explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3151: Window Screen

2025-10-07T13:52:40Z

Bilkie: Identifying the item on Cueball's forearm.

The 'standard' and '2x' sized images had unexpected sizes, so an imagesize parameter has been added to render the image consistently with other comics on this website. See the web [https://web.archive.org/web/*/window_screen.png archive] for more details. --[[User:TheusafBOT|TheusafBOT]] ([[User talk:TheusafBOT|talk]]) 03:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
:Oh cool the bot can comment too [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 04:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Is the comic not fitting into the section right on the original xkcd website? Is this some kind of meta joke? [[Special:Contributions/138.67.132.61|138.67.132.61]] 04:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
:This is Randall's mistake. Since comic [[1084: Server Problem#Trivia|1084]] from 2012, comics usually have two versions: normal and double resolution (2x). If you read on a high-DPI screen (like a phone) or zoom in, you'll see a high-resolution version of the comic, but if you read on a desktop or laptop without zooming in, you'll see the normal resolution. In this case, Randall accidentally uploaded the 2x version into ''both'' comics, making the normal one twice as big as it should be. If you zoom in just a tiny bit, it'll look normal again. <del>I'll add this in a Trivia section</del> <ins>Someone already did</ins>. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 07:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
:I suspect Randall was inspired by the U.S. President's outsized ego insisting he deserves the Nobel Prize for Peace when he hasn't actually solved any international problems at all, and in the view of many has made things much worse.[[Special:Contributions/68.116.0.20|68.116.0.20]] 05:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
::...and in ''objective reality'' has made things much worse. --[[Special:Contributions/45.143.82.106|45.143.82.106]] 06:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
::It's such a shame that this is true. Well, obviously, but in frivolous terms too: it would be nice to have this just as a representation of how it feels to get a tricky task right, without referencing the tangerine toddler's nonsense. I think most people know that feeling that they've maxed out their efforts and achieved something brilliant (measured in terms of the how well or how badly the project should have been expected to go). Human effort is human effort, and so it feels like any successful overcoming of a problem is legitimately comparable with any other, if measured from the perspective of the one who performs the task. I love the way this handles that feeling. It was very difficult; I did it successfully; that was an impressive achievement. "It" could be stopping a war or making a window screen. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 10:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect all the math could have been avoided if the screen were just carefully laid out on top of the window and cut to a matching shape. Why trig when you can trace? --[[Special:Contributions/45.143.82.106|45.143.82.106]] 06:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It's easy when building a flat screen to accidentally get the tension wrong on one side and *generate* non-coplanarity--[[Special:Contributions/174.127.176.33|174.127.176.33]] 08:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
: Yeah, I agree with this interpretation of non-coplanarity. Probably the most aggravating part about trying to screen a window is getting the tension perfect so it lays flat. [[Special:Contributions/136.49.188.43|136.49.188.43]] 13:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the "overly large image mistake" really a mistake, considering it’s about the "size" of an image displaying on a "screen"? {{unsigned ip|89.91.92.1|08:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)}}
:There is the opinion that Randall made a mistake, but because Cueballs sentence just stops at "how well the screen fits... (the window)" and the panel DOES NOT fit it's window, I believe that this is intentional and the punchline of the comic [[Special:Contributions/195.49.224.20|195.49.224.20]] 09:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
::If so, can someone edit the image above to fit the punchline? EDIT: I did it.[[Special:Contributions/138.43.101.123|138.43.101.123]] 12:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
: I don't see the problem. For me (on Firefox), while the hi-res image is loaded, it's displayed in the usual size on xkcd.com. I wouldn't even have noticed if I hadn't read it here. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 13:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
:: Update: I see it on a different computer (also Firefox). Well that's weird.--[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 13:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting that Cueball has hair in the last two panels --[[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 08:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
: Obviously with all the screen building he hasn't had time to shave his head. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
: In the last two panels he also wears some kind of bracelet. [[Special:Contributions/82.54.66.129|82.54.66.129]] 10:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
: "That's not a bracelet, its a <s>space station</s> band-aid." Cueball deserves the DIY Purple Heart.--[[User:Bilkie|Bilkie]] ([[User talk:Bilkie|talk]]) 13:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Joke's on Cueball: this problem can be seen as mathematical, and Nobel Prizes famously exclude that field in theor awards (the closest is the relatively new award on Economy). He'd have a better chance asking for a Fields Medal.--[[Special:Contributions/94.73.49.72|94.73.49.72]]

Talk:3050: Atom

2025-02-12T15:31:53Z

Bilkie:

...admittedly very barebones but at least it isn't blank. Someone smarter than me can expand it. Anyways, the Higgs boson feels like fuzzy dice you can't convince me otherwise [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.143|172.69.71.143]] 13:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:Well, if they want to test that theory, they're going to have to find it [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1437:_Higgs_Boson again] [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 14:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:I just added a little about wetness. I don't have time to look into this more, but perhaps the idea is the outer electrons have a low enough energy level they pull heat from the skin, and that sensation of coldness along with the little bumps the electrons would do against your skin would lead your brain to think they're wet. That's all I got for now. [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 15:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I want fanart of the muons on my talk page by tomorrow. Do I make myself clear?! /j --[[User:CalibansCreations|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 14:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

atom [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.65|172.70.126.65]] 15:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning the popculture idea of expanding a subatomic particle found in "Three Body Problem" where they unfold the '11 dimensions' of a proton to make it, apparently, a planet-sized sheet and etch microcircuitry on it. (Programming question: how many bugs can dance on the tip of a proton? but I digress.) The most annoying part of quantum expansion would be how the particle gets entangled with _everything_ [[User:Bilkie|Bilkie]] ([[User talk:Bilkie|talk]]) 15:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2936: Exponential Growth

2024-05-27T19:45:13Z

Bilkie: The total number given in the math section is divisible by 5 and is correct.

If that's done by each of your moves being to add one (more) grain to the board, the game would last quite a while. Even with reduced time-limits on the game-clock. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.154|172.70.91.154]] 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.203|172.69.58.203]] 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

First transcript! Hope it's good.[[User:Danger Kitty|Danger Kitty]] ([[User talk:Danger Kitty|talk]]) 21:36, 22 May 2024‎ (you only <nowiki>~~~</nowiki>ed, it looks like...)

Total of 2^64 - 1 ≈ 1.8 x 10^19 grains of rice. If a grain of rice averages 30 mg, then that's 5.5 x 10^14 kg of rice. That's around the mass of Lake Erie. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.56|172.71.223.56]] 21:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The legend about the chess board and doubling the grain placed on each square is researched here:
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5992/what-is-the-origin-of-the-wheat-and-chessboard-legend [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.113|172.71.150.113]] 21:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)~

The rice is on the side or the board is turned wrong. {{unsigned ip|172.70.115.17|23:13, 22 May 2024}}
:...not sure what you mean here. (Also, do sign your contributions.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]]
::The white square always goes on your right corner so this border is sideways (assuming we're looking at it head on, which seems likely) [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::a1 is a dark square, so wherever the one grain of rice is, it can't be a1. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.35|172.71.102.35]] 08:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Either a8 or h1, which is SO annoying (most likley a mistake on Randall's part tho)[[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 15:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
With all those zeros in the values given for row eight i assume we are looking at the limitations of someones calculation skills/calculator... last I checked 5 was not a factor of any 2^n value? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.80.246|172.70.80.246]] 00:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:: if you are referring to the final number (18,446,744,073,709,551,615), which is the only number divisible by 5, it is the total of all the squares, and equal to 2^64'''-1''' (checked in Wolfram|Alpha) [[User:Bilkie|Bilkie]] ([[User talk:Bilkie|talk]]) 19:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:I think we don't need this part at all. If we really want to illustrate the numbers we could simply use the illustration from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem#Second_half_of_the_chessboard [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't look like Hairy in the final panel. Is it a Kasparov caricature? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 02:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:I agree it is not the standard Hairy. Since this is Kasparovs gambit and Karpov tried to counter it, then it should be Karpov that walks out! Even though it is not Kasparaov but Black Hat that used the gambit. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe it's the same Cueball from the first panel, but he's had to wait so long while Black Hat fetched all the rice that his hair grew out.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.249|172.70.160.249]] 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this comic is related to the Casablanca Chess Tournament that took place this past week, where 4 top-ranked players competed by playing a series of real historical games starting from the middle of each game. Magnus Carlsen won the tournament, which also included Hikaru Nakamura, Viswanathan Anand, and Bassem Amin. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 04:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Russia pulling out of Black Sea agreement has been labelled "grain gambit" --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.131.158|172.71.131.158]] 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Trivia: 1. e2–e4 c7–c5 2. Sg1–f3 e7–e6 3. d2–d4 c5xd4 4. Sf3xd4 Sb8–c6 5. Sd4–b5 d7–d6 6. c2–c4 Sg8–f6 7. Sb1–c3 a7–a6 8. Sb5–a3 d6-d5!? is the Kasparov Gambit, see Wiki. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.30|172.71.160.30]] 08:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a completely normal amount of rice. I eat this much grain daily. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 13:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Counter with Tree countergambit. plant tree(1) seeds in the first square and tree(2) on the next square then tree(3) in the next square. Nobody has found out what happens afterwards. {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.212|14:25, 23 May 2024}}

So, out of curiosity, how many grains of rice can you actually fit on an average chess board square? Or maybe, how big would a chessboard have to be in order for the rice to fit on top of every square without overflowing? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.91.144|172.69.91.144]] 22:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:Assuming that its a standard size and it can stack up around 10 cubic inches upwards about 4117267200 grains [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 03:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

:Judging by [https://www.instructables.com/Chess-Board-Full-of-Rice-Exponential-Growth/ this], I reckon if you were really, really patient you might just about corral the 2048 on square 12 to stay within the bounds without additional housing, but you'd have no hope with the 13th.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.98|172.70.90.98]] 14:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

::This is super cool. And helpful. I got the density of rice from this and tried to calculate the size of a chess board that could contain the nine quintillion grains of rice on the last square. Assuming the rice forms a cone with a 30° slope, one would need a chess board roughly the size of Colombia (1073296km² for the whole board). Can anyone confirm?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.91.165|172.69.91.165]] 10:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I covered Columbia in rice, and can confirm your hypothesis. Though a small amount spilled onto the streets of Tulcan, Ecuador. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
::::That's a neat trick. Especially as there are few {{w|Columbia#Places|Columbia}}s that are {{w|Colombia|adjacent to Ecuador}}... Probably why it hasn't made the news, with the geopolitical confusion as to what happened where. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.31|172.70.85.31]] 08:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
::::: If you are willing to trust Google Maps, you can confirm that [https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Tulcan,+Ecuador/0.8140754,-77.6638233/@0.8185374,-77.7005492,14.25z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x8e2968bae7d5eb4d:0x2d2e73b19f33388d!2m2!1d-77.7165925!2d0.8150687!1m0!3e0?entry=ttu Tulcan, Ecuador is less than 10km from the border of Columbia]. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::: That's Colombia, not Columbia, I think is the point. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.18|172.70.162.18]] 10:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I noticed everyone here seems to have an ip in the 172.69.0.0 to 172.71.255.255 range, but I just checked and that's not even my ip address at the moment. What's that about? Does the wiki mask our actual ip addresses? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.110|172.69.90.110]] 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:Not the wiki, but the gateways to the wiki that help with load-balancing and related connection issues. And you'll also see some IPs in the 141.x.y.z range, and others. I ''usually'' am in 171.[69-71].y.z range, but between one contribution another I might be anywhere.
:It's a known thing, for better or worse. Ultimately, there are behind-the-scenes details that would know the 'true' origin of everyone (give or take what load-balancing your own ISP also does at ''your'' side of the connection), but it's left obscured from our more plebian eyes.
:Getting a username will also remove the wider and more general geographic potshots someone can make a out your origin (the gateways seen to be used are likely to reveal ''at least'' your continent, if anyone's bothered), but I never saw the need.
:...now. I wonder under what range will the following put me..? => [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.96|172.69.194.96]] 23:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 8) Postscript: I first quickly used Preview, and I actually got the 141.range, then posted for real and got the 172s. About ten seconds between the two 'postings'. Hah! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.129|141.101.98.129]] 23:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"If exponential growth is unrestricted, it will eventually grow beyond the constraints of anything that could plausibly be built to contain it." - Given that the increase in rice grains is, itself, not plausible, I see no reason why the growth in size of rice cookers needs to be plausible either.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.119|141.101.98.119]] 09:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:I was tempted to add something about square/cube-law (not quite applicable, as there'll be a smidgen of cubing as you raise the square-area of container material, etc, but along tbose lines), but that of course makes the implausibility threshold of the cookers higher than the same threshold of rice (everything else being equal). So then you're on to the heat-penetration abilities (after a while, the outer rice is overcooked, when the innermost rice has barely felt the heat). And that leads me to believe that something like a {{w|rotary kiln}} design might be best adopted (external heat, internalised water delivery, properly tuned, and could even be effectively pressurised with the right cycling addons to either end) to just accept rice in at a constant rate and produce perfectly cooked rice at the commensurate output rate. Of course, exponential increase in feed would then require exponential increase in parallel rotary-cookers to handle it, but starting at an already more efficient/controllable mass-cooking process than merely upscaling a traditional pot-style cooker. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.220|172.71.242.220]] 11:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is easily defeated. Simply counter by placing one {{w|Fox_games#Fox_and_Geese|goose}} on the 64th square, two geese on the 63rd, and so on. They'll quickly deal with the rice situation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 13:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:But then you need to add an increasing number of foxes starting at the first square to deal with the geese.[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 19:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::And good luck taking the whole setup across a river with just a small boat! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 22:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming that the chess board is 20 inches square, the rice being stacked into a pyrimid 15 inches high, then it only works out to [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=5.5+x+10%5E14+kg%2F%2820inches*20inches*15+inches*1%2F3%29 1.7x10^16 kg/m^3], which, according to Wolfram, is dwarfed by the density of a Neutron Star, much less a black hole. So is there some other reason the explanation claims it will become a black hole? Or was it just wrong [[User:Xkcdjerry|Xkcdjerry]] ([[User talk:Xkcdjerry|talk]]) 04:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2922: Pub Trivia

2024-04-22T14:12:52Z

Bilkie: Dad joke in Quesstion #9?

I expect that the BTS question is a reference to the traditional Korean system of counting a person's age in units of Sal which started at 1 and incremented on the first day of the year. Since this system was abandoned on official documents in 2023, but is still in use in some contexts, the question of whether every member of BTS had a "birthday" on the first day of the year is ambiguous. [[User:Philhower|Philhower]] ([[User talk:Philhower|talk]]) 14:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:This is marked as fiction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csSYfPaBaS4, but was it?

question 5, planets exist outside the solar system, adding to the ambiguity. [[User:Philhower|Philhower]] ([[User talk:Philhower|talk]]) 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:One of the requirements in the definition of a planet is that it orbits the Sun, so no there are no planets outside the Solar system. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

::{{w|NASA}} disagrees. [https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/ Exoplanet Archive] shows 5612 confirmed planets. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::: The IAU is the body that defines such things - and they do say that planets have to orbit the Sun...things that orbit other stars are properly called "exo-planets". But still - do we include dwarf planets? Rogue planets? It's definitely a crazy-vague question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.219|172.70.211.219]] 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::: the IAU is one body that claims the authority to define such things, but their authority is not recognized by any of the things they are claiming the right to name. (Except for a very small part of earth, mostly made of humans) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.203|172.69.58.203]] 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::::That seems ridiculous, "If it isn't one of ours it don't count"? That'd be like saying "They're only 'cars' if they use North American roads, in other countries using THEIR roads you have to call them exo-cars!". LOL! And every future/space-based fiction calls them planets, just makes more sense not to be so arbitrarily exclusionary. Ours isn't the only sun, we shouldn't pretend it has some aspect that makes it count more than others - outside of that it's the one with us. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: Correction, the IAU definition explicitly states that it is only about planets within the solar system and has no comment about exoplanets one way or the other. Presumably, to leave some flexibility on all the weird edge cases that are bound to come up with exoplanets. https://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf [[Special:Contributions/172.68.195.213|172.68.195.213]] 07:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Gas giants should be excluded too - they're not planets - just wannabe stars.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.31|172.70.163.31]] 08:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

: I think the correct answer is 0: before the solar system formed there were no planets. So, originally, there would have been none. If exo-planets count, going back to the beginning of time gives the same answer: when the universe came into existence during the big bang there were no stars, let alone planets orbiting them. Even religion agrees: in the beginning God created the earth and the heavens, but the sun came later, so technically earth was not a planet since it didn't orbit anything.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.49|162.158.62.49]] 22:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As for question 9, please see the note about the history of Austrailia's capitals at: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_national_capitals#Oceania]]. and the page regarding countries with multiple capitals [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_multiple_capitals]] [[User:Philhower|Philhower]] ([[User talk:Philhower|talk]]) 14:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
: See Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_capital_cities List of Australian capital cities] - As an Australian, I believe many would also consider the major city in their state/territory to be a capital city, although not the capital of Australia.
The explanation misses the possibility that this is a Dad joke: where the capital city of Australia is 'Canberra,' as long as the respondent doesn't actually count either the letters in Canberra (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) or the population of Canberra (unknowable/ambiguous). [[User:Bilkie|Bilkie]] ([[User talk:Bilkie|talk]]) 14:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

About the alt text, London is certainly in Europe. The question itself is malformed because "Europe (or 'the EU')" is not self-consistent: there is a lot of European countries that are not part of the EU. [[User:RedGolpe|RedGolpe]] ([[User talk:RedGolpe|talk]]) 14:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:The "Greater London" answer is also tricksy, as the "ceremonial county" of GL {{w|London boroughs|may not include}} the additional area of the City Of London (though it does include the City Of Westminster, which is sometimes the trick answer to certain trick questions that a quizmaster might attempt to pull). The ''administrative'' Greater London is the ceremonial one ''plus'' CoL, however... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.19|172.70.162.19]] 15:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::I would argue London is not in Europe because there is no clear definition for Europe as a geographic area, it really doesn't have an eastern border that is not arbitrary, so the only clearly defined thing Europe can refer to is the EU. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::London, France is both in Europe and the EU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_France [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.49|172.70.163.49]] 18:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::While the eastern border of Europe is not clearly defined I am not aware that there is any definition of (geographic) Europe that excludes the islands (and subsequently London) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.135|162.158.202.135]] 21:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::There's "mainland Europe", excluding islands. Or at least any of several possibly island archipeligos and/or island nationstates. e.g. Mont-Saint-Michel might not be (exluded, that is, due to being French and having a (tide-dependant) ground access), Jersey would be (British Crown Territory island), Malta probably (island state), Sicily would depend on your thinking (it being Italian, and much larger than the strait that makes it an island offshoot). Most of Scandinavia might be interestingly included (with Denmark) or excluded (with Iceland), according to context. Even Gibraltar might or might not be, depending upon upon the thinking (or lack of it) behind the use of the term. (But, fiddling around the edges aside, (the English) London is not in "mainland Europe" and hasn't been for maybe a full 10kY before it became "London" in any useful sense.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.49|172.70.163.49]] 23:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: The phrase "continental Europe" is also used, and might be implied by a British person saying "I travelled around Europe last year". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54|172.69.195.54]] 15:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: The (semi-)apocryphal headline "Fog In Channel, Continent Cut Off" is perhaps indicative of the {{w|Continental Europe#Great Britain and Ireland}} British collective mindset (of which I must therefore be a component, albeit not at that end of the spectrum). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.71|172.71.242.71]] 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd say The European Council has at least as good (or bad, depending which way you look at it) a claim to be 'Europe' as the EU does, and London (through the UK) is in that (for now, anyway).[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.55|172.71.242.55]] 09:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benxi Benxi Lake] is actually considered to be the smallest lake in the world. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.205|172.70.135.205]]
:{{cn}}[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.176|172.70.86.176]] 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I never realized how challenging it is to edit pages when they've just been posted. Makes me long for something like Google docs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.43|172.68.3.43]] 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

People, who are born on 29th February don't have a birthday in years which are not leap years. However, 2024, when this comic was published is a leap year. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.9|162.158.95.9]] 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"5. How many planets were there originally?" This could also refer even back to the start of the universe, when there were (likely) just 0 planets. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.101|162.158.86.101]] 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I anticiated a lot of Edit Conflicts, but not actually quite so many as to not to be able to resolve my edits with everyone else's. This is the bare-bones that I was putting in (until finding multiple attempts tried to be added consecutively...
{{cot}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Question !! Problem !! Possible answer(s)
|-
| Which member of BTS has a birthday this year?
| Every living person has a birthday this year (being a leap-year, this includes those born on 29/Feb).
|
|-
| How many sides does a platonic solid have?
| There are five (or [[2781: The Six Platonic Solids|six]]) platonic solids, each with a different number of sides.
| 4, 6, 8, 12 or 20
|-
| What is the smallest lake in the world?
| The distinction between a small lake and a pond, pool or puddle (for example) is difficult to define.
|
|-
| Which Steven Spielberg movie features more shark attacks? Jaws (1875) or Lincoln (2012)
| Not a problem, as Lincoln has very few shark attacks.{{Citation needed}} The problem is that barely anyone will ''not'' be able to correctly answer this.
|
|-
| How many planets were there originally?
| Contextually vague. At what time and within what volume of space, and what is the scope of 'planet' defined here?
|
|-
| What NFL player has scored the most points outside of a game?
| Outside of (NFL) games, individuals may accumulate points in any number of ways (e.g. Scrabble)
|
|-
| The Wright brothers built the first airplane. Who built the last one?
| Until no further planes are built, individuals/teams/companies continue to build (to completion) ever more examples, changing the answer possibly moment to moment.
|
|-
| Is every even number greater than 2 the sum of two primes?
| This is a {{w|Goldbach's conjecture|currently unanswered question}}.
|
|-
| Not counting Canberra, what city is the capital of Australia?
| Canberra is ''the'' capital of Australia, a fairly well known 'obscure' fact. Each Australian territory also has their own state capital, so there is not one other ''single'' example.
|
|-
| Who played the drums?
| Lack of context. With which group? For which song? For which (re-)recording? At which event?
|
|-
| Where is London located? (a) The British Isles (b) Great Britain and Northern Ireland (c) The UK (d) Europe (or 'the EU') (e) Greater London
| Almost all of these are correct (though London is geographically in Europe but no longer in the EU).
|}

This is apparently deliberate (at least on behalf of the organisers), perhaps to upset or otherwise impede groups of overconfident quizzers who would otherwise dominate any genuinely good quiz.
{{cob}}
...make use of it however you wish, anybody who has the time not to keep chasing all the simultaneous edits. (The above is a bit behind 'perfection', and lacks many of the integrations, wikilinks and adjustments I had made. I backspaced out of the edit I had finally reached, before remembering to take a full copy into my paste-buffer!) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.115|172.70.90.115]] 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought the answer to #2 could be 1, because as 3D solids they only have one surface. I would guess the player with the most points outside of a game is the one who's played idlers (like Cookie Clicker) the longest — though I suppose those could be considered "inside of a game" as well. Also, I played the drums. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.143|172.70.254.143]] 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:The answer to #2 is '2 - the in-side and the out-side'.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.242|172.69.43.242]] 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering the platonic solids explanation lists all the correct answers, could someone include a list of all the members of BTS and their respective birthdays? Bing copilot suggests the following:

1. **Jin (Kim Seok-jin)**:
- Birthday: **December 4, 1992**

2. **Suga (Min Yoon-gi)**:
- Birthday: **March 9, 1993**

3. **J-Hope (Jung Hoseok)**:
- Birthday: **February 18, 1994**

4. **RM (Kim Nam-joon)**:
- Birthday: **September 12, 1994**

5. **Jimin (Park Ji-min)**:
- Birthday: **October 13, 1995**

6. **V (Kim Tae-Hyung)**:
- V's birthday is **December 30**, but the year is not mentioned in the provided information.

7. **Jungkook (Jeon Jungkook)**:
- Jungkook's birthday is **September 1**, but the year is not mentioned in the provided information.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.19|172.70.162.19]] 15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

: I'm not opposed to adding BTS birthdays, but I think it should be done by someone more knowledgeable about the band than me. Birthdays can be a surprisingly nuanced subject.[[User:Comatoran|Comatoran]] ([[User talk:Comatoran|talk]]) 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:Wikipedia says {{w|V_(singer)|'95}} and {{w|Jungkook|'97}} respectively[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.37|172.70.162.37]] 16:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

London is both a City (London) and a City within a City (The City of London) and an Area (Greater London)
There are also many more places named London than the one that is the Capital of the UK .. Serbia, France, Canada (Which is larger and the one in the UK), 10 in the USA, and one on Kiribati 17:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:Are you saying London, Ontario, Canada is BIGGER than the more famous London, England??? That's a country capital! Is that seriously true? I'm Canadian, I don't know London, ON as being THAT big... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[7User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::It's very unlikely to be larger in population terms than the (common!) wider definition of the main UK London, as that would make it larger than any other city in Canada by a large margin. In terms of area, London ON is very likely to be larger than the City of London (which is surprisingly small). More widely, the definition of what actually is a "city" is more complex than it appears to be at first glance; administrative areas (what official statistics are collected for) are often quite different from where the bulk of people are. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.25|162.158.74.25]] 07:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Some wikipedia figures, for reference:
:::*{{w|London, Ontario}} = 168.76 sq mi, Population 422,324
:::*{{w|City of London}}, subset of Capital of UK = 1.12 sq mi, Population 8,618
:::*{{w|London}}, administrative/etc capital of UK = 606.96 sq mi, Population 8,799,800
:::*{{w|London, Belgrade}} = a 'neighbourhood' (<1 sq mi?), Population unknown
:::*{{w|London, France}} = 'a small agricultural village'
:::*...
:::*{{w|List of minor planets: 8001–9000#837|8837 London}} = 1.5 mi diameter (~28s q mi, ~14 cu mi?), Population... some of the {{w|Clangers}}?
:::I skipped a few of the others (e.g. the various US ones: cities, townships, communities)... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.230.46|162.158.230.46]] 18:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised there were no phishing-type questions (i.e. "what are the last four digits of your social security number", "what are the three numbers on the back of your debit card", etc).22:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The only correct answer(s) to "who played the drums" would be "the drummer", or "twelve drummers", but I would accept Phil Collins, Alex Van Halen, or Ringo Starr for half a point each [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.100|108.162.241.100]] 02:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
: "Who played the drums" is Keith Moon; in this cryptic clue, "Who" is the name of the band, and "played the drums" indicates the drummer; hence the answer is Keith Moon, the drummer of The Who. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 04:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:Clearly the correct answer is 'Animal'.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.176|172.71.178.176]] 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I asked my Mom these questions & she said the answer to #7 so flatly: ''Boeing ''
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 02:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

On the Capital of Australia: Melbourne hosted parliament before Canberra was built, and Jervis Bay was part of the ACT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Territory

Are there people outside of the USA that are surprised to learn that Washington D.C. is the capital of the USA, rather than New York, Los Angeles, Chicago etc. due to its relatively small population? ("only" ~670000 in 2024) [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 06:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I came here all prepared to say that the Title Text should have Ontario, Canada as a (likewise correct) answer, but I see somebody already put that into the table, LOL! I feel like the "More Reasonable" version of the planet question should NOT mention Pluto, it should be the question IMPLIED in the comic whose answer is 9 (such as "How many planets were originally in our Solar System", but without the ambiguity of "originally". Basically a question whose answer is 9, pushing people to include Pluto, while allowing people the mistake of saying the current answer of 8, but mentioning Pluto would ruin that/the question). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There could also be a person Named "London" who is located somewhere, perhaps in the same bar (or not) -- [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.71|172.70.46.71]] 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_%28name%29 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.31|172.70.42.31]] 16:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I knew the minimum size of a lake by definition, at least in the US, but I just found different authorities asserting 1, 10, and 20 acres as the distinction between a lake and a pond. Two non-metric distinctions are that a lake has an aphotic (dark) zone, or a lake is fed and drained by a river, but they don't help here. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.53|172.70.43.53]] 16:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

For the love of god can we stop saying that Pluto was "demoted" to a dwarf planet? It didn't have its category changed, it had its category defined (for the first time!). It was a founding member of a newly named category. And it's not like planets are better than dwarf planets, they're just different. (I'm going to die on this hill, ain't I?)
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.16|172.68.34.16]] 01:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, you probably are. When it happened, many people, including astronomers, considered it a downgrade. There's some prestige in being a planet -- the Sun and the planets are considered the most significant objects in the Solar System. The qualifier suggests that it's less important than the "real" planets, and was kicked out of the planet club for being deficient in some way. Maybe we need a campaign from dwarf humans to remind everyone that they're just smaller, but they have no less dignity. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:I'll cheerfully die there with you. But I'll also point out while I'm doing so that if it's a 'dwarf ''planet''', then clearly it is still a planet. I mean, people would look at you funny if you tried to claim that a dwarf elephant wasn't an elephant. And perhaps more pertinently, a dwarf star is still a star. So the answer to 'how many planets are in our solar system?' is 'at least 16 that we know of - depends how far down you count. Unless you discount the gas giants, in which case you need to subtract four. Or maybe two. Wait - how many are we on now again?'[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.157|172.71.178.157]] 11:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

For the planet question there's also Theia, which is theorized to have been a planet prior to smashing into proto Earth and forming the moon and modern larger Earth. So there used to be at least nine planets by the current definition in our solar system.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.20|162.158.155.20]] 03:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

For question #8, it's not that mathematicians were idling around. A lot of partial results were made, see Wiki. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.33|172.71.160.33]] 08:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I was confused by this question at first. The answer is "no." It is disproved by example. 21+3=24 21 is not a prime. 24 is even. {{unsigned ip|162.158.154.65|19:38, 21 April 2024
:24 is the sum of many pairs of numbers. Amongst those pairs (as with any even number >2) may be one ore more pairs of primes (even 2, if you count 1 as a prime - though generally one doesn't). 24 is (just looking at the odd numbers >1) 21+3, 19+5 (both primes!), 17+7 (both primes), 15+9 (no), 13+11 (both primes) and then of course the reverses of these (if you count those). So 24 is the sum of two primes (three, or six, times). 4 is just the sum of 2+2, 6 is only 3+3, 8 is only 5+3... And every even number checked from there on up ''can'' be expressed as the sum of two primes (at least once). But is there ever a point at which there is an even number that is not?
:With 3, 5 and 7 being primes, then you can definitely say that if N is an even number that has (or even relies upon) a solution with 3, then N+2 and N+4 are, which would be answerable by the same sum but with 5 or 7 instead. Plus N+8 (3->11), N+10 (3>13). And maybe you can fill in the N+6 and N+8 by the ''other'' prime used being also a suitable twin prime that you can swap out for the P±2 partner. But only if it's the right prime of any given pair, and not all primes are twins, so there's a lot more to consider about whether any given advancement up the even-numnber ladder can be answered by a suitable pair of primes.
: e.g. 15440=7717+7723 (one possible solution). 15442 therefore needs +2 to that. But 7717 and 7723 ar adjacent primes that areen't two apart (so you can't just add two to 7717 and have 7723 + 7723) and the next adjacent primes are 7703 and 7727 (not two apart, and not obviously useful to go 7717->7703, either). So there must be another solution (theoretically, but also proven by having been checked). By doing ''quite a bit'' of to-and-fro (if that's how we're doing it), we can finally announce that 15442=7649+7793 (but I also found 7523+7919, 7541+7901, 7559+7883 and 7589+7853, before I stopped the search). So It works up to 15442.
:15444? Well, neither 7649 or 7793 have a +2 prime-partner. But 7589 is followed by 7591 (as a new partner to 7853). And 7559 is followed by 7561, so 7561+7883 would also be an answer. There will (probably) be many others.
:But will there ''always'' be many others? Or even just the one? I'm sure someone has been counting how many unique (bidirectional) solutions each number has, and probably there are some that ''only just'' get the requisite single pair of primes that sum to it. Could it ever not even manage that? Those actually familiar with the efforts to prove the conjecture would know, rather than a fool like me coming fresh to the problem. (Relatively, that is... I already knew about it, but I've never tried to wade into the actual theory until right now, and this random example I set up to 'explain' this, just now.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.175|172.71.242.175]] 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

*About Q2: the "number of sides" may be "the average number of sides" of a Platonic solid, which is 10, despite having no Platonic decahedron
*About Q10: with a correct list of answers, it ''may'' be kept as-is with having to select the drummer(s).
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.38|162.158.78.38]] 10:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:That assumes that the Platonic solids occur in equal numbers in the universe. In actuality, there are probably more of some than others, which would throw your average off. Alternatively, you could argue that none of any of them actually exist (by virtue of them being Platonic, and any example being an imperfect approximation), in which case the answer is either 'none' or 'unanswerable', since you can't average nothing.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.156|172.70.85.156]] 12:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)