explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2016: OEIS Submissions

2018-07-08T00:49:49Z

GODZILLA:

"All integers which do not appear in the example terms of another OEIS sequence" there is no paradox: it's pecified *another* sequence
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.133|162.158.154.133]] 17:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am so sorry that this comment is not related to the strip, but is the scaling for the explanation way off? Previously the scaling of the whole website was stretched, but now it is a bit too cramped for me. It happens to the previous strips too.Boeing-787lover 18:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it too much of a stretch to mention that Chris Hemsworth stars in the movie ''Blackhat'', which is also a nickname for an XKCD character? [[User:John at work|John at work]] ([[User talk:John at work|talk]]) 19:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The Sub 59 one is also a paradox, it specifies that it should include all of the author's accepted submissions, so it would have to be on it's own list itself in order to be accurate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.233|172.68.58.233]] 19:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
:No, it would not be paradoxical. If it is accepted, then the sequence contains its identification number. If it is not accepted, that number is not in the sequence. The sequence changes depending on its own status, but there is no contradiction. This is different from e.g. the set of sets that don't contain themselves. If that set contained itself, it shouldn't contain itself, and if it didn't contain itself, it should contain itself. Both alternatives are logically impossible, so the set itself is impossible. There is nothing impossible about submission 59. [[User:Howtonotwin|Howtonotwin]] ([[User talk:Howtonotwin|talk]]) 20:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
:If OEIS would bend their own rule and allow a sequence of one number, they could accept SUB[59] , and it will never be out of date as long as they never accept another RM submittal.[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 00:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The Westside IRT stops sequence is a wonderful piece of trivia. I found [https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/27/science/in-a-random-world-he-collects-patterns.html the NYT article], which gives as its reason that at that time only infinite sequences were included. I have failed to find the necessary third-party reference to the inclusion of the sequence in OEIS (this, being an open wiki, is unacceptable) to include the point in {{w|IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line|the Wikipedia article on the West Side IRT}}. Can anybody supply one? [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 20:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the comment "In UTF-16, a 9 takes up 2 bytes," about the 2 TB of 9s. Does OEIS store numbers in UTF-16 format? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.94|172.68.174.94]] 21:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC) nprz

Helvetica seems to be one of the fonts where all digits have the same width (so that columns of numbers line up). Strangely, there seems to be a kerning pair for "11" that some Software uses. "Helvetica Neue" does not seem to have that kerning pair. (Tested using the simple HTML page in https://gist.github.com/hn3000/bec217afe666b0ee0a0430e976df4d22#file-numbers-by-width-in-font-html ).
[[User:Hn3000|Hn3000]] ([[User talk:Hn3000|talk]]) 11:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Such a coincidence! I've been working on my first submission all week and wrote an Emacs Lisp program that discovered the third integer pair the day this came out! You get to see it now that I have a number allocated ([https://oeis.org/A316587 A316587]): 12, 34, 56, 78, 6162, 7879. Can you find the next number in the sequence? Hint: my sequence is a proper subset of A001704. Still editing before I submit for approval. ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)''

Talk:2015: New Phone Thread

2018-07-04T11:43:24Z

GODZILLA:

I feel the explanation could possibly give a sample text of what the person is actually trying to say [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 05:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Innertuber40

I have an alternate interpretation: The first thing I thought this comic was about is all the people who are typing on phones and the messages actually sent contain weird words any typos because of the phone's autocorrection feature (or swipe keyboards which are accurate most of the time but error prone nevertheless). So this particular phone actually is sending what the user is writing (or wants to write) and does not change the message. Examples: http://barabare.blogspot.com/2011/05/funny-phone-t9-typo-errors.html [edit:] I mean, this goes so far that occasionally on online forums you see people with the message "Writing from phone, message may contaion errors. Sorry" or something like that in their signature. So a phone that actually writes what you are typing (or what you thought you were typing) might actually be a good thing. Cueball is just astonished that his new phone does exactly that. [edit2:] But then again, some of the messages in the comic really indicate in the direction the current explanantion is going. So, nevermind :) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
:When I read it I also had that idea (being impressed by accurate typing) but it seemed too odd so I came to explain xkcd to look it up. I'm not convinced of either explanation at this point. For the current explanation (that the phone is autocorrecting to say spam) one would expect there to be a phone in the news doing something like that. This could be a hyperbole version of a phone is doing inserting product names like with BlackBerry expanding the acronym BB to their name on some phones. But I haven't heard of that anywhere and blackberry is not news. If someone knows of a current phone this behaviour is referencing please post a link? Thanks, rusl[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113|108.162.246.113]] 07:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
:Thought the same thing. Obscure subjects are of course a mainstay of xkcd.com, but in the past some Wikipedia research explains away the obscurity with certainty. Not this time.[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 11:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Putting the "artifice" into "artificial intelligence". I too didn't understand the strip at first... briefly considered reading it from bottom to top. Now I agree that the user's phone is censoring and rewriting everything, and we're seeing the censored version. Another real world reference: a forum where your posts are blocked without telling you; you see your posts in place but no one else does. I've used forums where some imbecile moderator blocked me that way from spite... of course THIS site's moderators wouldn't do that! (You don't like words in capital letters?? Uhoh.) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.121|162.158.154.121]] 11:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

== possibly connected to just announced Google "Smart Replies"? ==

Google lately announced new function to their keyboard on Android: reading messages on others communicator (like Facebook Messanger) and suggesting several short replies to choose from. It might be connected. pm7 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.140|162.158.88.140]] 10:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
:I suspect that it's rather referencing the recent case of phones clandestinely sending random gallery images to ppl in the addressbook.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.196|141.101.96.196]] 11:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2014: JWST Delays

2018-07-02T17:58:10Z

GODZILLA:

Haha - I made this same graph 2 weeks ago! [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest the last sentence be made more general: "The title text refers to a fundamental question of the Big Bang Theory; will the universe expand forever, or will is collapse back on itself? The likely answer to this question has changed over the decades as new measurements have been made, and new theories such as dark matter and dark energy developed to explain the new measurements. Apparently, and for an analogous reason, between 2018 and 2020 the likely answer to the fundamental JWST question will change." [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

1991: Research Areas by Size and Countedness

2018-07-02T01:04:02Z

GODZILLA:

{{comic
| number = 1991
| date = May 9, 2018
| title = Research Areas by Size and Countedness
| image = research_areas_by_size_and_countedness.png
| titletext = Mathematicians give a third answer on the vertical axis, "That question is poorly defined, but we have a sub-field devoted to every plausible version of it."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The tables needs to be filled in. And I think the title text has been explained already... Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a [[:Category:Scatter plots|scatter plot]] that ranks different research fields according to the precision of the knowledge of the number of the studied object (vertical axis) vs. how large (the size of) the studied object is on the horizontal axis.

For instance the number of United States presidents is well known, so the study of their history is at the top of the Y-axis. This study is placed close to the Y-axis as the size of a president is about midway in size between the two extremes of the X-axis, elementary particles to the left (small) and the entire cosmos (cosmology) to the right (big).

On the X-axis Presidents are close to the middle. Both presidents and other larger life forms (as a research area) including extinct animals (paleontology) and exobiology are all close to the the same central position just right of the Y-axis, with smaller animals like birds and insects just to the left of the Y-axis. But where the number of presidents is well known, then the number of exoplanet life forms (exobiology) is completely unknown and thus it will be found at the very bottom of the Y-axis, since we have no idea if there are life elsewhere and if so how many places will it be and how varied.

The 19 research areas are listed and explained in the [[#Tables of research areas|tables]] below.

In the title text mathematicians may give a third answer that the concept of counting the things being studied is not reasonable, because the things are abstract or otherwise not discrete. There are many different types of math that blend into each other, and many have turned into separate sub-disciplines based on different interpretations of fundamental rules. As a specific example in geometry, different interpretations of how many lines you may draw parallel to another line through a given point has lead to hyperbolic (infinite parallel lines) and spherical (0 parallel lines) geometric systems that are just as valid (and valuable, in some contexts) as the more commonly known Cartesian (1 parallel line) geometry. As a specific example of the blending, number theory and set theory and topology all interrelate and it is difficult to concretely say whether many theorems belong to one branch of math or another.

==Tables of research areas==
For a table with the coordinates given in percentage for each research field, see the table in the [[#Trivia|trivia]] section

===Upper left quadrant===
This is the section with the small items with count known.

{| class = "wikitable"
! Research field
! Size of the thing
! Knowledge of #
! Explanation
|-
|{{w|Elementary particle physics}}
| The smallest subjects that we have actually detected are the {{w|elementary particles}}. In the {{w|Standard Model}} of particle physics, they are considered point masses (i.e. to have zero width). They may be made of smaller {{w|String theory|strings}} but if so these have still not been detected.
| We think we have a fairly good estimate of how many elementary particles that are known. There could be some uncertainty though, so it is not at the very top.
|Elementary particle physics is concerned with the study of subatomic particles (the smallest things that we know of), of which there are 17. Most notably, until recently it was uncertain whether the {{w|Higgs boson}} was one of the elementary particles, but scientists have a "pretty good estimate" because the mathematical models don't predict the existence of many other particles
|-
|{{w|Dentistry}}
|Several mm to several centimeters
|Most teeth are visible to the naked eye, and dentists have x-ray technology to see what's not visible, so counting them is pretty straightforward.
|Dentistry is the study of teeth (pretty small, both in size as well as in quantity). Humans adults grow 32 teeth, which is a "pretty good estimate" since it is very rare for {{w|Hyperdontia|more than 32 teeth to grow}} and it is rather common for {{w|wisdom teeth}} to be surgically extracted or in some cases never to develop. Children may only have 20 teeth before they start falling out, but each tooth that falls out is because another tooth is growing underneath, so a child might have as many as 52 teeth, counting the child teeth that haven't fallen out yet plus the adult teeth that are starting to form. So while a dentist will usually have a good idea how many teeth will be in a patient's mouth, they won't know for sure until they look or consult dental records.
|-
|{{w|Shakespeare}} studies
|Most are the size of typical book. In printed form, they would be in the range of tens of centimeters in height and width and ~1 centimeter in depth. Although, if stored in digial form, they could be much smaller than a tooth, so it seems to refer to print or handwritten originals.
|Generally, 36 plays are attributed to him, but between 1 and 3 additional plays are considered "lost" (i.e. at some point between being first published or performed and scholars seriously studying Shakespeare, all known copies, references, and fragments were destroyed, making it impossible to determine whether Shakespeare actually wrote them or whether they actually existed as separate plays), and {{w|Shakespeare apocrypha|some 20 more}} are believed to have been written by him, but not signed. To make matters worse, some plays that ''were'' published or performed under Shakespeare's name are believed to have been written as collaborations (not fully by him) or mis-attributed (we don't know who wrote them but everyone says it was him).
|Shakespeare studies is concerned with the works of William Shakespeare.
|-
|{{w|Ornithology}}
|Birds tend to be small, with most species able to be held comfortably in hand; even the largest known flying bird, the {{w|Condor}}, stands smaller than the average human, with a handful of non-flying avians such as the {{w|ostrich}} being larger, but still weighing less than 2-3 humans.
|The number of known bird species is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird#Diversification_of_modern_birds estimated at about 10,000], though [https://www.amnh.org/about-the-museum/press-center/new-study-doubles-the-estimate-of-bird-species-in-the-world a 2016 research result] suggested a near-doubling of this figure. As for the number of individual birds, a paper aptly titled [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018341530497 "How many birds are there?"] examines a number of ways of counting them; the results are "surprisingly consistent", with counts of approximately 200-400 billion individual birds.
|We do have a "pretty good estimate", to within perhaps a factor of two.
|-
|Ancient {{w|literature}}
|As above, with Shakespeare plays, original or print reproductions would be the size of a book, typically. Although ancient {{w|scrolls}} may have different dimensions with similar total volume.
|Because of the high number of {{w|lost work}}, it is hard to have a solid estimate of the number, although rough lists have been made (e.g. {{w|Ancient literature#List of ancient texts}}).
|While it is fairly straightforward to look up how many books [http://www.proquest.com/products-services/Books-in-Print.html are currently in print], or how many books [https://mashable.com/2010/08/05/number-of-books-in-the-world/ all currently printed information would fit into if bound into equal-length volumes], and then limiting those estimates to those that date before a specific year, counting how many books from the period of interest haven't survived to the present day (books that were "{{w|lost work|lost}}" either by deliberate discontinuation, or accidental destruction such as in the {{w|Destruction of the Library of Alexandria|Library of Alexandria}}) is a bit more difficult. However, because we know the work existed (it is mentioned by name in some other text), we have "pretty good estimate" that the number of lost works is "only" in the tens of thousands, as is the number of surviving works.
|}

===Upper right quadrant===
This is the section with the big items with count known.

{| class = "wikitable"
! Research field
! Size
! Knowledge of #
! Explanation
|-
|{{w|Marine mammal|Marine}} {{w|Mammalogy|Mammology}}
|They range in size from {{w|Marine Otter|about a meter}} to {{w|Blue Whale|up to 30 meters}}
|
|Marine mammals are the largest extant animals. The US Government [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/ recognizes] 119 marine mammals. However, what constitutes each species is [https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/ constantly being revised], with new studies indicating either that what used to be considered a subspecies is actually a separate species, or that what used to be considered a separate species is actually a subspecies. As the depths of the ocean are further explored, species that were outright unknown are spotted and need to be classified. However, since marine mammals breathe air, they have to come to the surface where we can see them, so we're pretty sure that we've spotted all species. Note that Randall has misspelled Mammalogy with o instead of a in the middle.
|-
|{{w|List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States|Presidential History}}
|All presidents are {{w|Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States|human-sized}}, with the tallest being {{w|Abraham Lincoln}} at 6 ft 4 in and the shortest being {{w|James Madison}} at 5 ft 4 in.
|As of 2018, 45 people have served or are serving as President of the United States.
|Presidents are generally considered "big" men in history. Therefore, each one is fairly well known and documented. There is, however, some discussion on how many presidents there have been in the history of the United States, since prior to the {{w|Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|25th amendment}}, it was unspecified whether vice presidents counted as presidents during the President's absence. Most notably, this ambiguity is the reason {{w|David Rice Atchison}}'s tombstone is inscribed with the words "President of the United States for one day" (he was not eligible and did not accept the duties even if he was).
|-
|{{w|Railway engineering}}
|
|
|A railway can span anywhere from a few hundred feet, to thousands of miles, so they're pretty big. The type of a railway is generally given by its {{w|track gauge}}, which is defined as "standard" (the usual gauge for a region or country), "narrow" (rails closer together than that standard) and "broad" (rails farther apart than that standard). Since what is standard varies from country to country, and indeed from line to line, how many kinds of "narrow" gauge and "broad" gauge exist depend on who you ask. However, whereas every region has ''a'' standard gauge, "{{w|standard-gauge railway}}" has a specific meaning used by rail technicians and enthusiasts worldwide, of a track with rails 1435 mm (4 ft 8.5 in) apart. Anything narrower than that is often described as a narrow-gauge line, even if it is the standard gauge for a particular rail network.
|-
|{{w|Geology}}
|The {{w|Earth}} is larger, by far, than everything else on the chart except the universe (Cosmology), Black Holes, and God (at least under some conceptions, see "Theology" below).
|There is only one Earth (at least if you set aside the possibility of multiverses, see below in Cosmology).
|Geology is generally considered the study of rocks (small rocks being considered fragments of mountain layers, so what counts as a "rock" for a geologist can be pretty big). There is no universally agreed upon number to how many {{w|List of rock types|types of rock}} there are, but all geologists agree they can be grouped into igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. Alternatively, geology can be construed as the study of the planet Earth's composition ( *geo*- meaning "Earth" ), and geologists are confident that the planet Earth is big and there is only one of it.
|-
|{{w|Cosmology}}
| As this encompasses (at least) all of the visible parts of the {{w|universe}} we live in, there can be no other "items" to study that would be larger.
| There is only one visible universe, but there could be multiverses/parallel universes, and also an infinite universe beyond the borders of our own part of this universe's event horizon. So it depends on who you ask if they say there is one of and infinite number of universes to study, thus it is placed close to the middle of the two extremes,
|Cosmology is the study of the universe. There is an asterisk with the note "Depends on who you ask", relating to the estimate of how many universes there are. While it might seem obvious that there is only one universe, some branches of physics believe that our universe is part of a {{w|multiverse}}, and this remains an open and contested subject in the field.
|}

===Lower left quadrant===
This is the section with the small items with count unknown.

{| class = "wikitable"
! Research field
! Size
! Knowledge of #
! Explanation
|-
|{{w|Mycology}}
| microscopic to a few miles
|
|Mycology is the study of fungi (since fungi tend to grow flat -- excepting for mushrooms, which are their sexual organs, and do not exceed a foot in height (see [http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/5740/20130729/giant-fungus-china-mushroom-world-s-largest-size.htm World's Largest mushrooms] -- mushrooms are generally considered small). Many fungi are microscopic, but some get to be a few miles in diameter.[http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/nature/the-worlds-largest-living-organism.aspx The World's largest living organism.] It is a lot harder to discern which species a fungus is, and therefore classify it, so we "have no idea" how many kinds of fungi there are. Studies [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21613136 vary wildly] between about 70,000 to over 5,000,000. There is a comic named after this study: [[1664: Mycology]].
|-
|[[1012: Wrong Superhero|Entymology]]
| For insects, from a fraction of a mm to several 100.
|
|It is unclear whether [[Randall]] means {{w|entomology}} or {{w|etymology}} (probably neither; it's likely that this wasn't a mistake and it is possibly a direct reference to [[1012: Wrong Superhero]]). In either case, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28938083 estimates for insects] (entomology) vary from less than 1,000,000 to 30,000,000; and [https://www.quora.com/How-many-root-words-are-there-in-the-English-language estimates for root words] (etymology) reaching hundreds of thousands. Entomology was mentioned in the title text of [[1610: Fire Ants]].
|-
|-
|{{w|Microbiology}}
|
|
|Microbiology studies microscopic (too small to see) organisms, of which some 1,400 are known and "estimates for the total number of microbial species vary wildly, from as low as 120,000 to tens of millions and higher", according to [https://www.quora.com/How-many-root-words-are-there-in-the-English-language Nature magazine].
|-
|{{w|Pharmacology}}
|{{w|Drugs}}, including {{w|medications}} and {{w|recreational drug use|illegal and recreational drugs}} are molecules which are sub-microscopic (in the range of nanometers).
|Although it is possible to tally all the known drugs, this is at the extreme low end of the pile because the number of possible organic compounds is nearly infinite and the fraction of those are bioactive is completely unknown.
|The number of drugs (pharmaceuticals) discovered and synthesized is not tallied, according to [https://www.raps.org/regulatory-focus%E2%84%A2/news-articles/2014/10/how-many-drugs-has-fda-approved-in-its-entire-history-new-paper-explains recent studies], but an estimate can be obtained by seeing how many have passed through the {{w|Food and Drug Administration|U.S. FDA}} (1,453). Many home remedies, which might technically qualify as drugs, have not been approved because {{w|Novelty (patent)|"everybody knows that"}}, as well as many solely recreational drugs since regulation might result in outlawing. Because of this, "we have no idea" how many drugs truly exist. Since drugs are extremely powerful molecules that are only administered in choice amounts, they are generally perceived as small.
|}

===Lower right quadrant===
This is the section with the big items with count unknown.

{| class = "wikitable"
! Research field
! Size
! Knowledge of #
! Explanation
|-
|{{w|Botany}}
|
|
|Botany studies plants, which can reach {{w|List of superlative trees|hundreds of feet by any measure}}. Some {{w|Pando (tree)|clonal colonies of trees}} spread for miles. However, plant tend to clump together in forests and jungles, which makes it hard to get to them and document them. Every year, thousands of new plants are discovered, with the best estimate being that there are [https://news.mongabay.com/2016/05/many-plants-world-scientists-may-now-answer/ nearly 400,000 vascular plants] and an additional [https://www.britannica.com/topic-browse/Plants/Nonvascular-Plants 12,000 non-vascular plants]. However, the rate of discovery doesn't appear to be slowing down significantly, so we truly "have no idea."
|-
|{{w|Paleontology}}
|Paleontologists study fossils, which range in size from very small to very large. When most people think of paleontologists though, they tend to think of them as studying large animals such as dinosaurs.
|
|Paleontology studies fossils, particularly those of extinct animals, which can reach {{w|Largest prehistoric animals|huge sizes}}. However, since fossils form under very special circumstances, if the animal did not die under those special circumstances, there will be no record of their existence. Therefore, the number of extinct animals can never truly be known, but we've found [http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2010/01/12/how-do-we-know-that-most-of-th/ around 250,000]
|-
|{{w|Black Hole}} {{w|Astronomy}}
|Compared to most astronomical objects, black holes are fairly small. However, most of them (that we are able to detect) are still larger than the Earth, so they would still fall on the "big" end of this chart. Alternatively, Randall may be referring to their mass, which is on the scale of stars.
|It has been estimated that the number of black holes in the {{w|Milky Way}} is around 100 million ([http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q7.html]), although there is uncertainty in that estimate and the total number in the universe depends on the size of the universe (see "cosmology", above).
|"Most stellar black holes [...] are impossible to detect. Judging from the number of stars large enough to produce such black holes, however, scientists estimate that there are as many as ten million to a billion such black holes in the Milky Way alone." ([https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes NASA Black Hole information page])
|-
|{{w|Exobiology}}
|The comic puts this in the size range of paleontology, which can include many sizes (see above), and also marine mammalogy, which tends to have individuals that are in the range of tens of centimeters to several tens of meters. However, {{w|life|life as we know it}} is dominated in numbers by {{w|microbes}}, and {{w|Evolutionary history of life|life on Earth}} began {{w|Abiogenesis|microscopic}}, leading most {{w|Astrobiology|Astrobiologists}} to hypothesize that life on other planets would necessarily include microbes and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#No_other_intelligent_species_have_arisen only possibly include macroscopic life].
|The estimate of {{w|List of potentially habitable exoplanets|how many planets with life there are}} varies from 16 to 40,000,000,000; additionally, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_natural_satellites#In_the_Solar_System multiple moons] are believed to be potentially habitable for some forms of life in our own solar system. However, the number of bodies apart from Earth confirmed to have life is currently zero. Even more uncertain than the number of potentially habitable exoplanets is the {{w|Rare Earth Hypothesis|huge uncertainty}} in the likelihood of life arising on a habitable planet.
|Exobiology refers to the study of life outside Earth, which requires {{w|SETI|scanning the entire universe for life}}. Currently, exobiology seeks to find a planet or similar body with life (and, {{w|definition of planet|to qualify as a planet}}, bodies capable of sustaining life are big). The uncertainty about how many planets have life in the Milky Way relates to the {{w|Fermi Paradox}}. For life, of the type we know, to exist outside of the Solar system there need to be planets around other stars. Such planets are called Exoplanets, and they have been a [[:Category:Exoplanets|recurrent subject]] on xkcd.
|-
|{{w|Theology}}
|It is placed at a scale as large as the universe (cosmology) as it should encompass the entire creation. For those not believing in gods it could also be seen as studying something as small as the human brain that has created all the gods. But Randall has chosen to place it in the big section.
|Some religions have one (or {{w|athiesm|zero}}) god. Other religions have hundreds of gods. It is also conceivable to have a religion with an infinite number of gods. Thus, the possible number is completely unknown (ranging from 0 to infinity).
|Theology is concerned with the study of God(s), which, by some definitions, is a hypothetical being greater than the universe itself. In particular, theologists study the question of whether {{w|theism|a god could exist}} (there is ≥1 god), {{w|astheism|or not}} (there are 0 gods) and, in the former case, whether there could be {{w|polytheism|multiple gods}} (there are ''n''>1 gods) or {{w|monotheism|just one}} (there is exactly 1 god) or indeed whether there is {{w|animism|one god for each living thing}} (''n''≫1 gods). In other words, the very definition of the field is the fact that "we have no idea" how many there are. This quantitative uncertainty is also mentioned in [[900: Religions]].
|}

==Transcript==
:[An X-Y scatter plot of research areas, written in gray font, where both axes have arrows in both ends. At the end of each arrow is a label. Above the left part of the X-axis there is a line which goes to a text about the meaning of the X-axis. Similarly there is a line to from the top of the Y-axis to a questions “asked” to those that study the given subject, their answers being somewhere between the two labels on the Y axis.]

:[The X-axis from left to right, text first and then labels:]
:Size of the thing you study
:Small
:Big

:[The Y-axis from top to bottom, question first and then labels:]
:"That thing you study - how many of them are there?"
:"We have a pretty good estimate."
:"We have no idea"

:[The research areas names are listed here below by sorting them into the four quadrants from top left to bottom right. In each quadrant the areas are listed after most left first, and then top to bottom for those at the same x position.]

:[Upper left quadrant (Small & count known):]
:Elementary particle physics
:Dentistry
:Shakespeare studies
:Ornithology
:Ancient Literature

:[Upper right quadrant (Big & count known):]
:Presidential History
:Marine Mammology
:Railway Engineering
:Geology
:Cosmology*
:(*Depends who you ask)

:[Lower left quadrant (Small & count unknown):]
:Pharmacology
:Microbiology
:Entymology
:Mycology

:[Upper right quadrant (Big & count unknown):]
:Botany
:Paleontology
:Exobiology
:Black Hole Astronomy
:Theology

==Trivia==
Sortable table with the coordinates in percent:
{|class="wikitable sortable"
! Research area
! Size (%)
! Estimate (%)
|-
|Elementary Particle Physics ||7 ||72
|-
|Pharmacology ||12 ||6
|-
|Microbiology ||15 ||13
|-
|Dentistry ||21 ||84
|-
|Entymology ||24 ||25
|-
|Mycology ||29 ||38
|-
|Ornithology ||34 ||62
|-
|Shakespeare Studies ||37 ||88
|-
|Ancient Literature ||38 ||53
|-
|Botany ||60 ||40
|-
|Presidential History ||62 ||89
|-
|Marine Mammology ||66 ||68
|-
|Paleontology ||68 ||31
|-
|Exobiology ||68 ||5
|-
|Railway Engineering ||79 ||81
|-
|Geology ||90 ||90
|-
|Theology ||91 ||5
|-
|Black Hole Astronomy ||92 ||26
|-
|Cosmology ||94 ||62
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Scatter plots]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Math]] 
[[Category:Fiction]] 
[[Category:Religion]] 
[[Category:Animals]] 
[[Category:Exoplanets]] 
[[Category:Politics]]

2012: Thorough Analysis

2018-07-01T13:05:42Z

GODZILLA: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2012
| date = June 27, 2018
| title = Thorough Analysis
| image = thorough_analysis.png
| titletext = The likely shape of the bells was determined through consultation with several bellringing experts at the Tower of London. Transcripts of those interviews are available in Appendix VII.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by Genetically Tested Timber Wolves- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic remarks on how obsessively some scientific papers investigate some insignificant, obscure things. It gives the example of an investigation into whether an {{w|1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes|earthquake in 1811}} caused church bells 600 miles away in Charleston, South Carolina to ring, which, although mildly interesting, is of minimal scientific importance. The earthquake itself is of enormous scientific interest, as an earthquake of the same magnitude in the same area today could cause enormous damage, but Charleston is not in the area considered at significant risk.

An explicit comparison is made to the {{w|9/11 Commission Report}}, a study that was undertaken to, broadly, answer the question of how the 9/11 attacks were able to occur (and by extension, what errors in security and communication needed to be addressed to improve detection of and response to other terrorist acts).

This paper describes the researchers going as far as to genetically test local trees, likely to find those most closely related to the trees used for construction, so as to measure their structural properties and extrapolate the likely structural properties of the original building. Such extrapolation might require its own study to back its validity. It is likely in real life that the small differences such research would reveal would end up being too unsubstantial to have actually warranted any searching.

The title text is a continuation of this paper, which researches into the bells' shapes, and then goes on to note that the entire interview is provided in Appendix VII, indicating that this paper has a substantial amount of additional information considered distracting from the main body.

The Tower of London would be a strange place to seek expertise on church bells: even its Bell Tower contains warning bells rather than church-style bells. Until 2017, the nearby {{w|Whitechapel Bell Foundry}} would have been a much better (arguably the best possible) source of information. Whites of Appleton (in Oxfordshire) or John Taylor & Co (in Loughborough) would be current alternatives. Closer to home for the paper's author, the McShane Bell Foundry in Maryland is likely to offer far more relevant expertise certainly than the Tower of London, and may in addition be able to offer relevant insights specific to the history of bellfounding in the USA.

In keeping with the meta thorough analysis theme of the original comic and this explanation, the comic starts with "The December 1811 earthquake near New Madrid, Missouri..." The town of New Madrid existed in 1811, but Missouri Territory did not exist until June 4, 1812, and the State of Missouri not until August 10, 1821.

==Transcript==
:[The comic panel consists of the beginning of a research paper written in gray, with the last line being slightly cut at the bottom by the panels frame indicating that the text continues below.]
:1. Introduction

:The December 1811 earthquake near New Madrid, Missouri reportedly caused church bells to ring in Charleston, South Carolina.

:But did it?

:The original bell tower has been lost, but a computer model of the church building was created from archival plans and forensic masonry analysis. Genetic testing of the timber from local trees related to those used in the bell tower shows a weakness in the

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My favorite genre of scientific papers are exhaustive 100-page treatises that answer some minor question with the obsessive thoroughness of the 9/11 commission report.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]

2012: Thorough Analysis

2018-07-01T13:03:46Z

GODZILLA: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2012
| date = June 27, 2018
| title = Thorough Analysis
| image = thorough_analysis.png
| titletext = The likely shape of the bells was determined through consultation with several bellringing experts at the Tower of London. Transcripts of those interviews are available in Appendix VII.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by Genetically Tested Timber Wolves- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic remarks on how obsessively some scientific papers investigate some insignificant, obscure things. It gives the example of an investigation into whether an {{w|1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes|earthquake in 1811}} caused church bells 600 miles away in Charleston, South Carolina to ring, which, although mildly interesting, is of minimal scientific importance. The earthquake itself is of enormous scientific interest, as an earthquake of the same magnitude in the same area today could cause enormous damage, but Charleston is not in the area considered at significant risk.

An explicit comparison is made to the {{w|9/11 Commission Report}}, a study that was undertaken to, broadly, answer the question of how the 9/11 attacks were able to occur (and by extension, what errors in security and communication needed to be addressed to improve detection of and response to other terrorist acts).

This paper describes the researchers going as far as to genetically test local trees, likely to find those most closely related to the trees used for construction, so as to measure their structural properties and extrapolate the likely structural properties of the original building. Such extrapolation might require its own study to back its validity. It is likely in real life that the small differences such research would reveal would end up being too unsubstantial to have actually warranted any searching.

The title text is a continuation of this paper, which researches into the bells' shapes, and then goes on to note that the entire interview is provided in Appendix VII, indicating that this paper has a substantial amount of additional information considered distracting from the main body.

The Tower of London would be a strange place to seek expertise on church bells: even its Bell Tower contains warning bells rather than church-style bells. Until 2017, the nearby {{w|Whitechapel Bell Foundry}} would have been a much better (arguably the best possible) source of information. Whites of Appleton (in Oxfordshire) or John Taylor & Co (in Loughborough) would be current alternatives. Closer to home for the paper's author, the McShane Bell Foundry in Maryland is likely to offer far more relevant expertise certainly than the Tower of London, and may in addition be able to offer relevant insights specific to the history of bellfounding in the USA.

In keeping with the meta thorough analysis theme of the original comic and this explanation, the comic starts with "The December 1811 earthquake near New Madrid, Missouri..." The town of New Madrid existed in 1811, but Missouri Territory did not exist until June 4, 1812, and the State of Missouri not until August 10, 1821. [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 13:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

==Transcript==
:[The comic panel consists of the beginning of a research paper written in gray, with the last line being slightly cut at the bottom by the panels frame indicating that the text continues below.]
:1. Introduction

:The December 1811 earthquake near New Madrid, Missouri reportedly caused church bells to ring in Charleston, South Carolina.

:But did it?

:The original bell tower has been lost, but a computer model of the church building was created from archival plans and forensic masonry analysis. Genetic testing of the timber from local trees related to those used in the bell tower shows a weakness in the

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My favorite genre of scientific papers are exhaustive 100-page treatises that answer some minor question with the obsessive thoroughness of the 9/11 commission report.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:2012: Thorough Analysis

2018-06-29T23:53:03Z

GODZILLA:

I started the explanation. Things that need investigation: Is this an actual scientific paper somewhere? Can anyone find the original source? If not, perhaps still based on real events? [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 18:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
:The earthquake was a real event: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1811-1812newmadrid/summary.php & https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-great-midwest-earthquake-of-1811-46342/ (this one mentions the church bells) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.130|162.158.63.130]] 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)david0mp
::A quick search of Google scholar doesn't turn up anything close to this paper. Tried various combinations of New Madrid Earthquake, Bell, Church, etc. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe its ‘cause I’m dumb, but I originally interpreted the caption as meaning that these papers investigated minor details *about* the thoroughness of the 9/11 commission’s report. As in, the 9/11 commission mentioned this bell tower somewhere, and this report is debunking it. The explanation on here should probably make clear what the intended meaning is. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.162|172.68.47.162]] 19:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this paper covers the earthquake and church bells (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000JB900110), but the church bell mentioned is in Georgia and not South Carolina. Close enough I guess? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.10|172.68.54.10]] 19:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia quotes the John Reynolds account suggesting a church bell was heard to ring in Cahokia, Illinois.
Interestingly New Madrid is in the Kentucky Bend exclave - which I assume would have been simplified when the border was straightened to fix survey errors. Unsigned

My favorite genre of [website] are exhaustive [1000]-page [wikis] that [explain] some minor [webcomic] with the obsessive thoroughness of the 9/11 commission report.
Is Randall trolling you guys? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.88|198.41.238.88]] 12:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:I don't know, but it's a good one. [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 14:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Any utility in mentioning that while Charleston, SC is not in the New Madrid seismic zone, it had its own {{w|1886 Charleston earthquake|7.0-ish earthquake in 1886}}? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.97|173.245.52.97]] 16:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the explanation of this comic (including the stuff about who could comment on the bell structure) is a good example of exactly the phenomenon the comic is talking about - over-detailed research (not that in this case it's a bad thing) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.175|162.158.154.175]] 09:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:I think a that comparison with this website should be included in the comic explanation.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:This topic may be the meta obsessive through analysis singularity...[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 16:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:Comparing this website with the topic of the comic is a bit unfair -- this isn't a scientific journal. Websites obsessing over pop culture phenomena have been with us practically since the web was formed. I once found a fan website for an obscure B-movie actress who I only was interested in because we went to the same junior high school and she was a friend of my sister. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The explanation currently states "...the McShane Bell Foundry in Maryland is likely to offer far more relevant expertise...", but the company's web site www.mcshanebell.com/history/ourhistory.html states they were founded at least 44 years after the 1811 earthquake.[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 16:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing when Randall said "Tower of London" in the title text, he was thinking of the bell know a Big Ben, in the Elizabeth Tower (formally known as the Clock Tower) of the Palace of Westminster (AKA the Houses of Parliament) in London. And note the title text says "...consultation with several bellringing experts...", not "bell making experts". Doing my part to bring about the meta obsessive through analysis singularity, [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 21:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of the comment about Missouri not becoming a state until after the earthquake? The town was already in Missouri at the time of the earthquake, Missouri Territory. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.28|172.68.78.28]] 23:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:The "point" is stated at the beginning of the sentence. (And the Missouri Territory did not exist until June 4, 1812, after the earthquake in question.)[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 23:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2012: Thorough Analysis

2018-06-29T21:01:31Z

GODZILLA:

Talk:2012: Thorough Analysis

2018-06-29T17:17:22Z

GODZILLA:

I started the explanation. Things that need investigation: Is this an actual scientific paper somewhere? Can anyone find the original source? If not, perhaps still based on real events? [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 18:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
:The earthquake was a real event: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1811-1812newmadrid/summary.php & https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-great-midwest-earthquake-of-1811-46342/ (this one mentions the church bells) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.130|162.158.63.130]] 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)david0mp
::A quick search of Google scholar doesn't turn up anything close to this paper. Tried various combinations of New Madrid Earthquake, Bell, Church, etc. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe its ‘cause I’m dumb, but I originally interpreted the caption as meaning that these papers investigated minor details *about* the thoroughness of the 9/11 commission’s report. As in, the 9/11 commission mentioned this bell tower somewhere, and this report is debunking it. The explanation on here should probably make clear what the intended meaning is. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.162|172.68.47.162]] 19:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this paper covers the earthquake and church bells (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000JB900110), but the church bell mentioned is in Georgia and not South Carolina. Close enough I guess? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.10|172.68.54.10]] 19:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia quotes the John Reynolds account suggesting a church bell was heard to ring in Cahokia, Illinois.
Interestingly New Madrid is in the Kentucky Bend exclave - which I assume would have been simplified when the border was straightened to fix survey errors. Unsigned

My favorite genre of [website] are exhaustive [1000]-page [wikis] that [explain] some minor [webcomic] with the obsessive thoroughness of the 9/11 commission report.
Is Randall trolling you guys? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.88|198.41.238.88]] 12:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:I don't know, but it's a good one. [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 14:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Any utility in mentioning that while Charleston, SC is not in the New Madrid seismic zone, it had its own {{w|1886 Charleston earthquake|7.0-ish earthquake in 1886}}? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.97|173.245.52.97]] 16:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the explanation of this comic (including the stuff about who could comment on the bell structure) is a good example of exactly the phenomenon the comic is talking about - over-detailed research (not that in this case it's a bad thing) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.175|162.158.154.175]] 09:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:I think a that comparison with this website should be included in the comic explanation.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:This topic may be the meta obsessive through analysis singularity...[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 16:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The explanation currently states "...the McShane Bell Foundry in Maryland is likely to offer far more relevant expertise...", but the company's web site www.mcshanebell.com/history/ourhistory.html states they were founded at least 44 years after the 1811 earthquake.[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 16:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing when Randall said "Tower of London" in the title text, he was thinking of the bell know a Big Ben, in the Elizabeth Tower (formally known as the Clock Tower) of the Palace of Westminster (AKA the Houses of Parliament) in London. And note the title text says "...consultation with several bellringing experts...", not "bell making experts". Doing my part to bring about the singularity, [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 17:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2012: Thorough Analysis

2018-06-29T16:47:08Z

GODZILLA:

I started the explanation. Things that need investigation: Is this an actual scientific paper somewhere? Can anyone find the original source? If not, perhaps still based on real events? [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 18:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
:The earthquake was a real event: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1811-1812newmadrid/summary.php & https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-great-midwest-earthquake-of-1811-46342/ (this one mentions the church bells) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.130|162.158.63.130]] 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)david0mp
::A quick search of Google scholar doesn't turn up anything close to this paper. Tried various combinations of New Madrid Earthquake, Bell, Church, etc. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe its ‘cause I’m dumb, but I originally interpreted the caption as meaning that these papers investigated minor details *about* the thoroughness of the 9/11 commission’s report. As in, the 9/11 commission mentioned this bell tower somewhere, and this report is debunking it. The explanation on here should probably make clear what the intended meaning is. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.162|172.68.47.162]] 19:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this paper covers the earthquake and church bells (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000JB900110), but the church bell mentioned is in Georgia and not South Carolina. Close enough I guess? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.10|172.68.54.10]] 19:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia quotes the John Reynolds account suggesting a church bell was heard to ring in Cahokia, Illinois.
Interestingly New Madrid is in the Kentucky Bend exclave - which I assume would have been simplified when the border was straightened to fix survey errors. Unsigned

My favorite genre of [website] are exhaustive [1000]-page [wikis] that [explain] some minor [webcomic] with the obsessive thoroughness of the 9/11 commission report.
Is Randall trolling you guys? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.88|198.41.238.88]] 12:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:I don't know, but it's a good one. [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 14:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Any utility in mentioning that while Charleston, SC is not in the New Madrid seismic zone, it had its own {{w|1886 Charleston earthquake|7.0-ish earthquake in 1886}}? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.97|173.245.52.97]] 16:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the explanation of this comic (including the stuff about who could comment on the bell structure) is a good example of exactly the phenomenon the comic is talking about - over-detailed research (not that in this case it's a bad thing) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.175|162.158.154.175]] 09:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:I think a that comparison with this website should be included in the comic explanation.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:This topic may be the meta obsessive through analysis singularity...[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 16:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The explanation currently states "...the McShane Bell Foundry in Maryland is likely to offer far more relevant expertise...", but the company's web site www.mcshanebell.com/history/ourhistory.html states they were founded at least 44 years after the 1811 earthquake.[[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 16:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2012: Thorough Analysis

2018-06-29T16:32:09Z

GODZILLA:

2012: Thorough Analysis

2018-06-29T16:24:02Z

GODZILLA: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2012
| date = June 27, 2018
| title = Thorough Analysis
| image = thorough_analysis.png
| titletext = The likely shape of the bells was determined through consultation with several bellringing experts at the Tower of London. Transcripts of those interviews are available in Appendix VII.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by Genetically Tested Timber Wolves- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic remarks on how obsessively some scientific papers investigate some insignificant, obscure things. It gives the example of an investigation into whether an {{w|1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes|earthquake in 1811}} caused church bells 600 miles away in Charleston, South Carolina to ring, which, although mildly interesting, is of minimal scientific importance. The earthquake itself is of enormous scientific interest, as an earthquake of the same magnitude in the same area today could cause enormous damage, but Charleston is not in the area considered at significant risk.

An explicit comparison is made to the {{w|9/11 Commission Report}}, a study that was undertaken to, broadly, answer the question of how the 9/11 attacks were able to occur (and by extension, what errors in security and communication needed to be addressed to improve detection of and response to other terrorist acts).

This paper describes the researchers going as far as to genetically test local trees, likely to find those most closely related to the trees used for construction, so as to measure their structural properties and extrapolate the likely structural properties of the original building. Such extrapolation might require its own study to back its validity. It is likely in real life that the small differences such research would reveal would end up being too unsubstantial to have actually warranted any searching.

The title text is a continuation of this paper, which researches into the bells' shapes, and then goes on to note that the entire interview is provided in Appendix VII, indicating that this paper has a substantial amount of additional information considered distracting from the main body.

The Tower of London would be a strange place to seek expertise on church bells: even its Bell Tower contains warning bells rather than church-style bells. Until 2017, the nearby {{w|Whitechapel Bell Foundry}} would have been a much better (arguably the best possible) source of information. Whites of Appleton (in Oxfordshire) or John Taylor & Co (in Loughborough) would be current alternatives. Closer to home for the paper's author, the McShane Bell Foundry in Maryland is likely to offer far more relevant expertise certainly than the Tower of London, and may in addition be able to offer relevant insights specific to the history of bellfounding in the USA.

In keeping with the meta thorough analysis theme of the original comic and this explanation, the comic starts with "The December 1811 earthquake near New Madrid, Missouri..." The town of New Madrid existed in 1811, but the State of Missouri did not exist until August 10, 1821.

==Transcript==
:[The comic panel consists of the beginning of a research paper written in gray, with the last line being slightly cut at the bottom by the panels frame indicating that the text continues below.]
:1. Introduction

:The December 1811 earthquake near New Madrid, Missouri reportedly caused church bells to ring in Charleston, South Carolina.

:But did it?

:The original bell tower has been lost, but a computer model of the church building was created from archival plans and forensic masonry analysis. Genetic testing of the timber from local trees related to those used in the bell tower shows a weakness in the

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My favorite genre of scientific papers are exhaustive 100-page treatises that answer some minor question with the obsessive thoroughness of the 9/11 commission report.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]