explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-05-28T09:27:55Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: /* Any more actual examples? */ new section

Shouldn't "Anachronym" be "Anachronism"? The listed items aren't archaic acronyms. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.83|162.158.63.83]] 17:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:No, "-nym" means name, so this is names that are outdated [[Special:Contributions/104.23.190.60|104.23.190.60]] 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:: (The OP) Ah, I see now. An anachronym is a term used in an anachronistic way (like tin foil which isn't made of tin anymore), where an anacronym is an word that started as an acronym but is now treated as a word (people no longer think of it as an acronym). Neither term being in common parlance, and being only one letter different, my search for a definition got them confused.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.94|172.70.35.94]] 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he should be paying with paper money. He can easily pay by credit card ... using virtual debit card on his phone. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 17:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
: Paper money might not be made from paper anymore - at least, it isn't in NZ, where I live. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.130|172.69.0.130]] 17:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::I think “paper money” is about paper no longer being made from papyrus. US bank notes are printed on rag paper, which is indeed a kind of paper despite containing little or no wood pulp.--[[User:Seakingsoyuz|Seakingsoyuz]] ([[User talk:Seakingsoyuz|talk]]) 18:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Rag paper is not just "a kind of paper", it's the original kind of paper (papyrus is not paper in any usual sense, because it is not made from pulped fibers). When paper was invented in China, it was made from rag fibers, and it was still made like that when it was first produced in Europe.
:: I don't think 'paper money' should be designated as being made of paper here. Everyone knows that paper money doesn't feel or act like paper. It's incredibly hard to rip. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::: Being Canadian, I thought the reference here was to what's described at Wikipedia as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_banknote Polymer banknotes]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:::To reiterate the unsigned comment from someone above: linen and "rag paper" is ''in fact the original form of paper'', which predates pulpwood paper by ''centuries''. Paper was not made using tree pulpwood at all until the 19th-century development of industrial wood pulping processes for pulping wood and then making paper from that pulp. You've lived your entire life in the post-Industrial Revolution world and are used to thinking about it as "the way things have always been", when in fact it's enormously different from what the world was like for most of history!
:::Have you ever read Charles Dickens or other older authors and seen a mention of "rag-pickers"? Did you ever wonder for what purpose they were picking those rags? To sell them to be pulped and used to manufacture paper. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.119|162.158.186.119]] 03:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:The "card" in credit card seems to come from Latin and Greek for a piece of paper or papyrus. So a credit card, now made of plastic, metal, semiconductors, etc. might be considered an anachronym. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think anybody's made sense of or convincingly explained the title text. Paper money actually is basically made of paper. Maybe that's the joke and why it's in the title text. Is there anywhere teaching that paper money isn't made of paper? Maybe it used to be made of the same paper we use for writing on, like IOUs. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.93|162.158.158.93]] 21:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:: Not in the UK ... the notes are not made with any version of paper now. (see also Canada & New Zealand above.) [[User:The Yeti|The Yeti]] ([[User talk:The Yeti|talk]]) 20:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think I figured it out. The article focuses heavily on actual production, but Randall doesn't mean that the original products no longer exist, he means that they aren't what stores are selling. Thinking on this I realized that paper money is like that too -- it's no longer backed by gold or silver. I added a sentence to the article to say this using the concept "fake" like "imitation porcelain". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.135|162.158.159.135]] 21:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:The same person (me) wrote both of these posts but the IP addresses are changed by the server. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.16|162.158.158.16]] 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::It's not the server, it's the Cloudflare gateway. Don't worry about it. Even if it wasn't the Cloudflare gateway's IP that you were getting, there's a good chance that your ''actual'' IP, via your actual ISP, is not static enough to be guaranteed the same from one post to another. If you want to state your continuation (and not get a named account to do so...) just say "Hi, it's IP <1.2.3.4> again..." or whatever you need to do. But (as with me) you seem not to have a driving wish for continuity of self so... don't worry about it. Ok? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 23:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:After thinking on this further I am no longer convinced by this explanation either. It's possible.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.16|162.158.158.16]] 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:He could pay with any form of contactless, given that pretty much everybody seems to touch whatever they're paying with against the sensor.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 13:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Adults who "enjoy" rubber ducks include programmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.27|172.71.95.27]] 18:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The word money came from words that meant coin. The word coin evidently came from wedge shaped. Not quite anachronym, though somewhat anachronism. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Surprised "lead pencil" didn't make the list [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.109|172.68.12.109]] 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:Not quite the same category. The core of wooden pencils never contained lead, that was always a misnomer by people who didn't know it was actually carbon. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::I thought soft metals like lead did work for writing with though, functioning similarly to the graphite in a pencil but possibly needing a rougher surface like chalk does. I'm surprised the name isn't from actual use as I had informally learned it was. I think I tested it by writing with lead solder. In ancient Rome people would write on rougher slate, not sure what they used to write on the slate with though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::"Pencil lead" got that name because various people in ye olde days, pre-modern chemistry, erroneously thought it was indeed lead, since it looked sort of similar to tarnished lead (what lead looks like after exposed to air for a while; a "fresh" lead surface is shiny like most metals are "natively").
:::As for the ancient Roman world, the short-term writing medium of choice was wax tablets, made using beeswax in a wood frame. A wood stylus was used to inscribe into the wax. To erase it for reuse, you heated it and smoothed out the wax. Wood and bark slips were used at times as well where available. I'm not saying it never happened, but I'm not under the impression slate stone was a widespread writing material then. Stone is relatively labor-intensive to quarry and prepare (thus expensive) and of course heavy. They wrote stuff down in stone of course, but stuff they wanted to last, chiseled in, not ephemeral stuff. For "medium-term" stuff they had papyrus, clay tablets, leather, parchment. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.119|162.158.186.119]] 03:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::See [https://www.victorianschool.co.uk/slates.html information like this]. Slate was a ''very'' common material (my current house has a slate roof, and that was a relatively late 1930s building as far as slate-usage is concerned, the much more modern spate of rebuilds/retros/blending-ins excepted) and though the era of 'school slates' is long gone, it would have probably been one of the easiest and cheapest of (transient) writing materials available. To this day, if a pub landlord (or any other businessperson) feels that they can put your purchases on a buy-now-pay-later basis, the (perhaps informal, even notional/memorised) record can be described as being "on the slate" (i.e. bar-tab, 'on tick', etc), probably from the way that such minor debt-details were handled.
::::Chalk-on-slate is also a common 'pre-whiteboard' thing (blackboards. before later blacl/green-painted wood or enamelled steel or whatever coated fabric it is that they use for 'rolling' boards), and isn't uncommon to see as display-boards outside pubs/etc (either attached to the wall or as hinged A-style 'mini-easel' thing), or inside and handily next to the bar itself with the latest offers. Those that haven't gone for the non-stone equivalents. And I'm pretty sure that I had a chalk-on-slate child-size play-easel when I was very young (had a 'fake clock' on it, too, spinny hands to teach me the time, and on the otherside a pin-board of some kind), that my grandad made for me. Fairly certain the wooden bits were painted orange, as almost ''every'' wooden thing he made (that wasn't absolutely supposed to be a different colour, for what it actually represented) was orange. It's probably still somewhere in some family loft-space but (not that I'm reminded of it) I must now check. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68|162.158.74.68]] 15:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Duck Tape is no longer made from ducks! [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:It Actually got its name from being made from "duck fabric," a kind of heavy very tightly woven cotton fabric. Then there was confusion by a brand putting a picture of a duck on the label, and people using it to join segments of heating ducts together, making people falsely think it was originally called "duct tape," with duck being a fanciful brand name. Originally though it was developed for the military in WW1 to seal ammunition boxes in a waterproof way, but due to widespread improvised uses by soldiers, post war they decided to market it to civilians.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.255.102|172.71.255.102]] 17:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::What your thinking about is "fabric tape" or "gaffer's tape". What people call "duck tape" is actually called "duct tape," as in the tape you would use on air ducting. Many people misheard and dropped the final "t", and of course the Duck brand didn't help. --[[User:Mblumber|Mblumber]] ([[User talk:Mblumber|talk]]) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::With both terms "duck tape" and "duct tape", there's valid (if false) etymologies. Being somewhat waterproof (the fabric being at least water-resistant and the adhesive being good even on damp surfaces) it being a "duck" material is fairly relatable. With it having a degree of air-tightness and some degree of heat-resistance, it's also trivially useful for sealing ambient-temperature ducting gaps (though you really need the metal-foil types for ducts with high or variable temperature airflows passing through them). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 23:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Doing further research, the "duck" naming came first, due to it being made using duck fabric. Though there was some tape using it beforehand, it seems it first became widespread with something close to what we know today in WWII, intended for sealing ammunition boxes, but saw widespread other use by soldiers. Afterwards it was sold in hardware stores for household repairs, and made to be more heat tolerant to be good for use on heating ducts, also colored to match the tin typically used to make the ducts, and people started calling it "duct tape" in the 50's. Later, in the 70's, a company decided to market their brand by bringing back the original "duck" name, with a cartoon duck logo, though many people didn't realize that was the original name of that kind of tape, and thought they were just making a pun on "duct."--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.77|172.69.6.77]] 00:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Duck/duct is one of my go-to examples of folk etymology and misplaced language-snobbery. "''Actually'', it's..." type behaviour concerning "duct" tape has historically been in the direction of "duck is the misnomer, based on mishearing". And thats wrong. It was duck,but people thought it couldn't be duck because why the hell would it be duck, what the hell does duck mean when it's tape? OHHHH! It must be duct because people tape ducts with it. But no. It was duck. It became duct. It became duck again. It ''was'' all these things, because the only true arbiter of correct usage is common usage...but saying (knowingly, with an air of superiority) that it was originally duct is fundamentally incorrect. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"digital money" shouldn't be listed as what "paper money" is actually made out of. Nobody would say "I'm paying with paper money" if they are paying with some digital currency. The anachronism is "paper money" being actually made of linen or whatever hi-tech fibers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.211|172.70.254.211]] 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC) anonymous user
:Not even ''fibers''. Sheet-polymers (with loads of complex embedded and pressed-in features) are becoming the new go-to for banknotes, in a number of countries. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My wife suggests that this is much easier if you are tech shopping: Apple, Mouse, Spam, Phish, Cookies.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.225|162.158.78.225]] 20:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Click mouse to accept cookie" meme - featuring rodent and confection. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/06/e6/7d/06e67d6ee5a2afa112bf548463e97125.jpg [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.94|172.70.35.94]] 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:That's not in the same category since computer mice were never ''made of'' actual mice{{cn}}. Anyway, I'm sure there are some examples in tech: '''compressed air''' (gas duster) cans do not actually contain nitrogen or oxygen but a mixture of hydrocarbon gases that can be liquified at pressures obtainable in a cheap can to drastically increase the volume ratio, but I can imagine people might have used actual pressurized air containers for dusting at some point (though likely not commercially). [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why "sidewalk chalk" on there and who decides that calcium carbonate is allowed to be called chalk, but calcium sulphate is not. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.196|108.162.216.196]] 05:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I came here wondering why it was on the list, but for a different reason: It's never been made from sidewalks. Yes, I actually needed to read the list to clear up the misconception. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::Because, other than the use we give it as "thing you write on blackboards with", chalk is originally a stone made of relatively loose calciulm carbonate (limestone mostly made from foraminifers), which is what was used to write on slate blackboards before we started making them out of pressed gypsum. --[[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.130|172.64.238.130]]
::Calcium carbonate chalk is still produced (mostly for mathematicians). Search for "Hagoromo Fulltouch." {{unsigned ip|172.71.190.234|15:47, 17 April 2025}}
::And as everyone knows, sidewalks are ''made of '''PEOPLE!!1'' (YOU GOTTA TELL 'EM!)''' --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.171|172.70.207.171]] 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

You can still buy solid cast-iron irons. Although I doubt anyone actually uses them for smoothing clothes, more for decoration. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 16:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
: If you can still buy _new_ ones update the article! People likely use the old ones in traditional communities though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

When I typed started typing "silverware made" into Google, it suggested "silverware real silver", which brought up a very ad-heavy results page. A few of them were re-selling vintage silverware, but most seemed to be offering "new" designs. I had to scroll down several pages before I found stuff that looked even like a catalog, rather than an ad for one particular possible purchase.

But since it seems like a competitive market, and I wasn't patient enough to look for an informational marketing page, I don't feel comfortable picking one (or several) particular ads as the citation.

Perhaps someone else does. Or perhaps a screenshot archived somewhere. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 18:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:Since when are ads considered reliable sources? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::Since they indicate what's popular, what's commonly seen and commonly used. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Steel
{{w|Stainless steel}} ''does'' contain Fe, so "iron" ain't ''that'' "wrong". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.95|172.70.35.95]] 05:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:We have long made a distinction between "iron" and "steel", not to mention that, while stainless steel has about 1% carbon by weight (give or take: sometime more, sometimes less), since carbon is over 4 times lighter than iron, that makes about 4% (and up to 10%) of the atoms carbon, not to mention that, to be stainless, it has to either have a by weight composition of either over 10% chromium or over 8% nickel, which are almost the same weight as iron (a difference of around 5%, lower for chromium, higher for nickel). Given that the average stainless steel has a 18% by weight of chromium, adding that with the carbon means that only 3 out of 4 atoms are iron, and if you have copper and tin or copper and tin in that same ratio, it would long have surpassed the line to be called "bronze" or "brass", respectively. "Having iron atoms" is not the same as "made of iron", mainly when it originally was indeed made out of (wrought) iron. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.245|188.114.111.245]]
::99% is a way higher percentage than say, the amount of nickel in nickels ($0.05 coins): 25% ({{w|Nickel (United States coin)|US}}) or 2% ({{w|Nickel (Canadian coin)|Canadian}}). The latter might qualify for this list because it actually used to be made of near-pure nickel, while the US coin's composition never changed since the first (1866) version that became known as the "nickel". [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::So I guess that if you alloy gold with beryllium at a 1:1 atomic rate you can call the thing basically pure gold because beryllium, despite being 50% of the material, makes up only around 4% by weight, meaning that the 96% per weight gold has more gold in it (from your point of view) than stainless steel does iron (about 90% by weight).--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.47|188.114.111.47]]
::Steel (stainless or otherwise) does not occur naturally. It has to be made. By humans. Out of iron. So in this case 'having iron atoms' DOES mean 'made of (as a synonym of 'from') iron'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.129|172.70.86.129]] 04:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::If you can call an alloy by the name of its main metal component by weight, by the same token paper and plastic are the same thing, as they are both carbon-based polymers. It's splitting hairs.--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.47|188.114.111.47]]
::Bronze contains mostly copper. So I assume you would call it copper, too. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.130.67|162.158.130.67]] 11:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::In fact historians increasingly are adopting the term "copper alloy" to talk about all pre-industrial bronzes, brasses, and other alloys with copper as the dominant metal, because their compositions and alloying ingredients have varied all over the place throughout history—as has the terminology societies have used. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.119|162.158.186.119]] 03:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"Cutlery" specifically refers to metallic implements with a cutting edge. Knives, scissors, and swords are cutlery; Spoons and forks are not cutlery. Table knives, forks, and spoons, collectively are "flatware". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.155|162.158.164.155]] 10:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I was really hoping to re-edit that element, anyway. The comic says "silverware" which can relate to cutlery/other food-implements or to the plates or candlesticks or even ''trophies''. Someone assumed that meant cutlery(+dining implements in general). As well as other improvable writing about the assumption they went with. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.49|172.70.58.49]] 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I assume the confusion comes from the respecive British and American terms for a collection of forks, knives, and spoons. British English calls these things "cutlery" even if they don't have a cutting edge. American English commonly refers to these as "silverware," especially when made with stainless steel, although I have also heard the term "plastic silverware" or "wooden silverware" when "flatware" would probably have been a more accurate generic term. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.35|172.70.163.35]] 18:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC) (an American expat)
::While its etymology indicates cutting edges, is "cutlery" actually ''used'' to mean "bladed items" anywhere? In UK English, it exclusively means eating irons, and is the standard, unremarkable, everyday term. In the places that don't refer to their knives, forks and spoons collectively as "cutlery", do they really use the word at all? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 09:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Paper
I just want to point out that paper made from cotton fibers instead of wood pulp ''is still paper''. You can buy it in the store. There are non-paper banknotes now, but not in the U.S., and I'd be surprised if polymer banknotes were ever called "paper money". [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 12:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:Be surprised. That's what they're usually called in Canada. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.164|162.158.127.164]] 18:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::And anywhere with polymer bills. "Paper money" = bills. Still, it's true that cotton-linen paper is still paper, so is hemp paper and any other paper made from cellulose fibers (paper can be categorized by cellulose source, average fiber length, thickness, impurities and papermaking method). You can even make paper out of old clothes made from vegetable textiles (like blue jeans, cotton T-shirts or hemp pants). As a weird side note, there are non-cellulose papers, like silk paper, but they are made in the same way as regular paper (which is not how plymer bills are made, to my understanding)--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.245|188.114.111.245]]
:::Yeah, I've always heard of it as "paper money" --[[User:Xnerkcd|xnerkcd]] ([[User talk:Xnerkcd|talk]]) 07:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I have a different comment on the "money" section, namely that the thin. flat, wrinkleable stuff nowadays are not (at least not in the US) "promissory notes", and they haven't been since the Silver Certificates went out of circulation. No one makes any promises about them, other than that they are legal for paying debts. The stuff nowadays would be better called "fiat money", or perhaps someone else can offer a better term.
:::::{{wiktionary|folding#Noun|"Folding"}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.50|172.70.58.50]] 20:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ironing boards obviously came from use of irons. As irons aren't iron anymore, ironing board is also anachronistic. Quite often aluminium foil is refered to as 'silver foil', which is both not true (not made of silver), but also true (silver colour). And then there are people who still open 'tin cans' (but not). [[User:The Yeti|The Yeti]] ([[User talk:The Yeti|talk]]) 20:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Tin cans" always were "tinplate steel", which is, well, ''exactly what it says on the tin'': steel, plated with tin. And according to the fount of truth, Wikipedia, tinplate still is used, particularly on cans with nastily reactive contents (e.g. very acidic); other cans use plastic liners or even enameled metal. (I don't know where, this was years and years ago, but I recall seeing a remark from someone with industry knowledge that the hardest thing to can (as in most hostile to the can and linings) was in fact ''rhubarb''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.171|172.70.207.171]] 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

== Any more ''actual'' examples? ==

Note that lots of items (such as pencil lead) were never made of things they were named after, and they were always misnomers. These don't qualify so please check this beforehand! I'm adding '''{{w|Marble_(toy)#History|marbles}}''' because they were actually made of marble at some point (and still are in small quantities). [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 09:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:780: Sample

2025-04-14T16:27:36Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: Comment mentioning Půlnoční by Václav Neckář

I hate it when I'm listening to music on the radio and a car horn clashes with one of the notes. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've actually prepared to take evasive action because of car horn sounds on the radio, but usually in ads. I also once had a friend who could perfectly make the sound of a cop siren just doing a little "wouup" to tell you to pull over. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 05:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Turns out, in Russia, inserting honk-like sounds in a broadcast is illegal for the very reason described in the comic. Funny thing is, the law was passed after this comic came out. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.193|172.68.245.193]] 20:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the song "Saturday" by Twenty-One Pilots[[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.197|172.71.167.197]] 19:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a Czech song that contains a dissonant beep reminiscent of a Nokia phone running out of battery: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mbYID0ec4&t=134 Václav Neckář's ''Půlnoční'' at 2:14]. I don't think it was intentional but they should have removed it if it wasn't (the technology was definitely there in 2011). (No, it's not just a noise they added to the YouTube version, it occurs in other releases too.) [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 16:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-14T11:48:32Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: Comment about nickels

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-14T08:07:48Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: Added two comnments about lead pencils and compressed air

Talk:3045: AlphaMove

2025-02-01T17:52:18Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: add comment to specify video timestamp for arithmetic player

Ask Tom Murphy VII to get on this [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.103|141.101.99.103]] 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I have attempted to run the proposed bot against itself — if I haven't made any errors, here are the resulting games:

Rounding down:
1. e4 e6 2. f3 f5 3. e5 g5 4. d4 d5 5. exd6 g4 6. d7+ Kf7 7. dxc8=N Ke8 8. fxg4 h6 9. gxf5 Kd7 10. g4 h5 11. fxe6+ Ke8 12. g5 Na6 13. h3 Nc5 14. h4 Ne7 15. Kd2 Ne4+ 16. Ke1 Nf5 17. g6 Nf6 18. g7 Ng3 19. gxf8=N Nge4 20. Ke2 Ng4 21. Kf3 Ngf2 22. Ke2 Nh3 23. Ke3 Nhf2 24. Nb6 Nh3 25. Na4 Nhf2 26. Nac3 Nxc3 27. Kxf2 Nxd1+ 28. Kf3 Qc8 29. c4 Ne3 30. Ke4 Nf5 31. Kd3 Ng3 32. e7 Nxh1 33. Kc2 Qb8 34. d5 Kxe7 35. d6+ Kf6 36. dxc7 Nf2 37. c8=R Ng4 38. Kd2 Nh2 39. Ke3 Ng4+ 40. Kd4 Nh2 41. Kd5 Nxf1 42. Nc3 Nh2 43. Nce2 Ng4 44. Nd4 Nh6 45. Nd7+ Kf7 46. Ndf3 Qd6+ 47. Ke4 Qd2 48. Nf8 Qd5+ 49. Ke3 Qd2+ 50. Ke4 Qd5+ 51. Ke3 Qd2+ 52. Ke4

Rounding up:
1. f3 f5 2. e4 f4 3. d4 e6 4. e5 g6 5. g3 fxg3 6. c3 g2 7. d5 gxf1=Q+ 8. Kxf1 exd5 9. Ke2 d6 10. Kd3 g5 11. Kd2 dxe5 12. Ke2 d4 13. Kd3 dxc3+ 14. Ke3 e4 15. Ne2 exf3 16. Ng1 f2 17. Nxc3 fxg1=N 18. Qc2 Kd7 19. Ne2 h6 20. Qa4+ Ke6 21. Qb3+ Ke7 22. Qb4+ Ke8 23. Qb5+ Kf7 24. Qa6 Kg7 25. Qa4 Kg6 26. Qb3 Kg7 27. Qb4 Kh7 28. Qb5 Kg7 29. Qa6 Nc6 30. Nxg1 Na5 31. Qb6 Kh7 32. Qb3 Kg6 33. Qb4 Kg7 34. Qb6 Kh7 35. Qb3 Kg6 36. Qb4 Kg7 37. Qb6

Rounding down code:
const { Chess } = require("chess.js");

const chess = new Chess();
while (!chess.isGameOver()) {
const moves = chess.moves();
moves.sort((a, b) => b.localeCompare(a));
const move = moves[Math.floor(moves.length / 2)];
chess.move(move);
}
console.log(chess.pgn());

To round up, swap the a and b in the sort function.

Both games end in a threefold repetition draw. The game with rounding down does, in fact, have 6 knights in it, so I believe he did code this to see what would happen.

[[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] ([[User talk:Ohpointfive|talk]]) 22:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate on the Tom VII point - this is the YouTube video that possibly inspired the comic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.179|141.101.98.179]] 22:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
:Specifically, it's the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA&t=1483 Arithmetic Player at 24:43] set to ½. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately for white, it's mate in 1 with Bb4# [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.124|162.158.90.124]] 23:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if white makes a different move, its still forced mate in one. RIP XKCD Bot. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 00:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Well, for most options. Queen to a4 puts Black in check, forestalling an immediate move to mate White; capturing the knight de-threatens enough squares around the king that Black can't check next turn without leaving an escape route. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.28|172.70.176.28]] 17:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

<s>Although it wouldn't change the outcome much (either by changing black's move or white's general options), I'm currently not understanding why Kd4 isn't on the list of options at this point in time. So long since I played serious(ish) chess, and the only reason I could think of is that it's probibited by some strict ortbodox game rule recognising the ''potential'' moving of the knight out of the way (in the next white move-cycle). But I'd have treated that later option as forbidden, as a revealing-mate. But, as I said, it's been a while, so maybe I'm just blind to something like a sweeping bishop-range that disbars this (much as the near knight, bishop and pawn disbars four out of the five moves).</s> ...darn, it's just clicked. That's the AlphaMoved white-knight's destination (before that, the black queen was entirely covering that square, and double-teaming one of the adjacent black-knight covered squares), I'd been thinking that was the piece's origin (with the empty highlighted square as its destination) until I'd finally read the highlighted movelist item properly and deciphered it as Knight To King Two (done), not the (intention of) Knight To King's Bishop One. So ignore the above. Although, just to note, for the Black Queen to have even achieved that position would probably have required at least ''one'' normally-sacrificial exposure to the deadly white Q/B/R pieces guarding the obvious entry, give or take the algorithmic development of their (and the "gateway pawns"') current positions. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.104|141.101.99.104]] 02:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Follow-up... As far as the black queen is concerned, I suppose she could have done d6, (x?)g3 then f2, in-between the other black and white moves made, largely safe from the white 'defence'. Or to d4 then f2, if white Queen's Pawn was shielding still. (Appears to have been taken, but it would have been bold to have done that with the queen, for a normally immediate pawn-queen exhange!) A bolder/more opportunistic set of moves than I would have tried, either. Even (unknowingly) against AlphaMove, I'd have been wary of the unconventionally developing white disposition actually being an idiot-trap (and I'm really not that far off being an idiot, insofar as chess). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.162|172.70.162.162]] 02:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The explanation gives both O-O and 0-0 as notations for castling and then explains why 0-0 can never occur, even though O-O can be sorted pretty centrally. So, which is the correct notation? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.250.91|172.71.250.91]] 09:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:According to the [https://ia802908.us.archive.org/26/items/pgn-standard-1994-03-12/PGN_standard_1994-03-12.txt pgn spec], section 8.2.3.3: they are capital Os and not zeros [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 15:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we're looking at a retrograde puzzle. [[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] is onto something here, with the six knights on the board a strong indicator. The question is, of course, where is the joke? White plays Alphamove all along and must have started with e4 (rounding down) or f3 (rounding up). Both are consistent with the end position. So from my point of view, the joke is
* either that the "stronger engine" is not a strong engine at all but maybe the same algorithm, rounding up instead of down
* or that black doesn't win this position (in real chess, White is of course toast) because its algorithm is even worse
@Ohpointfive, could you run the two versions against each other? --[[User:Pganon|Pganon]] ([[User talk:Pganon|talk]]) 15:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3016: Cold Air

2024-11-27T17:43:17Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: Prokop Diviš opinion

Back In The Day, one of the idiot youngsters in a first-year chemistry lab, before leaving at the end of the afternoon, connected a water faucet to a natural-gas line (used for Bunsen burners) with a rubber hose, and opened both taps. By the next morning, much of the natural-gas network in the heart of the city was flooded. It took a while to get everything working again, and the cleanup wasn't cheap. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 22:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:You have the right username to mention this! ;)
:Also, the 'big trick', back in my day, was to be at the (correct end of) the science-lab bench and briefly blow into a pipe (temporarily unplugged from the burner) just as you turn your tap on. Then watch as the rest of the row (downstream of your connection to the supply) have their active flames go out. ...but I leave it to your imagination the ''three'' main problems (and various other less major ones) with trying that, with the benefit of hindsight. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.201|172.69.195.201]] 00:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyone understand the physics here? It seems clear that adding tanks of cool, dry air will make storms (and particularly tornados) far worse, not better, as the incoming hot, wet air will react with any released air to make even worse/dramatic weather patterns. But is there more to it? If the tanks are sealed, then effect could be muted by simply not releasing the stored air once the problem is realized, but this would be countered by at least two factors: First, the title text indicates that an additonal error was made resulting in it beingg impossible to seal the stored air completely (it escapes through the water system). But also, any time weather got bad enough to open leaks in the system, I think this would produce a catastrophic result as the storm mixed with all the cold dry air at once? [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 23:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:My understanding is generally that explosive failure of a container with sufficient "anti-tornado" air inside is going to be non-trivial (and you face this threat constantly, in the settlement that has an "air tower", whereas tornados are relatively infrequent and mostly cross countryside). ''post-edit: And the editor who set up the current explanation seems to have had much the same idea... gratifying to know I'm on the same wavelength as at least one person!''
:And the water-connection would be bad due to (first) extremely pressurised water and (immediately afterwards) almost as pressurised air pushing through the areas plumbing systems, with unknown secondary effects such as effectively blowing empty any water-heaters that ''really'' shouldn't be left to be 'boiled dry' (after enough air bubbles in, the remaining water will soak up the burner heat and evaporate beyond design limitations, adding to the gas pressure ''and'' no longer moderating the effects on the boiler body itself; not sure exactly what will go wrong, but it may not be pretty). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.201|172.69.195.201]] 00:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing which 'city' the diagram might be of (or, indeed, how figurative Cueball's illustrative figure might be), I checked the first "tornado alley" city I could think of and came up with {{w|One Kansas City Place}} as how tall the taller buildings might be. In that case, just shy of 200m (with spire on top) and 40-odd floors. The dimensions of the 3000psi tank (external, but ignoring support infrastructure) is somewhere around 400m in height, perhaps 600m side to side, presumably oblate spheroidal, so approaching (less thickness of container walls) 75 ''million'' m³ of compressed air. Which is compressed, and would otherwise be around 15,000 million m³ (15 km³!) of atmosphere if ever released. As a very vague upper limit. Notwithstanding the apparent use of an existing (ex-)water-tower in the titletext. But obviously there's possibly abstract and definitely reinterpretable alternative interpretations of the quantities that might be involved. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.225|172.69.195.225]] 00:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the wiki math package <pre><math> </math></pre> Does not work properly, and returns an error Failed to parse <pre>(Missing <code>texvc</code> executable. Please see math/README to configure.):</pre> when I attempted to add the math describing the speed of the air using LaTeX [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.92|172.68.22.92]] 01:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:This is a long-standing error (at some point, one bit of update invalidated the rendering process, and nobody is currently able to update the other component/configuration).
:There are plenty of alternate ways to format a newly needed formula, without TeX, and anything that's the same as when it was pre-rendered will continue to show as the inline "formula image" (which I think is potentially worse, anyway, when it comes to accessibility issues). It's really not too hard to do it without the math-tag extension working properly, though. e.g. <table style="display: inline-table; line-height: 0.6em; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-size:10pt; font-style: italic; text-size-adjust: none;"><tr><td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">p1•v1</td><td rowspan="2">=</td><td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">p2•v2</td></tr><tr><td>t1</td><td>t2</td></tr></table> ...as quick example with just a little bit of fine tuning applied. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.134|172.70.160.134]] 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The statement that 3000PSI is 6x higher than known high pressure systems is false. Scuba tanks contain air at this pressure (240bar/3000psi) and the systems used to fill scuba tanks are twice that. {{unsigned ip|172.71.26.101|09:28, 26 November 2024}}
:Perform the wiki magic and add that source!--[[User:FrankHightower|FrankHightower]] ([[User talk:FrankHightower|talk]]) 15:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::Done. Deleted the reference to one specific product, and just noted that it's a pressure typical of scuba tanks.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.34|162.158.154.34]] 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=40+Bar+to+psi My calculator (Google)] says 400MPH is 644 KPH (not 500). Also 40 Bar seems to be well on the high side of 500psi (580psi).

''"winds of about 40-400 mph [1] (about 50-500 kph)" "about 40 bar [2] (about 500 psi)."''

--[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 01:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:The source says tornadoes go up to 318 mph (512 kph) but the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Bridge_Creek%E2%80%93Moore_tornado strongest tornado on record] exceeded that. I couldn't confirm when I wrote whether that was ''actually'' the strongest, and since the only purpose of the number is to say "Cueball's windspeeds are way, way worse", I decided an upper bound of 400 covered it.--[[User:FrankHightower|FrankHightower]] ([[User talk:FrankHightower|talk]]) 15:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

::"I decided an upper bound of 400 covered it." Somebody edited my words and omitted the key point: ARITHMETIC. English to Metric is NOT 4:5. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 23:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Hmmm... "English to Metric". Strange phrase, for ''various'' reasons. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.200|172.69.195.200]] 00:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So my brief wikihole dive has me doubting again; but is the part about requiring refrigeration accurate? By my understanding, pressurising the air in the first place would raise its temperature. It then goes back to equilibrium with the environment while it's stored at pressure, and temperature drops when it's released. {{unsigned ip|172.71.99.67|08:19, 27 November 2024}}
:Possibly the editor concerned got confused about the liquefaction of gases (compression ''by'' cooling). I agree that (after any amount of compressed equilibreum), released compressed air will likely by cool be default. The 200x expansion would mean heat energy originally stored in the 3000psi container would reduce the effective temperature of the final state by an eye-watering (and then probably flash-freezing!) amount, in the main release plume.
:But you might want to apply refrigeration to the compression mechanism, or just after, to take the edge off the concentrated heat and rise in temperature you generate within the pressure vessel whilst filling (assuming you don't do it tediously slowly). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.50|141.101.98.50]] 14:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Just heard on the BBC Science in Action podcast 21November - the USA research group Climate Action, has shown that the damage due to wind goes up with the eighth power of the speed. Thus 9% increase results in twice the damage! Would help to explain some of the magnitude of the peaks on the graph! [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 09:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So, not a fluid dynamics expert here, but are we sure that using a naive equation for fluid flow will provide the right figure here? My understanding is that near the speed of sound, fluid flow becomes choked and limited to ~ the speed of sound. Although in the past I was mainly investigating this in the context of STP air flowing into a vacuum, so maybe the high pressure changes it. - Buggy, not a registered user {{unsigned ip|172.69.71.160|09:41, 27 November 2024}}

The comparison to Hiroshima is based on a compressed gas energy calculation, U = PV/(g-1) * {1 - (p/P)^[(g-1)/g]}, where P is the stored pressure, p is the outside pressure, V is the volume of the storage vessel, and g is the ratio of specific heats (1.4 for air). Took V = 75 million m^3, as estimated above.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.34|162.158.154.34]] 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the {{w|Prokop Diviš}} mention but was he really a ''fringe'' scientist for also being a theologist and suggesting weather control in the 1700s? Some of his ideas were functional: he invented the lightning rod around the same time and independently of Benjamin Franklin but spectacularly failed with its marketing by underestimating how superstitious his village was (they thought it was causing a drought and took it down; later in storm season some houses burned down and vilagers changed their mind but Diviš refused to reinstate it). [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 17:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1175: Moving Sidewalks

2024-05-28T15:45:19Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: Reply

I'm not quite sure what the joke here is supposed to be. Many have tried to develop variable speed walkways, as one can see in [http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?page=0&compact=false&ST=advanced&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&CPC=B66B23%2f26%2flow patents]. There was even a pair of these that were installed circa Y2K in the Paris subway (Châtelet-Les-Halles, IIRC), which is renowned for its long passageways. It is AFAIK no longer in service, I don't know why. When I saw it an attendant was present to watch over for making sure that users wouln't fall. This contraption is way more complicated than standard rubber-belt conveyors with its meshing steps. --[[Special:Contributions/70.52.115.181|70.52.115.181]] 15:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
: Is it possible that you're thinking of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJN1X3LeJw these]? [http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/21/paris-experimental-high-speed-moving-walkway-is-abandoned/ Here]'s a news article saying it got canceled due to constant technical problems. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 02:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I know what I'm building this weekend... [[Special:Contributions/207.237.164.241|207.237.164.241]] 06:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:I just wonder if it is possible to remove these stupid posts and the panel on top of them from my treadmill without breaking it... {{unsigned|89.174.214.74}}

Isn't "of" suppose to be "off" in the title text? {{unsigned|67.161.114.84}}
:No... Why would it be? That doesn't make any sense.[[Special:Contributions/74.92.219.153|74.92.219.153]] 14:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Do anybody know examples of such belts. The ones I recall has all one-speed-only [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 10:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
: At Toronto Airport they have double speed moving sidewalks, that accelerate by stretching the panels. --[[User:Johnsmith|Johnsmith]] ([[User talk:Johnsmith|talk]]) 08:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:: Here's a video. Pretty neat concept! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9k1K5M2Mkw --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 02:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression (from the alt-text), that they would take the belts inward traveling faster until they hi-five. Then, as they sped away, they would change sides and repeat the process. 10:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why they are positioned as they are. If they were taking the belts inward, they would take advantage of the momentum imparted by the belts and be going much faster than their stride would normally take them. The way they are positioned, they would have to be running to just catch up to each other in the middle. [[Special:Contributions/64.121.163.170|64.121.163.170]] 11:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:This is surely the point. They have to run faster as they get closer. [[Special:Contributions/77.99.26.23|77.99.26.23]] 12:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:: Has the picture changed? Now it seems as if they where going faster to the middle. --[[User:Johnsmith|Johnsmith]] ([[User talk:Johnsmith|talk]]) 08:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any 'trick' to this one. Like the commenter above, I initially thought they were being taken towards each other by the conveyors. I thought the joke was that they would be accelerated to a ridiculous speed which would make it impossible to high five without obliterating each other, but the alt text didn't indicate anything like this and I looked again and realised I had read way too much into it. It's probably most sensible to interpret the speed multiples as relating to the first belts, not the last one you were on. This makes the difference between the '5x' belts going at 5x the speed of the outer ones, instead of 100x if each was the specified multiple of the last. If this alternative situation were the case, the outer belts would have to be going very slowly (of the order of 0.1m/s) for them to ever be able to high five. [[Special:Contributions/77.99.26.23|77.99.26.23]] 12:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The appears reminiscent of Improv Everywhere's prank, "High-Five Escalator" http://improveverywhere.com/2009/02/09/high-five-escalator/ [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]])

I'm sure I would fall over trying to use this one. --[[Special:Contributions/173.49.75.121|173.49.75.121]] 14:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Randall updated the comic, explaining that he meant to draw the arrows going the way Cueball and Megan are facing, not opposite. I'd change the wiki, but I don't get it now. :) [[User:Zpletan|Zpletan]] ([[User talk:Zpletan|talk]])

The Comic has been changed: "Oops! I originally put up a version with backward sidewalk arrows. I should know better than to edit and post comics while sleep-deprived. Sorry!" [[Special:Contributions/86.32.218.17|86.32.218.17]] 14:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they're going a multiple of the previous belt, but a multiple of base speed. Just my 2 cents :) Also, I think the belts are moving toward each other to get the ultimate "high five" in terms of velocity of the impact. {{unsigned|161.31.32.81}}

I don't see why anyone would think the "5x speed" etc would mean 5 times the previous tile. Seems obvious to me that the first tile is moving at some speed, the second tile is moving twice that base speed, the third moving 3x that base, etc. So when the pass each other their moving at 10x the base speed. Assuming the base speed is something reasonable, something near a typical walking speed, the high five would take place at a speed similar to if they were just sprinting past each other. Hardly a "ridiculous speed which would make it impossible to high five without obliterating each other." [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:As you'll see from my comment, I only thought something like this might be implied on first glance before I looked at it properly. Honestly it just doesn't seem that awesome to have a series of conveyor belts that allow you to high five a person at sprinting pace. I briefly suspected Randall might have been getting at some feature of physics or mathematics, like the story of the guy who asked for payment for something in grains of rice placed on a chessboard, starting with one grain in the corner and doubling for each square. But no. It's just two people high fiving each other. [[Special:Contributions/77.99.26.23|77.99.26.23]] 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone think this may be a reference to "The Caves of Steel" a novel by Isaac Asimov? As I recall there was a global system of moving belts of various speeds that were used for transportation.
: That's what I thought of immediately. [[Special:Contributions/128.84.127.95|128.84.127.95]] 19:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
: Or Heinlein's "The Roads Must Roll". [[Special:Contributions/173.8.183.86|173.8.183.86]] 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:: Also Clarke's ''The City and the Stars'', for the {{w|Big Three}} trifecta. But in those stories, the different-speed belts were arranged in parallel, like lanes of a highway, rather than in series. So you'd accelerate by stepping sideways from belt to belt.
::[[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 20:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, they're playing a game of Robo Rally[[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 04:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see this sidewalk placed in a Bison habitat.[[Special:Contributions/94.191.187.81|94.191.187.81]] 05:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me - or was this comic fixed after it was initially uploaded? I could've sworn the original had either the arrows backwards or the people on the wrong sides - They would've been fighting the sidewalk. 09:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:As an edit to this, I was correct. This is a mirror of the comic on Gizmodo, showing the error. http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18f07q9hveoaepng/xlarge.png {{unsigned|‎77.98.193.149}}
:And it seems that when fixing it, Randall changed all the arrows, rather than moving the people. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]])

I wonder, what is the pace of the centerbelt? Is it 5x, 6x or maybe about 5x where that belt start, accelerating to 7x (or even more?) at the high five location and then slowing down till about 5x at the end? [[Special:Contributions/86.82.116.63|86.82.116.63]] 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

;What can we learn from this?
I've learned that imagination is fun yet again (XKCD, you keep making us learn this same lesson, over the over again, is it your hint that others just don't get it?). And something new I've learned is that implementation of a great idea may result in some broken bones before it's completed (thanks for that new lesson, Mr. XKCD!) - e-inspired [[Special:Contributions/24.51.197.187|24.51.197.187]] 19:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I wish this was real. Check Please! [[User:StillNotOriginal|StillNotOriginal]] ([[User talk:StillNotOriginal|Talk to me!]]) 11:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

:It absolutely is! Not widespread yet but this looks like the way to do it: [https://www.treehugger.com/accel-moving-sidewalk-thyssenkrupp-dream-come-true-4857390 ''ACCEL'' by ThyssenKrupp]. It seems to be easy to use and reliable. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:353: Python

2023-11-21T09:18:11Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: Added comment

It is necessary for both Cueballs to sample the medicine cabinet in order for this to be a hallucination. It was probably python.{{unsigned ip|122.161.29.247}}
:Or maybe there is just one Cueball - the one on the ground who is hallucinating - because he tried everything...? ;-) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

'I also sampled everything in the medicine cabinet for comparison' is a possible reference to George's Marvellous Medicine, the children's book written by Roald Dahl, wherein a combination of medicines and household materials produces fantastical effects. [[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] ([[User talk:Quetzalcoatl|talk]]) 14:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

:I think it's related to the invention of photographs, but I'm not sure [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.81|173.245.48.81]] 06:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Woah guys, antigravity is a real module in Python! I was looking around the lib folder, trying to figure out how to put a module into it, and there it was - antigravity.py . It just sends your browser to the comic. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.171|108.162.219.171]] 22:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, that's already covered in the ''Trivia'' section ;-) --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 23:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The implication is that in Python many otherwise amazing things become easily possible after a simple import statement and/or that there is a module for almost anything you'd want to do no matter how difficult.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.216|199.27.130.216]] 16:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The explanation was wrong about many things. Python doesn't have a heavily-simplified syntax--it's about as simple as Perl (and a lot less simple than Lisp); the difference is that it's designed first and foremost to be consistent, easy to read, and easy to remember, even at the cost of occasionally being more verbose or rigid. Its syntax doesn't generally reduce complicated things to a single word; it does allow many complicated things that might take 20 statements in C to be reduced to a single statement, but that's because it's high-level (again, like Perl), not because of its syntax. Dynamic typing has nothing to do with declaring the types of values, much less specifically numeric values, and it has nothing to do with Python automatically knowing how much space to reserve for a value--in fact, it's the opposite; C knows to reserve 4 bytes for an int variable at compile time, whereas Python has no idea what kind of value you're going to put into the variable until runtime. And "like in Visual Basic or JavaScript" is very confused--Visual Basic is statically typed, while JavaScript is dynamically typed, just like Python.

Also, the explanation didn't explain why Cueball's friend was reticent to use dynamic typing or significant whitespace, or what the point of importing modules is.

So I rewrote most of it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.69|162.158.255.69]] 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I remember this Roald Dahl story where some guy takes everything in the medicine cabinet of their grandparent and can fly. That's what i instanly thought when i saw that phrase. I'm not sure which story, but it was a good one and i think it's worth mentioning. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.49|172.64.238.49]] 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

: Oh wait, i'm dumb it's //George's Marvellous Medicine// [[Special:Contributions/172.71.186.83|172.71.186.83]] 17:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
::Not really, because {{w|George's Marvellous Medicine|that}} was mostly about size-changing abilities of an entire houshold (and more?) of constituent ingredients. But getting (or hallucinating) the ability to fly after consuming random pharmaceuticals is a fairly typical trope that stands well on its own general merit.
::I reverted your change, though no doubt you could write a better hedging statement that ''compares'' the one situation with the other. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.77|141.101.98.77]] 19:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

on a similar thing to antigravity.py, the emacs devs added "m-x butterfly" as an easter egg in reference to 378: real programmers [[User:An user who has no account yet|An user who has no account yet]] ([[User talk:An user who has no account yet|talk]]) 15:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think a better joke for one-liner antigravity would be <code>from __future__ import antigravity</code>, as antigravity had not been invented IRL by 2008{{Citation needed}} but may perhaps be implemented in the future. While the <code>__future__</code> keyword [https://peps.python.org/pep-0236/ had been introduced] before the comic's release, it only became common after Python 3's release the next year. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 09:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2023-09-25T11:04:51Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: Edited own comment

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). Edit: parking and zoning laws prohibit such development in the US (there is barely any parking per shop and the upper floors are usually apartments) so you ''literally'' may have never seen these awesome places that are all over European city centers. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube...
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis.
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions.

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!!

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2832: Urban Planning Opinion Progression

2023-09-25T11:00:23Z

ChaoticNeutralCzech: Added comment

Why does anyone want their city to be walkable? We have buses, Uber, and subways, so why walk anywhere other than to/from the station? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:Walking is free. It is flexible. Why would you want to take a Uber across 2 blocks of parkign to get to the next store, instead of having it right next to the one you just came from? Also it is nice for socializing, it is (quite light) exercise, and good for businesses, as you can actually "window-shop" and see what they have as you walk past and spontaniously walk into any store/restaurant/business. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::If you are just going across the parking lot, then it is already walkable. No further expense needed. Also, I sincerely do not know the last time I saw a store window that had any merchandise display. Perhaps that is not done in Florida. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a hen and egg thing. If everyone is driving, you don't need to put anything in the video, because there is noone to see it. But if the storefronts are not attractive thats one less reason to walk. And crossing a huge parking lot may in theory be walkable, but it is not really an enviroment attractive to walk through. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::No further expense? Apparently gas and car repair is free in Florida. Jokes aside, you really don't seem able to imagine a car-free shopping area. Look up image results for "Marktstraße" (German for ''market street''). [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 11:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Somebody has been watching Not Just Bikes on YouTube...
:Orange Pilled!!🙂 [[User:Torzsmokus|Torzsmokus]] ([[User talk:Torzsmokus|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be very interested in having a discussion based on the "livability" comment. If a city is a place to LIVE, then these are fair comments, assuming that travel outside the local area is minimal. But if a city is a place to WORK, like a lot of downtown areas in the Eastern US, then this doesn't hold up as well. People don't live in these areas, they just travel to them on a regular basis.
:Talk about missing the forest for the trees
:Agree, downtown areas SHOULD be places to work, live, shop, and play. Eastern US downtowns USED to be that way, until White Flight screwed everything up and created "car culture". It's long past due for cities to change back. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You can't really blame white flight considering the same thing happened in both 'racially homogenous' cities in the U.S. and in Canada. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.251|172.70.174.251]] 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: One thing that always bugs me about these discussions is that they tend to be so city-centric in thinking. Bikes simply aren't a practical mode of transportation in a lot of areas, dating back to pre-car days. I live in a rural area of the southern midwest, and "town" is a concentration of places that people in the area go to, and always has been. Only really wealthy people had houses in town, and even then they were often "Sunday Houses" where you would stay during your weekend trip to town for groceries and church BECAUSE it was such a hassle before cars. There's a "historic" (read: tourist-friendly) walkable town square in the center of many towns in my area, but these are as a rule businesses, some of which have loft apartments because the owner lived there too as some of the town's few constant residents. Even the parking lots are basically paved versions of the spaces where people would park their wagons and tie their horses back in the day, placed near things like general stores because hauling groceries for several blocks is a pain in any era. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 18:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: I've never really lived in small towns on this side of the world, but this video does a pretty good job on approaching urbanism from a rural perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRr8ymaqBM [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: More generally, it's not really a useful, meaningful, or fair comparison between a densely populated country like the Netherlands (>1000/mi*mi) and a sparsely populated country like the USA (<100/mi*mi). All the USA's wide-open spaces are the actual physical reason we have a "car culture". It's not just people being deliberately being stupid or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.237|172.71.222.237]] 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::: People aren't evenly spread over the US though, and nobody commutes from LA to NYC. 80% of people in the US live in cities. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.2|172.71.182.2]] 16:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:Places meant for work and work alone are called 'industrial parks'. People's well-being in offices can significantly benefit from green spaces and other amenities like bars and shops.
:Especially if they feel safe walking to and from those shops. --[[User:Melle|Melle]] ([[User talk:Melle|talk]]) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:: Honestly, what impresses me the most about the Netherlands is not their neighbourhoods or city centres, it's their industrial parks. Dutch industrial parks are so much nicer it's not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The explainxkcd explanations have gotten kinda funny, but I wanted to add that some european cities have sidewalks wider than roads, and it’s a much different experience. People like openness. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know how to format it, however this is the citation about painted vs protected bike lanes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214140523001056?dgcid=author [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cities are much better place to live in without so many cars. But on the other hand, vacation without car is much more complicated, unless your idea of vacation is to get to exactly same place as everyone else. Soo ... where will all those cars go? I know, you could rent a car, but that only works if there wouldn't be times where EVERYONE suddenly needs car ... like, say, Christmas.

Also, no, bikes are not alternative to cars unless you can get shower when you arrive at work. Public transport could work, but bikes are just nice theory.

To conclude, I don't think trying to turn all cities into Amsterdam will work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
: Bikes are an incredibly helpful and useful tool for getting around. You don't even have to turn a city into Amsterdam. I live in Edmonton, which is by no means an urbanist utopia, and even getting around here, combining a bicycle with public transit makes it so much easier and faster to get around. The issue I face is lugging my bike with me, in which case a bike share service like Montréal's BIXI would help out for getting around.
: Regarding your point on vacation, first of all, most people end up going to the same places for vacation anyway. And vacation without bringing a car can very much be done, and even at high-demand times, the places where "everyone needs a car" are places where everyone will be going anyway, at which point a train just makes more sense. About a decade ago, my family took a trip from New Delhi to Goa a decade back (around 1800 km away) and we took trains to get there. We rented a car to get around in Goa and it worked pretty well. Not saying that cars aren't useful at all, but they aren't a 100% necessity. They're most useful when you're heading somewhere that's out of the way, and I've done those sorts of trips too. [[User:Yaygya|Yaygya]] ([[User talk:Yaygya|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"...by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars". ''Allowing''? Sorry, but that's a very neo-biker (or "person on a bike", rather than an actual cyclist) attitude that unfortunately seems to pervade the mindset of drivers. At least in the UK, bicycles have been 'allowed' (indeed, obliged) to ride upon the roads, as of laws as far back as [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 1885] and are legitimate road vehicles and also not supposed to be ridden on actual pavements(/sidewalks) where not explicitly allowed. Of course, the US has policies driven (c.f. jaywalking). But a bicycle is a road vehicle. Add extra permissive routes (in the same manner as allowing traffic of less than three tonnes over a bridge, without forcing everything within that limit to do so) but you'd be wrong to suggest, over here, that you'd have to ''allow'' cyclists to cycle in(/on) the streets. Though the modern 'MAMILs' are often as wrong about all this (and as damaging to the reputation of real cyclists) as far too many motorists are. Of course, this may not reflect the US situation (or state/township legislations), but then they were influenced by the car-lobby to create the jaywalking 'crime' as well, so I really wouldn't be surprised. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to the Netherlands on vacation last month and I strongly identify with the guy waving flags and yelling "Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!" in this comic. I was in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam, but I also spent a day in Enschede (near the border with Germany), and the sight was the same: bicycles everywhere, to a degree that would seem absurd anywhere else. I don't think it can be properly expressed in words; one look at the bicycle parking in Rotterdam Central Station and I was in awe that _so many bicycles_ could exist in one place. I used a bicycle to explore from The Haag to Neetle Jans and everywhere I went it was the same story; it isn't just Amsterdam, the entire country is built with bicycles as a solid and safe transportation option. --Faultline 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of the UK, Cyclists (and I speak as one, with six decades of experience) are a complex issue. Being road vehicles (and requiring continuous at-grade surfaces, or at least smoothly transitioning slopes, whilst mounted) they need special consideration when laying out where they can go, outwith the baseline highway planning situation. And they also pose difficulties if improperly ridden in pedestrian areas, even if this is somehow due to being 'forced'(/’invited') off the roads by motorists and/or town planners that are in turn posing difficulties to them (legislatively, physically or just psychologically). In an ideal world, there would be no need for cycle lanes (on road), let alone cycle paths (split or shared pavement/sidewalk). And as it is not possible to have cycle-segregation everywhere (ignoring the question of whether forced segregation is a good policy!), I feel that attempting to take bicycles (or indeed other types of cycle!) off the road where it is easy and/or virtue-signalling makes the roads worse for cyclists ''everywhere else''. (And also the pavements worse for pedestrians, everywhere else!) 
There are (according to a quick check) 262,300 miles of paved road in the UK. Apart from the motorways (2,300 miles) and a smattering of other "no cycling" roads (often "motorway standard link roads" or major bridges), all of these are viable cycling routes. Maybe you'd not feel safe on some other routes (mostly a problem stemming from motorists, not the highways), so call it a cool quarter of a million miles. Compare with (again, a quick and unconfirmed check) the apparently 5,220 miles of traffic-free cycle paths (some 'cross country', bridleways/ex-railway/etc, others directly parallel to 'bike unfriendly/hostile/illegal' roadways) and 7,519 miles of on-road cycle lanes (paint and/or bollard-segregated, and I assume this includes bike+bus+taxi lanes and variations on that theme). Clearly, most places that you might want to cycle are not anywhere near covered by a convenient cycle-only(/dominant) path/road/lane/whatever. Even accounting for population density bias (a path-equipped city-centre ''can'' perhaps have a good few hundred thousand cyclists commuting along its copious off-street routes, whereas some remote area of equivalent road-length doesn't have more than a dozen people cycling around/through its country lanes on any given day), there's a distinct gap. 
And the problem is that car drivers (myself also being one, though only ''four'' decades behind the wheel, so what would I know?) seem to start to not anticipate bicycles on the road (or horses, or tractors, or anyone also driving but not actually going at-or-above the posted speed limit, etc) and at best they are startled/annoyed when they encounter their fellow road-users in different contexts. At worst, they 'come into contention' in a rather nasty way for at least one of the parties involved. 
'People on bikes' don't help when they (whether drivers themselves or not) do not obey [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 the rules of the road], and/or footway. They give actual cyclists a bad name, make motorists less tolerant of those who actually are folling both the rights and responsibilities of cycle traffic and cause 'contention' with pedestrians on ''their'' supposedly safer routes (and road crossings), amongst other issues. The number of times I've seen someone progress rapidly down a pavement on two wheels, having to swerve round people, swerve to cross side-roads (to use the disabled-friendly drop-curbs), hop onto the road and back on again because of obstructions (curb-mounted parked cars/construction works) and all disrupting (or even causing danger to everyone else off/on the road)... Quite often, they would have been quicker ''and safer'' to have just ridden on the road ''with'' the traffic (without earphones in, they'd also be much more aware so could overtake the slower traffic legally and in full consideration). 
Even worse, when there's a 'pavement biker' riding alongside a road ''with a clearly marked cycle lane'' on it. Road space reserved, but they're endangering pedestrians (and potentially themselves) needlessly. But, adding in the reckless pedestrians who do ''their'' dangerous things (walking up the central reservation of a dual-carriageway, e.g.), it just goes to show that there are unthinking individuals using every form of locomotion and travel (I could moan about thoughtless bus/train passengers, too, and don't get me started on illegal eScooters, motorbikes that may skirt the rules to some extent and possibly soms illegal variations of eBike as well). But, insofar as cycling, I'm not convinced that (partially) changing the road system to mitigate for bad drivers is really the best solution. It barely scratches that surface, it gets abused/ignored by those it may be intended for, it makes those it isn't intended for more resentful/inconsiderate as a push-back and the only obvious and tangible metric is in the press release that "Trumpton Town Council has been able to add five more miles of cyclepath..." (which probably consists of several short stretches of red tarmac is frequently intruded upon by pre-existing highway signage/lamp-posts and frequent "Cyclists Dismount" advisories, running alongside a perfectly ridable road just so long as they filled the wheel-/suspension-damaging potholes and swept the gutters once in a while). 
Can you tell that I've often thought about all these issues? I could go on, or into more detail, but I reckon I've already written far too much, uninvited. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The summation of the situation: 
UNSPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = bicycle, walking, etc. 
SPECIFIED line + SHORT distance = tram, everything in unspecified. 
SPECIFIED line + LONG distance = train. 
UNSPECIFIED line + LONG distance = automobile.
 
The '''most''' important combinations for urban planning are unspecified short and specified long which autos aren't good at. The one autos are good at is the least important. -- [[User:Andrewtheexplainer|Andrewtheexplainer]] ([[User talk:Andrewtheexplainer|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2023 ''(please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~</nowiki>~~)''
:In answer the the editor who asked the question in the Edit Summary, about what "SPECIFIED and UNSPECIFIED" mean: Purely from context, I believe "line" above means "route". Some routes are (or can be) established as consistently demanded (for commuting, shopping, between major hubs half a continent away, etc) and can be "specified" as schedulable service for mass transit/infrastructure (anything from viable greyhound route with suitable identifiable service stops to an airline route (requiring airports at each end) or something asking for a railway/hyperloop/road to be either maintained (because it already exists) or created (because it does not at the moment) and is worth the while for such a special consideration. There's a degree of predictability to it, because of a mix of the same people regularly needing to make the trip (e.g. commute) and/or a continual/periodic demand by new people to make that journey (e.g. touristic purposes).
:An 'unspecified' route, here, would then be anything ad-hoc, at a frequency or quantity of use well below any particular reason to uphold a service or infrastructure (or coordinated compound of such facilities, like a shuttle bus to and from the station/airport to collect those flying in from afar), and would be served by such private efforts across and through whatever generic routable methodologies exist to be be exploited.
:And each of those two distinctions is multiplied by (at least!) two separate distinctions, that of length. (I'd be tempted to further split into other distances. Maybe localised, district, intra-state (from a US perspective), national and international, but that'd depend on what groupings I was analusing, and obviously a train could take one from one end of a (large enough) neighbourhood to the other ''or'' across the country (with the right conenctivity, even into another one!), depending upon which train and where it stops. But the above seems sufficient, as opposed to my overthinking of it.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.96|162.158.74.96]] 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be weary of that "Netherlands" guy. https://what-if.xkcd.com/53/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/ and others [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.17|162.158.22.17]] 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't be completely sure because of the black-and-white, but I'm afraid the guy with the scull cap is holding his flags upside down. It should be a red, then a white, then a blue stripe top to bottom. It's a very understandable mistake if he visited in the last two years or so, as it has become a trend to fly the flag upside down as a protest to certain controversial government descisions.

Not my best contribution ever, but: Hup HOLLAND Hup!!

Note bicycle-centric planning is infectious.If you go to https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7 and zoom in one level, you will see that it has expanded well beyond the boundaries of the Netherlands. 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

<nowiki>*Reads the line about 'all of Europe agrees' from the UK. Laughs mirthlessly*</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)