explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3106: Farads

2025-06-26T19:29:22Z

82.132.244.48:

{{comic
| number = 3106
| date = June 23, 2025
| title = Farads
| image = farads_2x.png
| imagesize = 677x253px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'This HAZMAT container contains radioactive material with activity of one becquerel.' 'So, like, a single banana slice?'
}}

==Explanation==
This comic shows [[Cueball]] showing off several items that (he claims) comprise approximately one of a given unit, with [[Megan]] and [[White Hat]] reacting appropriately.

The first three — meters, pounds and volts — are all units of which “1” is a not extraordinary amount for an item that can be easily held in the hand. As such, they elicit minimal reaction from Megan and White Hat. A meter (a unit of length) is visually verifiable; a pound (a unit of weight) is easy to hold in the hand; and a volt (V, a unit of electric potential) would cause minimal harm even if discharged. White Hat's remark that the battery "might need a recharge" refers to the fact that 1 V batteries are somewhat uncommon, but a battery with a larger voltage like an AA, C, or D cell (1.5 V) might read as 1 V if significantly depleted.

In contrast, 1 {{w|farad}} is an unusually large amount of capacitance. Capacitance is the ability to store charge, a large amount of which could be dangerous. In common use, most consumer electronics use capacitors in the picofarad to millifarad range, and 1 millifarad is already considered a "large" capacitor. A 1-farad capacitor is considered a supercapacitor. Cueball claiming to have a 1 farad capacitor elicits panic from Megan and White Hat, who fear that {{w|Capacitor#Hazards and safety|it could be very dangerous}}.

For the same charging voltage and load/resistance, a larger capacitor won't deliver greater current or instantaneous power than a smaller one, but the total amount of energy and duration of discharge would be proportionally longer. If the capacitor's wires accidentally touch each other or a third piece of metal, an accidental "short circuit" is created, and all of the capacitor's stored energy very quickly. For example, a 1 farad capacitor charged to 10 volts stores 50 joules of energy, and discharging all of that into a copper wire could cause the wire to heat up by a few dozen degrees Celsius faster than the blink of an eye and cause serious burns (see the [https://old.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/1ljxvdo/do_i_not_understand_what_a_capacitor_is/mzqg7ug/ calculation]).

Large capacitors are often associated with larger voltages and heavy machinery, which can contribute to the feeling of caution around large capacitances.

The title text explores the inverse situation, where “1” of a unit is a very small amount. A becquerel (Bq) amounts to one radioactive decay per second on the atomic level, which is a really low level of radioactivity. As observed, the material in question could be a single slice of a banana (primarily due to the decay of trace {{w|potassium-40}} in the total potassium it contains, a natural proportion of 117 parts per million). Hence, it is both impractical and unnecessary to contain it inside a container for hazardous materials unless the material is dangerous for other reasons (such as corrosiveness, flammability, or overripeness). In comparison, the human body itself [https://web.archive.org/web/20200220103556/https://radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Activity_Doses.htm has an activity of 8000 Bq]. The earlier common unit for radioactivity is the {{w|Curie (unit)|curie}}, originally defined as the decay rate of 1 gram of radium. It has since been redefined to be 3.7 × 1010 decays/second, i.e., 37 GBq. A curie of radioactive material that is small enough to fit into a container for hazardous materials is dangerous enough that it probably ''should'' be in one.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
: [Cueball holds a stick while talking with Megan and White Hat.]
: Cueball: This stick is one meter long.
: Megan: Cool.
: White Hat: That's a nice stick.

: [Cueball holds a smallish rock.]
: Cueball: This rock weighs one pound.
: Megan: I'd believe it.
: White Hat: Looks like a normal rock.

: [Cueball holds a small battery.]
: Cueball: This battery is one volt.
: Megan: Seems fine.
: White Hat: Might need a recharge.

: [Cueball holds a capacitor while Megan and White Hat panic.]
: Cueball: This capacitor is one farad.
: Megan: Aaaaa! Be careful!!
: White Hat: Put it down!!

==Trivia==
Of the three 'normal' unit quantities, the battery gets a comment that it might not necessarily be. Common household versions of {{w|electrochemical cell}} will normally be designed to produce around 1.5 volts (though some fairly common other versions go as low as 1.2 V or as high as 2.1 V), with single-/multi-cell {{w|List of battery sizes|batteries in general}} often being rated at a simple multiple of that (e.g. 1.5 V, 4.5 V, 9 V, ...). A cell producing nearer just a single volt, as is pointed out, might be significantly discharged and need recharging. If not replacing entirely, having aged due to too many recharges, as it also definitely would if it is a {{w|primary cell}}.

Also, of all four measures, the {{w|Pound (mass)|pound}} is the only non-SI unit given. A mass of 1 {{w|kilogram}} would also not be too odd a weight to have quoted here, being about 2.2 lb, but may not have been chosen due to its relative unfamiliarity to everyday US readers (even compared to the meter), or else because of its {{w|metric prefix}} (the only one of the {{w|SI base unit}}s, even including the {{w|SI derived unit|derived ones}}, to not be a bare unit) and the gram itself perhaps being even less relatable.

This comic was uploaded very late. Despite the next comic being scheduled for Monday, June 23, it was really released well into the next day. This is one of very few times other than [[:Category:April Fools' Day comics|April Fools' comics]] that Randall was so late. Comic [[3107]] came out well within its nominal day (Wednesday, and not just by US timezones) such that possibly this comic spent the least time as the "latest" comic of any that (together with its successor) belonged strictly to the default three-a-week comic cycle.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category: Physics]]

3107: Weather Balloons

2025-06-26T19:23:45Z

82.132.244.48: /* Explanation */ Spelling, grammar, punctuation, clarifications, etc. Hope I don't add more problems than I tried to solve.

{{comic
| number = 3107
| date = June 25, 2025
| title = Weather Balloons
| image = weather_balloons_2x.png
| imagesize = 547x351px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Once you add the balloons into the model, it makes forecasting easier overall--the forecast is always 'cold and dark, with minimal solar-driven convection.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a METEOROLOGIST BOT WITH A FEAR OF PRE-COPULATORY SEXUAL CANNIBALISM. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
A {{w|weather balloon}} is a balloon that carries meteorological instruments into the high atmosphere and sends readings back to scientists, who use the information to make weather and climate predictions. Typically it will rise up until the membrane breaks from too much pressure inside the balloon as outside in the top of the atmosphere. This is why the graph states that it is the number of balloons launches each day; because, if they were only launched on one day, they would all be gone from the sky the next day (the fragments of balloon falling back down).

The diagram in the comic claims that weather forecasting accuracy correlates with the number of weather balloons launched each day. But it forecasts that if the rate of balloon launches is sufficiently high, it could provide so many balloons that they actually impact the weather due to blocking out sunlight. So, if the balloons are not included into the weather model, the accuracy of the model based on the readings provides by the many balloons decreases. This starts to happen somewhere between 100 billion to 1 trillion weather balloons being launched each day. The accuracy of the model drops completely towards zero for around 10 trillion launched each day, where it even falls below the accuracy for just a single balloon (which may or may not be augmented by non-balloon information) at the start of the graph.

While there's correlation between number of weather balloon launches and weather model accuracy, they're not the only cause. Ground stations have been collectingband collating useful surface data for centuries. Scientific understanding of the physical processes in the atmosphere has also improved, only in part due to balloons, and the speed of computers used in analyses and simulations has increased by many orders of magnitude. The existence of weather and geophysical satellites also significantly improves forecasts, as they can continuously gain information about clouds and temperatures over huge areas, while weather balloons only capture information as they rise through a single air-column for a limited duration.

The surface area of the Earth is around 510 {{w|Trillion|(short-scale) trillion}} square metres, and a typical weather balloon (whilst smaller at launch) will expand to approximately 6 m diameter at altitude; this covers an area slightly under 30m², within a just marginally larger 'air surface area' at height. This makes it entirely possible for not far from 18 trillion standard weather balloons to potentially blanket the whole Earth; or even fewer, given the current availability of larger models each reaching more than twice the width, or four times the coverage of area. This isn't far off the implications given by the graph. On the other hand, because of the inherent translucency of the balloon material, the tendency to jostle vertically (the illustration implying that it's not just a single layer of close-packed balloons) and the need to synchronize launches and ascents to try to form any optimal single layer in one go might make it difficult to accomplish without a slightly greater magnitude of launches. (Or perhaps roughly doubling up the effect by only ever bothering to launch at local times that concentrate the coverage across the whole sunlit hemisphere at any given time.)

The joke in the title text is that when there are so many balloons that sunlight is entirely blocked, weather will always be the same: "cold and dark". So we won't need complex models to forecast it. Also when there is not heating of the Earths surface the solar driven convection that drives storms and weather patterns would stop. Of course humans and most life of Earth would die out. However, if it is humans who launches 20 trillions balloons each day, that will soon stop, and the weather would return to fairly normal once the balloons are gone in a days time after the last major launch. Of course the pollution from the trillions of balloons would last for longer, but not prevent the sun from reaching the Earths surface.

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

[A graph is shown. The X axis is labeled Number of Weather Balloon Launches Per Day. It's logarithmic, with ticks in powers of 10, and values shown at 1, 10, 100, 1,000, 1 million, 1 billion, and 1 trillion. The Y axis is labeled Weather Model Accuracy, no values are shown. The plot starts above the mark for 1 balloon, at about 40% of the maximum value of the curve, it quickly rises through a point labelled "Current Rate", at about 4000 launches per day and 85% of the maximum. The maximum value is reached at 100 million, plateaus until 10 billion, and then reduces even more rapidly down to perhaps 15% maximum accuracy above the 10 trillion mark.]

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Weather]]

965: Elements

2025-06-26T19:09:29Z

82.132.244.48: Undo revision 380487 by 2601:300:4083:1C70:FAE6:B5CB:62D0:BF94 (talk) That edit looks like it denies known true facts. Explain better?

{{comic
| number = 965
| date = October 17, 2011
| title = Elements
| image = elements.png
| titletext = Of all the nations, the armies of the ununoctium-benders are probably the least intimidating. The xenon-benders come close, but their flickery signs are at least effective for propaganda.
}}

==Explanation==
In the popular children's TV show ''{{w|Avatar: The Last Airbender}}'', the four nations that inhabit the world can each telekinetically control ("bend") one of the four classical elements: water, earth, fire and air. One person, the avatar, can control all four elements and is markedly more powerful than any other character. {{w|Dmitri Mendeleev}} is the creator of the modern periodic table, which categorizes the 118+ atomic elements by their atomic number.

The comic is comparing the control over more magical power with more practical, "science-y" power. Fire, boulders, and storms may be more impressive visually, but science has proven time and again that "boring" can have very practical, very deadly applications. Additionally, while the advantages of controlling the four alchemical elements are mostly physical and visible (characters in the show most often use their powers to push, throw, or create barriers), the phenomena related to Mendeleev's elements and his research include subatomic particle interactions. One power the depicted Mendeleev has that the Avatar definitely does not have is control over radioactive elements, and this is the subtle, slow-acting power he demonstrates.

The powers of the Avatar's world, moreover, generally require actual contact with the relevent element (or a material that is sufficiently composed within its sphere). An Earthbender typically cannot do anything to manipulate rock or soil without touching some connected part of it, and cannot do anything if suspended in the air or (until they can learn to manipulate any of the "earth impurities" within it) restrained and enclosed by metal. Firebenders generally learn to make use of their own bodyheat, in a manner that seems initially inconsistent with the other bending disciplines but is hand-waved (in either sense) to be actually very effective, insofar as waterbending significant effects only using one's own bodily moisture is a far less prolific occurence.

With this in mind, manipulating and coercing a particular element does not imply the ability to generate it from nothing. Mendeleev, therefore, should not be expected to spontaneously create any given rare element from nowhere, and (if true to the same philosophy, with the addition of modern scientific understanding of the elements) must therefore be either identifying and concentrating extremely small trace quantities already within reach (in order to weaponise the substance) or somehow be able to use his mastery of all elements to induce transmutation (via established fission or fusion processes from other types of atom under his full control).

{{w|Polonium}} gained a level of notoriety as the poison used to kill Russian dissident {{w|Alexander Litvinenko}}.

The title text talks about power levels of the elements if each element had a controlling nation as per the TV show. Ununoctium (1-1-8-ium) was the placeholder name for {{w|oganesson}}, the 118th element. It did not officially gain its permanent name until late 2016, 5 years after this comic was released. Oganesson, the heaviest element that has been created, has the shortest life before it decays into other elements, with a half-life of less than a millisecond. {{w|Xenon}}, a noble gas like oganesson, has few practical applications, but it is sometimes used in "neon" signs.

==Transcript==
:[Aang the Avatar and Dmitri Mendeleev stand in opposition to each other. Aang wields all 4 classical elements: Water, Fire, Earth, and Air.]
:Aang: I'm the avatar, master of all 4 elements!
:Mendeleev: Really? I'm Mendeleev, master of all 118+.
:''swoosh''
:Mendeleev: That was polonium-bending. You probably didn't feel anything, but the symptoms of radiation poisoning will set in shortly.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Periodic table]]

Talk:1520: Degree-Off

2025-06-26T19:05:21Z

82.132.244.48: Assuming it was a reply. And ambiguous what direction the reply is trying to argue, too...

Isn't this the debut of the dark hair-bun girl? Is this trivia section worthy? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)BK201
:The hair bun girl has [[:Category:Comics featuring Hair Bun Girl|appeared a few times]] since it's inception in [[378: Real Programmers]]. --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|01:05, 05 May 2015}}
::But this one has bangs, and visibly darker hair. Isn't it possible it's a different character? Or am I [http://media1.giphy.com/media/v9rfTQBNqdsSA/giphy.gif splitting hairs]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)BK201
:::Yes your are splitting hair. Because in xkcd most characters are just generic and can be any person they need to be. The characteristic of the hair bun has been used only a few times, 8 with this one. Sometimes the figure even represents a real person. I agree that she is drawn a little different, but in the page for Hair Bun Girl it is mentioned that she also sometimes have glasses. It is though interesting that he has used her several times sine passing comic 1500. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::After having spotted the recurrence of [[Science Girl]] for whom I just made a category I realized that the hair bun Bio "girl" here is just her as a (young) adult woman. I have included her and revised the explanation accordingly. So I disagree with my own comment above now ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume "''Your'' field gathered in the desert to create a new one." refers to the Manhattan Project? {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.74}}
:Yes [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 06:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So, no one has really brought up the topic of biological WMD. There are manmade plagues out there far more horrible than any natural disease and arguably more terrible than a nuclear bomb.

Chem wants absolutely no part of this conversation. [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 06:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are: Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. Is she claiming that her heros have conquered death? [[User:Capncanuck|Capncanuck]] ([[User talk:Capncanuck|talk]]) 06:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
: Yeah I didn't get that either. The description as it stands now seems to be implying one of the four horsemen is pestilence, but that's not what my Google search turned up… --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Pestilence [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.176|173.245.56.176]] 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::In Terry Pratchett's book the fourth horsemen is Pestilence. See also {{w|Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse#As_infectious_disease|Pestilence}}. It was new to me that it was originally Conquest instead of Pestilence which can be read on wiki: {{w|Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse}}. Since Randall is a big fan of Terry Pratchett it is very likely that he refers to "his" version of the four Horsemen. (It is not Terry's invention, but he made it popular amongst people like Randall). As I disagree with the Death version of the title text, I'm not sure that Terry is directly refereed to in this comic, but I'm sure the Bilologist refers to them killing of pestilence (or plauge). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::There are no humanities on stage, so I think bio can get away with this one.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.23|108.162.218.23]] 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Maybe it referred to famine. Though that'd be a bit odd. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 19:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps the reason why pestilence isn't a real Horseman is because its death by biology retroactively altered the prophecy ("Yes, you've had it for ages. But did you have it for ages 30 minutes ago?" - Rincewind, The Last Continent).```` {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.144}}
::::::If we're assuming that the comic is using Pratchett's version of the Horsemen, and that Bio has killed Pestilence... then we know that Pestilence was replaced with Pollution. So it might be a reference to the atomic waste and fallout of the testing itself. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.29|173.245.56.29]] 00:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

also a possible reference to: https://xkcd.com/435/ ? {{unsigned ip|141.101.75.101}}

The stamp collecting quote is from Ernest Rutherford, not Richard Feynman. {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.43}}

1052 also compares degrees --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.12|141.101.104.12]] 08:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My assumption was that Cueball was giving a long and possibly rambling talk about physics starting with an anecdote about Feynman and ending with one about Rutherford. I didn't consider the quote to be wrongly attributed therefore. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.71}}

Please be aware that the proper way to link to wikipedia is to use [[Template:w]].--{{User:17jiangz1/signature|10:01, 04 May 2015}}

This may be Randall's indirect way of saying what he thinks of the anti-vaxxers. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the "killing Pestilence" thing also refer to ''Good Omens'' (co-authored by Pratchett), where Pestilence retired in 1936 "mumbling something about penicillin"? Homusubi

Isn't the comment about vaccines kinda reaching? I don't really see any evidence, even implied, that this comic is referencing the anti-vaccine movement in any way. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 13:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:I agree that the anti-vaxer comments are out of place. I don't think they should be included as part of the explanation. [[User:Bmmarti3|Bmmarti3]] ([[User talk:Bmmarti3|talk]])

Isn't the biologist talking in the title text? And isn't biology considered a squishy science? I think the title is directed at the physicist, telling him to get harder skin because he's so easily hurt emotionally. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|Yourlifeisalie]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 14:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:Was I the only one to see the title text as a dirty joke? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.65|173.245.50.65]] 16:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I rather doubt that the CAPS in the title text are referring to Pratchett's figure DEATH. In my opinion, the talking-in-CAPS is just meant to infer (further) SHOUTING on the part of the biologist, since she is shouting in the last panel as well. There is no indication whatsoever that the title text should be spoken by anyone other than the biologist herself.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.180|141.101.104.180]] 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)thd

Do chemistry and physics represent a helium atom with biology as the nucleus? It would also explain her hair. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 15:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:I don't see any reason for it to make any sense. It is quite a long shot to think so. However, what explains her hair? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)BK201

Might there also be a reference to https://xkcd.com/520/, praising biology just in case. [[User:Tzwenn|Tzwenn]] ([[User talk:Tzwenn|talk]]) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the giant bump in infectious diseases around 1925? It seems like it must have been a mayor effect, but I don't know how to google for it.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.99|141.101.104.99]] 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:The planet-wide superflu of 1919, which happened because millions decided to go to Europe, camp in filthy trenches for months and then decided to all go back home simultaneously for some reason. {{unsigned ip|199.27.133.44}}

::Actually, it happened for other reasons, and it was mostly in 1918. Many people arrived at that camp bringing the superflu with them, actually, and the drop-off happened around when the bulk of them went home. Most of the fatalities may actually have been due to cytokine storms, AKA your immune system deciding that you ought to die horribly and now. What you ''actually'' got at the camp is the discovery that, if your feet are continuously wet for sufficiently long periods of time, they'll rot. That said, infectious diseases are on their way back, because antibiotic resistance is going up. There's already a confirmed case of TB resistant to all current antibiotics, and truly new ones becoming less and less frequent. (Most of the obvious routes we've exploited and adaptation is destroying, and many of the remaining obvious routes are insufficiently easy to distinguish from chemical warfare.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.182|108.162.237.182]] 22:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

moved the most important comment to the top. [[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhm lockpicking != safecracking. Feynman was exploiting a bad design in the safes (you didn't have to dial the exact number) combined with people being lousy at choosing their codes. [[User:Poizan42|Poizan42]] ([[User talk:Poizan42|talk]]) 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:A numpad safe still contains a lock. It locks items inside. --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|11:27, 05 May 2015}}

I'm not sure what is the biologists arguing about. Physics creating new horseman of apocalypse is definitely bigger achievement than biologists almost removing one. On the other hand, both fields are capable of making humans extinct by mistake. (Also, seriously, the idea of degree-off is flawed: we need experts in both (or rather all) fields.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:I disagree. Penicillin is a much more important discovery - helping so many people. Killing people is a lot easier than curing them! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that Civil Engineering should get half the credit. It wouldn't make for as good a cartoon though. Why was the graph of infectious disease rates lightly doctored to reduce the 1918 flu pandemic? My guess is to increase the visual impact. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.188|108.162.238.188]] 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Biology: Aren't many theoretical developments reliant on chemistry and/or physics? And even more practical developments use tools which rely on chemistry/physics? Example: brain mapping, drug synthesis, etc.? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.178|108.162.215.178]] 02:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
: No, this would be as circuitous as saying that physics is entirely reliant on biology, because it's conducted using human brains, hands, eyes, etc. Or hey - theology. How would physics have gotten it's start without funding from churches and kings? The whole line of discussion is more than a little ludicrous. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.170|108.162.249.170]] 08:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:: No, what I mean is that physics and chemistry are necessary in order to understand biology and perform research, while the reverse is not true. Cellular/molecular biology, in particular, is dependent on an understanding of chemistry and physics.
:: Just take for example electron transport chains, which depends on quantum mechanics. Or the behavior of neurotransmitters, hormones, etc., which are all connected with organic chemistry.
:: A good understanding of chemistry and physics is also essential in advancing science in general. A good understanding of biology could be useful for the creation of biologically inspired materials in engineering, but biology is not a fundamental building block in any of the harder sciences.
:: Regarding biology and theology: No science's knowledge is taken from, or builds off of, theological teachings. Physics is not dependent on biology, because it does not involve the study of our brains, merely the existence of them. Biology's knowledge is directly dependent on physics.
:: In terms of practical implications, I think biology affects our health more, and physics and chemistry affects our technology more. But it's undeniable that physics and chemistry are more fundamental and essential to all science, than biology.
:: What is your opinion?
:: --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.178|108.162.215.178]] 03:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Any ideas as to why Hair Bun Girl's bun disappears in the fourth frame? As in anything more interesting than it being forgotten to be drawn in. [[User:JRVeale|JRVeale]] ([[User talk:JRVeale|talk]]) 11:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
:I think she just has turned her head so the bun is behind it. Thus not forgotten, and not really interesting either! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion about the new horseman of the apocalypse being radiation poisoning, and the linking of it all to Pratchet, reads very very strangely, I think it is a major overreach. It's very common for Pestilence to be listed as one of the four horsemen, and even with Randall being a Terry Pratchett fan, it seems unlikely this had any influence on it. It's stock-standard in pop culture for them to be listed as War, Famine, Death, Pestilence, even if they don't appear that way in the Bible, just as it is stock-standard for the devil to be portrayed as a red horned guy with cloven feet (which also doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible). It seems like the development of the atomic bomb is what Hair Bun Girl is referring to as the new horseman. I don't see why an overly specific and convoluted connection to "radiation poisoning" is included. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.170|108.162.249.170]] 08:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's science girl. That's not science girl's usual hairstyle, and science girl is a child. [[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 18:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

;Is the girl representing chemistry Science Girl?

It doesn't seem to be Science Girl to me. I think Hairbun would be better used. Also related, I think Science Girl should be renamed Jill, as per [1662: Jack and Jill] [[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 18:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the horseman is back...[[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 06:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

::Took me a while to figure out the numbers, (I'm here 'cause I'm dumb, right). [[https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2018/03/infectious-disease-deaths-decline-across-us-not-evenly UMN says that by 2017]], infectious diseases were "down to 34.10 deaths per 100,000 persons." All causes put together are around 1,000 per 100,000. Anyway, after doing the numbers 3 times, by June 19 2020, depending your source, Covid-19 deaths are up to 120 K in the US. Which translates roughly to 36.55 per 100,000? Meaning, deaths by infectious diseases MORE THAN DOUBLED. Which of course is terrible! But then, that's still about ''3% of all death causes''. Which encourages those who say that all this is a tempest in a teacup! Oh, do I wish Randall would show up and make a nice little graph like he does so often by comparing what is important with what is not, so all of us have sure guidance about how we are to take this, if as a serious thing, or just as a blip.[[User:Yamaplos|Yamaplos]] ([[User talk:Yamaplos|talk]]) 23:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have changed the transcript to refer to a "grown-up Science Girl" instead of Hairbun. She's referred to that way in the Explanation, although I see there are several comments in this discussion arguing for Hairbun. —[[User:Scs|Scs]] ([[User talk:Scs|talk]]) 11:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It rubs me the wrong way to refer to Randall's interpretation of what the 4 horsemen are as 'incorrect.' This is fundamentally a mythological tradition, not verifiable or falsifiable fact. The 'war, famine, pestilence, and death' model may not be what is present in the oldest surviving written sources, but it is a part of the living tradition. Unless you're a biblical literalist, the mythological interpretation of one person at one time is no more valid than the interpretation of others at other times. And if you are a biblical literalist, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The bible is self-contradictory. I think I'm going to change it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.32|172.69.34.32]] 01:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
:It is incorrect, no matter how much you try to defend it. There is no "living myth", we have the original source. {{unsigned ip|172.87.19.82|15:05, 26 June 2025}}

The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103|141.101.104.103]]
:(Physicists, not {{wiktionary|physician}}s...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.229|172.70.90.229]] 13:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

== Cut mention of Gaiman? ==

Given everything that's come out about Gaiman recently, would anyone be opposed to cutting the mention in this article? Since he's not direct;y relevant to the comic itself, I don't think anything would be lost. [[User:Vessəl|Vessəl]] ([[User talk:Vessəl|talk]]) 22:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:You can't cut really "and Gaiman" from "a book by Pratchett and Gaiman" (it's more awkwardly phrased than that, which might be separately addressed, but for the sake of paraphrasing...), and even as overwhelmingly a fan of Pterry, I couldn't sanction crediting just ''him'' as author. Beyond that, I'd argue that the book reference is very apt and valid, so you'd be doing a disservice to remove the whole thing. In fact, the very next person who spotted the fairly obvious connection could probably (rightfully) add it back in, bringing us back to the current question again.
:And, as for the cancelling, there are many troublesome historical creators (Gaiman hardly even the worst, even at face value?) where it would be disproportionate to also 'cancel' their creations in response, even without the above complication.
:Moreover, so far the allegations ''remain'' as allegations. Not to belittle/deny them, just to point out that it seems there's been no significant legal findings ''either way'', it's only been "trial by public opinion" and knee-jerk reputational protections by companies who needed to decide quickly whether to continue to be associated with him and his works-in-development. Maybe no smoke without fire, but it may yet also turn out to be mostly smokescreen by those who would do a disservice. (Again, we just don't know, and realistically can't yet.)
:If it were a public statue intended to highlight a good cause, but with a troublesome origin upon later analysis and maybe more elevated sensibilities, I suppose we'd be thinking of an additional interpretive plaque of some kind, but I don't know how we'd best do it here. Could ''this'' discussion (to be added to once there's anything to actually add) be sufficient? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.237|172.70.90.237]] 01:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3107: Weather Balloons

2025-06-26T19:00:19Z

82.132.244.48:

If you could make weather balloons out of plastic grocery bags you could address global warming and plastic bag pollution at the same time. [[Special:Contributions/47.248.235.170|47.248.235.170]] 21:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Pat
:You'd only delay those problems as weather balloons do have a life expectancy, just look at the problems the Myth Busters had with them when tackling Lawnchair Larry. [[Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:1A9D:9700:391C:7C6C:4E0A:AD94|2001:1C02:1A9D:9700:391C:7C6C:4E0A:AD94]] 23:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::It wouldn't be a plastic recycling method so much as a plastic distribution method. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 00:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The current description is useful -- but the phrase "over time" is in error. The graph shows the relationship between the number of weather balloons and the accuracy of modelling: "time" is not a component. [[Special:Contributions/165.225.115.132|165.225.115.132]] 23:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:I would say time is a component because the x axis is labeled number of weather balloons launched _per day_, therefore distributed through time, therefore time is part of the graph. [[Special:Contributions/179.217.229.235|179.217.229.235]] 06:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:The original complaint was neutered {{diff|380453|fairly soon after the observation was made}}, anyway, so no longer applies. Clearly you ''could'' progress through "number of balloons per day". Testing a given number one day, a larger number the next is an easy method (for as long as you wish to sustain that, and are able to). Or even just test for a few releases, one day, then immediately launch more (and test), then yet more (test again), all before the initial ones start to 'decay' out of the current count faster than you can add to them (any eventual backsliding, aside, that makes a timeward correlation to numbers currently aloft).
:But, truly, you could scattergun the effect. Today, launch 1. Tomorrow launch 1 trillion. The day after, try 4000. The day after that, try 4000 ''again'' (just because), or 1 or 400 or 1 trillion or 18 trillion or 42 (or none) — whatever is you desire and within your capability (including maybe preventing other potential launchings from others, to ensure a sufficiently supressed daily figure).
:Anyway, though time 'features', insofar as daily counts (and, as a hidden variable, the matter of balloon longevity, which could change things drastically if prior ones did ''not'' actually vanish between one day and the next but actually permanently accumulated), "over time" is no longer mentioned (whoever rewrote that bit). [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.112|82.132.245.112]] 09:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:Global helium reserves are currently estimated to be around 40 billion cubic meters (source Google), so you run out of helium well before the balloons have a significant effect. Since the majority of it gets used for cooling cryogenic systems in hospitals that is going to become a serious health issue - it's already happened a couple of times as old reserves were depleted, the industry found some new sources but they are running out of places to look. [[User:MarcusRowland|MarcusRowland]] ([[User talk:MarcusRowland|talk]]) 10:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::If we were launching massive quantities of balloons we could use hydrogen instead which is very abundant (yes, it is dangerous, but on the plus side has more lift). Or even argon (18 atomic weight, so it should have some lift) or methane (16 molecular weight) [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 11:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Hydrogen's teeny molecules would leak out of the balloons much faster than helium - when I was an educational lab technician we always had to fill hydrogen balloons just before using them because they deflated very quickly. It's also an indirect greenhouse gas so releasing vast quantities into the atmosphere may not be a good idea. Incidentally, has anyone done the sums on how many weather balloons would actually fit into the volume of the earth's atmosphere? --[[User:MarcusRowland|MarcusRowland]] ([[User talk:MarcusRowland|talk]]) 14:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Oops, 18 is argon's atomic number, the mass of (terrestrial) argon is ~40, so it sinks in air. Neon (isotopes 20 and 22) would work somewhat, but is not abundant like argon, so probably not a good idea.[[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]])
::::Yes, Argon is a classic gas (with others - an extreme example is tungsten hexafluoride!) for filling a balloon that's ''unusually heavy''. Also escapes from the balloon much less, if you find that useful. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.48|82.132.244.48]] 19:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)