 358 billion kg = 358 million tons. The BMC Public Health 2012 (12:439) article "[http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-12-439.pdf The weight of nations: an estimation of adult human biomass]" estimated the average ''adult'' weighed 62.0 kg ([http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-12-439.pdf#page=3 Table 3]), but the authors noted that their work "did not estimate the bio-mass in children who comprise a significant proportion of the population in many countries". The 50 kg estimate in this comic includes the 25% or more of the [http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-gender-age.php worlds population below 15 years of age] making the 2 kg reduction a credible adjustment.

Cattle, in aggregate, are much heavier than the human population, but we do manage to outweigh both sheep and pigs - which may come as a surprise - as these animals probably by far outweigh the population in the countries that produce the main part of the worlds meat from such animals.

It is interesting to note that the world's heaviest land dwelling animal - the elephant - only takes up one square! It is the only type of wild animal to be singled out in the comic.

There are 8 distinct blocks of wild animal (elephants and 7 others). There are 13 distinct blocks of pets and live stock (only the top 5 are labeled - in order of weight they are: Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Goats and Horses). Dogs would properly also take up a large part - but how detailed are the division of species...?

{{W|Water buffalo|Water buffalos}} seem to be missing completely. According to Wikipedia, there are {{W|List of even-toed ungulates by population|172 million}} of them with a weight of 300 - 550 kg each. With an average between 300-400 kg (depending on the number of calves) there is 50-70 million tons of them - giving them a much larger weight than goats, which would put them in fifth place in the table below.

The comic references the book [http://vaclavsmil.com/the-earths-biosphere-evolution-dynamics-and-change/ The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change] by {{W|Vaclav Smil}} as the source for most of the data - although a few other sources has also been used. These other sources are not referenced.

Note that only land dwelling mammals are taken into account - thus no whales. It is not clear as to where, for instance, seals, sea lions and walruses belong - although they could belong to land mammals as they spend a lot of time on land - as opposed to whales.

All other types of animals are not included. For instance, the weight of insects would outweigh us by far. Although not as much as the bacteria mentioned in the title text - they outweigh us thousands to one.

And that is without counting the part of our body weight that consist of bacteria: Several pounds. A fact that most people would properly like to ignore - which is a good reason to mention it here. These pounds are already counted as part of the total human weight.

There has been some speculation about the design of the blocks. They could be seen as resembling a cell (a bacterium). An extra joke in this could be that a little more than thousand blocks representing mammal weight has been used to sketch this bacterium and bacteria outweighs the mammals on this order.

==Table of the block sizes==

*The table below ranks each group of blocks from 1 to 22 according to the size of the group = the number of blocks. The number of blocks represents the weight of the group in millions of tons = billions of kg.
*The comic contains a total of 1256 blocks in three colors representing the 1.256 billion tons of land dwelling mammals.
**358 million tons from humans - dark grey color
**864 million tons from mammalian pets and livestock - light grey color
**34 million tons of wild land dwelling mammals - green color

:Feel free to enter a comment on the groups especially those that are not already identified.

:The population should only be be stated (in millions) if it can found through references - the XKCD average weight (in kg) is then given from the number of blocks in the group.
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="width: auto; text-align: center; font-size: 95%; table-layout: fixed; line-height:1.25"
|-
! Rank
! # Blocks
! Type
! Text
!Population (millions)
!Weight (kg)
!Notes/comments
|-
| {{sort|00001|1}}
| {{sort|00520|520}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Cattle
| {{sort|01000|1000}}
| {{sort|00520|520}}
| They only outweighs us by weight - not by numbers - there has been a stable [http://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/ population] of about {{W|List of even-toed ungulates by population|1 billion cattle}} since 2007.
|-
| {{sort|00002|2}}
| {{sort|00358|358}}
| Humans
|
| {{sort|07152|7152}}
| {{sort|00050.1|50.1}}
| According to the U.S. Census Bureau's [http://www.census.gov/popclock/ population counter], there were 7.1516 billion people in the world as of March 4, 2014.
|-
| {{sort|00003|3}}
| {{sort|00135|135}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Sheep
| {{sort|01000|1000}}
| {{sort|00135|135}}
|There are about {{W|List of even-toed ungulates by population|1 billion sheep}} according to Wikipedia. The {{W|Domestic_sheep#Description_and_evolution|average sheep}} weight of 135 kg seems highly exaggerated as only the rams can weigh more then that.
|-
| {{sort|00004|4}}
| {{sort|00090|90}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Pigs
| {{sort|01500|1000/2100?}}
| {{sort|00065|43/90?}}
| According to Wikipedia, the {{W|Pig#Distribution_and_evolution|population of pigs}} is about {{W|List of even-toed ungulates by population|1 billion}}. According to the [http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdReport.aspx?hidReportRetrievalName=Swine+Summary+Selected+Countries&hidReportRetrievalID=1649&hidReportRetrievalTemplateID=7 2nd reference] given for this in the wiki article, there is, however, 1.3 billions, and then 0.8 billion more (probably piglets) for a total of 2.1 billion? The piglets will not weigh much though.
|-
| {{sort|00005|5}}
| {{sort|00039|39}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Goats
| {{sort|00864|864}}
| {{sort|00045|45}}
| The goat population can be summed to 864 million from {{W|Goat#Worldwide_goat_population_statistics|Wikipedia's goat article}}. According to this list there are {{W|List of even-toed ungulates by population|850 million goats}}.
|-
| {{sort|00006|6}}
| {{sort|00029|29}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Horses
| {{sort|00058|58}}
| {{sort|00500|500}}
| According to Wikipedia there is a population of {{W|List of odd-toed ungulates by population|58 million}} horses. Horses can {{W|Horse#Size_and_measurement|weigh from 400-1000 kg}}. There are probably not that many foals compared to adults, as for instance for cattle and pigs.
|-
| {{sort|00007|7}}
| {{sort|00013|13}}
| Pets/Livestock
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00008|8}}
| {{sort|00010|10}}
| Wild animals
|
|
|
| The largest grouping of wild animals, less than 1/50 of the weight of cattle - although representing almost a third of all the wild land mammals.
|-
| {{sort|00009|9}}
| {{sort|00008|8}}
| Pets/Livestock
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00010|T10}}
| {{sort|00007|7}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Camel?
| {{sort|00017|17}}
| {{sort|00412|412}}
|Wikipedia lists 17M as the number of camels. An average based on wikipedia numbers for male and female is about 500kg. So including the non-adult camels an average around 400 kg seems as a realistic estimate.
|-
| {{sort|00010|T10}}
| {{sort|00007|7}}
| Pets/Livestock
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00010|T10}}
| {{sort|00007|7}}
| Wild animals
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00013|13}}
| {{sort|00006|6}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Dogs?
| {{sort|00400|400}}
| {{sort|00015|15}}
|According to Wikipedia, there are 400M dogs worldwide. Assuming an average size at 15kg, gives 6 blocks. Small dog=2 kg large dog = 100 kg the log average is about 15 kg.
|-
| {{sort|00014|T14}}
| {{sort|00005|5}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Donkeys?
| {{sort|00041|41}}
| {{sort|00122|122}}
| There are roughly 41 Million {{w|Donkey#Present status|donkeys}} on earth and the average weight is about 125 kg
|-
| {{sort|00014|T14}}
| {{sort|00005|5}}
| Wild animals
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00016|16}}
| {{sort|00004|4}}
| Wild animals
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00017|T17}}
| {{sort|00003|3}}
| Pets/Livestock
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00017|T17}}
| {{sort|00003|3}}
| Wild animals
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00019|T19}}
| {{sort|00002|2}}
| Pets/Livestock
| Cats?
| {{sort|00500|500}}
| {{sort|00004|4}}
|Wikipedia quotes 500M domestic cats worldwide, with an average weight of 4.5 kg. So with kittens 4 kg may seem very realistic.
|-
| {{sort|00019|T19}}
| {{sort|00002|2}}
| Wild animals
|
|
|
|
|-
| {{sort|00019|T19}}
| {{sort|00002|2}}
| Wild animals
| Rats
| {{sort|04000|4000}}
| {{sort|000005|0.5}}
|A rat in the wild {{W|Rat#Species_and_description|seldom weigh over 500 g}}. {{W|World Health Organization|WHO}} estimate of 4 Billion rats (citation needed) and a comparable number of mice (The {{W|House_mouse#Characteristics|House mouse}} weighs only about 20 g and mice would thus only fill 0.08 block).
|-
| {{sort|00022|22}}
| {{sort|00001|1}}
| Wild animals
| Elephants
| {{sort|00000.75|0.75}}
| {{sort|01300|1300}}
| The only wild animal to be singled out with text - also the heaviest land dwelling animal - but still only take up one block. According to Wikipedia the wild poulation of the {{W|African elephant}} is around 700,000 (decreased from 1.3 mill in the 90s). For the {{W|Asian elephant}} it is as low as 40-50,000. For a total of 750,000 individuals. Any animals in the zoo or domesticated Asian elephants should not be counted. As adult African female elephants (who is probably the most abundant) weigh 2-3 ton, 1.3 ton seems a little low, especially since their is not a lot of calves as the elephants have a long lifespan. However, even with an average weight of 2 ton, the total weight would only be 1.5 million ton, and could be rounded down to 1 block...
|-
|}

==Transcript==
:'''Earth's LAND MAMMALS by weight'''

:[A block indicating the value of each block:] = 1,000,000 tons

:[Dark gray block:] Humans
:[Light gray block:] Our pets and livestock
:[Green block:] Wild animals

:[The rest of the comic consist of blocks representing the weight of mammals. Some of the blocks are labeled:]
:*Cattle
:*Pigs
:*Goats
:*Sheep
:*Elephants
:*Horses

:Data from Vaclav Smil's ''The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change'', plus a few other sources.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1340: Unique Date

2014-03-24T04:15:02Z

199.27.128.68:

My first thought was that he makes fun of people that consider dates like the 12.12.12 as important. As any other date they occur only once and are thus not more special. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.66|108.162.254.66]] 04:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Good point, I have added something about that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly related to the upcoming Pi Day. Also, next year's Pi Day will be 03-14-(20)15, which a few images going around on the Internet have made an annoyingly big deal about. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So - Maybe I suck at searching (I do), but I can't find any information about us being limited to 4 digits in our calendar system...?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.107|173.245.53.107]] 08:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Most of the computer software that handles dates would have problems with more (or less) than four digits. Why bother with variable year length when you can just take the first four characters of "2014-03-10" and it works for the next 8 thousand years? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.103|103.22.200.103]] 09:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:Also, most digital displays are limited to four digits for the year. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.103|103.22.200.103]] 09:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::And I don't think we actually start address that sooner that in September 9999. It will be Y2K over again! .... not sure where will people of 9999 get {{w|Fortran}} and {{w|Cobol}} programmers, though. Maybe we should freeze some before we run out of them. :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_billennium#In_literature this] out.--[[User:Rael|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael|talk]]) 21:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:I'm with you. I suppose there may be places where leading zeros are used (somewhere in software where memory space has been set aside, I suppose) but I can't think of '''any''' common system where one has to use five digits when using a four digit number.
:When we get to December 31, 9999 (assuming he Gregorian calendar is still in use (BIG assumption)) the next day will simply be January 1, 10000 because, as you said, the Gregorian calendar isn't limited to four-digit years. And, as I say, anyone who think there is some problem with writing years as four digit numbers is simply demonstrating that they are not someone to take seriously. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

After visiting the website for the "Long Now Foundation", I find I'm left wondering - why, oh why, would they stop at using a five digit year? why not six? eight? ten? sixteen? thirty-two? [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the point in the comic title is that writing years always with 5 digits is as significant as the zero to the left it will take to do so for most of the next 8000 years. [[User:FlavianusEP|FlavianusEP]] ([[User talk:FlavianusEP|talk]]) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My first thought was that the comic was about date formats and yyyy-mm-dd being better than yy-mm-dd or dd.mm.yy. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.138|173.245.53.138]] 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

;Dynamic?

:It isn't, but I've made a dynamic one (based on UTC): https://voidptr.de/xkcd-1340 [[User:N.st|n.st]] ([[User talk:N.st|talk]]) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wanna bet that this comic always shows the current date?--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Haha, that's a great observation! I wish it were so, I'll check again tomorrow. If it's not, someone email Mr. Munroe to make it so, great idea. {{unsigned|Adityarajbhatt}}

:It's 00:07 (11th of March) right now in China where I am currently located and it still shows 10th of March...just for the record [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.191|108.162.225.191]] 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::It's March 15th now, and it still says the 10th. It's not dynamic. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.76|199.27.128.76]] 20:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that Randall seems to have never heard of [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2550 RFC 2550], which goes than the Long Now Foundation in expanding the representable date range. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.161|173.245.53.161]] 15:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Technically, there will be another 2014-03-10; on October 3rd. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.65|108.162.219.65]] 16:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::It would actually be 2014-10-03 "under our system" as stated in the comic. Technically. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::It's like me saying that there will be another 2014-03-10 on March 14th. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.63|173.245.50.63]] 19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is also somehow related to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox Interesting number paradox]. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.29|199.27.128.29]] 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem of the date rolling back is partially mitigated by storing the year as an integer instead of as characters, such as how certain Spreadsheet programs, such as OpenOffice Calc, stores years as a 16-bit signed integer. This doesn't solve the issue, only pushing it back to be the year 32768 problem. This is even less of an issue for 64 bit Unix time, which expire on 15:30:08 UTC on Sun, 4 December 292,277,026,596. It's also important to note that the dates, such as 99, or 00 should not be seen as digits, they should be seen as characters (unless, of course, they are BCD digits, which entirely defeats the purpose of shortening the date to 2 characters length). This might seem trivial, but I think it's an important difference.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.41|108.162.216.41]] 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
: 3rd of October won't happen for another seven months. {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.125}}
:: As a (culturally) dd/mm/[yy]yy person (and ignoring, for brevity, the different options for delimiter), I find yyyy-dd-mm as illogical as mm/dd/yyyy... Why should anybody switch 'precision direction', mid-way? Still, as someone who went through the Y2K process ''and'' worked with colleagues across the Atlantic, I tend to use dd/Mmm/yyyy habitually in "for humans" systems (giving the abbreviated month spelling to avoid all ambiguity, as well as full year-number), or my own "yyyymmdd[-hhmm[ss[.ddd...]]]" format in (informal and internal) programming situations, with comments attached to any conversion routines (inwards and outwards). ((And, yes, there ''are'' ISO/other standards, but I find converting from/to them and internally working with my own long-practiced format works best, for me. YMMV. But be aware of how'd you deal with (or ignore) Leap Seconds!)) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.47|141.101.98.47]] 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
::: I once toyed with the notation 0y20140310, with the "0y" prefix (a pun on C's "0x") distinguishing it from the eight-digit integer 20140310. I later decided that 0y20140310.175959 would be a good way to extend it to specify both date and time, and it still parses as a single C token if that property is useful. (And it sorts properly, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.68|199.27.128.68]] 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)