explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2021-02-10T05:37:59Z

Icil34:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I definitely came to this discussion thinking of this movie. It's properly interesting, but it's also easy to see why critics and half the audience hate it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.64|162.158.34.64]] 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too.

Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How, by all that is holy, does The Human Centipede get a 49% Tomatometer rating? Give me a win for Mr Popper's Penguins, though. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution. If the Dragonball anime and Manga didn't exist, this would be a pretty okay and fun movie. Some parts of it were surprizing and the characters are fun. They just aren't the people from the manga, but rather just losely based on them, just like Frozen is losely based on the snow queen.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.70|162.158.92.70]] 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"We Built this City" (Starship) is an excellent song (yes I know it's supposed to be a movie and I'm breaking the rules, but I do that a lot, in case you haven't noticed). Anyone who disagrees is WOTI and leaves me no choice but to vehemently argue. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 17:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mission Impossible 2. The only bad thing is the romance. so... yeah, i'd give it a solid 70-80%. Defined the rest of the series in terms of action. [[User:Icil34|Icil34]] ([[User talk:Icil34|talk]]) 05:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Icil34

== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Got one! I love The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Rotten Tomatoes scores it a 17% Tomatometer, 44% Audience score. Dunno why, I found it so cool, so enjoyable! I often wish there was a sequel or even a series. :)[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "Pandorum".

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasure: ''The Sorcerer's Apprentice'' - [[User:Acrisius|Acrisius]] ([[User talk:Acrisius|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Think of a video-game based movie you actually like. It probably fits this. 2001's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and 2005's Doom have 47% and 34% audience rating, respectively, and I loved both of those (despite the fact that they had basically nothing to do with the games). A few game-based movies have over 50% audience rating, but even then, only 2-3 ever got above 50% with the critics. Heck, even the Pokemon movies got horrible critic ratings (the second movie came out in 2000, so you'd have to start with the third to adhere to that 'post-2000' rule)...

==My big, late comment==

So my three are
:''50 First Dates'' (I'm a sucker for hopeless romantic-type stuff and the gross out comedy didn't go too far to cancel it out),
:''Bruce Almighty'', because Morgan Freeman killed it as God, and
:''Book of Eli'', because that twist is awesome on the successive watch, and even on the first if you figure it out early

However, I take issue with a STRICT limitation of "post-2000", and I would just say if you're going to choose one pre-2000, it has to be a personal favorite, like personal top-50 or so movie, and for me, those would be
:''Hook'', because Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman did their duty to the script and deserve at least 50% on the tomato meter, no matter what balls the other characters or plot dropped,
:''Robin Hood: Men in Tights'', because the cast, characters, gags, and anachronisms are essentially timeless; from Broomhilda breaking the concrete when the horse dodged her; to Blinkin... idunno, everything Blinkin; to Achoo's added attitude and flavor; and all the character's breaking of the fourth wall... goodness... the critics missed this one
:''Boondock Saints'' - not for everyone, but dang, it's just a really interesting and slightly morbid romp of a story about vigilantes rising up against organized crime, mixing humor in with seriousness in just the right amounts and just about perfect pacing

Ok, so I also think there are a few that really don't deserve the low rating they got, even if they weren't the best or my "favorites" - my rubric for adding them here was if I thought they deserved at least 30% more on the tomato meter. If they're just a teeny bit low (like 10%) then that's too close to personal taste for me to add as an argument, so...
:I Think ''Crimes of Grindelwald'' should have gotten more like a 70%, mostly for the world building they continued from the first movie
:I really liked ''Jumper'' (just not QUITE enough to stick my neck out for the real list above) - really great concept that wasn't ruined by sub-par acting, even if it wasn't exactly enhanced - should have been more like 50%
:''The Day The Earth Stood Still'' - again, not the best movie in existence, but got a bad rap - just above 50% seems more appropriate to me
:''After Earth'' - far from either of the Smith's best works, but more deserving than 11% for the world and effects
:''Planes'' - maybe the sequel was too much, and of course it's largely a cash grab and targeted at kids, but it was a decent story and the characters were executed well above a 25% rating - I'd say it should even be just barely fresh, so 60%
:''Chappie'' - I think it was just really interesting, despite the stretches technologically speaking, giving a window (sort of) into a culture not well represented in the U.S. - basically I think it should be just barely fresh as well

And finally what I'm really glad nobody spoke up about are a few of my pet peeves - movies that deserved a low score and got it, but every once in a while I hear people saying they enjoyed it. I'm just glad nobody prior to this seems to have mentioned: Semi Pro and any of the Transformers travesties. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you all for that. -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 20:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

So personally, I'm trying to figure out if I can even make a list of all qualifying movies. Would make the game easier if we could have that, but I can't even figure out how to search Rotten Tomatoes for movies beyond what's currently out in theatres. Any advice or relevant links, anyone?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I loved the 2001 version of Planet of the Apes. Both the First In, Last Out and the "ape D.C." ending were atypical and unexpected. I think the reason that people hated this movie was for the same reason that they hated "The murder of Roger Ackroyd" by Agatha Christie. But both this movie and that novel were amazing because they "broke the rules." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.89|108.162.212.89]] 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

From looking at the [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=release%7CRotten link] in the explanation, I can name Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and the entire Divergent trilogy as examples. Eagerly awaiting sequels to all of them. (And yes, a little bitter that Ascendant got canceled, though I've long since accepted that. Allegiant could have had a worse ending.) [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 04:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I like something that everyone else hates. Pokemon Sword & Shield.

Talk:2422: Vaccine Ordering

2021-02-09T01:00:55Z

Icil34:

For those that read XKCD here first - yes, the original comic really is that low quality. I suspect Randall's going to replace it with a cleaner one at some point. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.134|108.162.237.134]] 23:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
:Unless the low quality is intentional, some way-over-my-head joke about vaccines and mRNA, maybe? -- or the low-quality of the image as an analogy for the low-quality of the rhymes? {{unsigned ip|172.69.234.138}}

Looks like he's uploaded a better version now. I don't know how to replace the image, though. [[User:Argis13|Argis13]] ([[User talk:Argis13|talk]]) 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
:It's still low quality at xkcd.com. [[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 00:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
:You can't (I just tried it). The image shown is scaled up by 2×, and the non-scaled version (the one displayed) is anti-aliased. [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 00:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
:Looks like Randall fixed it now.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.86|172.68.174.86]] 00:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

::I believe that the proper file should be vaccine_ordering_2x.png Bubblegum is correct. [[User:Icil34|Icil34]] ([[User talk:Icil34|talk]]) 01:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Icil34

2420: Appliances

2021-02-04T01:18:07Z

Icil34: AAAAA a new page im terrible at this sorry

{{comic
| number = 2420
| date = February 4, 2021
| title = Appliances
| image = appliances.png
| titletext = If you had an oven bag and a dryer that runs unusually hot, I guess you could in theory make tumbled eggs.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an OVERCOOKED T-SHIRT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic shows what would happen if various household appliances were used to do different household tasks. Green indicates an excellent performance, yellow, satisfactory, and red, dismal. The diagonal is green as it shows the tasks done by the machines they are supposed to be performed by.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

2417: 1/1,000th Scale World

2021-02-04T01:12:06Z

Icil34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2417
| date = January 27, 2021
| title = 1/1,000th Scale World
| image = 1_1000th_scale_world.png
| titletext = We're worried that a regular whale will get into a 30-foot-deep ocean trench section and filter-feed on all the tiny whales.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a STATUE OF LIBERTY MINIFIG. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is the third comic in the [[:Category:Scale World|Scale World]] series, this time with a smaller scale-factor and thus a larger world than the earlier ones. As in the previous comics, [[Randall]] has a seemingly complete copy of Earth, this time at a 1:1000 scale, with various features and warnings labelled. Again, real-world features and phenomena are replicated at scale. As before, the model is very extensive, within this case several underground neutrino detectors/observatories being replicated.

Several of the warnings point out humorous consequences of the scale, such as non-scaled goldfish eating scaled-down blue whales. Other than the usual homo sapiens, the introduction of non-scaled animals into the scaled world (with consistently humorous consequences) is an addition to the earlier comics of the series.

===Table===
{| class="wikitable"
!Rule
!Reason
!Notes
|-
| Keep hot objects off the ice sheet over the south pole neutrino observatory
| Hot objects may emit Cherenkov radiation, which would result in the observatory detecting false positives of neutrino observations. They may also melt the ice that shields the detectors from other particles that would trigger false positives.
| The fact that people are not supposed to create false positives implies that the neutrino detector is functional.
|-
| Be patient: Niagara falls will take a few minutes to fill your water glass
| The flow rate is scaled down with the size. According to the [[what if]] ''{{what if|147|Niagara Straw}}, the Niagara Falls flow is regulated to 100,000 cubic feet per second on the tourist season and to 50,000 cubic feet per second offseason and at night. Once scaled to 1/1000, that flow would be 2.83 or 1.41ml per second. If a standard glass of water is 250ml, it would take about 90–180 seconds for the waterfall to fill it.

However, a 1/1000th replica of scale Niagra falls would be over a meter wide, so without some kind of system to divert the whole flow into one spot, it would not be possible to fill a glass this quickly. Also, the height of the scaled-down Niagra falls would be 5cm, with another 5cm between the water level and the riverbed, so it might be difficult to fill a glass depending on its height.
| This item is likely to be a reference to the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote: "Getting information from the internet is like getting a glass of water from the Niagara Falls."
|-
| Watch for small planes
| Taking the popular Cessna 172 as an example, 1/1000th scale small planes would be about 8mm in length, and cruise at speeds of about 6cm/s, much slower than comparable flying insects. A Cessna of that size travelling at that speed would probably cause much more damage to itself than a person if it crashed into one, so the warning is probably there to protect the models rather than the guests. The planes are flying along 1-foot {{w|Flight level|flight levels}} according to the direction they are flying in, following the {{w|Flight level#Semicircular/hemispheric rule|semicircular rule}} of aviation.
|
|-
| Warning! Choking hazard! Keep small children away from ascending/descending airliners
| Airplanes are apparently small enough for children to fit into their mouths but large enough to potentially make them choke.
| In the US, small parts are defined by [https://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Business-Education/Business-Guidance/Small-Parts-for-Toys-and-Childrens-Products 16 C.F.R. Part 1501.2] as fitting in a cylindrical test fixture of 1.25 inches diameter that approximates the size of the fully expanded throat of a child under three years old. Once scaled, any object smaller than 31.75 meters would fit in that cylinder. A lot of medium-sized and small airplanes would qualify. Furthermore, since pieces that break off during testing that simulates use or abuse by children could also pose a choking hazard, even large airliners are also a choking hazard because stripped wings and parts of the fuselage would fit in the required size.
|-
| Do not remove safety caps
| This is a reference to the warning, "Be careful not to step on cities with especially pointy towers, like Toronto, Seattle, and Dubai" from [[2411: 1/10,000th Scale World]]. It's possible that many visitors to that scaled world did not heed the warnings and complained to the scaled world's creators, causing them to cover pointy towers with safety caps for this scaled world. However, now there are [[Black Hat|people who apparently want to cause harm to others]], or at least don't care about not causing harm to others, by removing these safety caps.
The tip of the Burj Khalifa of Dubai - the tallest building in the scale world - appears to be about a meter and a half wide, or 1.5mm at 1/1000th scale. The other buildings pictured are the CN Tower of Toronto and the Eiffel Tower of Paris. (The Seattle Space Needle, referenced above, does not appear.)
|
|-
| No open flames in Zeppelin area
| The iconic Zeppelins, as with many other early airships, were filled with hydrogen to use its very low density to give them the buoyancy required to fly. However, it is also very flammable and prone to explosions, with other materials used in their construction also being notably liable to becoming a fire-danger. The most famous of these disasters was when the {{w|Hindenburg disaster|Hindenburg}} caught fire in 1937.
In more modern times, almost all airships, blimps and balloons use helium (and/or hot-air, sometimes in combination). This includes the six operational 'Zeppelin NT' craft, a modern semi-rigid design produced by the spiritual and economic successor to the original Zeppelin company.
| Helium is a noble gas and therefore not flammable, with a modern gondola and gasbag/envelope materials also being far less flammable in their own right. If Randall's scale model has airships of any sort, this may reflect an anachronistic mismatch against the clearly modern era neutrino detectors and other features. But any non-scale flames could be several magnitudes larger than 'normal' scaled-down hazards, so considered more of a ''general'' danger to the airships; as they also ought to be too many other elements of the scale world.
|-
| Do not bother the meteor crater ducks
| It is unclear whether the 'meteor crater' represents specifically {{w|Meteor Crater}} in Arizona, or some other unspecified or abstract meteor crater. The former is over a kilometer wide, so at 1/1000 scale it could be a small duck pond of 1.186m in diameter, and 17cm deep at its lowest point. This is (barely) enough space for a duck to swim in if filled to the brim with water. Meteor craters often leave behind lakes as they become filled with water, with examples being {{w|Lake Siljan}} in Europe. The ducks appear to be regular-sized as opposed to scaled-down, so they have probably added afterwards as an attraction as opposed to them coming with the landscape.
| Even though a lot of craters are filled with lakes, Meteor Crater is not filled with water, or ducks, in real life. {{Citation needed}}
|-
| Trip hazard: The Gateway Arch
| The {{w|Gateway Arch}} is a monument in Saint Louis, Missouri. Being a 192 m high arch once scaled it would be 19.2 cm high, ideal for tripping.
|
|-
| Drone altitude limit
| The FAA drone altitude limit is 400ft above the ground, which would be about 12cm on a 1/1000th scale. This appears to be the number Randall is using, as the limit in the comic is about the same height as the pyramids, which are also around 400ft tall in the real world.
|
|-
| Do not mix up the USS Enterprises
|
The ship is presumably a model of the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the longest naval vessel ever built, which would be 34cm long on a 1/1000th scale.
The spaceship is the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) from the Star Trek franchise.
It's unclear whether mixing up the models is prohibited because it would damage them, or simply because that's not where they are supposed to be.
The Starship Enterprise might be corroded by seawater, or unable to handle external pressure (spacecraft are designed for the exact opposite pressures in a vacuum). If lifted into the air, the Aircraft Carrier Enterprise would probably fall back down because it can't fly {{Citation needed}} (and be damaged or even destroyed upon hitting the ground or water surface), but then again, it's unclear how the model Enterprise can fly or hover.
The Enterprise from the JJ Abrams films has been seen to hide underwater and take off again without significant problems, and the Original Series version has been seen to fly (high) in the Earth's atmosphere on several occasions. However, it is unclear whether other versions of the Enterprise also possess this standard operational ability, nor which version is represented in the comic.
|
|-
| No connecting the Dead Sea to the ocean
| The surface of the Dead Sea is 430.5 metres (1,412 ft) below sea level, so connecting it to the ocean would cause catastrophic flooding of the area. If there are models of Israeli and Jordanian cities next to the Dead Sea, they could get damaged by the water. Also, the model world would be less accurate because the Dead Sea is not connected to the ocean in real life.
| This has actually been proposed: {{w|Mediterranean–Dead Sea Canal|Dead Sea Canal}}
|-
| Do not let ants into the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
| The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory was a neutrino observatory located at the 2100-meter depth level of the Creighton Mine in Ontario, Canada. It has since been upgraded to the SNOLAB facility. At 1/1000th scale, its meters-scale tunnels would be millimeters across, and its 3,000-meter maximum depth would reach three meters underground. This would make it ideal for habitation by ants, but as the mine is in rock, and not soil, extracting the ants after they get in would be much more difficult than most pest control operations. Also, some types of ants would eat the insulation around the wires, causing electrical short-circuits and other problems, which would be bad because the model's neutrino detectors are apparently functional. (See the row about the south pole neutrino observatory.)
|
|-
| Only one person on the Golden Gate Tightrope at a time
| The {{w|Golden Gate Bridge}} is a suspension bridge in San Francisco, 2.7 km long and 27 m wide. Scaled-down, it would be 2.7 m long and 2.7 cm wide, and it would be tempting to use it as a tightrope.
| In 1987, approximately 300,000 people [https://www.sfgate.com/local-donotuse/article/Golden-Gate-bridge-walk-1987-anniversary-disaster-13896571.php walked across the Golden Gate Bridge], which could be the largest weight it has supported: 80kg * 300,000 = 2.4*10^7kg. A visitor to the scaled world would expect to weigh a much as (1000^3) = 1 billion native scaled humans, above the [https://www.vibrationdata.com/golden.htm total mass of the bridge].
|-
| Do not remove Statue of Liberty LEGO minifig
| Whoever has made this model has decided to use a small LEGO Minifigure rather than a more accurately sculpted replica of the Statue of Liberty. The person would likely not want it to be removed because it would then have to be replaced.
| LEGO has released a [https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/magnet-statue-of-liberty-2016-853600 Statue of Liberty minifigure] which is 5.3cm tall. The real Statue of Liberty, from head to toe, is 46 meters tall. At a 1/1000 scale, this would be a 4.6cm figurine, so the LEGO Minifigure would indeed be an appropriate representation at that scale.
|-
| Please stop releasing goldfish in the ocean. They keep eating the blue whales.
| Blue whales are the largest animal species in the world. They usually grow to about 20m long in real life, meaning that at 1/1000th scale they would be only 2cm long, meaning that they could be consumed by a goldfish. Goldfish are omnivores, so they would eat tiny blue whales. But they are also freshwater fish, so would they survive long enough in seawater to put the whales at risk? This could perhaps be considered carping. And perhaps Randall's customers have access to [https://mashable.com/2017/09/20/saltwater-bearing-goldfish-australia/ Australian goldfish].

This might also be a reference to the video game ''Tasty Blue,'' in which a goldfish eats animals of increasing size and eventually becomes large enough to eat blue whales.
|
|-
| We're worried that a regular whale will get into a 30-foot-deep ocean trench section and filter-feed on all the tiny whales.
| The ~10 deepest ocean trenches are in the vicinity of 30,000 ft, so they would be 30 ft deep in the model. A blue whale is about 15 ft tall, and there are several smaller species of whale, so a full-sized whale would fit into the scaled-down trench.
Blue whales usually eat {{w|krill}}; the tiny whales would be about the same size, though nowhere near the same density, so any feeding whale would soon go hungry. However, a 15-foot (ca. 5 meters) diameter whale in a 30-foot (ca. 9 m) trench (ignoring displacement, for the moment) would most likely be too stressed to eat.
| Following on to the full-size goldfish:scaled-down blue whale comparison, the title text compares a full-sized whale to the depth of the scaled-down ocean.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[At the top of the image, inside the panel, a large title is floating in the air.]
:RULES

:For visitors to my 1/1,000th scale world

:1 meter = 1 km 1 ft = 1,000 ft

:[Each of the following rules is written near a character or point of interest on the map.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Illustrations of scale]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Science Girl]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Scale World]]

2418: Metacarcinization

2021-02-04T01:10:18Z

Icil34: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2418
| date = January 29, 2021
| title = Metacarcinization
| image = metacarcinization.png
| titletext = Scientists still don't know how marine biologists manage to so consistently bring up whalefall ecosystems, when relevant conversational openings are so few and far between.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HEAVILY OPTIMIZED CRAB. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic strip opens with a conversation between [[White Hat]] and [[Cueball]] as they are walking together. White Hat asks Cueball if he has seen a video of a crow sledding on a roof — presumably [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uXiAe7Oc-I this one], or one of its later viral reposts. ([https://laughingsquid.com/dog-rides-toboggan-down-hill/ Animals sledding] seems to be a thing lately). In this case, the crow is a {{w|Hooded Crow}}. Cueball remarks that it's a cool example of {{w|tool use by animals}}, a sign of intelligence (which corvids [Corvidae; the crow family], including crows, ravens, and [https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-20-animal-behavior-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT9_20F13_Lec4.pdf jackdaws], are famous for). He then points out that {{w|Tool use by sea otters|sea otters use tools}} too, namely using stones to crack open crab shells.

This in turn leads him to bring up the fact that the 'crab' body plan has evolved multiple times, a phenomenon known as {{w|carcinization}}, previously discussed in [[2314: Carcinization]]. In that strip, Cueball turned into a crab shortly after hearing about carcinization, so perhaps White Hat will likewise be transformed momentarily.

The conversation serves as an example of a {{tvtropes|WikiWalk|wiki walk}}, where a conversation naturally diverts from the original topic into a seemingly unrelated topic through a series of logical associations. Although a sledding crow has little to do with carcinization in and of itself, the conversation has managed to bridge the two topics through intermediary steps (crow using a sled, animals using tools in general, otters using stones to open crabs, crab evolutionary process).

The title and caption is a joke that, much like natural life-forms have evolved into crab-like forms multiple independent times, so too do all of Cueball's (or Randall's) conversations wiki-walk into a discussion of that evolutionary process.

In the title text, Randall jokes that marine biologists have a similar tendency to bring up {{w|Whale fall|whalefall}} (or "whale fall") ecosystems, which arise whenever a whale's carcass falls onto the deep ocean floor and are thought to provide "stepping stones" for species migration across the generally barren seafloor. Such occurrences are relatively rare, perhaps occurring once every few miles on whale migration routes, but they happen anyway, much like conversations about them. Another example of scientists tending to bring up facts from their field of study can be found at [[1610: Fire Ants]], and Randall often brings up the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Cueball are walking together. White Hat has his smartphone out in his hand.
:White Hat: Have you seen this video of a crow sledding on a roof?
:Cueball: Yeah! It's always cool to see animals using tools.
:Cueball: Like how sea otters use rocks to open crab shells.
:Cueball: Hey, did you know the "crab" body plan has evolved multiple times?

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Regardless of the starting topic, any conversation with me eventually converges to carcinization.
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]

2419: Hug Count

2021-02-04T01:09:19Z

Icil34:

{{comic
| number = 2419
| date = February 1, 2021
| title = Hug Count
| image = hug_count.png
| titletext = I've never been that big of a hug person, but it turns out I'm not quite this small of a hug person either.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HUGGABLE ROBOT. It would probably be good to add a bit more explanation on the pandemic. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is another in a [[:Category:COVID-19|series of comics]] related to the {{w|2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|2020 pandemic}} of the {{w|coronavirus}} {{w|SARS-CoV-2}}, which causes {{w|COVID-19}}.

The comic displays a bar chart showing the number of Individuals [[Randall]] has hugged vs the year, spanning from 1996 to 2021, and goes up to 35 individuals. While it varies a decent amount for the first 24 years, it drops sharply in 2020 and goes even lower in 2021. However, it should be noted that 2021 (at the time of the comic) had just begun, which is why the final bar is grey - the year isn't over yet and as such it is incomplete. It seems he is down to only two people hugged in 2021, one of which is most likely his wife. In 2020 he managed 5 different hugs, but the extra three may have been before the onset of corona precautions in the US.

This is because in 2020 when the pandemic happened, everyone had to social distance and avoid contact with strangers. This was a widely used method of slowing the spread of COVID-19. People are asked to not closely associate with those outside a very limited 'bubble' or even isolating individuals in their own household. As such, people have had less physical contact with each other since the beginning of this pandemic, including hugs.

No explanation is given for the variations year-to-year preceding 2020, and much of it may be [[2101: Technical Analysis|random walks]]. However, one can see a major spike in hug levels in 2010 and 2011; Randall's wife [[818|was diagnosed]] with cancer in late 2010 (see [[:Category:Cancer]]). Loved ones of those with cancer tend to receive much compassion from others, and compassion tends to beget hugs.

The title text states that, while Randall isn't very big on hugs, he too desires hugs. It plays on the common phrase "I'm not too big of an (x) person", which is used to indicate that someone isn't extremely fond of said activity. One could then infer the person is not fond of the activity at all, though in this case, he indicates his desire for hugs. Still, small is non-zero as presumably demonstrated by the frequency being now less than even he would prefer.

==Transcript==
:[A bar graph is shown with 25 black bars and one gray at the far right. Most of the bars have a height around the center of the graph, but the one in the middle is clearly higher than all others and also the two before and after are lower than average. There are also a couple of high bars in pairs on either side of the central spike. The far-right, however, are two very low bars, with the last in gray less than half the height of the previous, which was already only a third of the next lowest bar. There are numbers on both axes. The X-axis has the year for every fifth year below the relevant bar, and the number of hugs is given in intervals of 10 on the Y-axis. The Y-axis has ticks for every number, but those with labels are longer. The chart has a title written above:]
:Estimated Number of Distinct People Hugged per Year

:[Y-axis:]
:30
:20
:10
:0

:[X-axis:]
:2000  2005  2010  2015  2020

==Table of number of people hugged==
{| class="wikitable"
! Year !! People
|-
| 1996 || 31
|-
| 1997 || 28
|-
| 1998 || 23
|-
| 1999 || 25
|-
| 2000 || 21
|-
| 2001 || 18
|-
| 2002 || 28
|-
| 2003 || 24
|-
| 2004 || 17
|-
| 2005 || 19
|-
| 2006 || 14
|-
| 2007 || 35
|-
| 2008 || 17
|-
| 2009 || 16
|-
| 2010 || 27
|-
| 2011 || 29
|-
| 2012 || 18
|-
| 2013 || 15
|-
| 2014 || 16
|-
| 2015 || 22
|-
| 2016 || 15
|-
| 2017 || 21
|-
| 2018 || 19
|-
| 2019 || 25
|-
| 2020 ||   5
|-
| 2021 ||   2
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Bar charts]]
[[Category:COVID-19]]