explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

420: Jealousy

2026-03-31T19:17:40Z

Duralumin-here: Clarified why Cueball's speech is inappropriate, the drama it may cause, and Cueball's likely role in this wedding.

{{comic
| number = 420
| date = May 7, 2008
| title = Jealousy
| image = jealousy.png
| titletext = Oh, huh, so you didn't know that story?
}}

==Explanation==
In the first four stanzas of this soliloquy, [[Cueball]] reminisces fondly about meeting [[Megan]] at a party where they quickly had a romantic rapport and spent the night together. The next two stanzas are a lamentation that Megan is now married and can never have that same experience again. The final stanza reveals that this is not merely Cueball waxing poetic about a previous love, but that he is actually making a toast at Megan's wedding reception.

The men serving in a wedding are known as the {{w|Groomsman|groomsmen}} and, in traditional weddings, are selected by the groom. Cueball may be the best man since he was asked to give a speech, so the groom likely considers Cueball a very close friend. At a wedding, toasts are short speeches given to celebrate those getting married and wish them well in their future together. Cueball's speech is entirely inappropriate for a wedding: he is clearly bitter about the marriage, and discussing a newlywed's previous romantic involvement may distract from focusing on their future.

The title text implies that the groom had no prior knowledge of Cueball's and Megan's dalliance. This new information may cause the groom distress in various ways. He may be hurt by Megan not sharing this event with him and could start to worry that she is not honest or open about other things in her life. This effect could be amplified if Megan was already in a romantic relationship with the groom when this event happened, as he may consider it a form of cheating. He may also worry that Megan's previous love for Cueball didn't end, and that it will get in the way of the groom's relationship with Megan.

The title suggests that Cueball is envious of the groom, since his previous encounter with Megan did not result in a lasting relationship while the groom's did. He may be intentionally making an inappropriate toast to embarrass the couple as a result of his bitterness, or he may simply be unable to act like he's pleased about the marriage. Either impulse could be amplified by the influence of alcohol, which is often enjoyed at weddings.

This was only the third time the [[Megan#Name|name Megan]] was used in xkcd, the first time being in [[159: Boombox]].

==Transcript==
:[Dark scene shown, with Cueball and Megan sitting in the moonlight let in by the only window.]
:Megan and I first met at a party at her sister's.
:We hit it off, opened up, shared secrets, and talked about everything. Around us, the party waned, but we hid from sleep together, talking through the deepest hours of the night.
:The dawn found us curled up on a couch, asleep but still together.
:That experience, connecting with a stranger and falling recklessly in love is one of life's greatest joys.
:And now that you're married, you'll never experience it again.
:It's the price you pay for everlasting love. It's a small one, but I hope it stings a little.
:Anyway, I wish you and Megan the best.
:...Hey, man, you asked me to do a toast.

==Trivia==
This comic used to be [https://web.archive.org/web/20220125023401/https://store.xkcd.com/products/signed-prints available as a signed print] in the xkcd store before it was [[Store|shut down]].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Comics with xkcd store products]]
[[Category:Wedding]]

3101: Good Science

2026-03-31T18:11:59Z

Duralumin-here: Added Cueball to categories as he is present in this comic.

{{comic
| number = 3101
| date = June 11, 2025
| title = Good Science
| image = good_science_2x.png
| imagesize = 387x833px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you think curiosity without rigor is bad, you should see rigor without curiosity.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Add explanations for predictors.}}
[[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching a class to [[Jill]] and a [[Cueball]]-like kid. Based on her opening statement "I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science." this is likely a general class on the principles of science, although it could be the start of a class on a specific field of science such as biology or physics. Classes about the principles of science (i.e. the scientific method, or what makes "good science") are common at the very introductory level, such as middle school science classes that give young students a basic framework to understand science, and also at the very advanced level, where PhD students take classes on the philosophy and history of science with detailed examination of epistemology, metaphysics, logic and ontology to be able to understand how their research affects the world.

However, Miss Lenhart explains that doing "good science" is hard, because research [https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/5-times-that-science-got-it-wrong often] [https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/ produces] [https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong incorrect] {{w|List of experimental errors and frauds in physics|results}}. Most famously, it's been shown "by indisputably correct mathematical equations ... with the addition of only very modest assumptions" that in medical research, {{w|Why Most Published Research Findings Are False|Most Published Research Findings Are False}}. She wonders what are the key things she should teach her students so that their scientific inquiry ends up being successful. She lists a series of items that are commonly suggested as leading to successful research, such as collaboration or skepticism, and explains that she performed a {{w|regression analysis}} (a mathematical technique often used in science), to find out which were most important. She concludes that the two most crucial factors are genuine curiosity about the subject (which makes sense as something that would drive scientists to achieve good results) and {{w|ammonium hydroxide}}, a chemical which does see some {{w|Ammonia_solution#Laboratory_use|laboratory use}}, but it does not obviously relate significantly to achieving good results (although it's often used to clean laboratory equipment, so it is possible that regular or thorough cleaning of equipment reduces experimental error).{{Actual citation needed}}

This may illustrate a potential problem with regression analyses caused by including too many predictor variables for the available data. This can cause random statistical noise in the sample to be interpreted as a meaningful effect.

When Jill points out that ammonium hydroxide is a nonsensical factor, Miss Lenhart replies that Jill is doing good science. The joke is that including ammonium hydroxide was just a means to get Jill to question the results. It also suggests that skepticism is actually the second crucial factor after genuine curiosity, as being skeptical of ammonium hydroxide as an important factor led to Jill's newfound success as a scientist. Alternatively, because Jill is being curious about how ammonia got onto the list, she is performing good science by using both curiosity and ammonia.

The title text addresses a common criticism in scientific circles that science is only good if it has rigor — that is, if it is well-documented and follows all of the proper procedure. It says that if curiosity without rigor is bad (in other words someone earnestly trying to figure out the answer, but doing it in a sloppy way) the opposite, rigor without curiosity, is much worse (a person who produces professional looking results but who doesn't care whether they are right or wrong). There are at least two issues with a scientist who is rigorous but uncurious. First is that, in the modern world, science has a very high social and cultural status, due to its incredible achievements over the past century and a half (from electric power to spaceflight to medical care). As a result, people tend to be very deferential to science, and the trappings of science (lab coats, clipboards, etc.) command respect. A rigorous but uncurious scientist could get people to believe more strongly in the wrong answer (for an example of how symbols like lab coats and clipboards can influence human behavior, see the {{w|Milgram experiment}}). Second, a rigorous scientist could become convinced of their performance because of their rigor, mistaking the outward process of science for science itself. In that case, beyond the initial wrong results due to their incuriosity, they could become resistant to changing their conclusions even when presented with decisive evidence to the contrary, sometimes to the point of suppressing other scientists who have reached the correct answer.

Randall has previously suggested that rigor is not as important in science as some make it out to be, when discussing ''{{w|MythBusters}}'' (see [[397: Unscientific]]).

==Transcript==
:[Miss Lenhart is standing in front of a whiteboard with some scribbles on it. She is looking away from it.]
:Miss Lenhart: I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science.

:[Miss Lenhart is now seen standing in front of Jill and Cueball, who are seated at classroom desks. She is shrugging and has her arms up and looking away from board.]
:Miss Lenhart: But what '''''are''''' those tools?
:Miss Lenhart: Methodology is hard and there are so many ways to get incorrect results.
:Miss Lenhart: What is the magic ingredient that makes for good science?

:[Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: To figure it out, I ran a regression with all the factors people say are important:
:[A list, presented in a sub-panel that Miss Lenhart is pointing to:]
:Outcome variable:
::• correct scientific results
:Predictors:
::• collaboration
::• skepticism of others' claims
::• questioning your own beliefs
::• trying to falsify hypotheses
::• checking citations
::• statistical rigor
::• blinded analysis
::• financial disclosure
::• open data
::[presumably the list goes on, as it runs off the visible part of the panel]

:[Another Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: The regression says two ingredients are the most crucial:
:1) genuine curiosity about the answer to a question, and
:2) ammonium hydroxide

:[Miss Lenhart is standing and Jill is seated at desk]
:Jill: Wait, why did '''''ammonia''''' score so high? How did it even get on the list?
:Miss Lenhart: ...and now you're doing good science!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Jill]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Comics featuring children]]

647: Scary

2026-03-28T21:38:26Z

Duralumin-here: Tagged the child as Kidball instead of Cueball.

{{comic
| number = 647
| date = October 9, 2009
| title = Scary
| image = scary.png
| titletext = I'm teaching every 8-year-old relative to say this, and every 14-year-old to do the same thing with Toy Story. Also, Pokemon hit the US over a decade ago and kids born after Aladdin came out will turn 18 next year.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Rob]] is telling his eight-year-old nephew a ghost story, employing such clichéd devices as a flashlight-lit face and stock ghost story endings. The boy is unimpressed, so Rob challenges him to come up with a scarier story. Rob's nephew merely states that he was born after {{w|9/11}}, and yet he is already mentally developed enough to hold a conversation with an adult. This proves effective, as in the final panel Rob assumes a fetal position, gripped by existential dread.

There is no hidden meaning here, but this comic is scary for many adults. What is being implied here is that time seems to be moving very quickly and we are getting older faster than we think. Events that seem like they "just happened" have happened long enough ago for a whole other person to come into existence, grow up, and learn to carry on a conversation (especially ones who are precocious enough to recognise that concept, which may also be the cause of Rob's fear in realizing how smart his nephew is for his age). Every time we get reminded of this fact, it can be scary, as you then realize that [[1393: Timeghost|you are now closer to your death]]...

9/11 was a terrorist attack in the United States in 2001, on September 11th. Major events such as the assassination of {{w|Assassination of John F. Kennedy|Kennedy}}, the Moon Landing of {{w|Apollo 11}} or 9/11 are easily memorable. It is often said that "everyone remembers where they were when they first heard...". In consequence, these events act as milestones in our memory. They are recalled more vividly, and seem more recent. Today this is maybe also topping the {{w|Attack on Pearl Harbor}} which happened in 1941.

The title text mentions that [[Randall]] is teaching his 8-year-old relatives to say the same as in the comic — presumably to the annoyance of his older relatives who will be reminded of the fast passage of time. He does not stop here, but teaches the 14-year-olds to say they are born after {{w|Toy Story}} — a major block buster hit from {{w|Pixar}} which came out in 1995. A movie many people will remember fondly and feel just came out the other day. He continues with these scary thoughts by mentioning that {{w|Pokémon}} (1996) came out over a decade ago and that kids born after the big {{w|Disney}} hit movie {{w|Aladdin (1992 Disney film)|Aladdin}} from 1992 will turn 18 next year (i.e. in 2010 a year after this comic was published).

[[Randall]] has both before and after this comic tried to [[:Category:Comics to make one feel old|make people feel old]] several times.

==Transcript==
:[Rob and his nephew (also drawn like a Cueball, but smaller) are sitting on the ground facing each other. Rob is holding a flash-light up to his face and leans back on the other arm, while crossing his legs. The nephew is sitting forward resting one arm on his lifted knees and leaning back on his other arm.]
:Rob: But they ''never found the ghost's head!''
:Nephew: Lame story, Uncle Rob.
:Rob: And you could do scarier?
:Nephew: Sure.

:[Rob has removed the flash-light from his face and the nephew leans more back and has shifted a leg down so only one knee supports the arm which are now more straight.]
:Rob: Try me.
:Nephew: 9/11 happened before I was born, yet I'm old enough to have this conversation with you.

:[Rob has dropped the flash-light. The nephew has taken the other arm down to the ground. Beat panel.]

:[Rob has curled his legs up to his chin and wrapped his arms around them while the nephew relaxes even more.]

==Trivia==
*Since 2017-11-05, the time between 9/11 and this comic has been smaller than the time between this comic and the present.
*Since 2019-09-11, some babies born after 9/11 are old enough to vote
*Since 2022-09-11, some people born after 9/11 are old enough to buy alcohol in the US

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Rob]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Kidball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]] 
[[Category:Comics to make one feel old]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Disney]]
[[Category:Comics with a Spanish translation]]

1253: Exoplanet Names

2026-03-28T21:07:08Z

Duralumin-here: Removed the category "Comics featuring Little Bobby Tables" as Bobby does not appear in this comic.

{{comic
| number = 1253
| date = August 19, 2013
| title = Exoplanet Names
| image = exoplanet names.png
| titletext = If you have any ideas, I hear you can send them to <nowiki>iaupublic@iap.fr</nowiki>.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic would later be updated in [[1555: Exoplanet Names 2]]. On the 14th of August, 2013, the {{w|International Astronomical Union}} (IAU) [https://www.iau.org/science/news/179/ issued a document] about public naming of astronomical objects. It stated, "IAU fully supports the involvement of the general public, whether directly or through an independent organized vote, in the naming of planetary satellites, newly discovered planets, and their host stars."

The caption above the comic states the fact above and then notes that the IAU immediately regret this decision. As we can see from [[Cueball|Cueball's]] question, from [[Ponytail]]'s facepalm, and the fact that even [[Megan]] is speechless, the suggestions are appalling. It becomes even worse when [[Hairbun]] tells them that an automatic filter has already been applied to the results, one designed to remove inappropriate entries that don't meet certain criteria. This implies that the list would have been even worse if presented in its unfiltered form (as seen below in the table).

The naming document also contained, amongst other things, guidelines that suggested names should meet. These include stipulations such as "16 characters or less", "preferably one word", being "pronounceable (in as many languages as possible)", "not too similar to an existing name of an astronomical object", avoiding commercial names, and being "respectful of intellectual property". If we go down the list, we can see that many of [[Randall|Randall's]] suggestions do indeed violate the guidelines. Which is part of the joke as it reflects the tendency of internet submissions to ignore such softly suggested guidelines.

The randomness and inappropriateness of the suggested names reflects the commonly expected response from anonymous submitters on the internet. Many forums and contests that call for online response and do not apply strict control over the responses receive similar collections of random, inappropriate and obscure submissions that are often only tangentially related to the original subject. For example, Greenpeace held a naming contest for one of the whales recently tagged in their research and preservation campaign and even after selecting the finalists the online voting resulted in naming the whale "Mr. Splashypants". PepsiCo had even less restrictive controls in their marketing campaign that asked the internet to name a new flavor of Mountain Dew. They had to shut down the contest in order to avoid naming the new beverage "Hitler did nothing wrong" which was the current leader at the time and only marginally the most inappropriate of the top ten voted suggestions. Even more recently is the case of {{w|Boaty McBoatface}}, in which the internet decided to dub a British research vessel "Boaty McBoatface". The boat was given the name {{w|RRS Sir David Attenborough}} in the end, with its Autonomous Underwater Vehicle being called "Boaty McBoatface".

The document also states that naming suggestions may be sent to the email that Randall included in the title text.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Star !! Planet !! Suggested Name !! Explanation
|-
! rowspan=7 | {{w|Gliese 667}}
| {{w|Gliese 667 Cb|b}}
| Space Planet
| A very unoriginal name; every planet is in space.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| {{w|Gliese 667 Cc|c}}
| PILF
| Pun of {{w|MILF pornography|MILF}}, i.e. ''Planet I'd Like to Fuck''. Planet c is a relatively hot planet, within the habitable zone.
|-
| {{w|Gliese 667 Cd|d}}
| A Star
| "A {{w|Star}}" is obviously a bad name for a planet. A* (pronounced "A star") is already used in astronomy, for example the Milky Way's black hole core is {{w|Sagittarius A*}}. "A star" is also the name for the character {{w|asterisk}} and the name of the popular {{w|A* search algorithm}} in computer science. It also suggests that the planet is a star.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| {{w|Gliese 667 Ce|e}}
| e'); DROP TABLE PLANETS;--
| A reference to {{w|SQL injection}}, riffing off of [[327: Exploits of a Mom]], which featured a schoolboy named <code>[[Little Bobby Tables|Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;--]]</code>. The idea here is that the IAU would enter the name into their system and promptly lose all of their data pertaining to planets. Note that Planet e is located in the habitable zone of the star system.
|-
| {{w|Gliese 667 Cf|f}}
| Blogosphere
| rowspan = 2 | Weird ''{{w|blog}}''-related terms are a recurring theme in xkcd. See, for instance, [[181|comic 181]].
|-
| {{w|Gliese 667 Cg|g}}
| Blogodrome
|-
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/gj_667c_h/ h]
| Earth
| Planet candidate h is about the mass of the Earth, and described as "tantalizing": [https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2013/08/aa21331-13/aa21331-13.html A dynamically-packed planetary system around GJ with three super-Earths in its habitable zone]. See also ([[1231: Habitable Zone]]).
|-
! rowspan=5 | {{w|Tau Ceti}}
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/tau_cet_b/ b]
| Sid Meier's Tau Ceti B
| This refers to the game {{w|Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri}}.
|-
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/tau_cet_c/ c]
| Giant Dog Planet
| {{w|VY Canis Majoris}} is one of the largest known stars at our galaxy and belongs to the constellation {{w|Canis Major}}, Latin for "greater dog". The constellation further contains {{w|Sirius}}, the brightest star in the night sky, also called "Dog Star".
|-
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/tau_cet_d/ d]
| Tiny Dog Planet
| cf. {{w|Canis Minor}}, Latin for "lesser dog", another constellation.
|-
| {{w|Tau Ceti e|e}}
| Phil Plainet
| A reference to {{w|Phil Plait}}, a.k.a. The Bad Astronomer.
|-
| {{w|Tau Ceti f|f}}
| Unicode Snowman
| The Unicode character ☃ may be a reference to the planet's estimated surface temperature of -40 °C (-40 °F). However, this name would be pronounced differently (being a symbol, not a word or name) in different languages. Planets in our solar system are assigned to {{w|Astronomical symbols|astronomical symbols}} like ♁ for Earth or ♂ for Mars. (A unicode snowman is also referenced in Randall's book ''What If'', where it is keymapped to a laptop.)
|-
! {{w|Gliese 832}}
| {{w|Gliese 832 b|b}}
| Asshole Jupiter
| This massive planet orbits a {{w|red dwarf}} star at the longest known period of 3416 days at this category.
|-
! rowspan=6 | {{w|Gliese 581}}
| {{w|Gliese 581 b|b}}
| Waist-deep Cats
| Likely a reference to {{w|Lolcat}}s, which are a series of images of cats captioned with poorly-written and/or spelled English.
|-
| {{w|Gliese|c}}
| Planet #14
| About 200th discovered exoplanet (in 2007); reported to be the first potentially Earth-like planet in the habitable zone of its star, though that is in doubt now. The joke might be that like "Space Planet", "Planet #14" is a generic and unoriginal name. Also note that this is the 15th entry in the table so the numbering is {{w|Zero-based_numbering|zero-based}}.
An interesting (?) coincidence is that the 14th and 15th {{w|Definition of planet#Minor planets|Minor planets}} (then called asteroids) were discovered in 1851; see see {{w|List of minor planets: 1–1000}}. If they were to be counted among the planets of the {{w|Solar System}}, as was sometimes done then, the 14th known planetary body would be {{w| 7 Iris|Iris}} (discovered in 1847, a year before {{w|Neptune}}).
|-
| {{w|Gliese 581 d|d}}
| Ballderaan
| A {{w|wikt:balls|crude pun}} on the planet {{w|Alderaan}} from the ''{{w|Star Wars}}'' universe.
|-
| {{w|Gliese 581 e|e}}
| Eternia Prime
| {{w|Eternia}} is a fictional planet, venue of the ''{{w|Masters of the Universe}}'' animated series and toy collection.
|-
| {{w|Gliese 581 f|f}}
| Taupe Mars
| {{w|Kim Stanley Robinson}}'s award-winning {{w|Mars trilogy}} (''Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars'' after various stages of {{w|terraformation}}). {{w|Taupe}} is a brownish-grey color.
|-
| {{w|Gliese|g}}
| Jelly-Filled Planet
| Possibly a reference to the conjecture that this tidally locked planet has an isolated habitable zone under the substellar point, akin to the pocket of jelly in a jelly doughnut.
|-
! rowspan=2 | {{w|Epsilon Eridani}}
| {{w|Epsilon Eridani b|b}}
| Skydot
| [https://skydot.lanl.gov SkyDOT] is the Sky Database for Objects in Time-Domain run by {{w|LANL}} for the {{w|U.S. Dept. of Energy}} and includes data for [https://skydot.lanl.gov/nsvs/star.php?num=14831575&mask=32004 Epsilon Eridani] that can be used to constrain the orbital parameters of ε Eri b. It may also refer to how objects in space may appear as bland, bright dots in the night sky.
|-
| {{w|Epsilon Eridani c#Planet_c|c}}
| Laser Noises
| A {{w|Laser}} does not produce {{w|Noise (electronics)|noise}} in the signal sense; it only works at a well-defined frequency. In science fiction films, however, laser weapon discharges are usually accompanied by sound ("pew pew" or the like). Sun-like Epsilon Eridani became a popular setting for science fiction after its publicity as a target of the {{w|Project Ozma}} experiment.
|-
! rowspan=2 | {{w|Gliese 176}}
| {{w|Gliese 176 b|b}}
| Pandora
| The mythological name {{w|Pandora}} fulfills most of IAU's guidelines and has been popular for planets in science fiction; most recently and famously is {{w|Pandora (Avatar)|the venue}} of James Cameron's ''{{w|Avatar (film)|Avatar}}'' (although actually it is not a planet but just a moon of a gas giant in Alfa Centauri A). It is also a hellish planet from {{w|Frank Herbert}}'s {{w|Frank Herbert bibliography#WorShip novels|WorShip}} series of novels, a jungle planet in Brothers Strugatsky's {{w|Noon Universe}} and the planet used in {{w|Borderlands (video game)|Borderlands Games}}.
|-
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/gj_176_c/ c]
| Pantera
| Named for the {{w|Pantera|heavy metal band}}, which itself was named after an Italian sports car, the {{w|De Tomaso Pantera}}.
|-
! Kepler-61
| {{w|Kepler-61b|b}}
| GoldenPalace.com
| A gambling website, known for {{w|GoldenPalace.com|paying to have their name in unusual places}} (like forehead tattoos, species names...).
|-
! colspan=4 | Right column
|-
! rowspan=3 | {{w|Upsilon Andromedae}}
| {{w|Upsilon Andromedae c|c}}
| Stampy
| Most likely a reference to [https://www.youtube.com/user/stampylonghead stampylonghead], although it could be a reference to the elephant from the {{w|Simpsons}} episode {{w|Bart Gets an Elephant}}.
|-
| {{w|Upsilon Andromedae d|d}}
| Moonchild
| The name Bastian gives the Childlike Empress in {{w|The Neverending Story}}.
|-
| {{w|Upsilon Andromedae e|e}}
| Ham Sphere
| [https://www.hamsphere.com HamSphere] is a {{w|Amateur radio|Ham Radio}} simulator program. Ham radio uses designated radio frequencies for non-commercial exchange of messages and more. A pun of Hemisphere.
|-
! rowspan=3 | {{w|. Eridani|HD 20794}}
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/hd_20794_b/ b]
| Cosmic Sands
| style="font-family:'Comic Sans MS', 'Comic Sans'" | A {{w|pun}} on the name of the font {{w|Comic Sans}}. (See also: [[590: Papyrus/Font|590: Papyrus]].)
|-
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/hd_20794_c/ c]
| Legoland
| {{w|Legoland}} is a chain of {{w|theme park}}s owned by the {{w|Lego Group}}.
|-
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/hd_20794_d/ d]
| Planet with Arms
| A reference to the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160119111332/https://www.thecolorsofmysoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Hitchhikers-Guide-to-the-Galaxy.jpg early covers] of {{w|Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy}}? Could also be a reference to [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/birds-with-arms "Birds with Arms" meme].
|-
! {{w|HD 85512}}
| {{w|HD 85512 b|b}}
| Lax Morality
| Possibly a parody of science fiction in which certain planets are suggested to be uniformly... lax in morals (i.e. full of sex, drugs, etc.). See https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Planetville and related.
|-
! rowspan=6 | {{w|HD 40307}}
| {{w|HD 40307 b|b}}
| Good Planet
| Similar to the above, except with good planets. May also be yet another non-descriptive name, like "Space Planet" and "Planet #14".
|-
| {{w|HD|c}}
| ProblemLand
| See above.
|-
| {{w|HD 40307 d|d}}
| Slickle
| This is a reference to "[https://archive.today/tL51w The Petals Fall Twice]", which was made as a humorous example of bad fan-fiction. The word itself is a portmanteau of "slowly", "licked", and "tickled". This may also be a reference to the Harry Potter currency, a “Sickle.”
|-
| {{w|HD 40307 e|e}}
| Spare Parts
| This suggests that the planet is "worthless" or "junk". This is false, of course. May be a reference to the fact it is a planet with nothing much different from the other planets.
|-
| {{w|HD 40307 f|f}}
| New Jersey VI
| Refers to the state of {{w|New Jersey}}; may be an insult to either.
|-
| {{w|HD|g}}
| How Do I Join the IAU
| This implies that the user "got lost" on the IAU website and thought that the "planet name suggestion" input was for general queries.
|-
! rowspan=3 | {{w|Gliese 163}}
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/gj_163_b/ b]
| Neil Tyson's Mustache
| {{w|Neil deGrasse Tyson}} is a famous American astrophysicist and science communicator who does maintain a distinguished mustache.
|-
| {{w|Gliese|c}}
| help@gmail.com
| Similar to "How Do I Join the IAU", this implies that the user confused the "planet suggestion" text box for a new email they are trying to send.
|-
| [https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/gj_163_d/ d]
| Hair-Covered Planet
| Refers to the well-known {{w|Hairy ball theorem}} of topology.
|-
! {{w|Pi Mensae}}
| {{w|Pi Mensae b|b}}
| Moon Holder
| {{w|Jupiter}} has more than 60 discovered moons, and still counting... A planet ten times more massive ''must'' also be a Moon Holder.
|-
! {{w|HD 189733}}
| {{w|HD 189733 b|b}}
| Permadeath
| A well-characterized "{{w|Hot Jupiter}}" at a temperature range of 973 ± 33 K to 1,212 ± 11 K. The name refers to the feature of {{w|permanent death}} common in many RPGs and roguelikes. It is later mentioned in [[1276: Angular Size]].
|-
! {{w|Kepler-22}}
| {{w|Kepler-22 b|b}}
| Blue Ivy
| Blue Ivy Carter is the daughter of musicians {{w|Beyoncé}} and {{w|Jay-Z}}.
|-
! Kepler-3284
| b
| Blainsley
| A very small town in the United Kingdom, south of Edinburgh. Possibly chosen due to its insignificance?
|-
! Kepler-3255
| b
| Unicorn Thresher
| As far as we can tell, Kepler-3255b is in the vicinity of the constellation Monoceros, aka the Unicorn. Also a pun on {{w|Threshing machine|corn thresher}}.
|-
! Kepler-2418
| b
| Spherical Discworld
| {{w|The Discworld}} is the fictional setting for British author {{w|Terry Pratchett}}'s {{w|Discworld}} series of humorous fantasy novels; it consists of a large disc supported by four elephants themselves standing on top of a turtle flying through space. "Spherical Disc" would be an oxymoron.
|-
! Kepler-1686
| {{w|KOI-1686.01|b}}
| Emergency Backup Earth
| This candidate planet has an {{w|Earth Similarity Index}} of 0.89, making it one of the most habitable {{w|Kepler object of interest}}. The name suggests that it could be used as a backup in case something happened to our current planet.
|-
! Kepler-3010
| b
| Feeeoooooooop
| Possibly the onomatopoeia for something getting sucked into a black hole.
|-
! Kepler-4742
| b
| Liz
| ...Just a regular name (for a person, not a planet). Maybe a reference to the pet lizard on the Magic School Bus.
|}

==Transcript==
:[Text above the first frame of the comic:]
::August 2013:
:The International Astronomical Union
:decides to start naming exoplanets,
:and—for the first time ever—asks for
:suggestions from the general public.
:::They immediately regret this decision.
:[Ponytail is facepalming while Megan and Cueball are looking at a computer screen on a desk. Hairbun points to the screen.]
:Cueball‏‎: Can't you filter out the worst ones?
:Hairbun: This is '''''after''''' the filter!

:[Below is a table showing the list of planet names as seen on the computer screen with gray background around the edges of the table.]

:[The table is in two separate columns, but there is only headings over the left, so the right column is a direct continuation of the left. In the table it is mentioned when the right column begins. There is a small arrow pointing from the word "Planet" down to the second column of the table. The headings in the comic are not inside the table as they are here below. The text at the bottom of the left list seems to continue on below, at least the last entry is cut below the middle, although it is still easy to read. Similarly the text at the top right list, seems to continue from above, the top entry missing the very top of the text. This is as if the list is much longer and here is just shown part of the list. To further indicate this the first entry in the right list begins at "c" instead of at "b" which is else the case for all other instances.]

:[Left Columns]

:[Star] Gliese 667c
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Space Planet
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] Pilf
::[Planet] d [Suggested Name] A Star
::[Planet] e [Suggested Name] e'); DROP TABLE PLANETS;--
::[Planet] f [Suggested Name] Blogosphere
::[Planet] g [Suggested Name] Blogodrome
::[Planet] h [Suggested Name] Earth
:[Star] Tau Ceti
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Sid Meier's Tau Ceti B
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] Giant Dog PLanet
::[Planet] d [Suggested Name] Tiny Dog Planet
::[Planet] e [Suggested Name] Phil Plainet
::[Planet] f [Suggested Name] Unicode Snowman
:[Star] Gliese 832
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Asshole Jupiter
:[Star] Gliese 581
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Waist-Deep Cats
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] Planet #14
::[Planet] d [Suggested Name] Ballderaan
::[Planet] e [Suggested Name] Eternia Prime
::[Planet] f [Suggested Name] Taupe Mars
::[Planet] g [Suggested Name]Jelly-Filled Planet
:[Star] Epsilon Eridani
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Skydot
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] Laser Noises
:[Star] Gliese 176
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Pandora
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] Pantera
:[Star] Kepler-61
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Goldenpalace.com

:[End Left Columns]

:[Start Right Columns]

:[Star] Upsilon Andromidae
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] Stampy
::[Planet] d [Suggested Name] Moonchild
::[Planet] e [Suggested Name] Ham Sphere
:[Star] HD 20794
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Cosmic Sands
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] LegoLand
::[Planet] d [Suggested Name] Planet with Arms
:[Star] HD 85512
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Lax Morality
:[Star] HD 40307
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Good Planet
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] Problemland
::[Planet] d [Suggested Name] Slickle
::[Planet] e [Suggested Name] Spare Parts
::[Planet] f [Suggested Name] New Jersey VI
::[Planet] g [Suggested Name] How do I Join the IAU
:[Star] Gliese 163
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Neil Tyson's Mustache
::[Planet] c [Suggested Name] Help@gmail.com
::[Planet] d [Suggested Name] Hair-Covered Planet
:[Star] Pi Mensae
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Moon Holder
:[Star] HD 189733
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Permadeath
:[Star] Kepler-22
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Blue Ivy
:[Star] Kepler-3284
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Blainsley
:[Star] Kepler-3255
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Unicorn Thresher
:[Star] Kepler-2418
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Spherical DiscWorld
:[Star] Kepler-1686
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Emergency Backup Earth
:[Star] Kepler-3010
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Feeeooooooooop
:[Star] Kepler-4742
::[Planet] b [Suggested Name] Liz

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics sharing name|Exoplanet Names 1]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball‏‎]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Sex]]
[[Category:Exoplanets]]
[[Category:Exoplanet Names]]

357: Flies

2025-11-18T17:17:06Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 357
| date = December 14, 2007
| title = Flies
| image = flies.png
| titletext = I don't know about houseflies, but we definitely caught a lot of fruit flies with our vinegar bowl. Hooray science!
}}

==Explanation==
The saying "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" means that people are more likely to be won over with politeness than hostility.

When [[Cueball]]'s friend tells him this after he replies to a "{{W|noob}}" using swear words, he then says that the saying is literally false by saying that {{w|balsamic vinegar}} attracts more flies than {{w|honey}}. He then tells his friend to try it with his own {{w|Fruit fly|fruit flies}}. Fruit flies are attracted to the products of {{w|fermentation}}, particularly to {{w|ethanol}} and {{w|acetic acid}}. The acidity in vinegar is due mostly to acetic acid. Nevertheless, you figuratively catch more ''people'' with honey than with vinegar.

When Cueball's statement is found true, as balsamic vinegar smells like sweet and decomposing fruit to the fruit flies, his friend complains to his mother (with a vitriol influenced by Cueball, perhaps to get some favor) that she lied to him. He then says that another saying, "a watched pot never boils," is also literally false. That saying means that an event that is monitored with impatient attention will seem to take longer, much like watching a clock. However, the pot will boil eventually, so if you keep watching it continuously, you are bound to see it boil at some point.

In the title text, it seems that [[Randall]] explains why he wrote this comic — his vinegar bowl attracted a lot of fruit flies. However, he has not done the experiment with {{w|Housefly|houseflies}}.

The notion of a watched pot not boiling is ascribed to {{w|Benjamin Franklin}} under the pseudonym "Poor Richard." He writes, "a watched pot is slow to boil," meaning "Time feels longer when you're waiting for something to happen."[http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/watched-pot-never-boils.html]

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is typing on a computer, and his friend is lying on the floor with his head in his hands.]
:Noob (on computer): *$@#!
:Friend: Hey, ease up on the noobs. Like my mom always said, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

:[The panel focuses on Cueball, who has turned his chair around.]
:Cueball: No, you don't.
:Friend (off-screen): You don't?
:Cueball: Nope, set out a bowl of balsamic and a bowl of honey. The vinegar gets more.

:[Cueball's friend has sat up.]
:Friend: ...Seriously?
:Cueball (off-screen): You have fruit flies. Try it yourself.

:Later:
:[Cueball's friend is standing in front of a table, talking into a phone. On the table, there are two bowls, and the bowl on the left seems to be surrounded by flies.]
:Friend: Mother! You ''lied'' to me! And it gets worse. I was watching a pot yesterday, and guess what it did? It ''boiled,'' mother.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Science]]

257: Code Talkers

2025-11-18T16:22:52Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 257
| date = May 4, 2007
| title = Code Talkers
| image = code_talkers.png
| titletext = As far as I can tell, Navajo doesn't have a common word for 'zero'. do-neh-lini means 'neutral'.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Code talker}}s are people who communicate using their native language not known by the enemies. The most well-known code talkers were the {{w|Navajo language|Navajo-speaking}} Marines serving during World War II.

This comic shows a {{w|Navajo people|Navajo}} code talker transmitting an encrypted binary file by speaking "one" and "zero" (actually "neutral," as explained in the title text) into a microphone. By using only two words, the code is easily cracked. Unlike the Navajo Marines, this process does not add security, because it easily can be decrypted and is also much slower than simply transmitting the file over a network.

Note that (probably unbeknownst to Randall) the actual code used by the Navajo code talkers was not so far removed from the depiction in the comics: The Navajos used a mostly alphabetic code, with Navajo word for each English letter. (This meant that even though the Axis captured at least one native Navajo speaker, he could not make any sense of what was said.) However, several important terms were given their own Navajo idioms, and many letters could be represented by multiple different words, so the entropy would be somewhat higher than depicted in the comic.

The title text is a disclaimer from [[Randall]] about using "neutral" instead of "zero" — Navajo has words for the concept of nothing, but not for the numeral zero. Most number systems are not [[Wikipedia:positional notation|positional]], and therefore may lack the number zero. The [[Wikipedia:Arabic numerals|Arabic numeral system]] used in the West required the invention of the zero as a placeholder, so that numbers could retain their position when one column has nothing in it.

==Transcript==
:[A man is sitting on a chair in front of a computer monitor, which sits on a desk. He is speaking into a microphone. The microphone's wire goes to the left and the monitor's wire to the right; both reach a panel edge and presumably continue off-screen.]
:Code talker: A'la'ih, do'neh'lini, do'neh'lini, a'la'ih, a'la'ih, do'neh'lini, do'neh'lini, do'neh'lini, a'la'ih, a'la'ih, do'neh'lini, a'la'ih, do'neh'lini,do'neh'lini, do'neh'lini...
:[Two men are talking nearby.]
:Cueball: For added security, after we encrypt the data stream, we send it through our Navajo code talker.
:Friend: ...Is he just using Navajo words for "Zero" and "One"?
:Cueball: Whoa, hey, keep your voice down!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

[[Category:Binary]]
[[Category:Language]]

278: Black Hat Support

2025-11-12T23:15:09Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 278
| date = June 18, 2007
| title = Black Hat Support
| image = black_hat_support.png
| titletext = So as not to leave you hanging -- it was a problem with select() calls.
}}

==Explanation==

This strip portrays [[Black Hat]] providing support for {{w|Linux}}, but in fact he provides only annoying and unhelpful advice just for his own personal amusement.

The support line is clearly for Linux, as stated in the introduction, and the client on the phone clearly has a Linux problem. However, Black Hat is intentionally giving irrelevant instructions that refer to the Windows OS (Start Menu, My Documents Folder).

Finally, Black Hat asks the client on the phone to "bear with him" and suggests that the client should use a highly obsolete mechanism to look for the answer to his problem, namely AOL keywords. {{w|AOL}} is well known for producing one of the earlier {{w|online communities}} and has since fallen largely out of favor. The client hangs up the phone.

The title text mentions the function [http://linux.die.net/man/2/select select()], which allows you to write asynchronous IO access routines by checking if it is ready to be read/written to at a specific moment. This is different than a threaded model, in that it can happen in a single thread. The danger of such programming is that if you do not coordinate the reader/writer properly, you can create a deadlock, which can result in the consumption of a lot of resources.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat is sitting at his computer, wearing a phone headset.]
:Black Hat: Thank you for calling the Black Hat Support Line, your first source for Linux support. How may I assist?
:Phone: Hi. I'm running an Apache server, and the load keeps climbing out of control.

:Black Hat: Okay. First, click on the Start Menu.
:Phone: I'm sorry, this is the Linux helpline, right?
:Black Hat: Of course, sir.

:Black Hat: If you'll just open the "My Documents" folder-
:Phone: Just a damn minute. I think you're putting me on.
:Black Hat: Please bear with me, sir.

:Black Hat: Now, load up your AOL and go to the Keyword "Linux"-
:Phone: *click*

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Linux]]

3167: Car Size

2025-11-12T23:09:43Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 3167
| date = November 12, 2025
| title = Car Size
| image = car_size_2x.png
| imagesize = 348x754px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'They really shouldn't let those small cars drive in traffic. I worry I'm going to kill someone if I hit one! They should have to drive on the sidewalk, safely out of the way.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY A CAR WITH AN ICBM. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic demonstrates one reason why vehicles have gotten progressively larger and more powerful, due to a type of {{w|arms race}}. When vehicles of different sizes share the road, passengers in the smaller ones will usually be more at risk in collisions due to the larger amount of force exerted. They have less momentum, and the body construction material generally provides less protection. So, for safety reasons, people have incentive to buy larger cars.

In the "Soon" panel, Randall has extrapolated this to adding spiked armor and weaponry to large cars, and other drivers will need to do the same to compete on the road. This scenario is reminiscent of the vehicles from the {{w|Mad Max}} franchise. This would almost certainly never happen in real life,{{cn}} as there would be no reason at all to introduce weaponry to cars in the first place. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nJtXiK7bPk/ unless you're driving a Renault Twingo])

The title text views this from the opposite perspective. The owner of a large car is worried that they'll kill people in small cars, so they shouldn't drive on the road at all. This may result in the opposite process in the comic, where small cars become forced to be smaller and more specialized to drive on sidewalks...until they just become bicycles again. Of course, the suggestion that small cars should drive on sidewalks is even worse than being on the road, as it would put many pedestrians in danger; this is already a legitimate complaint regarding the riding of cycles on footways, where this is not supposed to be done (and even where it is), due to thoughtless behaviour of some bike riders.

Driving the smallest cars in pedestrian spaces is obviously absurd, but people suggest that bikes should do the same for their own safety (more often motorists might suggest this, pedestrians significantly less so). Forcing bicycles to be ridden on the sidewalk is the cheapest way to keep cyclists safe if we are not allowed to inconvenience drivers, but is a car-centric view that (like the comic shows) abandons common sense and consideration for others and replaces it with a "might makes right" attitude and making it "somebody else's problem", at a cost of increased risk of collisions with pedestrians, putting both in danger. Biking on sidewalks is currently illegal in many jurisdictions because of these risks.

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

:[The comic is made up of four panels, each featuring Cueball talking to Megan or vice versa, both of them surrounded by progressively larger vehicles.]
:[Panel one is labeled "100 years ago." Cueball and Megan are standing with a bicycle to the left of them and an old-fashioned car to their right.]
:Cueball: It's too dangerous riding a bike with these cars around. I should get a car, too.

:[Panel two is labeled "50 years ago." Cueball and Megan are standing between a small hatchback (right) and a slightly larger sedan (left).]
:Megan: Small cars are less safe in collisions with larger vehicles, so I should get a bigger one.

:[Panel three is labeled "Today." Cueball and Megan are standing between a large SUV (left) and an even larger SUV (right).]
:Cueball: Everyone has huge SUVs now. If I don't get the biggest one, I'm putting my family at risk.

:[Panel four is labeled "Soon." Cueball and Megan are standing to the left of a massive SUV with metal plates bolted to its side, spiked panels attached to the front and back, and two giant spiked clubs hanging from a rotor on top of the car. Another massive spiked club is visible coming from the left of the panel, presumably attached to a similar car.]
:Megan: If I don't install more whirling spike clubs, I'll be destroyed by all the other drivers who...

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

3167: Car Size

2025-11-12T23:08:33Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 3167
| date = November 12, 2025
| title = Car Size
| image = car_size_2x.png
| imagesize = 348x754px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'They really shouldn't let those small cars drive in traffic. I worry I'm going to kill someone if I hit one! They should have to drive on the sidewalk, safely out of the way.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY A CAR WITH AN ICBM. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic demonstrates one reason why vehicles have gotten progressively larger and more powerful, due to a type of {{w|arms race}}. When vehicles of different sizes share the road, passengers in the smaller ones will usually be more at risk in collisions due to the larger amount of force exerted. They have less momentum, and the body construction material generally provides less protection. So, for safety reasons, people have incentive to buy larger cars.

In the "Soon" panel, Randall has extrapolated this to adding spiked armor and weaponry to large cars, and other drivers will need to do the same to compete on the road. This scenario is reminiscent of the vehicles from the {{w|Mad Max}} franchise. This would almost certainly never happen in real life,{{cn}} as there would be no reason at all to introduce weaponry to cars in the first place. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nJtXiK7bPk/ unless you're driving a Renault Twingo])

The title text views this from the opposite perspective. The owner of a large car is worried that they'll kill people in small cars, so they shouldn't drive on the road at all. This may result in the opposite process in the comic, where small cars become forced to be smaller and more specialized to drive on sidewalks...until they just become bicycles again. Of course, the suggestion that small cars should drive on sidewalks is even worse than being on the road, as it would put many pedestrians in danger; this is already a legitimate complaint regarding the riding of cycles on footways, where this is not supposed to be done (and even where it is), due to thoughtless behaviour of some bike riders at a cost of increased risk of collisions with pedestrians, putting both in danger. Biking on sidewalks is currently illegal in many jurisdictions because of these risks.

Driving the smallest cars in pedestrian spaces is obviously absurd, but people suggest that bikes should do the same for their own safety (more often motorists might suggest this, pedestrians significantly less so). Forcing bicycles to be ridden on the sidewalk is the cheapest way to keep cyclists safe if we are not allowed to inconvenience drivers, but is a car-centric view that (like the comic shows) ahandons common sense and consideration for others and replaces it with a "might makes right" attitude and making it "somebody else's problem".

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

[The comic is made up of four panels, each featuring Cueball talking to Megan or vice versa, both of them surrounded by progressively larger vehicles.]
[Panel one is labeled "100 years ago." Cueball and Megan are standing with a bicycle to the left of them and an old-fashioned car to their right.]
Cueball: It's too dangerous riding a bike with these cars around. I should get a car, too.

[Panel two is labeled "50 years ago." Cueball and Megan are standing between a small hatchback (right) and a slightly larger sedan (left).]
Megan: Small cars are less safe in collisions with larger vehicles, so I should get a bigger one.

[Panel three is labeled "Today." Cueball and Megan are standing between a large SUV (left) and an even larger SUV (right).]
Cueball: Everyone has huge SUVs now. If I don't get the biggest one, I'm putting my family at risk.

[Panel four is labeled "Soon." Cueball and Megan are standing to the left of a massive SUV with metal plates bolted to its side, spiked panels attached to the front and back, and two giant spiked clubs hanging from a rotor on top of the car. Another massive spiked club is visible coming from the left of the panel, presumably attached to a similar car.]
Megan: If I don't install more whirling spike clubs, I'll be destroyed by all the other drivers who...

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

936: Password Strength

2025-11-12T23:05:41Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */ another typo

{{comic
| number = 936
| date = August 10, 2011
| title = Password Strength
| image = password strength.png
| titletext = To anyone who understands information theory and security and is in an infuriating argument with someone who does not (possibly involving mixed case), I sincerely apologize.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic says that a password such as "Tr0ub4dor&3" is bad because it is easy for password cracking software and hard for humans to remember, leading to insecure practices like writing the password down on a post-it attached to the monitor. On the other hand, a password such as "correct horse battery staple" is hard for computers to guess due to having more entropy but quite easy for humans to remember.

{{w|Entropy (information theory)|Entropy}} is a measure of "uncertainty" in an outcome. In this context, it can be thought of as a value representing how unpredictable the next character of a password is. It is calculated as ''log2(a^b)'' where ''a'' is the number of allowed symbols and ''b'' is its length.

A truly random string of length 11 (not like "Tr0ub4dor&3", but more like "J4I/tyJ&Acy") has log2(94^11) = 72.1 bits, with 94 being the total number of letters, numbers, and symbols one can choose. However the comic shows that "Tr0ub4dor&3" has only 28 bits of entropy. This is because the password follows a simple pattern of a dictionary word + a couple extra numbers or symbols, hence the entropy calculation is more appropriately expressed with log2(65000*94*94), with 65000 representing a rough estimate of all dictionary words people are likely to choose. (For related info, see https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/).

Another way of selecting a password is to have 2048 "symbols" (common words) and select only 4 of those symbols. log2(2048^4) = 44 bits, much better than 28. Using such symbols was again visited in one of the tips in [[1820: Security Advice]].

It is absolutely true that people make passwords hard to remember because they think they are "safer", and it is certainly true that length, all other things being equal, tends to make for very strong passwords and this can be confirmed by using [https://rumkin.com/tools/password/passchk.php rumkin.com's password strength checker]. Even if the individual characters are all limited to [a-z], the exponent implied in "we added another lowercase character, so multiply by 26 again" tends to dominate the results. That's before using ''all'' symbols of [https://www.ascii-code.com/ ascii], [https://www.ascii-code.com/ html] and [https://symbl.cc/ru/unicode-table/#cjk-unified-ideographs-extension-b unicode].

In addition to being easier to remember, long strings of lowercase characters are also easier to type on smartphones and {{w|Virtual keyboard|soft keyboards}}.

xkcd's password generation scheme requires the user to have a list of 2048 common words (log2(2048) = 11). For any attack we must assume that the attacker knows our password generation algorithm, but not the exact password. In this case the attacker knows the 2048 words, and knows that we selected 4 words, but not which words. The number of combinations of 4 words from this list of words is (211)4 = 244, i.e. 44 bits. For comparison, the [https://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#calculatingentropy entropy offered by Diceware's 7776 word list is 13 bits per word]. If the attacker doesn't know the algorithm used, and only knows that lowercase letters are selected, the "common words" password would take even longer to crack than depicted. 25 ''random'' lowercase characters would have [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2%2826^25%29 117 bits of entropy], vs 44 bits for the common words list.

;Example
Below there is a detailed example which shows how different rules of complexity work to generate a password with supposed 44 bits of entropy. The examples of expected passwords were generated in random.org.(*)

If ''n'' is the number of symbols and ''L'' is the length of the password, then ''L'' = 44 / log2(n).

{|class="wikitable"
!Symbols
!Number of symbols
!Minimum length
!colspan="2"|Examples of expected passwords
!Example of an actual password
!Actual bits of entropy
!Comment
|-
|a||26||9.3||mdniclapwz||jxtvesveiv||troubadorx||16+4.7 = 20.7||Extra letter to meet length requirement; log2(26) = 4.7
|-
|rowspan="2"|a 9
|rowspan="2"|36
|rowspan="2"|8.5
|rowspan="2"|qih7cbrmd
|rowspan="2"|ewpltiayq
|tr0ub4d0r||16+3=19||3 = common substitutions in the comic
|-
|troubador1||16+3.3=19.3||log2(10) = 3.3
|-
|a A||52||7.7||jAwwBYne||NeTvgcrq||Troubador||16+1=17||1 = caps? in the comic
|-
|a &||58||7.5||j.h?nv),||c/~/fg\:||troubador&||16+4=20||4 = punctuation in the comic
|-
|a A 9||62||7.3||cDe8CgAf||RONygLMi||Tr0ub4d0r||16+1+3=20||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions
|-
|a 9 &||68||7.2||_@~"#^.2||un$l|!f]||tr0ub4d0r&||16+3+4=23||3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|a A 9 &||94||6.7||Re-:aRo||^$rV{3?||Tr0ub4d0r&||16+1+3+4=24||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|rowspan="2"|common words
|rowspan="2"|2048
|rowspan="2"|4
|rowspan="2"|reasonableretailsometimespossibly
|rowspan="2"|constantyieldspecifypriority||reasonableretailsometimespossibly||11×4=44||Go to random.org and select 4 random integers between 1 and 2048; then go to your list of common words
|-
|correcthorsebatterystaple
|0
|Thanks to this comic, this is now one of the first passwords a hacker will try.
|}

:a = lowercase letters
:A = uppercase letters
:9 = digits
:& = the 32 special characters in an American keyboard; Randall assumes only the 16 most common characters are used in practice (4 bits)

:(*) The use of random.org explains why <code>jAwwBYne</code> has two consecutive w's, why <code>Re-:aRo</code> has two R's, why <code>_@~"#^.2</code> has no letters, why <code>ewpltiayq</code> has no numbers, why "constant yield" is part of a password, etc. A human would have attempted at passwords that looked random.

==People who don't understand information theory and security==

The title text likely refers to the fact that this comic could cause people who understand information theory and agree with the message of the comic to get into an infuriating argument with people who do not — and disagree with the comic.

If you're confused, don't worry; you're in good company; even security "experts" don't understand the comic:

* Bruce Schneier thinks that dictionary attacks make this method "obsolete", despite the comic ''assuming'' perfect knowledge of the user's dictionary from the get-go. He advocates his own low-entropy "first letters of common plain English phrases" method instead: [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/choosing_secure_1.html#:~:text=xkcd Schneier original article] and rebuttals: [https://web.archive.org/web/20160305001236/https://robinmessage.com/2014/03/why-bruce-schneier-is-wrong-about-passwords/ 1] [https://security.stackexchange.com/a/62881/10616 2] [https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1yxgqo/bruce_schneier_on_choosing_a_secure_password/cfp2z9k 3] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgte7lp 4] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgszp62 5] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgt6ohq 6]
* Steve Gibson basically gets it, but calculates entropy incorrectly in order to promote his own method and upper-bound password-checking tool: [https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-313.htm#:~:text=math%20is%20wrong Steve Gibson Security Now transcript] and [https://subrabbit.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/how-much-entropy-in-that-password/ rebuttal]
* Computer security consultant Mark Burnett ''almost'' understands the comic, but then advocates adding numerals and other crud to make passphrases less memorable, which completely defeats the point (that it is human-friendly) in the first place: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150319220514/https://xato.net/passwords/analyzing-the-xkcd-comic/ Analyzing the XKCD Passphrase Comic]
* Ken Grady incorrectly thinks that user-selected sentences like "I have really bright children" have the same entropy as randomly-selected words: [https://www.hellersearch.com/blog/bid/141527/is-your-password-policy-stupid Is Your Password Policy Stupid?]
* Diogo Mónica is correct that a truly random 8-character string is still stronger than a truly random 4-word string (52.4 vs 44), but doesn't understand that the words have to be truly random, not user-selected phrases like "let me in facebook": [https://diogomonica.com/posts/password-security-why-the-horse-battery-staple-is-not-correct/ Password Security: Why the horse battery staple is not correct]
* Ken Munro confuses entropy with permutations and undermines his own argument that "correct horse battery staple" is weak due to dictionary attacks by giving an example "strong" password that still consists of English words. He also doesn't realize that using capital letters in predictable places (first letter of every word) only increases password strength by a bit (figuratively and literally): [https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/correcthorsebatterystaple-isnt-a-good-password- heres-why/ CorrectHorseBatteryStaple isn’t a good password. Here’s why.]

==Transcript==
:[The password "Tr0ub4dor&3" is shown in the center of the panel. In this panel and multiple others, a set of squares is used to indicate how many bits of entropy a section of the password provides. A line from each annotation indicates the word section the comment applies to.]
:Uncommon (non-gibberish) base word ["Tr0ub4dor" is indicated to have 16 bits of entropy.]
:Caps? ["T" is indicated to have 1 bit of entropy.]
:Common substitutions ["0", "4", and "o" are indicated to have 3 bits of entropy in total.]
:Punctuation ["&" is indicated to have 4 bits of entropy.]
:Numeral ["3" is indicated to have 3 bits of entropy.]
:Order unknown ["&" and "3" are indicated to have 1 bit of entropy.]
:(You can add a few more bits to account for the fact that this is only one of a few common formats.)

:~28 bits of entropy [These are represented by all 28 squares from the previous panel being redrawn in this one.]
:228 = 3 days at 1000 guesses/sec
:(Plausible attack on a weak remote web service. Yes, cracking a stolen hash is faster, but it's not what the average user should worry about.)
:Difficulty to guess: Easy

:[Cueball stands scratching his head, trying to remember the password.]
:Cueball: Was it trombone? No, Troubador. And one of the O's was a zero?
:Cueball: And there was some symbol...
:Difficulty to remember: Hard

:correct horse battery staple [Each word in the proposed password is indicated to have 11 bits (squares) of entropy.]
:Four random common words

:~44 bits of entropy [As before, these bits are represented by all 44 squares from the previous panel being redrawn]
:244 = 550 years at 1000 guesses/sec
:Difficulty to guess: Hard

:[Cueball is thinking. His thought bubble shows a horse on the left talking to an off-screen observer. An arrow points to a staple attached to the side of a battery.]
:Horse: That's a battery staple.
:Observer: ''Correct!''
:Difficulty to remember: You've already memorized it
:[Caption beneath the whole comic:]
:Through 20 years of effort, we've successfully trained everyone to use passwords that are hard for humans to remember, but easy for computers to guess.

==External links==
*An [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments RFC], RFC7997 ''The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs'', uses "Correct Horse Battery Staple" in ''Table 3: A sample of legal passwords'' on page 10. [https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc7997.txt.pdf#page=10]
*Some info was used from the highest voted answer given to the question of "how accurate is this XKCD comic" at StackExchange [https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6095/xkcd-936-short-complex-password-or-long-dictionary-passphrase].
*Similarly, a question of "how right this comic is" was made at AskMetaFilter [https://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so] and [[Randall]] responded [https://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so#2779020 there].
*Also the Wikipedia article on '{{w|Passphrase}}' is useful.
*In case you missed it in the explanation, GRC's Steve Gibson has a fantastic page [https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm] about this (and may have prompted this comic, as his podcast [https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-303.htm] about this was posted the month before this comic).
* This comic inspired [https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/10/29/how-to-memorize-a-random-60-bit-string/ How to memorize a random 60-bit string] scientific paper (link is to the article about paper, with paper itself linked)
* [https://github.com/dropbox/zxcvbn zxcvbn password strength estimator] thanks this comic for the inspiration in acknowledgements.
* CMU paper: [https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2012/proceedings/a7_Shay.pdf Correct horse battery staple: Exploring the usability of system-assigned passphrases]
* [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Microsoft_Password_Guidance-1.pdf Microsoft Password Guidance] (page 8)
* [https://gizmodo.com/the-guy-who-invented-those-annoying-password-rules-now-1797643987 The Guy Who Invented Those Annoying Password Rules Now Regrets Wasting Your Time], August 8, 2017 (this comic is reproduced in the article).

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Computer security]]

936: Password Strength

2025-11-12T23:04:27Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */ typo

{{comic
| number = 936
| date = August 10, 2011
| title = Password Strength
| image = password strength.png
| titletext = To anyone who understands information theory and security and is in an infuriating argument with someone who does not (possibly involving mixed case), I sincerely apologize.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic says that a password such as "Tr0ub4dor&3" is bad because it is easy for password cracking software and hard for humans to remember, leading to insecure practices like writing the password down on a post-it attached to the monitor. On the other hand, a password such as "correct horse battery staple" is hard for computers to guess due to having more entropy but quite easy for humans to remember.

{{w|Entropy (information theory)|Entropy}} is a measure of "uncertainty" in an outcome. In this context, it can be thought of as a value representing how unpredictable the next character of a password is. It is calculated as ''log2(a^b)'' where ''a'' is the number of allowed symbols and ''b'' is its length.

A truly random string of length 11 (not like "Tr0ub4dor&3", but more like "J4I/tyJ&Acy") has log2(94^11) = 72.1 bits, with 94 being the total number of letters, numbers, and symbols one can choose. However the comic shows that "Tr0ub4dor&3" has only 28 bits of entropy. This is because the password follows a simple pattern of a dictionary word + a couple extra numbers or symbols, hence the entropy calculation is more appropriately expressed with log2(65000*94*94), with 65000 representing a rough estimate of all dictionary words people are likely to choose. (For related info, see https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/).

Another way of selecting a password is to have 2048 "symbols" (common words) and select only 4 of those symbols. log2(2048^4) = 44 bits, much better than 28. Using such symbols was again visited in one of the tips in [[1820: Security Advice]].

It is absolutely true that people make passwords hard to remember because they think they are "safer", and it is certainly true that length, all other things being equal, tends to make for very strong passwords and this can be confirmed by using [https://rumkin.com/tools/password/passchk.php rumkin.com's password strength checker]. Even if the individual characters are all limited to [a-z], the exponent implied in "we added another lowercase character, so multiply by 26 again" tends to dominate the results. That's before using ''all'' symbols of [https://www.ascii-code.com/ ascii], [https://www.ascii-code.com/ html] and [https://symbl.cc/ru/unicode-table/#cjk-unified-ideographs-extension-b unicode].

In addition to being easier to remember, long strings of lowercase characters are also easier to type on smartphones and {{w|Virtual keyboard|soft keyboards}}.

xkcd's password generation scheme requires the user to have a list of 2048 common words (log2(2048) = 11). For any attack we must assume that the attacker knows our password generation algorithm, but not the exact password. In this case the attacker knows the 2048 words, and knows that we selected 4 words, but not which words. The number of combinations of 4 words from this list of words is (211)4 = 244, i.e. 44 bits. For comparison, the [https://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#calculatingentropy entropy offered by Diceware's 7776 word list is 13 bits per word]. If the attacker doesn't know the algorithm used, and only knows that lowercase letters are selected, the "common words" password would take even longer to crack than depicted. 25 ''random'' lowercase characters would have [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2%2826^25%29 117 bits of entropy], vs 44 bits for the common words list.

;Example
Below there is a detailed example which shows how different rules of complexity work to generate a password with supposed 44 bits of entropy. The examples of expected passwords were generated in random.org.(*)

If ''n'' is the number of symbols and ''L'' is the length of the password, then ''L'' = 44 / log2(n).

{|class="wikitable"
!Symbols
!Number of symbols
!Minimum length
!colspan="2"|Examples of expected passwords
!Example of an actual password
!Actual bits of entropy
!Comment
|-
|a||26||9.3||mdniclapwz||jxtvesveiv||troubadorx||16+4.7 = 20.7||Extra letter to meet length requirement; log2(26) = 4.7
|-
|rowspan="2"|a 9
|rowspan="2"|36
|rowspan="2"|8.5
|rowspan="2"|qih7cbrmd
|rowspan="2"|ewpltiayq
|tr0ub4d0r||16+3=19||3 = common substitutions in the comic
|-
|troubador1||16+3.3=19.3||log2(10) = 3.3
|-
|a A||52||7.7||jAwwBYne||NeTvgcrq||Troubador||16+1=17||1 = caps? in the comic
|-
|a &||58||7.5||j.h?nv),||c/~/fg\:||troubador&||16+4=20||4 = punctuation in the comic
|-
|a A 9||62||7.3||cDe8CgAf||RONygLMi||Tr0ub4d0r||16+1+3=20||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions
|-
|a 9 &||68||7.2||_@~"#^.2||un$l|!f]||tr0ub4d0r&||16+3+4=23||3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|a A 9 &||94||6.7||Re-:aRo||^$rV{3?||Tr0ub4d0r&||16+1+3+4=24||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|rowspan="2"|common words
|rowspan="2"|2048
|rowspan="2"|4
|rowspan="2"|reasonableretailsometimespossibly
|rowspan="2"|constantyieldspecifypriority||reasonableretailsometimespossibly||11×4=44||Go to random.org and select 4 random integers between 1 and 2048; then go to your list of common words
|-
|correcthorsebatterystaple
|0
|Thanks to this comic, this is now one of the first passwords a hacker will try.
|}

:a = lowercase letters
:A = uppercase letters
:9 = digits
:& = the 32 special characters in an American keyboard; Randall assumes only the 16 most common characters are used in practice (4 bits)

:(*) The use of random.org explains why <code>jAwwBYne</code> has two consecutive w's, why <code>Re-:aRo</code> has two R's, why <code>_@~"#^.2</code> has no letters, why <code>ewpltiayq</code> has no numbers, why "constant yield" is part of a password, etc. A human would have attempted at passwords that looked random.

==People who don't understand information theory and security==

The title text likely refers to the fact that this comic could cause people who understand information theory and agree with the message of the comic to get into an infuriating argument with people who do not — and disagree with the comic.

If you're confused, don't worry; you're in good company; even security "experts" don't understand the comic:

* Bruce Schneier thinks that dictionary attacks make this method "obsolete", despite the comic ''assuming'' perfect knowledge of the user's dictionary from the get-go. He advocates his own low-entropy "first letters of common plain English phrases" method instead: [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/choosing_secure_1.html#:~:text=xkcd Schneier original article] and rebuttals: [https://web.archive.org/web/20160305001236/https://robinmessage.com/2014/03/why-bruce-schneier-is-wrong-about-passwords/ 1] [https://security.stackexchange.com/a/62881/10616 2] [https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1yxgqo/bruce_schneier_on_choosing_a_secure_password/cfp2z9k 3] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgte7lp 4] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgszp62 5] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgt6ohq 6]
* Steve Gibson basically gets it, but calculates entropy incorrectly in order to promote his own method and upper-bound password-checking tool: [https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-313.htm#:~:text=math%20is%20wrong Steve Gibson Security Now transcript] and [https://subrabbit.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/how-much-entropy-in-that-password/ rebuttal]
* Computer security consultant Mark Burnett ''almost'' understands the comic, but then advocates adding numerals and other crud to make passphrases less memorable, which completely defeats the point (that it is human-friendly) in the first place: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150319220514/https://xato.net/passwords/analyzing-the-xkcd-comic/ Analyzing the XKCD Passphrase Comic]
* Ken Grady incorrectly thinks that user-selected sentences like "I have really bright children" have the same entropy as randomly-selected words: [https://www.hellersearch.com/blog/bid/141527/is-your-password-policy-stupid Is Your Password Policy Stupid?]
* Diogo Mónica is correct that a truly random 8-character string is still stronger than a truly random 4-word string (52.4 vs 44), but doesn't understand that the words have to be truly random, not user-selected phrases like "let me in facebook": [https://diogomonica.com/posts/password-security-why-the-horse-battery-staple-is-not-correct/ Password Security: Why the horse battery staple is not correct]
* Ken Munro confuses entropy with permutations and undermines his own argument that "correct horse battery staple" is weak due to dictionary attacks by giving an example "strong" password that still consists of English words. He also doesn't realize that using capital letters in predictable places (first letter of every word) only increases password strength by a bit (figuratively and literally): [https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/correcthorsebatterystaple-isnt-a-good-password- heres-why/ CorrectHorseBatteryStaple isn’t a good password. Here’s why.]

==Transcript==
:[The password "Tr0ub4dor&3" is shown in the center of the panel. In this panel and multiple others, a set of squares is used to indicate how many bits of entropy a section of the password provides. A line from each annotation indicates the word section the comment applies to.]
:Uncommon (non-gibberish) base word ["Tr0ub4dor" is indicated to have 16 bits of entropy.]
:Caps? ["T" is indicated to have 1 bit of entropy.]
:Common substitutions ["0", "4", and "o" are indicated to have 3 bits of entropy in total.]
:Punctuation ["&" is indicated to have 4 bits of entropy.]
:Numeral ["3" is indicated to have 3 bits of entropy.]
:Order unknown ["&" and "3" are indicated to have 1 bit of entropy.]
:(You can add a few more bits to account for the fact that this is only one of a few common formats.)

:~28 bits of entropy [These are represented by all 28 squares from the previous panel being redrawn in this one.]
:228 = 3 days at 1000 guesses/sec
:(Plausible attack on a weak remote web service. Yes, cracking a stolen hash is faster, but it's not what the average user should worry about.)
:Difficulty to guess: Easy

:[Cueball stands scratching his head trying to remember the password.]
:Cueball: Was it trombone? No, Troubador. And one of the O's was a zero?
:Cueball: And there was some symbol...
:Difficulty to remember: Hard

:correct horse battery staple [Each word in the proposed password is indicated to have 11 bits (squares) of entropy.]
:Four random common words

:~44 bits of entropy [As before, these bits are represented by all 44 squares from the previous panel being redrawn]
:244 = 550 years at 1000 guesses/sec
:Difficulty to guess: Hard

:[Cueball is thinking. His thought bubble shows a horse on the left talking to an off-screen observer. An arrow points to a staple attached to the side of a battery.]
:Horse: That's a battery staple.
:Observer: ''Correct!''
:Difficulty to remember: You've already memorized it
:[Caption below the whole comic:]
:Through 20 years of effort, we've successfully trained everyone to use passwords that are hard for humans to remember, but easy for computers to guess.

==External links==
*An [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments RFC], RFC7997 ''The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs'', uses "Correct Horse Battery Staple" in ''Table 3: A sample of legal passwords'' on page 10. [https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc7997.txt.pdf#page=10]
*Some info was used from the highest voted answer given to the question of "how accurate is this XKCD comic" at StackExchange [https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6095/xkcd-936-short-complex-password-or-long-dictionary-passphrase].
*Similarly, a question of "how right this comic is" was made at AskMetaFilter [https://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so] and [[Randall]] responded [https://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so#2779020 there].
*Also the Wikipedia article on '{{w|Passphrase}}' is useful.
*In case you missed it in the explanation, GRC's Steve Gibson has a fantastic page [https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm] about this (and may have prompted this comic, as his podcast [https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-303.htm] about this was posted the month before this comic).
* This comic inspired [https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/10/29/how-to-memorize-a-random-60-bit-string/ How to memorize a random 60-bit string] scientific paper (link is to the article about paper, with paper itself linked)
* [https://github.com/dropbox/zxcvbn zxcvbn password strength estimator] thanks this comic for the inspiration in acknowledgements.
* CMU paper: [https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2012/proceedings/a7_Shay.pdf Correct horse battery staple: Exploring the usability of system-assigned passphrases]
* [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Microsoft_Password_Guidance-1.pdf Microsoft Password Guidance] (page 8)
* [https://gizmodo.com/the-guy-who-invented-those-annoying-password-rules-now-1797643987 The Guy Who Invented Those Annoying Password Rules Now Regrets Wasting Your Time], August 8, 2017 (this comic is reproduced in the article).

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Computer security]]

936: Password Strength

2025-11-12T23:01:01Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 936
| date = August 10, 2011
| title = Password Strength
| image = password strength.png
| titletext = To anyone who understands information theory and security and is in an infuriating argument with someone who does not (possibly involving mixed case), I sincerely apologize.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic says that a password such as "Tr0ub4dor&3" is bad because it is easy for password cracking software and hard for humans to remember, leading to insecure practices like writing the password down on a post-it attached to the monitor. On the other hand, a password such as "correct horse battery staple" is hard for computers to guess due to having more entropy but quite easy for humans to remember.

{{w|Entropy (information theory)|Entropy}} is a measure of "uncertainty" in an outcome. In this context, it can be thought of as a value representing how unpredictable the next character of a password is. It is calculated as ''log2(a^b)'' where ''a'' is the number of allowed symbols and ''b'' is its length.

A truly random string of length 11 (not like "Tr0ub4dor&3", but more like "J4I/tyJ&Acy") has log2(94^11) = 72.1 bits, with 94 being the total number of letters, numbers, and symbols one can choose. However the comic shows that "Tr0ub4dor&3" has only 28 bits of entropy. This is because the password follows a simple pattern of a dictionary word + a couple extra numbers or symbols, hence the entropy calculation is more appropriately expressed with log2(65000*94*94), with 65000 representing a rough estimate of all dictionary words people are likely to choose. (For related info, see https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/).

Another way of selecting a password is to have 2048 "symbols" (common words) and select only 4 of those symbols. log2(2048^4) = 44 bits, much better than 28. Using such symbols was again visited in one of the tips in [[1820: Security Advice]].

It is absolutely true that people make passwords hard to remember because they think they are "safer", and it is certainly true that length, all other things being equal, tends to make for very strong passwords and this can be confirmed by using [https://rumkin.com/tools/password/passchk.php rumkin.com's password strength checker]. Even if the individual characters are all limited to [a-z], the exponent implied in "we added another lowercase character, so multiply by 26 again" tends to dominate the results. That's before using ''all'' symbols of [https://www.ascii-code.com/ ascii], [https://www.ascii-code.com/ html] and [https://symbl.cc/ru/unicode-table/#cjk-unified-ideographs-extension-b unicode].

In addition to being easier to remember, long strings of lowercase characters are also easier to type on smartphones and {{w|Virtual keyboard|soft keyboards}}.

xkcd's password generation scheme requires the user to have a list of 2048 common words (log2(2048) = 11). For any attack we must assume that the attacker knows our password generation algorithm, but not the exact password. In this case the attacker knows the 2048 words, and knows that we selected 4 words, but not which words. The number of combinations of 4 words from this list of words is (211)4 = 244, i.e. 44 bits. For comparison, the [https://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#calculatingentropy entropy offered by Diceware's 7776 word list is 13 bits per word]. If the attacker doesn't know the algorithm used, and only knows that lowercase letters are selected, the "common words" password would take even longer to crack than depicted. 25 ''random'' lowercase characters would have [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2%2826^25%29 117 bits of entropy], vs 44 bits for the common words list.

;Example
Below there is a detailed example which shows how different rules of complexity work to generate a password with supposed 44 bits of entropy. The examples of expected passwords were generated in random.org.(*)

If ''n'' is the number of symbols and ''L'' is the length of the password, then ''L'' = 44 / log2(n).

{|class="wikitable"
!Symbols
!Number of symbols
!Minimum length
!colspan="2"|Examples of expected passwords
!Example of an actual password
!Actual bits of entropy
!Comment
|-
|a||26||9.3||mdniclapwz||jxtvesveiv||troubadorx||16+4.7 = 20.7||Extra letter to meet length requirement; log2(26) = 4.7
|-
|rowspan="2"|a 9
|rowspan="2"|36
|rowspan="2"|8.5
|rowspan="2"|qih7cbrmd
|rowspan="2"|ewpltiayq
|tr0ub4d0r||16+3=19||3 = common substitutions in the comic
|-
|troubador1||16+3.3=19.3||log2(10) = 3.3
|-
|a A||52||7.7||jAwwBYne||NeTvgcrq||Troubador||16+1=17||1 = caps? in the comic
|-
|a &||58||7.5||j.h?nv),||c/~/fg\:||troubador&||16+4=20||4 = punctuation in the comic
|-
|a A 9||62||7.3||cDe8CgAf||RONygLMi||Tr0ub4d0r||16+1+3=20||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions
|-
|a 9 &||68||7.2||_@~"#^.2||un$l|!f]||tr0ub4d0r&||16+3+4=23||3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|a A 9 &||94||6.7||Re-:aRo||^$rV{3?||Tr0ub4d0r&||16+1+3+4=24||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|rowspan="2"|common words
|rowspan="2"|2048
|rowspan="2"|4
|rowspan="2"|reasonableretailsometimespossibly
|rowspan="2"|constantyieldspecifypriority||reasonableretailsometimespossibly||11×4=44||Go to random.org and select 4 random integers between 1 and 2048; then go to your list of common words
|-
|correcthorsebatterystaple
|0
|Thanks to this comic, this is now one of the first passwords a hacker will try.
|}

:a = lowercase letters
:A = uppercase letters
:9 = digits
:& = the 32 special characters in an American keyboard; Randall assumes only the 16 most common characters are used in practice (4 bits)

:(*) The use of random.org explains why <code>jAwwBYne</code> has two consecutive w's, why <code>Re-:aRo</code> has two R's, why <code>_@~"#^.2</code> has no letters, why <code>ewpltiayq</code> has no numbers, why "constant yield" is part of a password, etc. A human would have attempted at passwords that looked random.

==People who don't understand information theory and security==

The title text likely refers to the fact that this comic could cause people who understand information theory and agree with the message of the comic to get into an infuriating argument with people who do not — and disagree with the comic.

If you're confused, don't worry; you're in good company; even security "experts" don't understand the comic:

* Bruce Schneier thinks that dictionary attacks make this method "obsolete", despite the comic ''assuming'' perfect knowledge of the user's dictionary from the get-go. He advocates his own low-entropy "first letters of common plain English phrases" method instead: [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/choosing_secure_1.html#:~:text=xkcd Schneier original article] and rebuttals: [https://web.archive.org/web/20160305001236/https://robinmessage.com/2014/03/why-bruce-schneier-is-wrong-about-passwords/ 1] [https://security.stackexchange.com/a/62881/10616 2] [https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1yxgqo/bruce_schneier_on_choosing_a_secure_password/cfp2z9k 3] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgte7lp 4] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgszp62 5] [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgt6ohq 6]
* Steve Gibson basically gets it, but calculates entropy incorrectly in order to promote his own method and upper-bound password-checking tool: [https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-313.htm#:~:text=math%20is%20wrong Steve Gibson Security Now transcript] and [https://subrabbit.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/how-much-entropy-in-that-password/ rebuttal]
* Computer security consultant Mark Burnett ''almost'' understands the comic, but then advocates adding numerals and other crud to make passphrases less memorable, which completely defeats the point (that it is human-friendly) in the first place: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150319220514/https://xato.net/passwords/analyzing-the-xkcd-comic/ Analyzing the XKCD Passphrase Comic]
* Ken Grady incorrectly thinks that user-selected sentences like "I have really bright children" have the same entropy as randomly-selected words: [https://www.hellersearch.com/blog/bid/141527/is-your-password-policy-stupid Is Your Password Policy Stupid?]
* Diogo Mónica is correct that a truly random 8-character string is still stronger than a truly random 4-word string (52.4 vs 44), but doesn't understand that the words have to be truly random, not user-selected phrases like "let me in facebook": [https://diogomonica.com/posts/password-security-why-the-horse-battery-staple-is-not-correct/ Password Security: Why the horse battery staple is not correct]
* Ken Munro confuses entropy with permutations and undermines his own argument that "correct horse battery staple" is weak due to dictionary attacks by giving an example "strong" password that still consists of English words. He also doesn't realize that using capital letters in predictable places (first letter of every word) only increases password strength by a bit (figuratively and literally): [https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/correcthorsebatterystaple-isnt-a-good-password- heres-why/ CorrectHorseBatteryStaple isn’t a good password. Here’s why.]

==Transcript==
:[The password "Tr0ub4dor&3" is shown in the center of the panel. In this panel and multiple others, a set of squares is used to indicate how many bits of entropy a section of the password provides. A line from each annotation indicates the word section the comment applies to.]
:Uncommon (non-gibberish) base word ["Tr0ub4dor" is indicated to have 16 bits of entropy.]
:Caps? ["T" is indicated to have 1 bit of entropy.]
:Common substitutions ["0", "4", and "o" are indicated to have 3 bits of entropy in total.]
:Punctuation ["&" is indicated to have 4 bits of entropy.]
:Numeral ["3" is indicated to have 3 bits of entropy.]
:Order unknown ["&" and "3" are indicated to have 1 bit of entropy.]
:(You can add a few more bits to account for the fact that this is only one of a few common formats.)

:~28 bits of entropy [These are represented by all 28 squares from the previous panel being redrawn in this one.]
:228 = 3 days at 1000 guesses/sec
:(Plausible attack on a weak remote web service. Yes, cracking a stolen hash is faster, but it's not what the average user should worry about.)
:Difficulty to guess: Easy

:[Cueball stands scratching his head trying to remember the password.]
:Cueball: Was it trombone? No, Troubador. And one of the O's was a zero?
:Cueball: And there was some symbol...
:Difficulty to remember: Hard

:correct horse battery staple [Each word in the proposed password is indicated to have 11 bits (squares) of entropy.]
:Four random common words

:~44 bits of entropy [As before, these bits are represented by all 44 squares from the previous panel being redrawn]
:244 = 550 years at 1000 guesses/sec
:Difficulty to guess: Hard

:[Cueball is thinking. His thought bubble shows a horse on the left talking to an off-screen observer. An arrow points to a staple attached to the side of a battery.]
:Horse: That's a battery staple.
:Observer: ''Correct!''
:Difficulty to remember: You've already memorized it
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Through 20 years of effort, we've successfully trained everyone to use passwords that are hard for humans to remember, but easy for computers to guess.

==External links==
*An [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments RFC], RFC7997 ''The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs'', uses "Correct Horse Battery Staple" in ''Table 3: A sample of legal passwords'' on page 10. [https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc7997.txt.pdf#page=10]
*Some info was used from the highest voted answer given to the question of "how accurate is this XKCD comic" at StackExchange [https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6095/xkcd-936-short-complex-password-or-long-dictionary-passphrase].
*Similarly, a question of "how right this comic is" was made at AskMetaFilter [https://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so] and [[Randall]] responded [https://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so#2779020 there].
*Also the Wikipedia article on '{{w|Passphrase}}' is useful.
*In case you missed it in the explanation, GRC's Steve Gibson has a fantastic page [https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm] about this (and may have prompted this comic, as his podcast [https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-303.htm] about this was posted the month before this comic).
* This comic inspired [https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/10/29/how-to-memorize-a-random-60-bit-string/ How to memorize a random 60-bit string] scientific paper (link is to the article about paper, with paper itself linked)
* [https://github.com/dropbox/zxcvbn zxcvbn password strength estimator] thanks this comic for the inspiration in acknowledgements.
* CMU paper: [https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2012/proceedings/a7_Shay.pdf Correct horse battery staple: Exploring the usability of system-assigned passphrases]
* [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Microsoft_Password_Guidance-1.pdf Microsoft Password Guidance] (page 8)
* [https://gizmodo.com/the-guy-who-invented-those-annoying-password-rules-now-1797643987 The Guy Who Invented Those Annoying Password Rules Now Regrets Wasting Your Time], August 8, 2017 (this comic is reproduced in the article).

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Computer security]]

1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality

2025-11-12T22:45:40Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1945
| date = January 22, 2018
| title = Scientific Paper Graph Quality
| image = scientific_paper_graph_quality.png
| titletext = The worst are graphs with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985 as a component of {{w|Windows 1.0}}, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990. As easy-to-use tools, these allowed for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic implies that these are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs in scientific papers, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers, and encouraging certain kinds of designs that are ineffective for communicating scientific results.

{{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays explicitly forbid the use of PowerPoint in their [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml instructions for authors.] It can be argued that other software specifically built for this task - and techniques to do so - have been refined over time, leading to a rise in graph quality outside the PowerPoint/MSPaint era (though see discussion).

The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones “with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data” are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with PowerPoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point across (qualitative as in “you get the idea”) over accuracy (little actual data), this is more {{tvtropes|HypocriticalHumor|hypocritical humor}} on Randall's part, as the comic itself features exactly that sort of lambasted graph. The vertical axis labeled “good” and “bad” is entirely qualitative, the horizontal axis manages to use numbers and still be vague by labeling the area between the ticks as decades instead of labeling the ticks, the definition of what constitutes the ‘PowerPoint / MSPaint era’ is entirely unclear, and it is doubtful that any actual data was used to make the graph – certainly there are no actual data points indicated. Its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact.

==Transcript==
:[Title above a graph:]
:'''General quality of charts and graphs in scientific papers'''
:[A graph is shown. The y-axis is labeled "bad" at the origin and "good" near the arrowhead at its top. The x-axis is a timeline labeled with each decade from the 1950s to the 2010s.]
:[The graph has a mostly positive slope, except that it makes a deep U shape from the early 1990s (perhaps 1993) through around 2015. This portion has a grey background and is labeled the "PowerPoint/MSPaint era".]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]

997: Wait Wait

2025-11-12T22:35:34Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 997
| date = December 30, 2011
| title = Wait Wait
| image = wait_wait.png
| titletext = You can't stab Carl Kasell. He sounds all slow and stentorian, but he moves like a snake.
}}

==Explanation==

{{incomplete|Provide a detailed explanation for all panels.}}

''{{w|Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me}}'' is an hour-long weekly radio news panel game show produced by {{w|Chicago Public Radio}} and {{w|National Public Radio}}. The show is hosted by {{w|playwright}} and actor {{w|Peter Sagal}}. Each episode ends with the panelists making up a potential future news story, usually with implausible "facts". This comic is making puns on the title of the show based on what Peter Sagal might have done that was newsworthy.

{{w|Carl Kasell}}, who also served as the news anchor on {{w|Morning Edition}}, was the show's official judge and scorekeeper until May 2014 (after this comic was published), when he retired and was replaced by Bill Kurtis.

The 1st row, 3rd paper mocks classic celebrity scandal articles. This example uses {{w|Peter Sagal}} confessing his feelings towards {{w|Kermit the Frog}}

The 1st row, 4th paper may refer to the {{w|Michael_Richards#2006–2012:_Laugh_Factory_incident_and_aftermath| Laugh Factory Incident}} of 2006.

In the 3rd row, first paper, {{w|Lakshmi Singh}} is NPR's national midday newscaster. This paper leads to the second paper on the third row, in which Sagal's wife divorces him over his affair with Singh.

In the 3rd row, 3rd paper is a reference to a protest at {{w|UC Davis}} (on the campus of University of California, Davis) protests in early 2012 in which sitting, peaceful protesters were calmly pepper-sprayed in their faces by a police officer. That spawned an [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/casually-pepper-spray-everything-cop internet meme of epic proportions].

In the 4th row, 2nd paper is a reference to the movie, ''{{w|Ghostbusters}}''.

In the 4th row, 3rd paper is a reference to {{w|Granny Weatherwax}} of Terry Pratchett's ''{{w|Discworld}}'' novels; Granny Weatherwax is a witch who carries a sign saying "[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=i%20aten't%20ded I ATEN'T DED]"(sic) when having out-of-body experiences.

In the 5th row, 2nd paper is a reference to another internet meme in where someone leaves out the verb in the sentence. The implication is that the verb is something bad, but ''which'' bad thing is left as an exercise to stew in the reader's mind. See the [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally I Accidentally ___ meme] for more information.

In the 5th row, 3rd paper is a reference to stories and myths in which an entity can be summoned, awoken, or alerted to someone's presence when its name is spoken. A well-known example of this is the entity Cthulhu in the Lovecraft mythos.

Two years later another New Years comic, [[1311: 2014]], took a similar look at what could happen in 2014, just as this does for 2012. Interesting enough the title of that comic (just the year it was looking at) is more related to the title of the next comic after this one, which is also a New Year comic, and the title is also just the number of the year: [[998: 2012]].

==Transcript==
:Headlines
:Stockpiled in case Peter Sagal, host of NPR's ''Wait Wait Don't Tell Me'', does something newsworthy in 2012.
:[A series of above-the-fold newspapers follows. Each has a headline and a blurb, and most have a picture.]
:[First row, first newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Shoot Me
:NPR's Sagal in Whole Foods hostage standoff.
:[A fierce Peter Sagal in a balaclava brandishes a gun in a supermarket.]

:[First row, second newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Vote For Me
:Peter Sagal quits race for GOP top spot
:[A sullen and defeated Peter Sagal surrounded by supporters admits defeat.]

:[First row, third newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Judge Me
:Sagal opens up about his Kermit fantasy.
:[Stock profile images of Peter Sagal and Kermit the Frog.]

:[First row, fourth newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Fire Me
:Peter Sagal let go after racist tirade.
:[Stock profile image of Peter Sagal.]

:[Second row, first newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Cancel Me
:NPR axing news quiz.
:[NPR spokesperson delivering announcement.]

:[Second row, second newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Interrupt Me
:Sagal stabs Carl Kasell in on-air dispute.
:[Peter Sagal mid-attack with a knife.]

:[Second row, third newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Look At Me
:Peter Sagal's Poison Ivy Ordeal
:[Peter Sagal with a skin condition.]
:Peter Sagal: "My 'Nam"

:[Second row, fourth newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Friend Me
:Peter Sagal deletes his Facebook account.
:[Person holding up a laptop with an "Facebook account not found" screen.]

:[Third row, first newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Seduce Me
:How Lakshmi Singh stole Sagal's Heart.
:[A wistful Lakshmi Singh being left by a sullen Peter Sagal.]

:[Third row, second newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Leave Me
:Sagal's wife out after affair
:[A wistful Peter Sagal being left by a furious Beth Sagal.]

:[Third row, third newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Spray Me
:Police Raid Sagal's Occupy NPR protest
:[Scummy policeman in riot gear spraying Peter Sagal in the face point blank.]

:[Third row, fourth newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Indict Me
:Sagal, five others named in cash-for-tote-bags scandal
:[Peter Sagal doing a perp walk.]

:[Fourth row, first newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Clone Me
:Peter Sagal 'Outraged' over DNA harvesting.
:[Fiery Peter Sagal, missing a small amount of DNA, at a lectern.]

:[Fourth row, second newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Bust Me
:Peter Sagal's ghost captured
:[Ghostbusters, careful not to cross the streams, capture the ghost of Peter Sagal.]

:[Fourth row, third newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Dissect Me
:Snoozing Sagal nearly snuffed in autopsy snafu
:[Peter Sagal running away from from a very surprised pathologist.]
:Peter Sagal: "I aten't dead"

:[Fourth row, fourth newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Objectify Me
:Peter Sagal is more than just a piece of meat
:[No image]

:[Fifth row, first newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Beatify Me
:Peter Sagal Rebukes Pope
:[Peter Sagal shakes his fist at a picture of the pope.]

:[Fifth row, second newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Me
:Peter Sagal Accidentally
:[Peter Sagal on a blank background upside-down.]

:[Fifth row, third newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Don't Speak Its Name
:Peter Sagal wakes Eldritch terror
:[A pair of eyes on a black background.]
:Peter Sagal:"AAAAAAAA"

:[Fifth row, fourth newspaper.]
:Title: Wait Wait Even For NPR This Is A Bit Much
:''This American Life'' to document the road to recovery for those who suffer the trauma of losing on Wait Wait
:[No image]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:New Year]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Ghostbusters]]
[[Category:Ghosts]]

226: Swingset

2025-11-12T22:32:24Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */ Added detail

{{comic
| number = 226
| date = February 21, 2007
| title = Swingset
| image = swingset.png
| titletext = Someone bring me a pocket fan so I can drift around the yard.
}}

==Explanation==
In the opening panel of this comic, [[Blondie]], probably as [[Miss Lenhart]], sees [[Cueball]] sitting on a swing set. She tells him that at the apex of his swing, he'll become weightless. Cueball then imagines that at the peak of his swing, he is able to become permanently weightless, floating above the ground without any support.

When on a swing or other [http://www.learner.org/interactives/parkphysics/pendulum.html pendulum rides], there is a moment between swinging up and swinging back down when the forces of gravity, friction, air resistance, etc., bring the velocity and normal force of the swing to zero. At this moment, there is no acceleration toward the pivot of the swing (since the centripetal acceleration is proportional to the square of the speed). So the swinger experiences no centripetal force. Of course, gravity still acts on the person, but if the swing is horizontal at that point, then there is no reaction force, so for one moment, the swinger is in free-fall and experiences {{w|weightlessness}}. However, that weightlessness can only be maintained for a fraction of a second, so if Cueball tried this in real life, he would come crashing to the ground.

In the title text, Cueball asks for a pocket fan, believing he could fly around the yard using this small device as a propeller. By using the fan to blow air in the opposite direction he wishes to travel, he could perhaps use the reaction force to push himself around. Note that this form of travel does not work at high altitudes because it works by pushing air molecules, which decrease in concentration at high altitudes. Another method of propulsion could be [https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/ machine guns]

==Transcript==
:[Blondie is standing next to a swing-set. She is talking to Cueball, who is swinging.]
:Blondie: You know, at the peak of a big swing, you become weightless.
:[The rest of the comic is a thought bubble coming from Cueball. He imagines swinging higher and higher until he shoves himself off during the peak of a big swing.]

:[Cueball remains hovering in the air.]

:[Cueball is still hovering in the air.]
:Cueball: Hey guys. Come check this out.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]

2190: Serena Versus the Drones

2025-11-12T22:25:42Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */ Reworded for flow and clarity

{{comic
| number = 2190
| date = August 16, 2019
| title = Serena Versus the Drones
| image = serena_versus_the_drones.png
| titletext = After the test, she said that if she had a choice, she wouldn’t defend herself against drones using a tennis ball and racket, though she would absolutely pick them over other sports equipment. But, she added, "Drones don't bother me."
}}

==Explanation==
Another comic which is a promotion of [[Randall|Randall's]] upcoming book ''[[How To]]'', to be released less than 3 weeks after this comic's release, on September 3, 2019. And this time permanent - as opposed to [[Disappearing Sunday Update]] from about two weeks before. It stars {{w|Serena Williams}}, an American professional tennis player and former world No. 1.

Most book advertisements feature laudatory quotes from famous people or reviewers, but here, Serena Williams is quoted as saying "It's a pretty bad idea" about Randall's idea of her attacking drones as given by the title of the comic. That idea is one of the chapters in the book and Serena Williams actually agreed to go and shoot tennis balls after an old drone with a broken camera. This can be read in the [[Blag]] post that is linked at the bottom of the comic: [https://blog.xkcd.com/2019/08/16/serena-versus-the-drones/ Serena Versus the Drones]. Unlike other books, "It's a pretty bad idea" is a pretty good quote for his "How To" book given that many of Randall's humorous explorations of scientific methods of doing usual and unusual things are pretty bad ideas.

As usual with Randall there is no need to click on the link, as the entire image is a link to the blog post. This was mentioned in [[1572: xkcd Survey]], and even earlier in the banner for his [[Header text#2014-07-23_-_what_if.3F_book_tour|book tour]] for the ''[[What If? (book)|What If?]]'' book.

The title text says that Serena Williams said that if she wanted to defend herself against drones and if she had to use sports equipment, she would use a tennis racket and ball. Notably, according to the Blag post, this would be ineffective compared to throwing.

==Transcript==
:[The first panel contains a quote, with a picture of Randall's new book ''how to'' to the right of it. The book is black with large blue text and smaller white text. On the book cover, in white drawings, can be seen Megan with a ladder and either Black or White Hat. Both are looking up on Cueball, who is floating in the air with a quadcopter drone beneath either leg and trying to plug an electric light bulb into a wire hanging down to his right. It seems he has already removed the broken light bulb, as he has a bulb in each hand. The quote to the book's left reads:]
:"It's a pretty bad idea."
::—Serena Williams
::::on my idea
:Book: How To
:Book: Randall Munroe
:[Caption below this panel and above another set of panels:]
:Which types of sports equipment would be most effective at bringing down a rogue photography drone? My new book features a real-world test by Serena Williams.

:[A large panel shows Serena Williams, with curly hair and a ponytail, swinging her tennis racket to successfully smash a tennis ball into a quadcopter drone flying towards her. The ball has bounced off the drone, which has stopped mid-air engulfed with a small explosion. Two drones above the exploding drone fly towards her, as well as one other below. There is a broken drone on the ground in front of her, and three tennis balls lie behind her.]

:[Three smaller panels are beneath the large panel. The first panel is smaller than the other two and a bit higher up than they are, overlaying the second panel. It shows Serena jumping with the racket held high. No drones are shown, but her shadow can be seen beneath her.]

:[In the next panel, the left side of which is partially covered by the panel before it, Serena is hanging mid-air as she smashes her racket into a drone and breaks a rotor off it. Her shadow lies beneath her, and another drone is flying above her.]

:[In the final panel, Serena is now standing again and faces to the left. She's taking another swing at two drones, but the drones evade her. The ground is covered in smashed-drone debris.]
:[Caption beneath all the panels, with the word "here" in blue despite the entire comic being a link:]
:To read an excerpt about Serena's drone battle, click here or go to blog.xkcd.com

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Sport]]
[[Category:Drones]]
[[Category:Book promotion]]
[[Category:How To]]

455: Hats

2025-11-12T22:03:39Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 455
| date = July 28, 2008
| title = Hats
| image = hats.png
| titletext = ...
}}

==Explanation==
[[Black Hat]] encounters a person who is wearing not one, but two black hats. Black Hat is not a person to be trifled with, but from his reaction, he apparently believes that Two Black Hats represents a considerable danger to him. Black Hat knows how dangerous he is to those with one fewer black hat than him, so he continues the logic and realizes that one who has one ''more'' black hat must be proportionally dangerous to him.

If a black hat is assumed to be akin to a badge of rank, then Two Black Hats certainly is superior to him in the capacity and willingness to do evil. Alternatively, and even more worrying, Two Black Hats could be someone who has the desire and the ability to acquire black hats (possibly killing the previous owners in the process if having two black hats really means that the individual is more malevolent than Black Hat), which he then wears like a badge of honor. With all this in mind, Black Hat edges away, keeping Two Black Hats in sight at all times. This movement and the accompanying line could also be interpreted as Black Hat being physically pushed away, like two negative or two positive poles of a magnet, although this does not explain why it only starts after a beat panel.

Another interpretation is that the left figure (perhaps nominally a [[Cueball]] character) has had the audacity or thoughtlessness to obtain a black hat, for whatever reason. Black Hat learns of this and responds by ''similarly'' adding to his normal apparel, just to make a non-verbal point that could be a passive-aggressive sign of displeasure or merely from his usual wry sense of amusement.

This comic is also a metatextual joke about xkcd itself. Because of the comic's simplistic art style and characterization, Black Hat has only two defining physical traits: his hat and his hair, which we see when he takes off his hat, and one defining personality trait, his malevolence. Randall then implies that the two traits must be correlated, so that a black hat signifies malevolence, and accordingly two hats must signify even more malevolence -- an idea that wouldn't make any sense in real life, where a person with two hats would just be making an odd fashion choice.{{Citation needed}}

The title text is simply "..." This may represent the slow-motion pause during which Black Hat's nefarious life flashes before his eyes, as he considers his impending doom. It may also emphasize how the usually witty Black Hat is, for once, speechless. Or the title text is similar to that in [[412: Startled]], where Black Hat also becomes the little one (and with much focus on the black hat, as in this comic). As mentioned there, such a short title text could be due to the fact that it's a somewhat surreal comic, and any further commentary might have detrimentally brought it down to Earth. See also [[82: Frame]], with the same title text, but no relation to black hats, and [[1190: Time]], which had that title-text for a while but no longer does and also has no relation to black hats.

Two Black Hats makes a reappearance in [[826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)]], down by the restrooms.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat is walking in from the left.]

:[Black Hat stops in front of another man with two Black Hats, the uppermost hat tilted about 45 degrees back. They face one another.]

:[Beat panel.]

:[Second beat panel.]

:[The original Black Hat steps backward, quivering slightly.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Characters with hats]]

205: Candy Button Paper

2025-11-12T22:01:23Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 205
| date = January 3, 2007
| title = Candy Button Paper
| image = candy_button_paper.png
| titletext = Nonrewriteable tape?
}}

==Explanation==
This comic refers to {{w|Candy Buttons}}, a type of candy sold by Necco in the U.S. since 1980. Because they were glued to paper, each candy button would have some paper stuck to it. As said in the comic, some kids would carefully check each candy button to make sure they would not accidentally eat paper, while some kids didn't care and ripped them off, eating large scraps of paper in the process.

Because of the resemblance of the strips of paper to the tape of a {{w|Turing Machine}}, a small minority of children (possibly only [[Randall]] or some of his friends) pretended to be a Turing Machine by creating rules and executing them upon the tape of candy exactly like a real Turing Machine would do.

The title text refers to the fact that, although it would be hypothetically possible to create a Turing Machine that can only delete symbols, the information density of the tape would be greatly reduced, and the original Turing Machine could read and write from the tape it operated on.

==Transcript==
:When it came to eating strips of candy buttons, there were two main strategies. Some kids carefully removed each bead, checking closely for paper residue before eating.
:[To the right, a small section of a strip of Candy Buttons paper is shown. Two red buttons have been removed from the top of the strip.]
:[To the left, a long strip is shown. It seems to be waving in the air.]
:Others tore the candy off haphazardly, swallowing large scraps of paper as they ate.
:Then there were the lonely few of us who moved back and forth on the strip, eating rows of beads here and there, pretending we were Turing machines.
:[A strip is shown from bird's eye view. Many rows of buttons have already been eaten.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Comics featuring children]]

915: Connoisseur

2025-11-12T20:03:49Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 915
| date = June 22, 2011
| title = Connoisseur
| image = connoisseur.png
| titletext = Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.
}}

==Explanation==
[[White Hat]] is fond of good {{w|wine}}, and he can probably distinguish slight differences in different types of wine, perhaps being the type that attends {{w|wine tasting}} parties. He doesn't like the cheap wine that Cueball has served for him (implying a cheap wine cannot be a good one, an opinion held by stereotypical wine snobs), looking with disgust at the label of the offending bottle. On the other hand, [[Cueball]] doesn't have a preference; all of them taste the same for him, so presumably he gets the cheaper ones. White Hat tells Cueball that if he just tried some really good wine and paid more attention he would discover a whole new world.

Cueball's answer is the main message of the comic. He says that you can spend enough time focusing on the details of ''anything'' and develop an appreciation for the nuances. He lists a number of random categories that this is true of: {{w|house music}}, {{w|fonts}}, {{w|ants}}, ending with {{w|Wikipedia:Signatures|Wikipedia signatures}} and {{w|Canadian}} {{w|surrealist}} {{w|porn}}. He claims that, if you spend enough time focusing on any one subject, then you'll become a snobby '''{{w|connoisseur}}''' on that topic. This implies that wine drinking is simply a random hobby, no more valuable than any other.

White Hat does not seem to like this implication, and claims that some things have "more depth" than others. In many western societies, wine appreciation is a class signifier, and is treated as a mark of culture and education. White Hat appears to embrace this mindset, implying that there's an inherent quality in learning to distinguish "good" from "bad" wines, and that failing to do so means missing out on valuable experiences. Cueball counters this, maintaining that that same level of appreciation could be taken from any experience. As an extreme example, he chooses something as obscure as 500 pictures of [[Joe Biden]], then {{w|Vice President of the United States}} under {{w|Barack Obama}}, eating a sandwich. He claims that if people were locked up in a box with those pictures for a year (therefore being forced to focus on them, for want of other stimulation), they would end up being connoisseurs with the same vehemence regarding which pictures are good (and what makes a picture good) as any wine connoisseur.

White Hat claims that this is an exaggeration, but Cueball takes this as a challenge so in the last panel, apparently White Hat and Cueball are actually running this experiment. The final panel shows a box containing at least two people arguing over the relative qualities of what appear to be the photos Cueball referenced earlier. The argument sounds very much like a pair of wine aficionados debating which vintages are best, displaying strong opinions about minute details and invented categories. Specialized interests and the people involved in them are used again, with ants being the subject of [[1610: Fire Ants]], typefaces in [[590: Papyrus]] and [[736: Cemetery]], plastic straws in [[1095: Crazy Straws]], porn-video quality in [[598: Porn]], and common colds in [[2535: Common Cold Viruses]]. In [[1534: Beer]], Cueball also argue slight differences in alcohol brands don't make much difference (in 915 "Wine all tastes the same to me."; in 1534, "maybe we should just admit that all beer tastes kind of bad and everyone's just pretending?") and people just pretend due to social pressure.

The title text presents the same idea in a different wording. Our brains scale the quality of all things the same way, with a subjective impression of the difference between best and worst largely the same, regardless of what is being evaluated. Things with a narrow dynamic range, like the Wikipedia signatures or pictures of Biden mentioned the comic, have their negligible differences in quality expanded so that the best are as good as the best of anything, and inversely for the worst.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat is holding a wine glass down in one hand and holding a bottle of wine up in front of him with the other hand. He is looking at the label and talking with Cueball standing next to him with his own filled wine glass in one hand. He is looking down at the glass.]
:White Hat: How do you stand this cheap wine?
:Cueball: Wine all tastes the same to me.

:[Close-up of White Hat.]
:White Hat: You've just never had ''good'' wine. If you paid more attention, you'd realize there's a whole world here.

:[Close-up on Cueball, who spreads his arms out, resulting in the wine in the glass sloshing so much that part of the wine is above the rim of the glass, some even hanging over the edge and a spray droplet hanging above the sloshing liquid.]
:Cueball: But that's true of ''anything!'' Wine, house music, fonts, ants, Wikipedia signatures, Canadian surrealist porn—
:Cueball: Spend enough time with any of them and you'll become a snobby connoisseur.

:[This panel has no border (aka a 'frameless panel') and is next to but aligned further down than the first three panels. It shows a zoom out of both White Hat and Cueball again. White Hat now has both glass and bottle held down at his side. Cueball holds his glass down, but tilted away from him. A small puddle of wine is on the floor next to Cueball.]
:White Hat: But some things do have more depth than others.
:Cueball: If you locked people in a box for a year with 500 still frames of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, by the end they'd be adamant that some were great and some terrible.
:White Hat: You're exaggerating.
:Cueball: Oh, really?

:[This panel is below the feet of the two characters from the previous panel. It goes further to the left than those two, and is wider than the previous panels, but it does not go much past the middle, so there is a blank white space to the left of this panel, below the first and most of the second panel. It shows a box, with two star burst on the surface from where two voices emanate from the inside. Over the top left of the panels frame is a small frame with a caption:]
:A year later:
:[The voice from left side of the box:]
:Sure, most closed-mouth frames are boring, but in #415, the way the man's jaw frames the mayo on his hand is pure perfection, and—
:[The voice from right side of the box:]
:What a surprise- ''you'' praising a mayo frame. Listening to '''you''', I'd think there was nothing else in The Sandwich.
:[The voice from right side of the box:]
:Frankly, the light hitting J.B.'s collar through the lettuce would put #242 in my top ten even if he had ''no'' mayo on his hand at ''all''.

==Trivia==
This is the first xkcd comic featuring [[Joe Biden]].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Food]] 
[[Category:Wikipedia]] 
[[Category:Animals]] 
[[Category:Music]] 
[[Category:Sex]] 
[[Category:Comics featuring Joe Biden]]

1600: MarketWatch

2025-11-12T19:46:37Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1600
| date = November 6, 2015
| title = MarketWatch
| image = marketwatch.png
| titletext = Markets have been rocked by a second day of uncertainty after someone set up a giant Ouija board on the NYSE wall controlled collectively by the movement of the stock tickers.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Blondie]] as a [[:Category:News anchor|news anchor]] is reporting on the day's price swings on the stock market. It has been noticed that the Dow index has traced out the DC skyline.

{{w|MarketWatch}} (as written above the skyline) is a website focused on stocks. The DJIA (as written on the screen) is the {{w|Dow Jones Industrial Average}}, commonly referred to as the Dow. It is a {{w|stock market index}}, meaning that it is a general indicator of how the market is running (in this case, an aggregate of how 30 major industrial companies are doing). The stock market is famous for having unpredictable price swings, but for them to specifically make a tracing of a skyline (or any recognizable image) would definitely weird out most investors. The DJIA has been featured previously in [[426: Geohashing]].

DC refers to {{w|Washington, D.C.}} The DC skyline shown here traces out the {{w|Lincoln Memorial}}, the {{w|Washington Monument}} (an obelisk) and the {{w|United States Capitol}}, which are located in that order in a line down the {{w|National Mall}}. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Dcskyln1.jpg This], [http://www.layoverguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Washington-DC-skyline.jpg this], [http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I00004v1SZxPZAxo/fit=1000x750/Skyline-Washington-DC-3306.jpg this] and some of [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1301&bih=673&q=dc+skyline&oq=dc+skyline&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1721.5440.0.5786.10.7.0.3.3.0.151.589.5j2.7.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.10.606.kO5p26O4PSE these] photos show the skyline depicted in the comic.

As seen in [[276: Fixed Width]], unusual patterns can be addictive to the point of harming those involved in the pattern's creation. The joke, however, rests in the fact that stock investors probably have a lot at stake, so following a pattern rather than pursuing gains would be uncharacteristic. Although some investors follow superstitious behavior (such as making trades to follow a pattern rather than make more obvious profits), many trades are now made by automated computer systems, which may recognize some types of patterns, but would not recognize the DC skyline, making it impossible for the stock market to continue to follow such a pattern merely because of the efforts of the human traders.

Buying and selling stocks based on patterns in the price charts is a common, but controversial, method of investing. Many {{w|day trader}}s and some professional investors still use stock patterns ({{w|head and shoulders (chart pattern)|head and shoulders}}, {{w|trend line (technical analysis)|trend lines}}, etc.) to make trades (see for instance [http://www.investopedia.com/university/charts/ Analyzing Chart Patterns]). Most professional investors and finance academics believe that this practice is random (see strong and weak {{w|efficient markets hypothesis}}).

In the title text it is noted that the markets again have been shaken by uncertainty (for the second day running, after the DC skyline incidence from the main comic). This time, it was because someone at NYSE (the {{w|New York Stock Exchange}}) had set up a giant {{w|ouija}} board that was controlled by the movement of the stock tickers, thus, collectively, everyone at the NYSE, as all have some influence on those.

The ouija is also known as a spirit board, a flat board marked with the letters of the alphabet, the numbers 0–9, the words "yes", "no" and possibly a few others. A movable indicator indicates a spirit's message by spelling it out on the board during a séance.

{{w|Ticker tape}} was an early way of transmitting stock price, and it was run through a {{w|stock ticker}} which printed abbreviated company names as alphabetic symbols followed by numeric stock transaction price and volume information. Today this has been replaced with electronics, but the concept of the stock ticker lives on in the scrolling electronic tickers seen on brokerage walls and on financial television networks.

If the stock exchange begins to look to spirit boards people will get worried (also maybe by the cryptic messages from beyond they are receiving via the stock ticker) explaining the uncertainty. Of course, some people might claim that this is not so far from how stock brokers decide what to do anyway…

==Transcript==
:[Blondie as a news anchor reports on the day's price swings in the DOW. To the left of her is a chart showing how the index suddenly went from "random" to tracing out Washington DC's skyline starting with the Lincoln Memorial, then the obelisk of the Washington Monument and finally the United States Capitol. After that the index goes back to normal "randomness". Two words are written at the top of the screen to the left and right:]
:MarketWatch
:DJIA
:Blondie: Wild swings on the markets today as investors noticed the DOW was tracing out a silhouette of the DC skyline, and everyone got too weirded out to break the pattern until they finished the capitol building.

==Trivia==

The general idea of manipulating the DJIA for goals unrelated to financial gains reminds of the [[426: Geohashing|Geohashing]] [http://wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Bill_Gates_achievement Bill Gates achievement].

The Washington Monument was also part of the game in [[1608: Hoverboard]], just left of the starting area.

Patterns in the stock market are also topic of [[2101: Technical Analysis]].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:News anchor]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Stock Market]]

720: Recipes

2025-11-12T18:44:15Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 720
| date = March 29, 2010
| title = Recipes
| image = recipes.png
| titletext = To be fair, the braised and confused newt on a bed of crushed Doritos turned out to be delicious.
}}

==Explanation==
A {{w|genetic algorithm}} starts with a set of candidates and evaluates them. The best candidates are combined and randomly mutated to form the candidates for the next generation. After being allowed to proceed for an extended period, a genetic algorithm can often produce remarkable results. If the initial candidates are randomly-generated (as appears to be the case here), the initial generations are usually horrible.

In the comic, the computer science (CS) department is the host of a dinner party. They choose to create a {{w|genetic algorithm}} to generate their recipes. Based on the remarks of the second diner, this is probably not the first generation, and the results are still horrible. {{w|Vermouth}} is a type of {{w|fortified wine}}, usually served alone or in cocktails. It seems unlikely that {{w|cheerios}} would complement the flavor of it.{{Citation needed}} {{w|Quail eggs}} are a delicacy in many countries, as opposed to {{w|whipped cream}}, which is usually served on desserts. It was topped off with {{w|Monosodium Glutamate|MSG, or Monosodium Glutamate}}, which is a non-essential {{w|amino acid}} used to enhance the flavor of savory foods. The last person has {{w|Skittles_(confectionery)|skittles}}, a brand of candy with a hard outer shell and a inside composed of {{w|corn syrup}} and {{w|Palm kernel oil|hydrogenated palm kernel oil}}. {{w|Deep-frying}} is usually done to savory starches and meats, not sweet confectioneries. The host of the party is so enamored of the promise of the genetic algorithm that he fails to take into account that it will be several years before the recipes become remotely good.

The title text could make reference to the fact that genetic algorithms will sometimes return results which are highly abnormal and vastly deviate from what we would think to be "selected for," but nonetheless can be quite successful, albeit unorthodox. Braising is a cooking practice involving both searing on an open pan and boiling in a pot with liquid; newts are small lizard-resembling amphibians that are not commonly eaten in America, and Doritos are a cheese-flavored tortilla chip. None of these are elements that a sane chef would use together when preparing dinner, but the title text concedes that it did taste good despite the abnormality. It also showcases that the algorithm has stumbled upon a recipe that engages in wordplay with the movie and common phrase "Dazed and Confused".

==Transcript==
:[Three people sit along a table with dishes and drinks in front of them. Cueball is walking in, a plate with food on it in one hand, a laptop in the other.]
:[Blondie looks down at her bowl. She has a cup with what appears to be a lump of coal in it.]
:Blondie: I've got... Cheerios with a shot of vermouth.
:[Cueball 1 has a plate with some kind of cubic food on it. He has a cup of what appears to be two lovebirds in it.]
:Cueball 1: At least it's better than the quail eggs in whipped cream and MSG from last time.
:[Cueball 2 has a plate with a several lumps of some form of white stuff on it. They have a cup of what appears to be some kind of superfluid flowing out of it.]
:Cueball 2: Are these Skittles ''deep-fried''?
:Cueball 3: C'mon, guys, be patient. In a few hundred more meals, the genetic algorithm should catch up to existing recipes and start to optimize.
:[Caption below the panel:]
:We've decided to drop the CS department from our weekly dinner party hosting rotation.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]

720: Recipes

2025-11-12T18:43:57Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 720
| date = March 29, 2010
| title = Recipes
| image = recipes.png
| titletext = To be fair, the braised and confused newt on a bed of crushed Doritos turned out to be delicious.
}}

==Explanation==
A {{w|genetic algorithm}} starts with a set of candidates and evaluates them. The best candidates are combined and randomly mutated to form the candidates for the next generation. After being allowed to proceed for an extended period, a genetic algorithm can often produce remarkable results. If the initial candidates are randomly-generated (as appears to be the case here), the initial generations are usually horrible.

In the comic, the computer science (CS) department is the host of a dinner party. They choose to create a {{w|genetic algorithm}} to generate their recipes. Based on the remarks of the second diner, this is probably not the first generation, and the results are still horrible. {{w|Vermouth}} is a type of {{w|fortified wine}}, usually served alone or in cocktails. It seems unlikely that {{w|cheerios}} would complement the flavor of it.{{Citation needed}} {{w|Quail eggs}} are a delicacy in many countries, as opposed to {{w|whipped cream}}, which is usually served on desserts. It was topped off with {{w|Monosodium Glutamate|MSG, or Monosodium Glutamate}}, which is a non-essential {{w|amino acid}} used to enhance the flavor of savory foods. The last person has {{w|Skittles_(confectionery)|skittles}}, a brand of candy with a hard outer shell and a inside composed of {{w|corn syrup}} and {{w|Palm kernel oil|hydrogenated palm kernel oil}}. {{w|Deep-frying}} is usually done to savory starches and meats, not sweet confectioneries. The host of the party is so enamored of the promise of the genetic algorithm that he fails to take into account that it will be several years before the recipes become remotely good.

The title text could make reference to the fact that genetic algorithms will sometimes return results which are highly abnormal and vastly deviate from what we would think to be "selected for," but nonetheless can be quite successful, albeit unorthodox. Braising is a cooking practice involving both searing on an open pan and boiling in a pot with liquid; newts are small lizard-resembling amphibians that are not commonly eaten in America, and Doritos are a cheese-flavored tortilla chip. None of these are elements that a sane chef would use together when preparing dinner, but the title text concedes that it did taste good despite the abnormality. It also showcases that the algorithm has stumbled upon a recipe that engages in wordplay with the movie and common phrase "Dazed and Confused".

==Transcript==
:[Three people sit along a table with dishes and drinks in front of them. Cueball is walking in, a plate with food on it in one hand, a laptop in the other.]
:[Blondie looks down at her bowl. She has a cup with what appears to be a lump of coal in it.]
:Blondie: I've got... Cheerios with a shot of vermouth.
:[Cueball 1 has a plate with some kind of cubic food on it. He has a cup of what appears to be two lovebirds in it.]
:Cueball 1: At least it's better than the quail eggs in whipped cream and MSG from last time.
:[Cueball 2 has a plate with a several lumps of some form of white stuff on it. They have a cup of what appears to be some kind of superfluid flowing out of it.]
:Cueball 2: Are these Skittles ''deep-fried''?
:Cueball 3: C'mon, guys, be patient. In a few hundred more meals, the genetic algorithm should catch up to existing recipes and start to optimize.
[Caption below the panel:]
:We've decided to drop the CS department from our weekly dinner party hosting rotation.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]

718: The Flake Equation

2025-11-12T18:17:19Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 718
| date = March 24, 2010
| title = The Flake Equation
| image = the flake equation.png
| titletext = Statistics suggest that there should be tons of alien encounter stories, and in practice there are tons of alien encounter stories. This is known as Fermi's Lack-of-a-Paradox.
}}

==Explanation==
This strip parodies the {{w|Drake equation}}, which is an method for estimating of the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. The Drake equation starts with the best estimate for the number of stars in our galaxy, then multiplies it by successive probabilities (such as the number of stars with planets, the number of planets which can support life, etc), to ultimately calculate how many civilizations exist. While such a calculation necessarily uses speculative numbers, it gives a good sense of how many civilizations could potentially exist.

The Flake equation presented in this strip provides an estimate about how many false or fake stories ''about'' aliens are likely to exist. It does so in similar manner as the Drake equation, by starting with the entire population, estimating how many people are likely to believe that they've had an alien encounter, and then calculating how likely those stories are to become public. Just like in the Drake equation, exact numbers are unknown, but can be estimated, and the equation in the comic shows [[Randall|Randall's]] guesses about these values. See an [[#Explanations of values|explanations of values]] below.

"Flake" is American slang for a person who is casually dishonest or unreliable, implying that such a person would be likely to imagine an alien encounter. Note that, while the Flake equation includes people who imagine encounters "because they're crazy or want to feel special", it doesn't attempt to include outright lies or deliberate hoaxes.

The final results tells us that there should be about 100,000 stories about aliens that have reliable explanations. (The numbers given in the equation gives 126,000 stories). The data is obviously highly speculative, and as with the Drake Equation, you can plug in your own numbers, but if you keep your guesses realistic, you will most likely get a very large number. This convinces the reader that the fact that there are many stories about aliens does not necessarily mean that many people actually met aliens.

The title text refers to Fermi's Lack-of-a-Paradox. The {{w|Fermi paradox}} refers to the contradiction between high numbers of calculated civilizations and the total lack of verified alien contact with earth. This is related to the Drake Equation, many estimates calculate that there should be large numbers of civilization in the galaxy, and they should have existed for long periods of time, suggesting that humanity should have been contacted by them, or at least seen some clear evidence of their existence. There are multiple explanations for this paradox, but it remains a question of scientific debate. The Lack-of-a-Paradox in this strip, however, is that the math suggests that there should be huge numbers of claimed alien sightings, and that's exactly what we observe.

Another comic parodying this equation is [[384: The Drake Equation]]. The credibility of paranormal reports in general is revisited in [[1235: Settled]], which posits that if such phenomena were real they should have been unambiguously captured on camera by now.

===Explanations of values===
{| class="wikitable"
!Symbol
!Assumed value
!Explanation
|-

|WP
|7,000,000,000
|Approximate world population at the time of the creation of the comic, taken as a starting value.
|-
|(CR + Mi)
|1/10,000 + 1/10,000
|Fraction of people who would falsely believe they had been visited by aliens. This is attributed to either a person imagining an encounter, and believing that it was real (due to mental illness or a desire to feel special), or to people misinterpreting something as an alien encounter (this can include possibilities as broad as unusual lights in the sky to actual hallucinations). It is estimated that one person in ten thousand falls into each of these categories, suggesting that one person in five thousand either has or will, at some point, believe they've encountered aliens.
|-
|TK
|1/10
|The fraction of people who believe they have experienced an alien sighting that tell others about their experience. [[Randall]] estimates (rather conservatively) that 90% of people who believe they've encountered aliens will keep quiet about it (likely out of fear of not being believed), and only one in ten will talk about their 'experience'. Multiplying with the previous values we get the of first-hand accounts of alien encounters.
|-
|F0
|10
|Average number of people they tell about their "sightings". Multiplying with the previous values we get the number of people who hear about an alien sighting from the "primary source".
|-
|F1
|10
|Average number of people that they decide to tell about the "firsthand" account. Multiplying with the previous values we get the amount of people who hear a second-hand account of a false story.
|-
|DT
|9/10
|The probability that the details will be slightly adjusted during the retelling process, making the account believable. [[Randall]] estimates that 90% of accounts that are actually shared have detailed changed when they're retold. This is exceptionally common when stories are passed from person to person, it's rare for all the details to survive unchanged. In this sort of case, "not fitting the narrative" implies that some details will be unbelievable, or falsifiable, or will be insufficiently dramatic, and those tend to morph over time (often innocently, as people don't remember the original version perfectly). Multiplying this probability by the previous numbers gives number of believable-yet-false alien sighting stories in circulation.
|-
|AU
|1/100
|The proportion of people who have the willingness and ability to share this story with a broad audience. [[Randall]] assumes that the overwhelming majority of people who hear such stories either have no platform to share stories to more than a handful of people at a time, or aren't willing to share these stories. But enough people in modern times have broad audiences (this number includes people with internet audiences), that it's estimated that 1% of the population both can and wants to share second-hand accounts of alien encounters. The total is now the amount of believable-yet-false alien sightings that are published to a wider audience.
|}

==Transcript==
:
:The Flake Equation:
:P = WP × (CR + MI) × TK × F0 × F1 × DT × AU ≈ 100,000
:Where:
::WP = World Population (7,000,000,000)
::CR = Fraction of people who imagine an alien encounter because they're crazy or want to feel special (1/10,000)
::MI = Fraction of people who misinterpret a physical or physiological experience as an alien sighting (1/10,000)
::TK = Probability that they'll tell someone (1/10)
::F0 = Average number of people they tell (10)
::F1 = Average number of people each friend tells this "firsthand" account (10)
::DT = Probability that any details not fitting the narrative will be revised or forgotten in retelling (9/10)
::AU = Fraction of people with the means and motivation to share the story with a wider audience (blogs, forums, reporters) (1/100)
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Even with conservative guesses for the values of the variables, this suggests there must be a ''huge'' number of credible-sounding alien sightings out there, available to anyone who wants to believe!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:SETI]]
[[Category:Aliens]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Paranormal]]

3134: Wavefunction Collapse

2025-11-12T17:35:21Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript */ Grammar and phrasing; the panels with Cueball alone aren't Panels 1-3, so I removed the potentially confusing phrasing

{{comic
| number = 3134
| date = August 27, 2025
| title = Wavefunction Collapse
| image = wavefunction_collapse_2x.png
| imagesize = 656x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Wavefunction collapse is only one interpretation. Under some interpretations, graduate students also have souls.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY A SOULFUL PARTICLE DETECTOR. Should the reference to unsolved problem be removed? Those comics are very different to this and the other two mentioned as it is three different things not three replies to one question. And cursed is not the same as wrong or chaotic!}}

This comic presents three possible responses to a common question posed by undergraduates upon confronting the {{w|Measurement problem|problem of measurement}} in quantum mechanics - does the apparently privileged role of subjective or conscious {{w|Observer (quantum physics)|observers}} in wavefunction collapse imply that human consciousness itself impacts physics? This question is sometimes phrased as: does the observation effect or quantum collapse prove humans have souls? These questions stem from a misunderstanding of what an "observer" in physics really is, a misunderstanding the comic depicts with a college student asking his professor about human consciousness.

The 'bad' option shows Cueball telling his student that everybody has a soul, and their individual consciousness affects reality in some way. The 'good' option shows Cueball telling his student that consciousness doesn't play a role at all, and that it is 'just a physical measurement'. The 'chaotic' option shows Cueball apparently observing that the wave function collapses only when ''he'' looks at it, because he is special in some way (in this case, Cueball is a professor while Hairy is the undergraduate student).

That quantum states exist as probability density distributions, but are only ever observed in definite states, raises the question of how the quantum world transitions into the classical world. The (historically) most popular {{w|Copenhagen interpretation|interpretation}} posits that {{w|wave function collapse}} occurs upon the measurement of a quantum state, in which the multiple mathematically possible states resolve into a definite state, without explicitly defining precisely when this "collapse" occurs, or what defines "measurement;" in fact, when measuring, say, an electron in a superposition of two states, wavefunction collapse could occur at any stage from the electron interacting with the detector, to the detector recording the measurement, to the scientist observing the recording. A famous thought experiment, {{w|Schrödinger's cat}}, takes this to the extreme: if a cat is placed a box with a decaying radioisotope that upon decay triggers a gas bomb that kills the cat, shouldn't this place the cat-bomb-isotope-box system into a mixed state that only undergoes wavefunction collapse upon opening and observing whether the cat is alive or dead? The Copenhagen interpretation is agnostic to this question, only confirming that the cat will have resolved into its alive or dead state at or before observation. The {{w|Consciousness causes collapse}} postulate endorsed by the "bad" panel -- unfashionable now, but taken seriously historically -- posits that the conscious observation is indeed what triggers wave-function collapse. The 'good' panel, rather flippantly, seems to endorse a more modern {{w|Quantum decoherence|decoherence}}-based interpretation - that every interaction inside the cat-box system is a "measurement" that destroys the superposition well before the human observer enters the picture. Finally, the `chaotic` option is far more radical and sollipsistic than the `bad` - it's not merely conscious observation that causes collapse, but PhD-holding and tenured consciousness.

Good, bad, and chaotic may be taken as references to the {{w|Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|alignment system}} in the role-playing game {{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}. In D&D, roles are characterized by their morality (good/neutral/evil) and their views about order (lawful/neutral/chaotic). However, this allows a single alignment to be both chaotic ''and'' either good or 'bad'/evil, so is perhaps just more a matter of two extremes followed up by {{tvtropes|TakeAThirdOption|something completely different}}, to set up a {{tvtropes|RuleOfThree|common variety}} of joke format.

The title text continues the chaotic option. Graduate students are intermediate between undergraduate and professors. It is unclear whether graduate students can cause waveform collapse, and therefore have souls. This implies that there is a chance graduate students (and, by extension, undergraduate students) do not have souls.

==Transcript==
:[Hairy is sitting behind a desk with one a hand on the desktop and the other in his lap. He is looking up at Cueball, who is standing in front of the desk. Hairy is asking a question:]
:Hairy: If the wavefunction only collapses when I observe it, does that mean my consciousness affects the universe?

:[Three panels follow showing three possible responses from Cueball. Each panel has a label above, written inside a small rectangle that is overlaid on the top left of each panel. Each panel shows the same zoom in on the top half of Cueball.]
:Bad:
:Cueball: Yes. Quantum entanglement proves that we all have souls.

:Good:
:Cueball: No. Consciousness plays no role here. Its just physical measurement.

:Chaotic:
:Cueball: No. The wave function collapses when '''''I''''' look at it because I'm a full professor.
:Cueball: It won't collapse for an undergraduate.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Religion]]

3125: Snake-in-the-Box Problem

2025-11-10T16:31:14Z

Duralumin-here: /* Transcript changed text description from "outside the panel" to "below the panel" for consistency with other pages*/

{{comic
| number = 3125
| date = August 6, 2025
| title = Snake-in-the-Box Problem
| image = snake_in_the_box_problem_2x.png
| imagesize = 359x611px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Chemistry grad students have been spotted trying to lure campus squirrels into laundry hampers in the hope that it sparks inspiration.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic makes fun of the fact that many fields of math and science use analogies to help visualize complex problems. One such analogy, drawn in the comic, involves a snake on the edges of an n-dimensional hypercube, which is a real problem in graph theory called {{w|snake-in-the-box}}. In this problem, a snake is coiled around the edges of an ''n''-dimensional hypercube. No two adjacent corners of the cube can be occupied by non-consecutive parts of the snake (i.e., the snake can't come near itself). The problem involves finding the longest snake for a box of a given dimension. This problem has been solved up to an 8-dimensional cube, but remains unsolved for 9 dimensions and up. (The proper name for this problem, as stated in [https://oeis.org/A099155 OEIS A099155], is "Maximum length of a simple path with no chords in the n-dimensional hypercube" but, as the entry acknowledges, "snake-in-the-box problem" is the name commonly used for it.) Because a common way to formulate hypercubes is as a graph of N-tuples (each corner has N coordinates, each a 0 or 1 - for example, a {{w|Square|2-cube}} has vertices (0,0), (0,1), (1,0), (1,1) - and edges are drawn between vertices differing only in one coordinate), and this problem in particular pertains to connecting edges between vertices, this comic considers the problem to be an example of this phenomenon for the mathematical field of graph theory.

The other thought experiment alluded to is {{w|Schrödinger's cat}}, which is used in quantum physics. In this thought experiment, a cat is put in a box which contains poison, a radioactive source and a {{w|Geiger counter}}. This aims to illustrate an apparent paradox in the principle of {{w|quantum superposition}} — a property of quantum mechanics in which objects can exist in two apparently incompatible states simultaneously, so long as no attempt is made to verify which state they are in. If an atom of the radioactive source decays, the poison is released, and the cat dies, tying its fate to the radioactive decay. Since radioactive decay obeys quantum mechanics, so long as the particle is not observed it will exist in a superposition of two states: decayed and not decayed. Therefore, the cat, too, may be considered to exist in a superposition of two states (alive and not alive) which appears to be absurd. The opening of the box collapses the superposition so that only one of those states remains.

The comic jokes that these two "cute animal in a box" thought experiments are instances of a universal rule that applies to every field of study. Other fields have simply yet to "discover" their own analogies. Whether a snake counts as a "cute animal", that would satisfy the "rule" is likely to occasion some debate.

The title text takes this further by claiming that chemistry students have been trying to fix the lack of cute-animal-in-box thought experiments in their field by attempting to trap a squirrel with a laundry basket. This is possibly a reference to {{w|Endohedral fullerene}} complexes, where an ion or atom is caged inside a spherical structure of carbon. Those students seem to hope that it will inspire them in some way, maybe similarly to what is depicted in [[1584: Moments of Inspiration]].

==Trivia==
The comic number 3125, being equal to 55, is itself representable in terms of a (5-dimensional) box.

==Transcript==
:[A panel with text both above and below the illustration, with further text below the panel.]
:[In the panel, above the illustration:]
:A snake slithers around a hypercube. No two non-consecutive parts of its coils can be on adjacent corners.
:[Three small illustrations of 4-dimensional hypercubes, each with a snake slithering around its edges. Each illustration has a red line or lines indicating an edge or edges where two non-consecutive parts of the snake are on adjacent corners. Below each hypercube is a red X.]
:[A large illustration depicting a 4-dimensional hypercube with a snake slithering around its edges.]
:[Below the large illustration is text printed in green. To the left of the text is a green checkmark.]
:Dimensions=4
:Max length=7
:[The following text is printed in black, except for the last word "UNSOLVED" which is printed in red:]
:Snake(N) = Largest snake that can fit in an N-dimensional hypercube
:Snake(N=1, 2, 3 .. 8) = 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 26, 50, 98
:Snake(N>8) = UNSOLVED

:[Text below the panel:]
:It turns out every scientific field has a key thought experiment that involves putting a cute animal in a weird box for no reason.
:So far, quantum mechanics and graph theory have found theirs, but most other fields are still working on it.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Cats]]
[[Category:Squirrels]]

3130: Predicament

2025-11-10T16:12:25Z

Duralumin-here: /* Removed line breaks for first two panels*/

{{comic
| number = 3130
| date = August 18, 2025
| title = Predicament
| image = predicament_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I dropped my phone while trying to search, and I tried to unlock it from up here, so can you also search for screen repair places?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Further research or input from someone who's actually ridden stilts welcomed. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This comic describes a person with stilts asking cueball to use his phone. Before he can say what he wants him to do with the phone, Cueball immediately knows that he wants to know how to get off stilts.

For someone who has never worn stilts before, the method to get down from them safely is not obvious. We can't see the stilt user's feet or legs in the pictures, and the way to get off them will vary depending on whether they are the type of stilt that is braced by a strap around the lower leg or the type where the stilt pole extends upwards and is held in the hand. Based on [https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+get+down+from+stilts Googling how to get down from stilts], it seems that one method for the latter is to use the steps that are built into the stilts themselves, commonly called 'pegs'. These act like a very wobbly ladder and allow you to climb up and down the stilts. Other methods include leaning against a wall, bracing the stilts at the bottom of the wall, and carefully stepping (or, as in the case with the image when there appear to be no pegs, sliding) down the stilts. Another technique is to climb onto (and off) the stilts from a platform at roughly the same height as the (top) stilt pegs, such as a balcony or deck.

It is somewhat surprising that someone has sufficient mastery to walk and stand still on such high stilts, without also having learnt how to dismount from them, as practicing more than once requires getting off the stilts. One might also expect that someone in this situation might seek rather more direct assistance than looking things up on the internet. [[Randall]] may be lampooning the widespread tendency in today's world to automatically resort to Google for every query that crops up.

The title text explains that this person dropped their phone and tried to unlock it with the stilts, but ended up breaking their phone in the process. ([[530: I'm An Idiot|Presumably]], other unlocking options such as voice, fingerprint, or facial recognition were not enabled or infeasible under the circumstances.) When someone is on stilts, it is actually very hard to stand still because the point of the stilt does not provide the forward-backward length that we are used to our feet having. Beginners generally have a much easier time walking forward, because the momentum helps with balance, and risk falling over if they stop. Unlocking a phone with the stilt would require not only staying still near the phone long enough to do so, but doing so on a single stilt, while lifting the full weight of the other and making those precise motions with an awkward blunt tool that has both considerable {{w|mass}} and considerable {{w|moment of inertia}} on a tiny object a stilt-length away. It is no wonder that instead the person ended up putting too much weight on the stilt while it was above the phone, resulting in considerable force being distributed over a very small area of the phone's fragile screen. All things considered the attempt went much better than it could have, since the person did not fall over.

It is also unlikely that a phone touchscreen could even be operated by a stilt. Most work through {{w|capacitive sensing}}, and are unlikely to work with the stilt-ends unless specifically equipped with a cap of material with electrical properties similar to those of human fingers.

Stilts have been used in other comics, such as [[482: Height]], [[1608: Hoverboard]], [[1663: Garden]], [[2603: Childhood Toys]], [[2669: Things You Should Not Do]], and [[2765: Escape Speed]].

==Transcript==

:[On the left a long stick enters the panel from near the top left. There are "tap tap" sounds where the stick hits the ground. Cueball is on the right, looking left towards the stick.]
:Tap Tap

:[There are now two long sticks closer to the middle of the panel. They cross near the top, and the stick makes three taps near the bottom. Cueball is still looking at them and looking down.]
:Tap Tap Tap

:[The two sticks are almost parallel now, a little further apart at the ground. Cueball is still looking at them, but now not bending his head]
:Voice from above: Do you have your phone?
:Cueball: Yeah.

:[The two sticks are parallel. Cueball is holding a cellphone in his right hand.]
:Voice from above: Can you Google --
:Cueball: -- how to get down from stilts?
:Voice from above: Yes please.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]
[[Category:Stilts]]