explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3231: Lightning

2026-04-13T18:58:30Z

Lordpishky: delete garbage

I don't know if this is important, but at least right now there is no period. Might change later. [[User:Majordesmosnerd|Majordesmosnerd]] ([[User talk:Majordesmosnerd|talk]]) 20:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

im not sure how to insert it into the current state of the explanation, but by being a lightning rod nearby but higher up, he ''is'' providing protection to ponytail, right? - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 21:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
:That does seem to be the premise, but I doubt that a few inches are sufficient for this, especially if they're several feet apart. But I had the same idea and already put it into the explanation. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, wearing a (properly grounded) anti-static strap would actually _increase_ the odds of being struck by lightning, turning you into a human lightning rod. The whole point of an anti-static strap is to dissipate any intrinsic potential difference between you and the ground, thus making you a (marginally) shorter path for the extreme potential difference between the clouds and the ground state. [[Special:Contributions/50.47.191.231|50.47.191.231]] 21:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
: - and of course someone said that in the explanation in the time it took me to write the comment. :-p. [[Special:Contributions/50.47.191.231|50.47.191.231]] 21:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
:[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/649:_Static Fortunately, Randall also presents an alternative solution.] [[Special:Contributions/216.7.114.74|216.7.114.74]] 23:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Timing kinda sucks for this one: [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz90vpvlvq3o Colorado officials trying to identify woman struck by lightning]. [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 22:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Compare xkcd [[795]]. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 00:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ABOVE is WRONG-ish. ", Cueball has once again confused how anti-static devices work ". Actually, earthing does protect against lighting strikes -- the ground potential shapes around above the ground point. Cueball is less likely to be hit by lighting while wearing a correctly earthed grounding strap. Imagine that instead of "Cueball", what you see is the surface of the mountain curving up and around over Cueball. And yes, he is also more likely to be hit while he is the tallest point, lightning rods do get hit. Also, to work correctly, a lighting rod should have a pointed tip -- this makes it less likely to be hit because it works better at lifting the "surrounding ground" up to the point of the lighting rod. If it works perfectly, Cueball won't be the "high point" -- the surrounding air will be at the same potential has him.

> ""''possibility, however, that the wire goes down the torso (ideally in an insulated manner, ....''"" -- The lightning bolt has just jumped hundreds of feet through air from(/to) the sky. No wire insulation flexible enough to walk with will stop a lightning bolt that strong. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 06:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
:It has long been a matter of contention whether a pointy tip (or even multiple spikes, branching out like crown of thorns), or (say) a ball-top, is the 'best' shape for the tip of a lightning conductor. It's very hard to practically test and compare different designs. But the balance of evidence seems to point (no pun intended!) towards a 'blunt-tipped-pencil'-like single extension (like a sharp end, but rounded off) for every 'summit' (though you can and should place multiple 'single spikes' for area-protection), in part because it never gets so thin as to have the flowing charge all trying to squeeze through it (at the moment where the atmosphere just is no longer enough of an insulator across the air-gap and the ionising 'feeler' can establish itself) which won't exactly help things if and when the lightning does strike.
:There's also a lot of other contentious/commonly-misunderstood details about how lightning-protection works,to which I originally elaborated. But it looked a bit too much TL;DR; even to me, so I just now cut it back, fortunately for y'all. ;) But the best way to prevent conductive damage between conductor and the structure (or person?) it's mounted upon is to have it ''standing off'' whatever it's attached to, secured periodically (enough to not flap about) but maintain an air-gap.
:Or, for things that ''really'' don't need (and maybe can't have) a conductor running down them, like rockets on pads, set up several free-standing 'lightning masts' surrounding the core structure, with a greater height sufficient to intercept chance lightning events that ''might'' have sought the structure of interest without these stand-offish towers being more ready to form the base of any initial upstroke. (Perhaps mount ionising lasers on them, to also make that 'bit of air' slightly more likely to be used, if you can't fly kites from them. Or even fire spool-tethered sounding rockets up when critical conditions are detected. Neither of which sound like good solutions when adjacent to a rocket-pad, of course. :p ). [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.232|82.132.239.232]] 13:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This might be a stretch but the art reminds me a lot of the art for the Magic card Lightning Bolt, might be an intentional reference. [https://scryfall.com/card/a25/141/lightning-bolt] -magic nerd [[Special:Contributions/38.85.177.78|38.85.177.78]] 10:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
:Yes that is a very long stretch. There are only som many ways to draw lightning. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the other comic is where Randall shows lightning? It's one where Cueball keeps walking in a storm, because he thinks the amount of people that die each year from lightning strikes is so small he can't possibly get struck-Despite him being all reckless in a storm by keeping going, thus making him a big target. Anyone know which one it is? [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 15:29, 11 April 2026
:Linked earlier: "Compare xkcd [[795]]." [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 17:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
:As well as prior confusion on how antistatic wrist straps work: [https://xkcd.com/649/ xkcd 649]. (Or I have misunderstood what is happening in the strip)[[Special:Contributions/24.255.31.134|24.255.31.134]] 00:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any comments about the feature of this cartoon visible in my Safari browser on a Mac (not viewing the mobile friendly web site: m.xkcd.com but rather https://xkcd.com/3231/) which shows a Mode pulldown list instead of title text. The pull down list includes: Light Mode, Lighter Mode, Dark Mode, Darkest Mode (Sets the window totally black), Blury Mode, etc. the end of the list is the most disturbing of all, it's Boat Mode.
Isn't anyone else seeing these? They are hilarious. SAWilkus --[[Special:Contributions/2A09:BAC2:B089:1D37:0:0:2E9:CF|2A09:BAC2:B089:1D37:0:0:2E9:CF]] 00:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:They all appeared on all comics since April fools day --[[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 08:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:Yes, see [[3227]] itself for all comments (explanations, general chit-chat, etc) directly arising from that...
:At this point, I'm tentatively thinking it's a permanent ''and global'' site addition (not just active for AFD itself, or even just the week following release), or at least as long as there are no further page-redesigns that force Randall to squish it out (except perhaps for #3227 itself).
:Most April 1st 'specials' (or ''intended'' April 1st, give or take delays) only did their thing (assuming there even was a 'thing') on themselves, and http://https://3d.xkcd.com/ only catered for (almost all) comics up until the one for which that was the release (also, you now need to go find it actively sitting on a parallel site). That this is a global site-redesign (except maybe not where it would clash with other single-comic interactivity?), that's not even that intrusive, bodes well for it being a 'standard' feature of the site perpetually from this point on... But I'm open to being wrong, if it for some reason needs to revert to become a feature only upon the 'origin' comic (where I hope it can at least stick around there, for as long as the site lasts). [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.12|82.132.238.12]] 14:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
: Thank you for explaining the addition of the Modes to this and previous XKCD sites. --[[User:SAWilkus|SAWilkus]] ([[User talk:SAWilkus|talk]]) 20:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: There was indeed a brief period in real life when lightning rods were incorporated into clothing in France in 1778: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod_fashion {{unsigned ip|80.146.191.143|13:53, 13 April 2026}}

Talk:3219: Planets and Bright Stars

2026-03-15T04:45:33Z

Lordpishky:

There are sight color differences...[[Special:Contributions/209.240.116.218|209.240.116.218]] 19:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I've created a version that brings out the color contrast, but I don't have permissions to upload it yet. How may I get those? [[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 20:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:See [[Special:ListGroupRights]] for info about becoming autoconfirmed. In the meantime, you can upload the image onto an image hosting website such as Imgur or ImgBB and I can help you upload it! [[User:42.book.addict|tori :3]][[User talk:42.book.addict|talk to me!]] 20:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:[Ninjaed... You got there just before me, just realised I ended up Edit Conflicted... :P Editing down to the bits that weren't said above.]
:[...] you've been here a while, but 'only' edited thirteen times, it looks like [...]
:[...and when someone else uploads it...] you can alwas add your own [claims to ownership], to the finished 'file page' [if the user concerned doesn't credit you already]. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::Here you go! https://ibb.co/5gyVM59C [[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 15:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyone know where that </div> overlaying "Add Comment" at the bottom of the discussion is coming from? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:Well, Tori's signature is a bit lopsided with its tags, by the time it gets to the browser (is one <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> short, and has one closing <code><nowiki></a></nowiki></code> before the closing <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> that should have been within it), but not sure how that might have tricked-out the rest so that some closing <code><nowiki></div></nowiki></code> is redundant, without going through the ''entire'' page source to track down any other accumulated discrepancies.
:I've seen that rogue close-div before, and I seem to recall that some precautionary extra close-tags (in either HTML or Wiki markup) have been added to 'make sure' some things don't run on. But it seems to vanish after some later edits (either main comic page or discussion one), and I would have imagined that the excess tag would just be 'ignored' under most circumstances. But it's difficult to tell easil tell what a combination of meta-tagging and actual tagging does.
:And there's all kinds of weirdness in the scripting part of the page, like the bit that says <code><nowiki>node.outerHTML="\u003Cdiv id=\"localNotice\" lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\"\u003E\u003Cdiv[... most of this statement removed ...]\n\u003C/div\u003E\u003C/div\u003E";</nowiki></code> with ''escaped'' DIVs in it, that only apply when the script self-modifies the page-source. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::In fact, the rogue DIV only appears when viewing the transcluded Talk page within the main article. Viewing the Talk page directly doesn't seem to show it (or have it in the same bit of the respective HTML source), which adds to my belief that it's a run-on tag (not?) being opened as part of the Comic page's definition. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Jupiter, Venus, Mars (at its peak) and Sirius are noticeably brighter than the others. Mars, Antares and Betelgeuse are also quite red. Also if you look at planets through a telescope or good binoculars you can tell that they have a larger size (and some have moons). The others would be quite hard to tell apart without knowing their position.
<table>
<tr>
<th>Object</th><th>App. Mag</th><th>B-V (Colour)</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Venus</th><th>-4.98 to -2.98</th><th>0.82</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Mars</th><th>-2.94 to +1.86</th><th>1.33</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Jupiter</th><th>-2.94 to -1.66</th><th>0.83</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Saturn</th><th>-0.55 to +1.17</th><th>1.04</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Mercury</th><th>-2.48 to +7.25</th><th>0.97</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Sirius</th><th>-1.46</th><th>0</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Procyon</th><th>+0.34</th><th>0.42</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Antares</th><th>+0.6 to +1.6</th><th>1.83</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Altair</th><th>+0.76</th><th>0.22</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Betelgeuse</th><th>0 to +1.6</th><th>1.85</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Vega</th><th>0</th><th>0</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Polaris</th><th>+1.86 to +2.13</th><th>0.6</th>
</tr>
</table>
It would be interesting to see if these characteristics are at all present in the comic (it does look like Mars, Betelgeuse and Antares are red and Saturn is a little yellow so maybe the colours are right), or what the comic should look like if they are not --22:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]])

Created a nice image using the explanations on this page (using Gemini)

[https://ibb.co/k6wQF0Vd Chart fixed by explanations here] {{unsigned|2A09:BAC3:2FF0:28C:0:0:41:127}}

==Proper motion==
According to the Wikipedia page to proper motion, it is defined relative to the center of the solar system. So having a proper motion of zero makes the sun stand out indeed. [[Special:Contributions/84.115.169.154|84.115.169.154]] 04:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:Err. {{w|proper motion}} is "relative to the center of mass of the Solar System," aka the {{w|barycenter}}, which is not the center of the Sun, but rather very close to it and sometimes outside of it. So, I think, (and I am definitely inexpert here), the [center of the] Sun is rather rapidly moving in an angular fashion about that point, far more so than any other object, whose angular movement around that point is much slower. Just like if you are one foot away from the north pole and wandering aimlessly, you can very quickly change your longitude from +90° to –90° in a step or two. So, I think, the Sun does indeed have "high proper motion," not "zero proper motion." But someone please correct me. Also, I (earlier) tried to explain proper motion in the last graf of the article and I suspect I did a poor job (possibly also inaccurate), so I'd appreciate someone with the, err, ''proper'' expertise fixing it up. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 05:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:(Indeed...) The barycentre for the Sun-Jupiter pair, alone, sits (just!) outside of the mass of the Sun, and Jupiter is the main non-solar part of the mass. (That we know of, and that forms identifiable point-gravitational components. Even if they were more massive, the ring/shell nature of the Asteroid Belt, Kuiper Belt and Oort Clouds likely cancel themselves out.) Depending on where the rest of the planets are (next most influential would be Saturn, with everything else far smaller and/or further away), there's going to be funny a 'petal-like' track of the barycentre w.r.t. the Sun (or vice-versa), with seemingpy retrograde periods and inflections, but if you chose to sit it out 'at' the barycentre and track the Sun's position you'd expect 360° of 'heavenly motion' from Sol every 11.86 years (for a little over a third of the time you'd be ''within'' the Sun, due to the sufficient balancing out of masses around it, but you could still track the direction to its centre ...assuming you weren't bothered by being ''within the Sun'', like you aren't bothered by being right next to it for the rest of the time).
:Barnard's Star is (otherwise) the star with the current greatest proper motion, at 10.358 seconds of arc per year. Comparing the two (not that BS is going to complete any 'orbit', like that), it means that the Sun moves with Proper Motion (if I've not messed up toouch, on the back of this envelope) slightly above 175x greater than BS's current record rate. Though, instantaneously, the strict comparison would fluctuate over time due to the complex resonancing nature of the Sun's theoretical looping and de-looping w.r.t. the reference frame. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.245|82.132.238.245]] 17:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The extremely high parallax of the Sun (324,000 arc seconds if I calculate correctly) swamps out any prer motion. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B008:1230:9C83:B115:90B1:6038|2600:1001:B008:1230:9C83:B115:90B1:6038]] 12:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

:Err…''wutt?'' Again, I am not a domain expert or even really a domain user, but… 
:(a) A single object cannot have a "parallax." Parallax is a measure of error between two viewpoints (line segments), or perhaps between three points in space (the far object and two eye positions). Assuming the Sun is the far object, what are the other reference points or lines? If one is the Earth (a pretty big ''if'' ) then what is the other? 
:(b) 324,400 is 90 degrees, a right angle. "The Sun has a parallax of 90 degrees" is not a concept that makes sense to me. 
:Maybe I'm misunderstanding though? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 13:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::Using usual definitions of stellar parallax, half the shift in angular position of the star when viewed from opposite "ends" of Earth's orbit. From, say December to June the Sun's position relative to the background stars shifts by 180 degrees. It's a bit of a joke, but this _is_ a comic we are discussing. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B008:1230:9C83:B115:90B1:6038|2600:1001:B008:1230:9C83:B115:90B1:6038]] 15:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@81.179.199.253, I do not think that writing «a simple "angle per time"» is more clear than «degrees/second» or «rad/sec.». Just like saying "linear distance" is more confusing to people than "feet" (or meters). One might even suggest if we have to label something "simple" that is evidence that it isn't. I think, also, the grammar of the sentence got even more complex. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:With the "angle per time", I wanted to avoid the argument being had (astronomy tends to use "arc-seconds per year", rather than any radian-based measure, in my experience) and make it more neutral.
:As for how complicated it then went, I was ''tempted'' to just leave it to the wikilink, but tried to respond to the prior edit comments instead. I could cut it back again, though. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::I think that's totally wrong and every edit seems to make it worse and worse. More neutral isn't easier-to-understand, and that's what we need. Using the wrong units is better than using no units. I lifted rad/s from the enwiki article, but I have no idea if it is correct (and I'm starting to suspect it's not). Degrees/second would be the most clear, because far more people know what a degree is than a radian. Happy pi day. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Then you'll probably want to add a full-blooded combo-link such as "{{w|Minute and second of arc#Symbols and abbreviations|arcseconds}}/{{w|year}}" (or whatever your choice is... but rad/sec or even deg/sec will give you ''smaaaallll'' values even for the Sun), if it's not already good enough to help the currently unaware by linking to Proper Motion and Angular Speed/Velocity/Displacement/whatever. I'm not sure what else can be added to make it more understandable, nor what else to remove to tighten it up without losing something that someone might appreciate. But over to you, to edit it to your satisfaction. That's the beauty/price of a wiki. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This is redundant: "The joke is that they are all nearly identical dots, making the chart almost useless. [...] The joke is that the pictures look almost identical to one another, and therefore the chart isn't helpful at all." But I don't know which of the two sentences to delete, so I'm just going to leave this note here, and let someone else tighten the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:6100:48CF:1D2B:3433:E765:8B8C|2603:7000:6100:48CF:1D2B:3433:E765:8B8C]] 02:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3219: Planets and Bright Stars

2026-03-14T22:46:18Z

Lordpishky: Suns proper motion

There are sight color differences...[[Special:Contributions/209.240.116.218|209.240.116.218]] 19:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I've created a version that brings out the color contrast, but I don't have permissions to upload it yet. How may I get those? [[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 20:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:See [[Special:ListGroupRights]] for info about becoming autoconfirmed. In the meantime, you can upload the image onto an image hosting website such as Imgur or ImgBB and I can help you upload it! [[User:42.book.addict|tori :3]][[User talk:42.book.addict|talk to me!]] 20:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:[Ninjaed... You got there just before me, just realised I ended up Edit Conflicted... :P Editing down to the bits that weren't said above.]
:[...] you've been here a while, but 'only' edited thirteen times, it looks like [...]
:[...and when someone else uploads it...] you can alwas add your own [claims to ownership], to the finished 'file page' [if the user concerned doesn't credit you already]. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::Here you go! https://ibb.co/5gyVM59C [[User:Rumbling7145|Rumbling7145]] ([[User talk:Rumbling7145|talk]]) 15:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyone know where that </div> overlaying "Add Comment" at the bottom of the discussion is coming from? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:Well, Tori's signature is a bit lopsided with its tags, by the time it gets to the browser (is one <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> short, and has one closing <code><nowiki></a></nowiki></code> before the closing <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> that should have been within it), but not sure how that might have tricked-out the rest so that some closing <code><nowiki></div></nowiki></code> is redundant, without going through the ''entire'' page source to track down any other accumulated discrepancies.
:I've seen that rogue close-div before, and I seem to recall that some precautionary extra close-tags (in either HTML or Wiki markup) have been added to 'make sure' some things don't run on. But it seems to vanish after some later edits (either main comic page or discussion one), and I would have imagined that the excess tag would just be 'ignored' under most circumstances. But it's difficult to tell easil tell what a combination of meta-tagging and actual tagging does.
:And there's all kinds of weirdness in the scripting part of the page, like the bit that says <code><nowiki>node.outerHTML="\u003Cdiv id=\"localNotice\" lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\"\u003E\u003Cdiv[... most of this statement removed ...]\n\u003C/div\u003E\u003C/div\u003E";</nowiki></code> with ''escaped'' DIVs in it, that only apply when the script self-modifies the page-source. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::In fact, the rogue DIV only appears when viewing the transcluded Talk page within the main article. Viewing the Talk page directly doesn't seem to show it (or have it in the same bit of the respective HTML source), which adds to my belief that it's a run-on tag (not?) being opened as part of the Comic page's definition. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Jupiter, Venus, Mars (at its peak) and Sirius are noticeably brighter than the others. Mars, Antares and Betelgeuse are also quite red. Also if you look at planets through a telescope or good binoculars you can tell that they have a larger size (and some have moons). The others would be quite hard to tell apart without knowing their position.
<table>
<tr>
<th>Object</th><th>App. Mag</th><th>B-V (Colour)</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Venus</th><th>-4.98 to -2.98</th><th>0.82</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Mars</th><th>-2.94 to +1.86</th><th>1.33</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Jupiter</th><th>-2.94 to -1.66</th><th>0.83</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Saturn</th><th>-0.55 to +1.17</th><th>1.04</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Mercury</th><th>-2.48 to +7.25</th><th>0.97</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Sirius</th><th>-1.46</th><th>0</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Procyon</th><th>+0.34</th><th>0.42</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Antares</th><th>+0.6 to +1.6</th><th>1.83</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Altair</th><th>+0.76</th><th>0.22</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Betelgeuse</th><th>0 to +1.6</th><th>1.85</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Vega</th><th>0</th><th>0</th>
</tr><tr>
<th>Polaris</th><th>+1.86 to +2.13</th><th>0.6</th>
</tr>
</table>
It would be interesting to see if these characteristics are at all present in the comic (it does look like Mars, Betelgeuse and Antares are red and Saturn is a little yellow so maybe the colours are right), or what the comic should look like if they are not --22:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]])

Created a nice image using the explanations on this page (using Gemini)

[https://ibb.co/k6wQF0Vd Chart fixed by explanations here] {{unsigned|2A09:BAC3:2FF0:28C:0:0:41:127}}

==Proper motion==
According to the Wikipedia page to proper motion, it is defined relative to the center of the solar system. So having a proper motion of zero makes the sun stand out indeed. [[Special:Contributions/84.115.169.154|84.115.169.154]] 04:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:Err. {{w|proper motion}} is "relative to the center of mass of the Solar System," aka the {{w|barycenter}}, which is not the center of the Sun, but rather very close to it and sometimes outside of it. So, I think, (and I am definitely inexpert here), the [center of the] Sun is rather rapidly moving in an angular fashion about that point, far more so than any other object, whose angular movement around that point is much slower. Just like if you are one foot away from the north pole and wandering aimlessly, you can very quickly change your longitude from +90° to –90° in a step or two. So, I think, the Sun does indeed have "high proper motion," not "zero proper motion." But someone please correct me. Also, I (earlier) tried to explain proper motion in the last graf of the article and I suspect I did a poor job (possibly also inaccurate), so I'd appreciate someone with the, err, ''proper'' expertise fixing it up. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 05:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:(Indeed...) The barycentre for the Sun-Jupiter pair, alone, sits (just!) outside of the mass of the Sun, and Jupiter is the main non-solar part of the mass. (That we know of, and that forms identifiable point-gravitational components. Even if they were more massive, the ring/shell nature of the Asteroid Belt, Kuiper Belt and Oort Clouds likely cancel themselves out.) Depending on where the rest of the planets are (next most influential would be Saturn, with everything else far smaller and/or further away), there's going to be funny a 'petal-like' track of the barycentre w.r.t. the Sun (or vice-versa), with seemingpy retrograde periods and inflections, but if you chose to sit it out 'at' the barycentre and track the Sun's position you'd expect 360° of 'heavenly motion' from Sol every 11.86 years (for a little over a third of the time you'd be ''within'' the Sun, due to the sufficient balancing out of masses around it, but you could still track the direction to its centre ...assuming you weren't bothered by being ''within the Sun'', like you aren't bothered by being right next to it for the rest of the time).
:Barnard's Star is (otherwise) the star with the current greatest proper motion, at 10.358 seconds of arc per year. Comparing the two (not that BS is going to complete any 'orbit', like that), it means that the Sun moves with Proper Motion (if I've not messed up toouch, on the back of this envelope) slightly above 175x greater than BS's current record rate. Though, instantaneously, the strict comparison would fluctuate over time due to the complex resonancing nature of the Sun's theoretical looping and de-looping w.r.t. the reference frame. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.245|82.132.238.245]] 17:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The extremely high parallax of the Sun (324,000 arc seconds if I calculate correctly) swamps out any prer motion. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B008:1230:9C83:B115:90B1:6038|2600:1001:B008:1230:9C83:B115:90B1:6038]] 12:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:Proper motion is change in (apparent) angular position on the sky. (Parallax is usually associated with distance) So the suns is about 360 x 3600 x 365.25 = 473,364,000 arc sec/year. But you must be careful since the moon has a similar proper motion so your measurements must be accurate to about ~4% to tell them apart.[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 22:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:Err…''wutt?'' Again, I am not a domain expert or even really a domain user, but… 
:(a) A single object cannot have a "parallax." Parallax is a measure of error between two viewpoints (line segments), or perhaps between three points in space (the far object and two eye positions). Assuming the Sun is the far object, what are the other reference points or lines? If one is the Earth (a pretty big ''if'' ) then what is the other? 
:(b) 324,400 is 90 degrees, a right angle. "The Sun has a parallax of 90 degrees" is not a concept that makes sense to me. 
:Maybe I'm misunderstanding though? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 13:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::Using usual definitions of stellar parallax, half the shift in angular position of the star when viewed from opposite "ends" of Earth's orbit. From, say December to June the Sun's position relative to the background stars shifts by 180 degrees. It's a bit of a joke, but this _is_ a comic we are discussing. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B008:1230:9C83:B115:90B1:6038|2600:1001:B008:1230:9C83:B115:90B1:6038]] 15:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@81.179.199.253, I do not think that writing «a simple "angle per time"» is more clear than «degrees/second» or «rad/sec.». Just like saying "linear distance" is more confusing to people than "feet" (or meters). One might even suggest if we have to label something "simple" that is evidence that it isn't. I think, also, the grammar of the sentence got even more complex. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 20:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:With the "angle per time", I wanted to avoid the argument being had (astronomy tends to use "arc-seconds per year", rather than any radian-based measure, in my experience) and make it more neutral.
:As for how complicated it then went, I was ''tempted'' to just leave it to the wikilink, but tried to respond to the prior edit comments instead. I could cut it back again, though. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 20:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::I think that's totally wrong and every edit seems to make it worse and worse. More neutral isn't easier-to-understand, and that's what we need. Using the wrong units is better than using no units. I lifted rad/s from the enwiki article, but I have no idea if it is correct (and I'm starting to suspect it's not). Degrees/second would be the most clear, because far more people know what a degree is than a radian. Happy pi day. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Then you'll probably want to add a full-blooded combo-link such as "{{w|Minute and second of arc#Symbols and abbreviations|arcseconds}}/{{w|year}}" (or whatever your choice is... but rad/sec or even deg/sec will give you ''smaaaallll'' values even for the Sun), if it's not already good enough to help the currently unaware by linking to Proper Motion and Angular Speed/Velocity/Displacement/whatever. I'm not sure what else can be added to make it more understandable, nor what else to remove to tighten it up without losing something that someone might appreciate. But over to you, to edit it to your satisfaction. That's the beauty/price of a wiki. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3216: Bazookasaurus

2026-03-06T23:01:29Z

Lordpishky: Bob Burns Bazooka

F1RST P0ST!![[User:SlimothyJ|SlimothyJ]] ([[User talk:SlimothyJ|talk]]) 14:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
:zeroth panel. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::negative one like [[Special:Contributions/96.225.18.27|96.225.18.27]] 15:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should add what type of dinosaur is it based off, but i'm certainly not a dinosaur guy so i don't know. As a firearm guy (i don't own gund don't worry) i'm offended at the fact that that isn't a bazooka and more like a cannon. [[Special:Contributions/45.178.0.39|45.178.0.39]] 16:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
: I tried looking for examples (I'm sure I've read multiple such - not just a single dinosaur) but the only results I was getting back were about Pokémon fossils, which wasn't exactly helpful... [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 16:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
:: So there is Spicomellus, where there is debate over whether it was weaponry, display, or both, and Stegosaurus, where it may have been primarily thermoregulation-related (and high vascularization is part of the evidence to support this). Can't find any clear-cut cases where it's not disputed though. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 17:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::There is a Pokémon called Genosect, which is a revived prehistoric Pokémon with a cannon on its back. The cannon was added by modern scientists working for a criminal organization though.--[[Special:Contributions/2600:100A:B1CC:B09C:6C09:24FF:9AC2:AA9B|2600:100A:B1CC:B09C:6C09:24FF:9AC2:AA9B]] 20:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::Looks to me to be roughly a protoceratops (in most respects, especially skull, ''sans'' 'back decoration'/'bazooka'), or somewhere else (from amongst the no-horned, and not excessively 'frilled', examples) in the whole group of the ceratopsia family. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
:Despite the "Bazookausaurus" name, the structure is not actually referred to as a bazooka, only a "weapon". It might have been named by a paleontologist who didn't have much experience with the specific names of heavy weaponry, and the species' name could plausibly stay the same even after it became clear that the weapon wasn't actually a bazooka. Even the "-saurus" suffix itself actually means "lizard", which is now widely known to be an inaccurate description! [[Special:Contributions/104.39.200.58|104.39.200.58]] 21:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

'course the original bazooka /was/ a horn of sorts, played by comedian Bob Burns. Though it didn't make so much of a "toot toot", more a bass buzz. [[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 23:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3208: SNEWS

2026-02-17T05:57:13Z

Lordpishky: Missing not mispelled?

The title text SNEWS is a reference to {{w|SuperNova_Early_Warning_System}}. {{unsigned ip|2a09:bac2:3656:ebe::178:123}} 21:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
: No, you're wrong. It stands for Southeast, North East West South, since those are the directions where it can detect them. - [[Special:Contributions/45.178.1.151|45.178.1.151]] 01:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

F1RST! also i posted this when there was no explanation. please fix this {{unsigned ip|2605:59c8:22e3:3e14:95a1:c5da:4c49:c384|22:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)}}

Is this my mediocre non-native English, or should the title text read "setting off fireworks indoors"? (Trivia?) --[[Special:Contributions/2001:A62:5F7:FB01:538E:3F07:C9F0:F0C0|2001:A62:5F7:FB01:538E:3F07:C9F0:F0C0]] 23:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah, 'setting of fireworks indoors, ...' would mean setting them up (i.e., placing them) and not 'setting off', lighting or detonating the fireworks. [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 23:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:You can talk of setting explosives (the setting of them, as passively ready, to make them ready for later "setting them off"), so I expect the "setting of fireworks" is pretty much the same thing, much as with the setting of an alarm clock.
:Though also sounds like a possible americanism, like "lit it on fire" (c.f. my own prefered "set light to it"), if only because the former seem tautilogical; and/or strangely long-winded, such as with "to burglarize" vs. just "to burgle" (both being what a burglar does upon his burglary). But it's not one of those many funny transatlantic dialect things I've noticed previously, so I could be overexplaining what actually ''is'' merely a typo. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.3|82.132.239.3]] 01:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
::I could see it as a missing word "setting off of fireworks indoors" seems OK in American to me, though then I'd want a the: "The setting off of fireworks indoors"[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It snew [[User:Yaokuan ITB|Yaokuan ITB]] ([[User talk:Yaokuan ITB|talk]]) 23:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:Exactly my thoughts, Yaokuan [[Special:Contributions/216.25.182.141|216.25.182.141]] 23:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:Gesundheit! [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 01:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, it somehow escaped me when editing the explanation that neutrinos have mass!! (even though we've known about this for decades). Does this mean that if the supernova is far away enough, the photons will arrive before the neutrinos? Or is that threshold too far to matter? [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 01:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

: Yes, but the threshold is too far away to have happened yet. Supernova neutrinos have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_neutrinos 10^10 to 10^20 MeV]. Judging by the table at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed Overview on neutrino speed], assuming we are about right about the mass of a neutrino, neutrinos that energetic would be traveling within a factor of 10-42 of ''c'', so they would need to have traveled for "a few"×1042 light hours, or a few 1038 years for the photons to catch up. Since the universe is less than 1.4×1010 years old, it'll be another few 1038 years until that happens. [[User:DoSnews|DoSnews]] ([[User talk:DoSnews|talk]]) 03:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

::Ah, interesting. And at that distance, the supernova would have to be unimaginably big to even notice/detect? Also, wouldn't it have to be far away enough that it would have traveled for so long the light gets redshifted into oblivion? [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 04:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Since SN neutrino detections are tens of neutrinos an increase of even a few times the distances currently detected would render the neutrino pulse undetectable. And the optical event is stretched by time for the photons to migrate to the surface as well as glow from material heated by the explosion and decay heat from ejected material. If we consider only those photons from the explosion "lucky" enough to manage not to hit anything on the way out of the star/remnant they should arrive first by an undetectable time. Also, the explosion itself once triggered has to propagate across millions of miles of the stellar core so the explosion event is at least several seconds long.[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

my first edit in almost 5 months i think lol [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

One of the firework launchers on the device is aimed directly at the bed. [[User:Xkdvd|Xkdvd]] ([[User talk:Xkdvd|talk]]) 03:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3208: SNEWS

2026-02-17T05:47:34Z

Lordpishky: SN light curve & small numbers of neutrinos detected

The title text SNEWS is a reference to {{w|SuperNova_Early_Warning_System}}. {{unsigned ip|2a09:bac2:3656:ebe::178:123}} 21:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
: No, you're wrong. It stands for Southeast, North East West South, since those are the directions where it can detect them. - [[Special:Contributions/45.178.1.151|45.178.1.151]] 01:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

F1RST! also i posted this when there was no explanation. please fix this {{unsigned ip|2605:59c8:22e3:3e14:95a1:c5da:4c49:c384|22:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)}}

Is this my mediocre non-native English, or should the title text read "setting off fireworks indoors"? (Trivia?) --[[Special:Contributions/2001:A62:5F7:FB01:538E:3F07:C9F0:F0C0|2001:A62:5F7:FB01:538E:3F07:C9F0:F0C0]] 23:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah, 'setting of fireworks indoors, ...' would mean setting them up (i.e., placing them) and not 'setting off', lighting or detonating the fireworks. [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 23:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:You can talk of setting explosives (the setting of them, as passively ready, to make them ready for later "setting them off"), so I expect the "setting of fireworks" is pretty much the same thing, much as with the setting of an alarm clock.
:Though also sounds like a possible americanism, like "lit it on fire" (c.f. my own prefered "set light to it"), if only because the former seem tautilogical; and/or strangely long-winded, such as with "to burglarize" vs. just "to burgle" (both being what a burglar does upon his burglary). But it's not one of those many funny transatlantic dialect things I've noticed previously, so I could be overexplaining what actually ''is'' merely a typo. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.3|82.132.239.3]] 01:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It snew [[User:Yaokuan ITB|Yaokuan ITB]] ([[User talk:Yaokuan ITB|talk]]) 23:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:Exactly my thoughts, Yaokuan [[Special:Contributions/216.25.182.141|216.25.182.141]] 23:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:Gesundheit! [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 01:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, it somehow escaped me when editing the explanation that neutrinos have mass!! (even though we've known about this for decades). Does this mean that if the supernova is far away enough, the photons will arrive before the neutrinos? Or is that threshold too far to matter? [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 01:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

: Yes, but the threshold is too far away to have happened yet. Supernova neutrinos have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_neutrinos 10^10 to 10^20 MeV]. Judging by the table at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed Overview on neutrino speed], assuming we are about right about the mass of a neutrino, neutrinos that energetic would be traveling within a factor of 10-42 of ''c'', so they would need to have traveled for "a few"×1042 light hours, or a few 1038 years for the photons to catch up. Since the universe is less than 1.4×1010 years old, it'll be another few 1038 years until that happens. [[User:DoSnews|DoSnews]] ([[User talk:DoSnews|talk]]) 03:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

::Ah, interesting. And at that distance, the supernova would have to be unimaginably big to even notice/detect? Also, wouldn't it have to be far away enough that it would have traveled for so long the light gets redshifted into oblivion? [[User:Sameldacamel34|Sameldacamel34]] ([[User talk:Sameldacamel34|talk]]) 04:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Since SN neutrino detections are tens of neutrinos an increase of even a few times the distances currently detected would render the neutrino pulse undetectable. And the optical event is stretched by time for the photons to migrate to the surface as well as glow from material heated by the explosion and decay heat from ejected material. If we consider only those photons from the explosion "lucky" enough to manage not to hit anything on the way out of the star/remnant they should arrive first by an undetectable time. Also, the explosion itself once triggered has to propagate across millions of miles of the stellar core so the explosion event is at least several seconds long.[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

my first edit in almost 5 months i think lol [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

One of the firework launchers on the device is aimed directly at the bed. [[User:Xkdvd|Xkdvd]] ([[User talk:Xkdvd|talk]]) 03:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3202: Groundhog Day Meaning

2026-02-04T00:15:03Z

Lordpishky: fixed sig w/tildes

I guess it's weirdest because it has two silly associations. But Talk Like a Pirate Day is arguably weirder than either of them. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:Yellow pig day?[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 00:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Even Stargate SG-1 had a timeloop episode and dropped a Groundhog Day reference in.

: Malikai: Once I've correctly deciphered the symbols on the altar, I will be able to master the time device.

: Jack O'Neill: Why, so you can be king of Groundhog Day?

Damn I miss that show. [[Special:Contributions/135.84.57.36|135.84.57.36]] 17:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

third [[Special:Contributions/164.58.172.158|164.58.172.158]] 17:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:quarter [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It’s curious to see Black Hat being the one who is nonplussed here. Usually he’s the one shocking everyone else with surreal statements and antics. [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 17:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:Yeah I was wondering about that too. Why [[Black Hat]] instead of a more normal character like [[Megan]]? Contrary to his usual behavior, Black Hat isn't doing anything evil here. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 19:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::I was thinking it might be because of comic [[2174]], where it heavily implies Black Hat comes from a different planet. Maybe he still doesn't have all of our holidays and cultures figured out yet? Sounds like a bit of a stretch, but I think it's a fun interpretation, and I'm going with it. [[User:Willintendo|Willintendo]] ([[User talk:Willintendo|talk]]) 20:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:Yes, that legit freaked me out. I like Willintendo's interpretation, though.[[Special:Contributions/104.32.72.95|104.32.72.95]] 21:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:I came here to say the same. Haven't seen him ni a while so using him instead of White Hat is just confusing, like Randall has decided not to use him as a Classhole anymore. Or maybe he is just messing with us, like when Black Hat got Rick to attend Danish party, [[524: Party]], but he did not sing. Just by letting him be in this comic, we being thinking way too much. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Help, I'm stuck in a time loop. But at least it's going to be sunny for the forseeable future. [[Special:Contributions/76.187.17.7|76.187.17.7]] 18:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

We should possibly mention Candlemas and the German traditions surrounding Badgers seeing shadows. [[Special:Contributions/80.41.29.9|80.41.29.9]] 18:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:Badger badger badger badger? [[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 20:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::Or serpents on Imbolc, for that matter [[User:Nekokami|Nekokami]] ([[User talk:Nekokami|talk]]) 02:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
:I agree: the earlier traditions regarding badgers are probably what the title text is referring to with "other mustelids" [[Special:Contributions/74.110.98.95|74.110.98.95]] 01:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

¿How is it that the whole body resets except the brain? Oftentimes, the loop resets after death. If death is from an head-injury, ¿how does the brain restore without loosing memories or function? {{unsigned ip|67.174.239.209|19:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)}}
:No time travel story makes sense. It's just a story, not physics.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 02:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
::From your handle, I would have thought this was exactly the kind of comment you'd approve of. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
:I think many sees the mind as outside the brain, so... It is clearly the same person waking up each morning, but he just has the memories from the day before. This is not a time travel movie. What ever he did the day before has no effect. He can just adjust what he does. There is a new movie using the exact same setting except it always ends with the death of the character: {{w|Boss Level}}. The director Joe Carnahan described it as "Groundhog Day as an action movie". --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
::There's also something like {{w|Edge of Tomorrow}}, in which the character's death is ''required'' to restart the time-loop for the loop-inflicted person.
::But, for them to work, there's either an assumption of mind-body dualism (i.e. (some) memories are somehow separate from the physical structures that might store them) or else there's some kind of a jolt of 'legacy memory reupload' that grants the person(s) undergoing the save-scummed restart process with the hint (or outright knowledge) of what had transpired upon the last cycle (or, cummulatively, ''all'' prior cycles).
::Some versions have everyone practically the same every single time, ''except'' for a lingering sense of deja vu. Or even some other entirely external artefact to hint that it's "not their first rodeo", that might not even belong to themselves but subtly changes the scenario that they're reacting to. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure i read this comic yesterday? [[Special:Contributions/89.242.150.153|89.242.150.153]] 20:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The specific individual ground squirrel in Pennsylvania most people agreed to standardize on is now 139 years old. Even Wikipedia confirms the official Phil has been the same forecasting beast since 1887. Personally I'm a little unsure, I wonder if perhaps there may have been some substitutions along the way, however I cannot find any references to that happening... maybe I'm just too untrusting? [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 21:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I think there's one more hidden joke in the fact that it's Cueball explaining this to Black Hat and not the other way around. You'd expect misinformation from Black Hat but in fact what features in the comic is all true. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8071:60F0:67A0:E9DD:54D9:E9C0:2426|2A02:8071:60F0:67A0:E9DD:54D9:E9C0:2426]] 07:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The German weather lore is solely about the weather on candlemess. The batchers are a later addition. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:D0DD:20BF:E52B:CCC4|2001:638:807:507:D0DD:20BF:E52B:CCC4]] 13:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
:The badgers are the particularly German thing. The generic lore around Candlemas* (and even around animals and Candlemas more generally) is much more widespread.
:(In fact, it likely predates Candlemas, and originates in more pagan lore.) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3202: Groundhog Day Meaning

2026-02-02T20:06:06Z

Lordpishky:

Talk:3202: Groundhog Day Meaning

2026-02-02T20:05:20Z

Lordpishky: Badger badger badger badger.

Talk:3143: Question Mark

2026-01-20T00:36:17Z

Lordpishky: Dan Baird ref.

Surely it should read CharlieApostraphe’s Angels, right? [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 02:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:You apostrophe re almast right period. tilde tilde tilde tilde [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:7914:D333:3D03:FB75:B160:75F4|2607:FB91:7914:D333:3D03:FB75:B160:75F4]] 03:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
::You still have to put the punctuation mark after the word open parenthesis (in this case comma, the apostrophe end parenthesis) btw period. tilde tilde tilde tilde [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 03:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone should do a grammar tag or whatever comma, like the citation needed tag comma, that links to this comic period. tilde tilde tilde tilde [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 03:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

guys (sorry first time commenting so i know that this is formatted wrong) can we not put the names of the formatting in the discription? i literally came to this page to try to figure out what the titletext was trying to say, only to find just as much (if not more) confusion on a page that was meant to remove confusion.
:Seconded, as fun as it probably is, it's also incredibly difficult to follow. [[Special:Contributions/2601:681:A80:F890:E8FF:E5A3:E698:22CF|2601:681:A80:F890:E8FF:E5A3:E698:22CF]] 04:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Bthardamz
:Mhm period. Save the flavored text for titles and the comment section period. very difficult to read ellipsis... tilde tilde tilde tilde [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:22F0:3310:1EB6:FF4:46E:74F5|2605:59C8:22F0:3310:1EB6:FF4:46E:74F5]] 04:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:Even if we decide to keep it in the explanation comma, it definitely shouldn't be in the transcript period. tilde tilde tilde tilde [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:that's entirely fair comma, I got the idea to match the explanation formatting with the comic content from [[1285: Third Way]] comma, though in that instance it's way less obtrusive period. tilde tilde tilde tilde [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 07:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
: thirding the above. if i'm on this site it's so i can understand the parts of the comic that confused me. the current formatting is directly hostile to that goal. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C64:64F0:8470:85E0:2F90:F707:90A8|2600:6C64:64F0:8470:85E0:2F90:F707:90A8]] 04:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
: How about a compromise solution of putting the punctuation labels in small print? Something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Small&action=edit this] should work, though it was being screwy when I tested in the preview here: example [[User:Solomon|Solomon]] ([[User talk:Solomon|talk]]) 05:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:P.S. On my phone, it seems to only work in Desktop Mode, so maybe it's a problem with the CSS for the mobile layout? [[User:Solomon|Solomon]] ([[User talk:Solomon|talk]]) 05:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

... This is a thing people do? Glad to be unfamiliar. [[Special:Contributions/52.213.77.206|52.213.77.206]] 07:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:I did this just yesterday; a cat was laying on my hands, and I could type "query" but not shift-questionmark. [[Special:Contributions/47.145.254.54|47.145.254.54]] 22:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This becomes an annoyingly common occurrence if you commonly use speech to text programs. It is not very fun in regular conversation [[Special:Contributions/99.2.109.131|99.2.109.131]] 12:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Instances in Media: In the Amazing World of Gumball episode "The Line", Gumball refers to "Stellar Odyssey Colon The Force Rehashed". [[User:Vandof|Vandof]] ([[User talk:Vandof|talk]]) 04:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:Not really relevant to this website (we're not cataloging these outside of xkcd), but have you seen ''Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters Colon The Soundtrack''? [[Special:Contributions/24.177.125.170|24.177.125.170]] 08:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a thing my friend group can't stop saying, and i thought it was just us. neat! --[[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 09:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Use of that joke in the transcript section - afaik transcript is more or less an accessibility feature. Doing the spelling-out-every-punctuation thing makes the transcript significantly difficult to read, and also it confuses what is a part of the original text and what is a spelled-out punctuation you added. I'm not in favor of having the joke in the transcript section. [[User:User670|User670]] ([[User talk:User670|talk]]) 09:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, this is absolutely not the place for it. --[[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 13:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The italics section is explicitly opened with the word "italics". Shouldn't it be closed? Or is that implicit in the paragraph break? I'm uncertain if the "Period. Paragraph break." should also be italicized, or if they should be exempt because they're punctuation and formatting indicators. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 16:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting reaction on Randall's (Cueball's) part. When people do that, it makes ''me'' want to poke them in the eye. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 17:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone analyse the spacing between words in the main comic? Is there unusual spacing in Cueball's speech or the caption, compared with Hairy's sentence? [[Special:Contributions/86.8.84.104|86.8.84.104]] 00:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

All this discussion about verbal punctuation, and no mention of Victor Borge? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPc0aijY2o4 [[Special:Contributions/185.219.141.117|185.219.141.117]] 02:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
:I added a link to one of those clips fairly early on, but it got deleted. That might have been because I tried to incorporate the weird sounds in the write-up. I put it back, minus the weird sounds. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
:Or the Dan Baird song "I Love You Period"? [[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 00:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The gag with the read-alound punctuation was also used about 40 years ago in a sketch in the German Fastnacht classic "Mainz bleibt Mainz" show. (Warning: Anyone commenting about German humor will get their flipperwald gersputet.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:151C:FD75:4E37:3F6D|2A02:2455:1960:4000:151C:FD75:4E37:3F6D]] 08:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be more on the selection of ''Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle'' as the example of taste for the semi-punchline. I, like Hairy, would put it among the greatest films of all time, but Cueball seems to disagree, and I suspect other jokes in the history of the internet may have referred to it with the same sentiment... [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 08:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
*May All Time Question Mark be the author(s) of the film?
*Judgement period sounds like a time during which one judges (e. g. as part of a jury), or an interpretation of Judgement Day where it is not necessarily 1 day (86,400 or 86,401 seconds).
[[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C11:B800:34F9:178:1B57:97B3|2001:4C4E:1C11:B800:34F9:178:1B57:97B3]] 08:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3195: International Station

2026-01-17T03:59:30Z

Lordpishky: Littewood's tiny a

Holy refresh pull exclamation mark! tilde tilde tilde tilde --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]]''''' 14:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Should the "not-earth" "space" be changed to something like "the void between astronomical bodies"? I'm not sure if, say, the surface of the Moon or Mars or {{w|A Taste of Armageddon|Eminiar VII}} count as being "in space". [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I initially interpreted the cartoon as showing the people and objects floating within something gloopy, and the wrench as a bone, and that the joke was about an "internal space station". Here we are, inside a gelatinous cube, or possibly a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immunity_Syndrome_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series) gigantic space amoeba]... [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

'''New Category: Weightless''' There are a few strips that take place demonstrating micro-gravity, right? Is that worthy of a category? The 'space' tag could be used for comics ''about'' space or comics ''in'' space (or, I guess, comics on planets?). [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.82|191.101.157.82]] 17:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the ISS was originally called start quote Alpha end quote period tilde tilde tilde tilde [[Special:Contributions/134.173.108.120|134.173.108.120]] 18:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm early! [[Special:Contributions/2603:7083:8700:E02:FE51:837E:B6F:327|2603:7083:8700:E02:FE51:837E:B6F:327]] 18:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It took me a moment to get it, but when I did this xkcd made me capitals LOL which doesn't happen often [[Special:Contributions/2401:D005:D402:7A00:7FE1:F042:B839:91B8|2401:D005:D402:7A00:7FE1:F042:B839:91B8]] 21:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
:You forgot tilde tilde tilde tilde tilde tilde tilde tilde --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]]''''' 21:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

At least it's not the International Ampersand En Bee Ess Pee Semicolon Station ellipsis tilde tilde tilde tilde [[Special:Contributions/174.142.148.226|174.142.148.226]] 21:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
::Speaking of Ampersand Aa Em Pee Semicolon, that's a real life example of this effect actually happening. It was at the end of the alphabet where they would say "X, Y, Z, and, per sé, 'and'". Tilde tilde tilde tilde. Not sure if that is relevant enough to the comic though. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 02:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Bot, don't get this Irishperson started on apostrophes. [[Special:Contributions/205.175.118.102|205.175.118.102]] 22:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

From John Littlewood's "A Mathematician's Miscellany": A minute I wrote (about 1917) for the Ballistic Office ended with the sentence 'Thus a should be made as small as possible'. This did not appear in the printed minute. But P. J. Grigg said, 'what is that?' A speck in a blank space at the end proved to be the tiniest a I have ever seen (the printers must have scoured London for it).[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 03:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3190: Tensegrity

2026-01-07T18:04:35Z

Lordpishky: One word Eliza AI reference with nine word summary.

here in the first 2 minutes and before before the explanation [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|talk]]) 03:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
:congrats, i was just 3 seconds away (also don't know correctly how to reply to a comment) [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 04:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
::Put a colon at the beginning of your remark to indent it. [[Special:Contributions/76.187.17.7|76.187.17.7]] 04:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Like what I've done for you. And to reply to one with one colon, put two colons, etc. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
::::In short, start your line(s) with ''one more colon'' than the line(s) you're replying to.
::::(In long, there are reasons to stay at "the same colon level", e.g. because you're replying to the thing that at least one other person has already been replying to (although you'd need to double-linefeed if you're claiming the 'zero level' with no colons before at all). And there are also obscure reasons for adding more than one (more) colon, to try to be ''less'' confusing than otherwise, though it doesn't always work ... ;) ) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 17:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a connection to [[wikipedia:Ruth Asawa|Ruth Asawa]], who studied under Buckminster Fuller. Some of Asawa's works were described as "earrings for a giraffe."[https://ethicaldative.com/2025/12/24/earrings-for-a-giraffe/] [[Special:Contributions/76.187.17.7|76.187.17.7]] 04:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Those legs looks like something AI would come up with. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 08:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
:Some people are AI obsessed.
:Tell me about your mother. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 17:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
::Eliza?[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 18:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Giraffe necks are supported by an elastic nuchal ligament attached to the vertebrae[https://scatterfeed.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/you-can-take-a-giraffe-to-water/]. Thus, a giraffe doesn't need to use muscle to keep its head and neck up; to _lower_ their heads they need to stretch the ligament with muscle. A structure whose weight is supported by an elastic band attached to a fixed bone seems to fit the real definition of tensegrity, but I'm not sure if that's part of the joke here or Randall was not aware of real giraffe anatomy. [[Special:Contributions/104.185.183.165|104.185.183.165]] 11:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)ben
:The joke here is about the legs, not the neck. {{unsigned|Barmar|15:38, 6 January 2026}}
:I don't know (I'm also not a bio guy) if that would count in the same way, since the weight is also being passed through the spine, which I assume is compressive rather than tensional as in the ligament. Still would be good to include probably, since that is pretty cool. Might fit in Trivia, idk [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 16:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

''"This page was created by a string. "'' ...Well, you're not wrong. --[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 03:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out whether the giraffe as drawn would actually stand. It kinda looks to me like it wouldn't but I could be wrong. [[Special:Contributions/193.42.0.156|193.42.0.156]] 16:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
:The lower'knee' part of the giraffe's 'thighs' is hanging from the upper 'knee' part of the giraffe's 'shins'.
:(I'm using scare-quotes, there, because digitiform limb use might have an ankle where a plantiform limb has a knee, a knee up near where the plantiform has its hip and the hip sort of gets more lost in the torso - I suspect giraffes follow that plan more than legs as ''we'' tend to use them, but I'm not sure without checking..!)
:So long as the 'shins' stay upright, and there's no other overbalancing, everything else should sit on the slung-lower 'thigh's dangling from the four knee-to-knee tensioned elements. The rest of the 'tension tendons' must therefore do two things:
:#Ensure the 'shins' stay upright (or at whatever angle they should be to take successive strides, like a human shin swings during walking/running) so that they don't topple over and bring the giraffe above to its (four, if not eight) 'knees' - this requires lateral tensions that keep (or controllably vary) the shin-knee above the shin-foot, and the shin-knee consistently in the range of knee-knee stretched arc above the current position of the thigh-knee.
:#Prevent the oscillation of the thigh-knee-on-up body (with a CoG clearly higher than the shin-knee suspension point) from toppling sideways, perhaps due to single or multiple limbs being off the ground and side-swagger enabling the body-roll (like standing on the seat of an infant-sized swingset that's far too small for you, or walking on a slackline high-wire, without anything else to hold onto or ''a lot of practice'').
:At a glance, I'd say that the stationary giraffe is ''probably'' stable enough, enough tension-wires (assuming they're not slack, at the moment - the drawing isn't too clear on that point) to keep its lower-legs prolerly 'beneath' its upper legs, except of course for the knee-ends being higher/lower than its 'lower/higher' knees.
:For walking (or anything up to a gallop), I'd be intrigued to see its motion... The 'thigh' motion and the continual adjustment of the torso-to-'shin' tension-tendons probably need to be tightly coordinated due to the relative separation of same-leg-knees in a hammocky manner. I bet it could work, but there's ''plenty'' of scope for pain (overslacking, tensegrity-collapse, inter-entanglement of limbs and 'wires', etc) if not done correctly. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.91|82.132.237.91]] 17:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3189: Conic Sections

2026-01-05T05:58:01Z

Lordpishky: Digits of computation.

Isn't the base of a cone, just a circle? How would this have "corners"? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 01:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
:The cone upon which a conic section exists doesn't actually ''have'' a base, it's just arbitrarily large (possibly infinitely so) in order for the section to only ever lay along the 'curve' of the cone part.
:But, here, the base is wwhere you give up on plotting how far 'down the cone' you go, of the sufficiently large ellipse (or possibly parabolic/hyperbolic curve), which is indeed round but has an sharp (i.e. acute) angle between its flat (and incidentally circular) plane-section and the 'wrapped' pseudo-euclidean plane of the conic-section it intersects with. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 01:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Bring a jacket and spoon for orbits that go through the ice cream.[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 01:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the shape of the flat bottom of a cake cone. [[Special:Contributions/71.212.56.254|71.212.56.254]] 03:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
:They REALLY hate the flat-bottom cone orbits and the waffle cones make for a bumpy ride.[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 18:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears to be a cut-off section of an ellipse, so basically a regular orbit with a sharp line. ([https://www.desmos.com/3d/xnaihdegst Desmos]) [[User:Tanner07|Tanner07]] ([[User talk:Tanner07|talk]]) 04:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5622AQH3CYoPXy1cqg/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/feedshare-shrink_2048_1536/0/1727242249609?e=1769040000&v=beta&t=UdAX9TH3joo-vpvj4pRWXoCQyF6JVUPVmyONWghcj5E --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 05:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel like there needs to some explicit acknowledgement that the cone in question is an ice cream cone.[[Special:Contributions/99.239.23.54|99.239.23.54]] 00:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
:But ice-cream cones have the 'flat bit' (actually the opening; give or take the scoop of ice-cream, which is a ball, or else the soft-served 'twirly-dollop', which another more convoluted form of inverted cone) at the top. Which just really doesn't fit with ''anything'' the comic says about the conic. Unless you see some obscure connection that I'm just not getting out of it. (Beyond that both are considered 'cones', which is as tenuous as if I suggested traffic cones was the ultimate reference, for example.)
:But if you can give any better referencing connection, you look like you should know how to edit things to enlighten those of us who are missing it. Explain away, as that's the point of this site... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.68|82.132.236.68]] 01:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't the people from the title text also be following the same orbit? [[User:Cobl703|Cobl703]] ([[User talk:Cobl703|talk]]) 18:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
:Might depends on if they share the same precise centre of gravity (the Explanation goes into some detail about that sort of thing).
:Or if the effective orbit obeys the idential 'cone-based' rules. At any given time (depending on where you last positioned yourself), you might effectively be floating in a very similar elliptical orbit (could be the same period, same semi-major, same semi-minor, same periapsis, same periapsis, inclination, etc, but in a ''very'' slightly rotated orientation), so hit the change to the 'conic-baseline' section at a different time.
:That's if the orbit equation defines the location of the transition into the conic-base (e.g. effectively when hitting the "semi-parameter" 'width', but on the non-focuse side of the original ellipse), or there's always some particular definite absolute (or proportional?) distance between the hypothetical cone's tip and when the normal orbital effect 'runs out'.
:Too many little questions need to be asked about what is forcing the orbit to be off-elliptical. And if it's not a mere function of reality, but a deliberate manoeuvre by the craft, then ''of course'' the occupants will feel the sudden change in motion that the accompanying thruster-kick invokes. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 21:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

How far the cone extends and where these effect occur depends on the units of distance used and the number of digits & format used to represent the length of the cone on the computer. Larger units avoid cone-end effects but make for a bumpier ride, especially when the exponent changes.[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3189: Conic Sections

2026-01-03T18:57:30Z

Lordpishky: Flat bottom cones...

Talk:3189: Conic Sections

2026-01-03T01:43:38Z

Lordpishky:

Talk:3189: Conic Sections

2026-01-03T01:43:13Z

Lordpishky: Ice cream

Talk:3188: Anyone Else Here

2026-01-02T20:39:00Z

Lordpishky: Hebew, Islamic, Buddhist & eternal years.

Anyone here in 2050? [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 22:20, 31 December 2050 (UTC)
:No, I read this in 2025 and 2026 CE but 2050 CE is future many feel pass soon. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C04:B100:A502:D45A:628D:1A70|2001:4C4E:1C04:B100:A502:D45A:628D:1A70]] 14:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
oh that's what that type of comment's about [[User:Treeplate|Treeplate]] ([[User talk:Treeplate|talk]])

Anybody reading this in 2525? Is man still alive? Did woman survive?[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 22:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
: Did they fall in love? --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 22:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
::What did they find?[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 02:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
:::They found 2526 books about string theory and 2929 about evolution, most of which were from the 21st century. They may also have found possible garden path sentences like the previous one. They also found that evolution is much slower than depicted there. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C04:B100:A502:D45A:628D:1A70|2001:4C4E:1C04:B100:A502:D45A:628D:1A70]] 13:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
::: That is what I wonder for more than 20 years, now.--[[Special:Contributions/95.117.6.0|95.117.6.0]] 15:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC):Also, nobody has read this then (or even in 2100). It is 2026. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C04:B100:A502:D45A:628D:1A70|2001:4C4E:1C04:B100:A502:D45A:628D:1A70]] 14:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Any read this 1000000 BC? Do Kroog make fire? --[[User:User 8496351|User 8496351]] ([[User talk:User 8496351|talk]]) 22:46, 31 December 1000001 BC (UTC)
:No. Even 1 BC (also known as BCE) is long before the Internet. In fact, the same is true for 1900 AD (also known as CE). [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C04:B100:A502:D45A:628D:1A70|2001:4C4E:1C04:B100:A502:D45A:628D:1A70]] 14:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm here from exactly two years in your future. Well, perhaps not ''your'' future because... ah... best not say, just in case. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] {{#time:H:i, j F Y|+2 years}} (UTC)

Why does the end of the explanation appear to have been written by AI? Am I going crazy or does that look like how ChatGPT would describe xkcd? [[User:CreatorOfWorlds|CreatorOfWorlds]] ([[User talk:CreatorOfWorlds|talk]]) 22:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not.[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 20:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
I wonder is that the comments never appear in chronological order is part of this joke.--[[Special:Contributions/95.117.6.0|95.117.6.0]] 15:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

'''"Anyone else here?" vs. "Anyone else now?"'''. It's always fun overanalyzing why *this* point in space-time is a here or now, while *that* point in space-time is a there or then. [[Special:Contributions/84.233.216.138|84.233.216.138]] 00:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m surprised there’s no “Anyone here in 2026?” yet [[Special:Contributions/50.239.67.6|50.239.67.6]] 05:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I've travelled [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/630:_Time_Travel] all the way from the year 2025 to say: happy new year! [[Special:Contributions/185.36.194.156|185.36.194.156]] 02:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Anybody else get a wave of Déjà vu from this? [[Special:Contributions/134.231.105.61|134.231.105.61]] 05:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the explanation discounting it as a "trick" is disingenuous. It would be like calling a forum user creating a new topic "engagement farming". [[Special:Contributions/64.114.211.52|64.114.211.52]] 06:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyone else here on [[7: Girl sleeping (Sketch -- 11th grade Spanish class)|September 3]][[1: Barrel - Part 1|0th, 2005?]] [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 17:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

;Time travel
I don’t actually understand how this benefits time travelers. Why are they seeking others? What messages do they exchange and how? {{unsigned ip|204.110.58.52|14:37, 1 January 2026}}
:They could be trapped in an era, and looking to hitch-hike out of that time courtesy of someone whose temporal-travel-taxi ''isn't'' broken.
:(Although usually they leave a message to be discovered by their future compatriots (or even selves!) at the appropriate meta-time Or else arrange for it to be delivered, by a trusted holding party that they know will be around and who will obligingly obey interesting instructions to "wait until this date, then deliver to this address (which may not even have been built yet)", or just "wait until this date, then open the package" to find the improbably specific currently relevent delivery details.)
:Or bragging rights. The first to arrive in a given year (at least until someone 'later' arrives earlier in year... Might depend upon how the temporal mechanics works. And anyone arriving the year before and then taking the 'slow path' to the next one might be considered cheating. (Dedicated enough to stick with unaugmented chronology, if not forced to by becoming stranded, but might get around a certain type of metatemporal paradox.)
:Or just want to strike up a sensible conversation with someone actually ''knows'' how a future sporting event/TV series/world-changing-paradigm-shift turn(s/ed) out, rather than having to always be very careful never to mention anything (even incomprehensible and retro-decontextualised memes... "Hey, it's like New Tokyo never even happened." "Dude... Too soon!" "I know. But those poor horses.")
:Though the likelihood is that any time-travellers leaving "I'm here, and I'm now!" clues are going to just leave obscure messages that don't say anything about time and are meaningless (and just unusually ordinary to the local-yokels living through the time normally) unless you ''know'' the future popular references involved.
:Or, you use ''completely'' asynchronous communucations. Anything you want to say to other time-travellers (known or unknown) is just saved until some point in the remote future when any (paradoxical) responses are similarly aggregated, then the two strands of conversation are sent back to the counterpart participants before they even left for the deeper-past, encoded so that they only become 'currently available' at the suitable point of conversation by that person's perspective (they need not be contemporaneous, or even 'simultaneous' by any Classical/Relativity interpretation of 'nowness').
:You ''know'' that your device is storing and (will be) passing on your messages, because if it hadn't/won't[*either and/or both!] then there'd be no reply already sent back-to-the-past-from-the-future in order to be revealed to you as having happened/is happening/will happen[*ditto] in response. You wouldn't even have to know who you want to talk to, because you (or those who handle the future-end) ''eventually'' will, even if it's through a self-booting paradox. ;)
:But nothing stops you using YouTube comments, leaving them as casual-looking breadcrumbs (or even the necessary deparoxifying conversation-release keys?) outside of the core conceit... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.45|82.132.237.45]] 17:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

: Did/will you make it to {{w|Hawking's time traveller party}}? Sometimes, people on vacation like to meet up with fellow travellers to share experiences. [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.82|191.101.157.82]] 17:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyone here in 44 BC? ... Oh, hi, Brutus! You brought some folks with you? ... [[User:Gaius Julius Caesar|Gaius Julius Caesar]] ([[User talk:Gaius Julius Caesar|talk]]), 11:30, 15 March 44 BC (MEZ)

Is this supposed to be like a [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]], since it mentions the year 2025 on New Years Eve? Not very New year. He did make one last year, even though he skipped x-mas, but it seems unlikely that todays comic on 2nd January is more likely to be the new year than the one on New Years Day... Sad he skips celebrating these days in the comics :-( --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Anybody reading this in 5786? 1447? 2570? 1993?[[User:Lordpishky|Lord Pishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 20:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3184: Funny Numbers

2026-01-01T02:44:42Z

Lordpishky: Changes "Actual popular number" to "more common" least it appear I'm dissing someone else's numbers.

It should be"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". {{unsigned ip|2001:5a8:60da:3300:c94a:564:dc6d:d811|05:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)}}
: In response to above unsigned post: fixed! You could've edited it too :) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 05:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:: In response to your response: post marked as unsigned! You could've done that too ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 11:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

this is crazy [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|talk]]) 06:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:67 in Numberphile... now in xkcd... very sad (maybe they are related? on YouTube, Numberphile released 12 hours ago, which may be too close, but I don't know if they do Patreon or something) [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 09:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::Ya all are way too sad about something this inconsequential. As xkcd rightly notices the so-called brainrot is just rebranding of equally dumb memes of yesteryear with the main difference being that you grew up with one and not the other. Decently funny strip overall. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 11:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::For one: it is the 19th prime, and 19 is the 8th prime. Also, its digit sum is 13, which is the 6th prime. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Excellent video from Wrath of Math about it and it was a couple months ago iirc, it's really good. [[Special:Contributions/124.198.132.237|124.198.132.237]] 21:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Bad comic, Randall. Put it back. [[Special:Contributions/47.141.37.161|47.141.37.161]] 06:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:It's called depublishing. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
"If you have to ask, you're not old enough yet," is there like, some kind of comprehensive guide to sex and sexuality I was supposed to receive on my 18th birthday or something? All I got was 18 $1 scratch tickets. [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 08:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:For that matter, maybe your sense of humor is finally old enough to not amount to "haha sex funny". Incidentally appropriate IP, by the way. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 09:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I admit I was trying to be cute, I fully expected someone to "correct" it. It was reminiscent of the analogous question in the Baker House Purity Test (which I'll also admit I didn't get at the time). https://www.mit.edu/~iggy/Amusements/Purity_andnerd_tests/pure.baker.male [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I observe that the explanation leaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-7_meme 67] off the list of numbers... (it has no real meaning, just a fun thing the kids do to each other and enjoy the adults being confused about) (And now I feel stoopid for not noticing the big link at the very top — but still think it should be in the list.) [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 08:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:=-1. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I daresay no Robert Anton Wilson clone will immortalize "6 7" in 100 years on. Todays memes have a half-life measured in milliseconds. I say that without assessment. Only observing. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0|2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0]] 10:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

<blockquote>69 -- if you have to ask, you're not old enough.</blockquote>
Information technology archeologist in the 31st century, sobbing: "I am 374 years old. How much longer?"[[Special:Contributions/109.43.49.174|109.43.49.174]] 11:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:Apparently, that meme is old enough not to have the several milliseconds of half-life (or if it does, it's dilated well to years, for I sometimes do see things with the "69 is funny" appearing). Unless "not old enough" refers to "born [chronologically] too late (i. e. too far from the Big Bang)". [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
While I do accredit the audacity to keep the humor in the explanation of 67, the act feels a little unprofessional. It feels like laziness or lack of knowledge, rather than a play on the popularity of the meme across the youth (I have no idea what the meaning behind six-seven is, and have always considered it pure absurd). [[User:Benzaldehyde|Benzaldehyde]] ([[User talk:Benzaldehyde|talk]] 14:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Could someone reorganize the order of the number descriptions? I initially read it as left column down, then right column down, which I think is also chronological. [[User:CreatorOfWorlds|CreatorOfWorlds]] ([[User talk:CreatorOfWorlds|talk]]) 14:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I'm sure we could ascribe creation-estimates to them all (first being 23, etc, last being 6 7), but I don't see any obvious chronological layout, either row-by-row or column-by-column. 69 ''after'' 42? (Unless we accept the Lewis Carol origin, in which case it should even be before 23.) Calculators (suitable types by at the latest 1957) not until after the necessary hacker/BBS culture (early Internet and/or FIDONet era, with maybe the earliest possible date of 19''67<funny-hand-movements>'')? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:On further looking, though I ''suppose'' the list (up until the latest addition, being just now tacked on at the end for simplicity) is definitely ''numerically''-sorted by column-first reading order... Depending upon the sorting algorithm, it'd be interesting to see where 6<space>7 gets shuffled to (and, moreover, how it shuffles anything that now comes after it) in a subsequent year's "list of numbers historically adopted by young people". Could be first, or between 42 and 69. ''Could'' still be last, but tricky to explain that against 23 (with non-numerical parts) being first this time round. Unless typesetting needs trump alphanumeric ordering, too. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:''...Anyway...'' I sortably-tabularised it! To the best of my ability. Maybe the date column should be "Discovered?" or something else, but too many unknowns, even after researching. .e.g. the act of 69ing is... well, I bet it's prehistoric (I'm sure bonobos do it... and all kinds of variations!), while the French 'popularisation' of the term is attested to more than 200 years ago, but I'm not going to even hazard a guess when it became a "teens" thing that the mathematicians subsequently decided was new. Brought 58008 into the '70s only because wikipedia suggested that (decadal-displays are older, even seven-segment displays themselves might be {{w|Seven-segment display#History|1903ish}}, but hey!). And defined decade-ranges as their midpoint year, for sorting reasons. You can see where and how to change things, if you disagree and have other/better dates. Or wish to add a further 'fad date' column to differentiate from origin-date. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 17:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh my a completed transcript already i literally just found out about this comic --[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 15:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

... You know what's funnier than 24? [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:5E13:8400:AC92:4546:AC77:BF90|2600:4041:5E13:8400:AC92:4546:AC77:BF90]] 17:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

::I’m not sure where you got the number 24 from, but there is a joke in Mexico that is something of an old Polish-style joke: Many Chinese who moved to Mexico are known to have difficulty with the ‘V’ sound, instead using something closer to an ‘M’. A Mexican was annoyed by a Chinese person and called him a “mendicuadro” — a slang term for a beggar or mendicant (or annoyance), which sounds like the words for 24 (venticuatro) — and the Chinese guy thought a second and responded “Well, you’re a twenty-five!” (“Pues, ¡tú eres un mendicinco!”). Cue hilarity. (These kinds of jokes are always ruined for me by the inherent racism, much like the “how many Polish guys does it take to change a lightbulb” kinds of jokes.) {{unsigned|Dúthomhas|02:11, 24 December 2025}}

Shouldn't the year for "42" be 1978? The Hitchhiker's Guide first broadcast "42" in Fit the Fourth, 29 March 1978. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_Primary_and_Secondary_Phases#Fit_the_Fourth {{unsigned ip|62.63.216.178|17:22, 23 December 2025}}
:You're right. I was juggling dates and must have caught a different one. (Book publication date..? Not sure, without checking, what I may have mixed it up with.) If not already fixed by you/others, will do so myself. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 17:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This is conclusive proof that Randall watches YouTube Shorts. [[User:Explainyourself|Explainyourself]] ([[User talk:Explainyourself|talk]]) 20:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised 22 (A major number in Outer Wilds, which I would assume Randall would've played because of ship design in 2765), 17776 (sci-fi story which is highly underrated), and 20020 (sequel to 17776) are all unmentioned. [[User:Usernametakennn|Usernametakennn]] ([[User talk:Usernametakennn|talk]]) 01:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
:Some of those seem more like deciding that 2001 (and thus possibly 2010, 2061 and 3001) or 2312 or 1984 should appear. But are those titles... memetic enough? In a "down wid da yout'" kind of way?
:Especially if the relevent story is "underrated", because then it's not clearly as appreciated as it should be and so unlikely to enter the appropriate global consciousness like that. e.g., I may like the aforementioned fictional numbers, plus Space: 1999 (and, perhaps even more, Space: 1889!), but I'm not sure they've quite invaded the teenage mindset enough to be candidates for the list. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 02:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

More common popular numbers:
53310761 (Elvis Presley's military serial number. Very cool to known at one time!), 7734 (on a calculator), 54 40 (or fight. Winning political slogan thought the U.S. didn't 54 40 and didn't fight), 867-5309 (Jenny), Number 1 or number 2 (Going), 10-4 (Correct in 10 code during C.B craze) "No, 4" (Morbid response to peace sign after Kent state shooting.) "Number 5 is alive", 36-24-36 (Also 362-4360, phone number from a version of AC-DC's "Dirty deads") 86ed (Run out of, thrown out of, rejected).
A little more inside: 17 (Yellow pig day, Michael Spivak &c.), 712 (Shonen Knife ) 96 (tears) DEADBEEF (hex) 1066 (and all that) 1138 (THX, why aren't you at you post, thx-138 plates on the Deuce coupe &c.) 33, 45 & 78 record speeds [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 04:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Was the origin of 6 7 not ''"and if the devil is six then god is seven"'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Gone_to_Heaven#Lyrics_and_meaning uttered by Black Francis in 1988]? [[Special:Contributions/80.2.107.84|80.2.107.84]] 07:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

666 --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 07:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

You know about the 23 mile pipeline to the mining town of Skidoo right? {{unsigned ip|172.59.84.195|13:31, 24 December 2025}}

I’m surprised no one mentioned the origin of 6 7, which was Skrilla’s song “doot doot 6 7” where 6 7 is referring to Philadelphia police radio code 10-6-7, “report of death/dead body” and the use of the numbers 6 7 to reference death. Yes, I know many of the kids saying 6 7 don’t know what it means or why Skrilla was singing it, but that doesn’t mean the meaning doesn’t exist. I’m reminded of the song lyric “come spend the night inside my sugar walls” (Shena Easton”) I was in high school when it came out, and my classmates seemed to fall into one of 3 groups: those who got it, those who didn’t get it at all, and those who tried to deny what the words meant. [[Special:Contributions/2A09:BAC3:70E8:2773:0:0:3EE:55|2A09:BAC3:70E8:2773:0:0:3EE:55]]
:...if you actually read the explanation, it ''does'' mention Skrilla's song. As to whether it does refer to Phili radio codes or not, this is already mentioned in the linked page as a ''speculated'' but unsubstantiated possibility, and that Skrilla themself does pretty much the opposite of confirming this or any other definite origin. (All the above is as of the versions of the pages, here and on wikipedia, that I last read... I can't be held responsible for any further changes made to them, up to now or later. So more scrutiny might be needed if properly attested 'facts' appear.) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 23:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I liked Meghan's comment, implying she has matured beyond these number fashions but is glad that the fad contiues amongst the yougsters. [[User:GrannyVanEngeland|GrannyVanEngeland]] ([[User talk:GrannyVanEngeland|talk]]) 16:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

5318008 [[Special:Contributions/2401:D005:D402:7A00:4C55:92FB:29AD:E01E|2401:D005:D402:7A00:4C55:92FB:29AD:E01E]] 02:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that 6 7 is not the number 67, but just the numbers 6 and 7 said together. In that sense it might be more properly considered not a number at all; if anything, it is a 2-membered sequence. Or possibly a word formed out of numerals. Though really there is no math involved, and thinking about it mathematically is probably missing the point. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:5C65:8E00:981A:7E98:FDFA:E92E|2600:1702:5C65:8E00:981A:7E98:FDFA:E92E]] 02:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

:10 4 [[Special:Contributions/107.77.205.131|107.77.205.131]] 20:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

::There’s a whole online encyclopedia of integer sequences, mind you [[Special:Contributions/122.213.236.53|122.213.236.53]] 06:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

where are 0451 and 11037? they should take the places of 42 and 58008 {{unsigned ip|94.73.40.242|15:25, 27 December 2025}}

Talk:3188: Anyone Else Here

2026-01-01T02:03:46Z

Lordpishky: more 2525

Anyone here in 2050? [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 22:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC) 
oh that's what that type of comment's about [[User:Treeplate|Treeplate]] ([[User talk:Treeplate|talk]])

Anybody reading this in 2525? Is man still alive? Did woman survive?[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 22:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
: Did they fall in love? --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 22:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
::What did they find?[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 02:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Any read this 1000000 BC? Do Kroog make fire? --[[User:User 8496351|User 8496351]] ([[User talk:User 8496351|talk]]) 22:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm here from exactly two years in your future. Well, perhaps not ''your'' future because... ah... best not say, just in case. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] {{#time:H:i, j F Y|+2 years}} (UTC)

Why does the end of the explanation appear to have been written by AI? Am I going crazy or does that look like how ChatGPT would describe xkcd? [[User:CreatorOfWorlds|CreatorOfWorlds]] ([[User talk:CreatorOfWorlds|talk]]) 22:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

'''"Anyone else here?" vs. "Anyone else now?"'''. It's always fun overanalyzing why *this* point in space-time is a here or now, while *that* point in space-time is a there or then. [[Special:Contributions/84.233.216.138|84.233.216.138]] 00:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3188: Anyone Else Here

2025-12-31T22:28:13Z

Lordpishky: 2525 reference

Anyone here in 2050? [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 22:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC) 
oh that's what that type of comment's about [[User:Treeplate|Treeplate]] ([[User talk:Treeplate|talk]])

Anybody reading this in 2525? Is man still alive? Did woman survive?[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 22:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2152: Westerns

2025-12-25T23:42:19Z

Lordpishky: Einstein's life overlap of cowboy era

How many times longer than the {{w|Regency era}} (a decade) have {{w|Regency romance}} novels existed? A fair bit more than three, I'd guess! (Perhaps 8.4, if we credit 1935 as the start and the Regency period as ten years) [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 05:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
:A similar question has been answered about WW2 by Randall: https://what-if.xkcd.com/100/ [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
::Trivia about What-if #100: in another example of xkcd-inspired achievements, there now exists a short movie about the Anglo-Zanzibar war (http://www.imdb.com/keyword/anglo-zanzibar-war/). Plot keywords: stupid world record, cell camera, anglo zanzibar war.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.241|162.158.154.241]] 10:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M*A*S*H_(TV_series) M*A*S*H TV show] lasted more than 3 times the length of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Korean War].
[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Golden Age of Piracy": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Piracy 1650's to 1730's], roughly; modern "pirate genre" pretty much entirely derived from ''Treasure Island'', 1883, but fiction and romanticized-to-the-very-edge-of-fiction histories of the still-famous Golden Age pirates date to ''at least'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_in_the_arts_and_popular_culture 1724]. -- [[User:C.Robin|C.Robin]] ([[User talk:C.Robin|talk]]) 05:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought Randall would understand the difference between "longer than" and "as long as". [[User:Mattcoz|Mattcoz]] ([[User talk:Mattcoz|talk]]) 14:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

:Hmmm... "A is as long as B" means pretty much the same as "A is as short as B". But "A is 3 times as long as B" is very different from "A is 3 times as short as B". English is weird. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.46|172.68.54.46]] 15:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
::That leads onto a personal bugbear. "Lasts three times longer (...than competing product)" logically means 4x the duration ("lasts one time longer..." would be original plus the new claim, or 2x, etc), not triple. And, in the same (mis)spirit of above there's the closely associated "five times less (...thing that each product tries to banish/destroy/mitigate)". And there are even worse phrases (either badly composed or deliberately weaselish misinforming advertising/etc) that I won't even try to perpetuate by directly quoting. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.206|162.158.34.206]] 00:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:::I've concluded that "X times longer" just doesn't make sense, period. If product A lasts for time period 1, product B lasts for time period 3, and product C lasts for time period 4 (units are equal, I don't care which -- nanoseconds, decades, Jupiter years --) **neither B nor C** last 3 times "longer" than product A. Or "4 times longer." 3 is not 3 times bigger than 1, it's 3 times as big. Same with any other number. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.192|172.68.133.192]] 08:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that using the same logic as this page, Trojan War, a 10 years long conflict which started to be depicted in Greek no later in 8th century BC when Illiad was written and continuing to be depicted in poems, literature and movies up to today, would easily win this. There could also be several contestants from Rome - while both Roman Republic and Roman Empire lasted hundreds of years, the time period depicting fall of the Republic and rise of the Empire, starting with First Triumvirate 60BC and ending with Nero's death AD 68, is 128 years heavily depicted in literature and movies since it happened to, again, now. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This makes me think of how the British TV show [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dad%27s_Army Dad's Army] lasted for longer than the Second World War. --[[User:OliReading|OliReading]] ([[User talk:OliReading|talk]]) 23:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

: Dad's Army ''aired'' from 31 July 1968 – 13 November 1977 (A period of 9 years, 3 months, 14 days.) However, it had a ''run-time'' of only 2445 minutes (40 hrs, 45 minutes) [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dad%27s_Army_episodes List of Dad's Army episodes.]] That's a distinction that most of these comparisons are overlooking. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 04:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The famous pony express existed only for 18 months. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.9|162.158.74.9]] 02:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Bill Cody alias Buffalo Bill pulp and shows started around 1870
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.159|162.158.93.159]] 06:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I hate ambiguity when dealing with "mathish" language. This is not as irritating as when people say things like "three times as cold" or "twice as small", but it still bugs me. Does "three times longer" mean the same as "three times as long"? Given an initial event time of "t" and the longer time of "x", if "x" was "two years longer" than "t", that would mean "x-t= 2 years". It feels like "three times as long" means "x=3t" while "three times longer" means "x-t=3t" thus "x=4t". [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 12:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
:I agree, that three times longer than 40 years should be 160 years, not ~120 as in this case --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
:: Actually, this description seems to say the left bracket is THIRTY years - 1865 to 1895 - while the right bracket seems to indicate roughly 1900 until now, which is indeed nearly 120 years and indeed about 4x as long. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The commentary about how the Wild West segued from being "contemporary" to "historical" entertainment without a lapse in popularity reminds me of how Sherlock Holmes did the same. When the first Holmes story was published in 1887 it was contemporary, the popularity of the stories have never flagged, but now the antiquarian aspect is a key part of its appeal. BTW, I think the commentary is stretching it too far to assert that the "Wild West" extended into the 1920s. This is presumably because of the "Posey War" in 1923, but this is rather similar to the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot - it was just white vigilantes running non-whites off their land on a pretext. Even the 1918 Bear Valley War is too late, just a short Mexican border skirmish involving 60 people total. The 1915 Bluff War is about as late as can be credibly claimed for an event that is anything like the Wild West period, and it was really just an extended manhunt. Usually the last real Indian conflict was Battle of Kelley Creek in 1911.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.42|172.68.47.42]] 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Weirder: Einstein's formative years were in the ``cowboy era''. Einstein probably rode on a horse to just get somewhere and almost certainly rode a horse drawn cab. I now propose that the end of the cowboy era be defined as the publication of the 1905 papers. [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 23:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3184: Funny Numbers

2025-12-24T04:32:14Z

Lordpishky: Just a list.

It should be"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". {{unsigned ip|2001:5a8:60da:3300:c94a:564:dc6d:d811|05:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)}}
: In response to above unsigned post: fixed! You could've edited it too :) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 05:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:: In response to your response: post marked as unsigned! You could've done that too ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 11:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

this is crazy [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|talk]]) 06:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:67 in Numberphile... now in xkcd... very sad (maybe they are related? on YouTube, Numberphile released 12 hours ago, which may be too close, but I don't know if they do Patreon or something) [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 09:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::Ya all are way too sad about something this inconsequential. As xkcd rightly notices the so-called brainrot is just rebranding of equally dumb memes of yesteryear with the main difference being that you grew up with one and not the other. Decently funny strip overall. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 11:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::For one: it is the 19th prime, and 19 is the 8th prime. Also, its digit sum is 13, which is the 6th prime. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Excellent video from Wrath of Math about it and it was a couple months ago iirc, it's really good. [[Special:Contributions/124.198.132.237|124.198.132.237]] 21:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Bad comic, Randall. Put it back. [[Special:Contributions/47.141.37.161|47.141.37.161]] 06:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:It's called depublishing. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
"If you have to ask, you're not old enough yet," is there like, some kind of comprehensive guide to sex and sexuality I was supposed to receive on my 18th birthday or something? All I got was 18 $1 scratch tickets. [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 08:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:For that matter, maybe your sense of humor is finally old enough to not amount to "haha sex funny". Incidentally appropriate IP, by the way. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 09:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I admit I was trying to be cute, I fully expected someone to "correct" it. It was reminiscent of the analogous question in the Baker House Purity Test (which I'll also admit I didn't get at the time). https://www.mit.edu/~iggy/Amusements/Purity_andnerd_tests/pure.baker.male [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I observe that the explanation leaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-7_meme 67] off the list of numbers... (it has no real meaning, just a fun thing the kids do to each other and enjoy the adults being confused about) (And now I feel stoopid for not noticing the big link at the very top — but still think it should be in the list.) [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 08:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:=-1. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I daresay no Robert Anton Wilson clone will immortalize "6 7" in 100 years on. Todays memes have a half-life measured in milliseconds. I say that without assessment. Only observing. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0|2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0]] 10:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

<blockquote>69 -- if you have to ask, you're not old enough.</blockquote>
Information technology archeologist in the 31st century, sobbing: "I am 374 years old. How much longer?"[[Special:Contributions/109.43.49.174|109.43.49.174]] 11:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:Apparently, that meme is old enough not to have the several milliseconds of half-life (or if it does, it's dilated well to years, for I sometimes do see things with the "69 is funny" appearing). Unless "not old enough" refers to "born [chronologically] too late (i. e. too far from the Big Bang)". [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
While I do accredit the audacity to keep the humor in the explanation of 67, the act feels a little unprofessional. It feels like laziness or lack of knowledge, rather than a play on the popularity of the meme across the youth (I have no idea what the meaning behind six-seven is, and have always considered it pure absurd). [[User:Benzaldehyde|Benzaldehyde]] ([[User talk:Benzaldehyde|talk]] 14:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Could someone reorganize the order of the number descriptions? I initially read it as left column down, then right column down, which I think is also chronological. [[User:CreatorOfWorlds|CreatorOfWorlds]] ([[User talk:CreatorOfWorlds|talk]]) 14:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I'm sure we could ascribe creation-estimates to them all (first being 23, etc, last being 6 7), but I don't see any obvious chronological layout, either row-by-row or column-by-column. 69 ''after'' 42? (Unless we accept the Lewis Carol origin, in which case it should even be before 23.) Calculators (suitable types by at the latest 1957) not until after the necessary hacker/BBS culture (early Internet and/or FIDONet era, with maybe the earliest possible date of 19''67<funny-hand-movements>'')? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:On further looking, though I ''suppose'' the list (up until the latest addition, being just now tacked on at the end for simplicity) is definitely ''numerically''-sorted by column-first reading order... Depending upon the sorting algorithm, it'd be interesting to see where 6<space>7 gets shuffled to (and, moreover, how it shuffles anything that now comes after it) in a subsequent year's "list of numbers historically adopted by young people". Could be first, or between 42 and 69. ''Could'' still be last, but tricky to explain that against 23 (with non-numerical parts) being first this time round. Unless typesetting needs trump alphanumeric ordering, too. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:''...Anyway...'' I sortably-tabularised it! To the best of my ability. Maybe the date column should be "Discovered?" or something else, but too many unknowns, even after researching. .e.g. the act of 69ing is... well, I bet it's prehistoric (I'm sure bonobos do it... and all kinds of variations!), while the French 'popularisation' of the term is attested to more than 200 years ago, but I'm not going to even hazard a guess when it became a "teens" thing that the mathematicians subsequently decided was new. Brought 58008 into the '70s only because wikipedia suggested that (decadal-displays are older, even seven-segment displays themselves might be {{w|Seven-segment display#History|1903ish}}, but hey!). And defined decade-ranges as their midpoint year, for sorting reasons. You can see where and how to change things, if you disagree and have other/better dates. Or wish to add a further 'fad date' column to differentiate from origin-date. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 17:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh my a completed transcript already i literally just found out about this comic --[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 15:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

... You know what's funnier than 24? [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:5E13:8400:AC92:4546:AC77:BF90|2600:4041:5E13:8400:AC92:4546:AC77:BF90]] 17:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

::I’m not sure where you got the number 24 from, but there is a joke in Mexico that is something of an old Polish-style joke: Many Chinese who moved to Mexico are known to have difficulty with the ‘V’ sound, instead using something closer to an ‘M’. A Mexican was annoyed by a Chinese person and called him a “mendicuadro” — a slang term for a beggar or mendicant (or annoyance), which sounds like the words for 24 (venticuatro) — and the Chinese guy thought a second and responded “Well, you’re a twenty-five!” (“Pues, ¡tú eres un mendicinco!”). Cue hilarity. (These kinds of jokes are always ruined for me by the inherent racism, much like the “how many Polish guys does it take to change a lightbulb” kinds of jokes.)

Shouldn't the year for "42" be 1978? The Hitchhiker's Guide first broadcast "42" in Fit the Fourth, 29 March 1978. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_Primary_and_Secondary_Phases#Fit_the_Fourth {{unsigned ip|62.63.216.178|17:22, 23 December 2025}}
:You're right. I was juggling dates and must have caught a different one. (Book publication date..? Not sure, without checking, what I may have mixed it up with.) If not already fixed by you/others, will do so myself. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 17:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This is conclusive proof that Randall watches YouTube Shorts. [[User:Explainyourself|Explainyourself]] ([[User talk:Explainyourself|talk]]) 20:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised 22 (A major number in Outer Wilds, which I would assume Randall would've played because of ship design in 2765), 17776 (sci-fi story which is highly underrated), and 20020 (sequel to 17776) are all unmentioned. [[User:Usernametakennn|Usernametakennn]] ([[User talk:Usernametakennn|talk]]) 01:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
:Some of those seem more like deciding that 2001 (and thus possibly 2010, 2061 and 3001) or 2312 or 1984 should appear. But are those titles... memetic enough? In a "down wid da yout'" kind of way?
:Especially if the relevent story is "underrated", because then it's not clearly as appreciated as it should be and so unlikely to enter the appropriate global consciousness like that. e.g., I may like the aforementioned fictional numbers, plus Space: 1999 (and, perhaps even more, Space: 1889!), but I'm not sure they've quite invaded the teenage mindset enough to be candidates for the list. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 02:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Actual popular numbers:
53310761 (Elvis Presley's military serial number. Very cool to known at one time!), 7734 (on a calculator), 54 40 (or fight. Winning political slogan thought the U.S. didn't 54 40 and didn't fight), 867-5309 (Jenny), Number 1 or number 2 (Going), 10-4 (Correct in 10 code during C.B craze) "No, 4" (Morbid response to peace sign after Kent state shooting.) "Number 5 is alive", 36-24-36 (Also 362-4360, phone number from a version of AC-DC's "Dirty deads") 86ed (Run out of, thrown out of, rejected).
A little more inside: 17 (Yellow pig day, Michael Spivak &c.), 712 (Shonen Knife ) 96 (tears) DEADBEEF (hex) 1066 (and all that) 1138 (THX, why aren't you at you post, thx-138 plates on the Deuce coupe &c.) 33, 45 & 78 record speeds [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 04:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-16T00:42:04Z

Lordpishky:

As heretical as it is, I almost want to keep the explanation just like this [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:I wasnt going to ruin it, when I saw it like that. But now it's been expanded, I've added in my own thoughts on the subject. Namely elemental number-theory, i.e. the possibility of counting any item just like you count any other item, plus what's going on with the title text, including a slightly kludgy call-back to the fact that (''to have a budget'', that must have people succesfully counting expenditures and purchased values) the Exp. Maths Dept. has clearly trained people in the use of numbers enough for them to now be awkwardly snapping at the heels of the EMD querying the justifiability of at least one of their ongoing studies. (Not sure how long my thoughts will actually last, though, in the light of further editing. But I hope at least some of what I'm getting at will be successfully distilled into any more succinct version.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:I guess [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3180:_Apples&oldid=401411 this was the explanation] at the time of this comment!? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve apples! <*thunder rolls*> Ha! Ha! Ha! [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony! How did they count the twelve apples? 0,succ(0),succ(succ(0))..., I bet. This is already heavy math. (For example, what guarantees you that succ(0) exists and has exactly one value 1 and is the successor only of 0? Peano envy.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961|2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961]] 08:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for starting your counting at 0. I have espoused that zero IS a counting number, as you can't get to 1, unless you first arrive at 0. "Sherman, count how many unicorns there are in this field." "Um, there are zero, Mr. Peabody." [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::How'd you "get to" zero? You have to start somewhere and it is arbitrary. You could start at 17, define succ^-1(x) and go back to 1 or 0. Clearly this is inconvenient but not wrong. If you need zero it may make sense to start at zero but if you need negatives it may not matter. If you are teaching you might want to deal with other concepts and not "we start at zero because". There is no one true set of axioms & definition. Usefulness of Non-Euclidian geometry does not make Euclidian geometry useless.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact if you really want to nitpick, while most people would accept that 7+5=12 it is demonstrably false that my seven apples plus your 5 apples are equal to a pool of 12 apples. In fact it is demonstrably false that I even have 7 apples. Because no 2 apples are identical they can't be combined together. We may be willing to disregard such gross inaccuracies for the sake of, you know, being able to continue to survive for a little while longer, though. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 11:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:When you say "seven apples plus 5 apples is 12 apples" you are saying when a set of apples that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st seven cardinal numbers is combined with a set of apples that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st five cardinal numbers you get a set that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st twelve cardinal numbers". Like Cantor's proof that the cardinality of the unit interval is the same as the unit square. There is such a natural correspondence between (finite) cardinal numbers and strictly positive integers that it can be hard to keep in mind that, in a fussy sense, they are not the same things. [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:The physicists have already shown that all apples are perfect spheres of uniform density and cannot be split into smaller apples. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::Are the perfect spheres bosons or fermions?[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 15:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Not spinning? spin=0 => boson.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This comic makes me wonder if Randall is aware of us, and if he might someday try to make a comic so bizarre, we become unable to "explain" it at all. Would such a thing be possible? Something so absurd, we're forced to shrug and say "I got nothing"? It's possible I've been awake too long.[[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Cranberry sauce.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

i think there's a direct connection between this and {{w|Ultrafinitism}}!! [[Special:Contributions/129.64.0.34|129.64.0.34]] 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Bumpf

"Okay, with my hrair apples added to your hrair, we have ... let's see ... hrair apples!"
"Incredible! Perfect agreement with the theory!"
It even works with multiple theories!
--[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 19:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Holy overexplanation, Batman! [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
: And yet somehow still seeming to miss the heart of the joke, in that maths rests on proving ''generalizable'' rules, so that any ''specific'' instance of a rule doesn't have to be proven from first principles. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

AI bros must not have a sense of humor because LLM's clearly don't get jokes. Seriously, can we please stop accepting these auto-gen explanations as anything close to being sufficient and work to replace them ASAP? This site functioned fine for years getting well crafted hand written explanations up within 24 hours, but today it seems that editors see the walls of text and just declare mission accomplished.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 17:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:what the... what makes you think you are smarter than everyone???--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 17:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know about any other edits, most of which actually just looked like honest hand-crafted attempts to me but I must admit that sometimes I feel that maybe [[3126: Disclaimer]] needs applying to some of mine. (I know that my rushed "rejig", aiming to shave things down again, ended up with some typos. Though you'd be excused for thinking they were AI 'double-bluff' remnants, I suppose.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 17:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

And then there's the disappearing leprechaun [https://www.math.ucla.edu/~tao/resource/general/131ah.1.03w/leprechaun.htm][[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 20:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-15T20:04:05Z

Lordpishky: The leprechaun puzzle

As heretical as it is, I almost want to keep the explanation just like this [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:I wasnt going to ruin it, when I saw it like that. But now it's been expanded, I've added in my own thoughts on the subject. Namely elemental number-theory, i.e. the possibility of counting any item just like you count any other item, plus what's going on with the title text, including a slightly kludgy call-back to the fact that (''to have a budget'', that must have people succesfully counting expenditures and purchased values) the Exp. Maths Dept. has clearly trained people in the use of numbers enough for them to now be awkwardly snapping at the heels of the EMD querying the justifiability of at least one of their ongoing studies. (Not sure how long my thoughts will actually last, though, in the light of further editing. But I hope at least some of what I'm getting at will be successfully distilled into any more succinct version.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:I guess [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3180:_Apples&oldid=401411 this was the explanation] at the time of this comment!? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve apples! <*thunder rolls*> Ha! Ha! Ha! [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony! How did they count the twelve apples? 0,succ(0),succ(succ(0))..., I bet. This is already heavy math. (For example, what guarantees you that succ(0) exists and has exactly one value 1 and is the successor only of 0? Peano envy.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961|2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961]] 08:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for starting your counting at 0. I have espoused that zero IS a counting number, as you can't get to 1, unless you first arrive at 0. "Sherman, count how many unicorns there are in this field." "Um, there are zero, Mr. Peabody." [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::How'd you "get to" zero? You have to start somewhere and it is arbitrary. You could start at 17, define succ^-1(x) and go back to 1 or 0. Clearly this is inconvenient but not wrong. If you need zero it may make sense to start at zero but if you need negatives it may not matter. If you are teaching you might want to deal with other concepts and not "we start at zero because". There is no one true set of axioms & definition. Usefulness of Non-Euclidian geometry does not make Euclidian geometry useless.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact if you really want to nitpick, while most people would accept that 7+5=12 it is demonstrably false that my seven apples plus your 5 apples are equal to a pool of 12 apples. In fact it is demonstrably false that I even have 7 apples. Because no 2 apples are identical they can't be combined together. We may be willing to disregard such gross inaccuracies for the sake of, you know, being able to continue to survive for a little while longer, though. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 11:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:When you say "seven apples plus 5 apples is 12 apples" you are saying when a set of apples that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st seven cardinal numbers is combined with a set of apples that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st five cardinal numbers you get a set that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st twelve cardinal numbers". Like Cantor's proof that the cardinality of the unit interval is the same as the unit square. There is such a natural correspondence between (finite) cardinal numbers and strictly positive integers that it can be hard to keep in mind that, in a fussy sense, they are not the same things. [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:The physicists have already shown that all apples are perfect spheres of uniform density and cannot be split into smaller apples. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::Are the perfect spheres bosons or fermions?[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 15:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Not spinning? spin=0 => boson.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This comic makes me wonder if Randall is aware of us, and if he might someday try to make a comic so bizarre, we become unable to "explain" it at all. Would such a thing be possible? Something so absurd, we're forced to shrug and say "I got nothing"? It's possible I've been awake too long.[[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Cranberry sauce.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

i think there's a direct connection between this and {{w|Ultrafinitism}}!! [[Special:Contributions/129.64.0.34|129.64.0.34]] 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Bumpf

"Okay, with my hrair apples added to your hrair, we have ... let's see ... hrair apples!"
"Incredible! Perfect agreement with the theory!"
It even works with multiple theories!
--[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 19:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Holy overexplanation, Batman! [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
: And yet somehow still seeming to miss the heart of the joke, in that maths rests on proving ''generalizable'' rules, so that any ''specific'' instance of a rule doesn't have to be proven from first principles. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

AI bros must not have a sense of humor because LLM's clearly don't get jokes. Seriously, can we please stop accepting these auto-gen explanations as anything close to being sufficient and work to replace them ASAP? This site functioned fine for years getting well crafted hand written explanations up within 24 hours, but today it seems that editors see the walls of text and just declare mission accomplished.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 17:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:what the... what makes you think you are smarter than everyone???--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 17:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know about any other edits, most of which actually just looked like honest hand-crafted attempts to me but I must admit that sometimes I feel that maybe [[3126: Disclaimer]] needs applying to some of mine. (I know that my rushed "rejig", aiming to shave things down again, ended up with some typos. Though you'd be excused for thinking they were AI 'double-bluff' remnants, I suppose.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 17:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

And [https://www.math.ucla.edu/~tao/resource/general/131ah.1.03w/leprechaun.htm][[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 20:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-15T05:50:22Z

Lordpishky: Deleted earlier comment and made this one hopefully explain better. Still seems a bit combative which I don't intend.

As heretical as it is, I almost want to keep the explanation just like this [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::I guess [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3180:_Apples&oldid=401411 this was the explanation] at the time of this comment!? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
I wasnt going to ruin it, when I saw it like that. But now it's been expanded, I've added in my own thoughts on the subject. Namely elemental number-theory, i.e. the possibility of counting any item just like you count any other item, plus what's going on with the title text, including a slightly kludgy call-back to the fact that (''to have a budget'', that must have people succesfully counting expenditures and purchased values) the Exp. Maths Dept. has clearly trained people in the use of numbers enough for them to now be awkwardly snapping at the heels of the EMD querying the justifiability of at least one of their ongoing studies. (Not sure how long my thoughts will actually last, though, in the light of further editing. But I hope at least some of what I'm getting at will be successfully distilled into any more succinct version.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve apples! <*thunder rolls*> Ha! Ha! Ha! [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony! How did they count the twelve apples? 0,succ(0),succ(succ(0))..., I bet. This is already heavy math. (For example, what guarantees you that succ(0) exists and has exactly one value 1 and is the successor only of 0? Peano envy.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961|2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961]] 08:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for starting your counting at 0. I have espoused that zero IS a counting number, as you can't get to 1, unless you first arrive at 0. "Sherman, count how many unicorns there are in this field." "Um, there are zero, Mr. Peabody." [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::How'd you "get to" zero? You have to start somewhere and it is arbitrary. You could start at 17, define succ^-1(x) and go back to 1 or 0. Clearly this is inconvenient but not wrong. If you need zero it may make sense to start at zero but if you need negatives it may not matter. If you are teaching you might want to deal with other concepts and not "we start at zero because". There is no one true set of axioms & definition. Usefulness of Non-Euclidian geometry does not make Euclidian geometry useless.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact if you really want to nitpick, while most people would accept that 7+5=12 it is demonstrably false that my seven apples plus your 5 apples are equal to a pool of 12 apples. In fact it is demonstrably false that I even have 7 apples. Because no 2 apples are identical they can't be combined together. We may be willing to disregard such gross inaccuracies for the sake of, you know, being able to continue to survive for a little while longer, though. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 11:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:When you say "seven apples plus 5 apples is 12 apples" you are saying when a set of apples that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st seven cardinal numbers is combined with a set of apples that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st five cardinal numbers you get a set that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st twelve cardinal numbers". Like Cantor's proof that the cardinality of the unit interval is the same as the unit square. There is such a natural correspondence between (finite) cardinal numbers and strictly positive integers that it can be hard to keep in mind that, in a fussy sense, they are not the same things. [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:The physicists have already shown that all apples are perfect spheres of uniform density and cannot be split into smaller apples. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::Are the perfect spheres bosons or fermions?[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 15:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Not spinning? spin=0 => boson.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This comic makes me wonder if Randall is aware of us, and if he might someday try to make a comic so bizarre, we become unable to "explain" it at all. Would such a thing be possible? Something so absurd, we're forced to shrug and say "I got nothing"? It's possible I've been awake too long.[[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Cranberry sauce.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

i think there's a direct connection between this and {{w|Ultrafinitism}}!! [[Special:Contributions/129.64.0.34|129.64.0.34]] 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Bumpf

"Okay, with my hrair apples added to your hrair, we have ... let's see ... hrair apples!"
"Incredible! Perfect agreement with the theory!"
It even works with multiple theories!
--[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 19:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-15T05:17:29Z

Lordpishky: Two words. Summary is longer.

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-14T20:27:48Z

Lordpishky: Summarize

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-13T17:35:33Z

Lordpishky: Fussy

Talk:3136: Pull

2025-09-03T02:30:00Z

Lordpishky: Link to proof of so called ``tidal'' effect.

Australia reference????? /s [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 05:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I [[3135|recently learned]] that earth has weird gravity effects caused by a big moon orbiting near the surface. These are probably also barely measurable, except e.g., big bodies of water --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 11:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:I take it you haven't heard of Earth tides? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide] --[[User:Gorcq|Gorcq]] ([[User talk:Gorcq|talk]]) 11:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Perhaps you should follow the link in the comment you replied to... [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 13:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::It's a real effect. It has been proven by neutron interferometry. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_interferometer)

Ya the hemispheres are kinda crazy《プロキシ》(XKCD中毒者) 13:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

So I'm not qualified to critique this, but, I think the comic is referencing an unsolved problem - is gravity constant over time? I'm not a physicist and I'm not conversant with the literature, but I think there is some debate on the matter. The line 'give it another five minutes' definitely seems like a humorous reference to the idea that the gravitational constant might changes over age-of-the-universe timescales. Hence I suspect the description talking about earth's attraction specifically misses the point. --DW [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:8FA9:E54A:5856:AACD:B913:6DD8|2607:FB90:8FA9:E54A:5856:AACD:B913:6DD8]] 13:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Judging from the amount of rotation, the conversation takes place over a period of several hours. -[[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:2AF0:F1E0:39BF:23FC:411E:363B|2603:8080:2AF0:F1E0:39BF:23FC:411E:363B]] 18:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Someting seams wrong with the number in the statement "The net effect of these is for Earth to lose about 520 tons in the 5-minute period".
I found that "Each day, around 90 tonnes of hydrogen and helium escape from Earth in the direction of space" https://www.snf.ch/en/2QLt6mvuU4hZj1yx/news/leaking-atmospheres-seal-the-fate-of-planets
[[User:Maofgf|Maofgf]] ([[User talk:Maofgf|talk]]) 19:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It should be "centripetal", not "centrifugal". [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 20:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:Centrifugal force is correct here. Centripetal force is the force keeping an object on a circular trajectory (in a fixed reference frame), in this case it is gravity. In the rotating reference frame, the object is stationary, as centripetal and centrifugal force cancel each other out. As soon as gravity stops, there is no centripetal force anymore. In the rotating reference frame, the object accelerates outwards by the centrifugal force (on a curve due to the Coriolis force); on an fixed reference frame, there is no force and it travels in a straight line. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:1210:82E7:3100:37D6:4369:7925:6854|2A02:1210:82E7:3100:37D6:4369:7925:6854]] 22:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm completely failing to understand the stuff about "roughly three more minutes until they "fell" off-panel". What's that based on? [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 20:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This is disturbing[[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]]) 21:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3131: Cesium

2025-08-23T06:27:12Z

Lordpishky: Mooseberry Fudge cake.

I think that's called a recipe for disaster. NOTE: I am also 104.225.172.143. [[Special:Contributions/138.43.101.123|138.43.101.123]] 14:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: No, ''I'' am 104.225.172.143! [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:: I'm 104.225.172.143, and so's my wife! [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 20:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I also chose this guy's wife. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1014:B130:F85B:54C8:CB88:DB33:11D0|2600:1014:B130:F85B:54C8:CB88:DB33:11D0]]

My best recipe comes with a Notice to Mariners [[User:Hcs|Hcs]] ([[User talk:Hcs|talk]]) 14:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I added a transcript. Hopefully it's okay. [[Special:Contributions/104.225.172.143|104.225.172.143]] 14:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

A gram of gold runs on the order of ~$100 USD as of writing; a gram of cs-137 looks to be in the millions~billions range. --[[Special:Contributions/158.91.163.9|158.91.163.9]] 14:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

: Nope. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-cesium.pdf It's 99 dollars]. [[Special:Contributions/191.57.16.100|191.57.16.100]] 20:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:: I think you're quoting the price for Caesium metal in general, which is probably almost entirely Caesium 133; Caesium 137 is a synthetic isotope which could easily be a million times more expensive than the natural stuff, gram for gram. [[Special:Contributions/80.41.70.128|80.41.70.128]] 22:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::: You're right, my bad. I couldn't find a quote for Cs137, but considering it's produced from uranium, it probably is very expensive. As for the shrimp thing, I doubt anything close to a gram of Cesium ended up in the shipment. It's probably a component from a measuring device. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.48.45|177.12.48.45]] 09:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Caesium contamination usually is caused by nuclear accidents (or atmospheric nuclear weapon tests) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137#Environmental_contamination. It is unlikely that someone acquired pure Cs-137 and then "accidentally" contaminated the shrimp with that. --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 15:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: Cs137 can be found for approximately 20 USD per µCi, which equals 0.0000000115g. That means 1g would cost 1,739,130,435 USD. The good news is that same gram would be worth 20 USD in another 795.7 years. Although it wouldn't be all Cs-137 anymore, nor exactly a gram. [[Special:Contributions/77.173.137.243|77.173.137.243]] 21:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::So, what you're saying is... not a good investment for the future, with a 99.99999885ish% depreciation (''before'' any effects of monetary inflation), on top of me also having to become somewhere roughly around 8.5 centuries old. I suppose the latter ''might'' be a plus, if you can guarantee it, but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement for your scheme. ;) [[Special:Contributions/84.43.20.118|84.43.20.118]] 22:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Bothering the NSA shouldn't be hard, just write some of their secrets on a cake (with frosting is optional) and post it online. [[Special:Contributions/212.101.26.209|212.101.26.209]] 14:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: I feel like the writing on the cake is not part of its recipe. I think a more fitting way to get their attention would be "accidentally" poisoning the president with your cooking. --[[Special:Contributions/128.31.34.92|128.31.34.92]] 22:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

What would IMO do, revoke your math license? [[Special:Contributions/216.73.162.10|216.73.162.10]] 15:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: They have numerous penalties at their disposal. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: I imagined the reason the IMO would get involved would be because the recipe created some interesting mathematical problem that could be used for the next competition. For example, something like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct3lCfgJV_A this video], where a grocery order taken too literally creates a seemingly harmless Diophantine equation whose smallest positive solutions are on the order of 10^80. [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 15:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: A cook on Air Force 1 "accidentally" contaminates Trump's fast food with cesium. The assassination attempt fails and US retaliates by invading Canada/Panama/Greenland (roll 1d3). IMO bans the US team, like they banned Russia in 2022. Thus a single cooking "accident" can get the attention of IAEA, IATA, IMO, and NSA. --[[Special:Contributions/128.31.34.92|128.31.34.92]] 22:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe The IATA could get involved if your ruined recipe caused food poisoning on a commercial airliner that then resulted in an in-air emergency (whole flight deck passed out). {{unsigned ip|170.85.70.249|17:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)}}
:Or if you create a column of dense toxic fumes that spreads over a wide area (on the level of a volcano eruption). On the other hand, I wonder what could bring the attention of the IMO when Terryology seemingly couldn't.--[[Special:Contributions/94.73.52.245|94.73.52.245]] 18:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The criticality accident in 1999 at the Tokaimura nuclear facility seems like a good example of messing up a recipe in a way that draws considerable attention. {{w|Tokaimura nuclear accidents}} [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:1B|2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:1B]] 19:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Randall creates a new way to cook airplane food that is either cheap enough or expensive enough to significantly affect airline ticket pricing. 2. Randall's recipe poisons a Math Olympiad team. 3. The coach of the team turns out to be an undercover spy. [[Special:Contributions/24.53.184.90|24.53.184.90]] 23:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

{{w|IATA}} is an international trade association for airlines. It's not particularly involved in air safety, except as a sideline; the {{w|International Civil Aviation Organization}} is much more involved that way. However, IATA used to be directly concerned with recipes. In the 1950s, the IATA airlines agreed on international standards for meals, under which economy class passengers would only be provided with sandwiches. However, airlines such as SAS and Swissair provided their passengers with more and better sandwiches than U.S. airlines such as Pan Am and TWA were willing to provide. Eventually IATA issued a rule that sandwiches were to be cold, simple, unadorned, and inexpensive, feature “a substantial and visible” chunk of bread, and could not include materials normally regarded as expensive or luxurious, such as smoked salmon, oysters, caviar, lobster, game, asparagus, or pate de foie gras. Providing better sandwiches than those IATA allowed could result in a fine. (The rule was later revoked to allow economy class passengers to receive hot meals.) So at one point, it was possible to mess up a sandwich recipe by adding expensive ingredients that would incur the wrath of IATA. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 00:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The explanation "... if the recipe is used in major airports, and the recipe is contaminated with a drug, the pilots that eat could experience vision loss or other problems, and if this recipe is widely used and normal people won't notice much besides minor side effects, then this could attract the attention of of the IATA" does not make sense. If a recipe caused vision loss when pilots ate the food, it would also cause vision loss for non-pilots. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 00:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The phrase "messing up a recipe" means whatever Randall intended it to mean. The fact that some people may use the phrase to mean to make something at home does not mean that such a definition was intended by Randall. I don't think I have ever heard "messing up a recipe" mean anything other than ruining the preparation of the food. [[User:Inquirer|Inquirer]] ([[User talk:Inquirer|talk]]) 02:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Someone who ''creates'' recipes could make a mistake, publish a bad recipe, and cause problems. If a recipe left food unsafe, for example: not cooked enough to kill bacteria, left at room temperature for an unsafe time, etc. Tell people to find wild mushrooms, and that the red mushrooms with white spots are extra tasty. :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible this comic was inspired by the [https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/fda-advises-public-not-eat-sell-or-serve-certain-imported-frozen-shrimp-indonesian-firm recent FDA recall on certain Indonesian frozen shrimp]? [[Special:Contributions/174.21.93.112|174.21.93.112]] 03:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:That's noted, with that specific link, in the second sentence of the Explanation here. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Ack, apologies. I may be a little stupid. [[Special:Contributions/174.21.93.112|174.21.93.112]]

68 Bq/kg of Cs-137 is about 93 billions Cs-137 atoms in 1 kg of shrimp, that is about 1,5 picomole or 213 picograms. On the other hand one BED (banana equivalent dose) is ~15 Bq per piece, so eating a half pound package of this shrimp will irradiate you in the same amount as eating one banana, in terms of number of decays, but much less in terms of biological dose: potassium-40 in bananas emit beta radiation which is much more harmful when coming from ingested material than beta and gamma, roughly equally emitted by Cs-137. So this recall is on the level of emptying a reservoir after two guys pissed into it. Security theater. -- [[Special:Contributions/2620:1F7:2C04:7C44:0:0:31:3A|2620:1F7:2C04:7C44:0:0:31:3A]] 14:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
: Or the Dutch boy at the [deleted] dike. With the assault by Our ([https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2025/08/06/amoebas-lorica-meme-ories-68-introducing-humility/ USNA]) Government on such business-insensitive excesses as food safety, we should be grateful that the FDA is, at least for now, still capable of functioning at this level. [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:5C9D:407E:3E50:C822|2605:59C8:160:DB08:5C9D:407E:3E50:C822]] 15:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:The advisory does say that the danger is very low. I think this is one of those "abundance of caution" things. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Mooseberry fudge cake batter could very easily get the attention of the International Air Transport Association and possibly the NSA. As well as the Pottsylvania espionage community. [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 06:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3093: Drafting

2025-05-24T17:19:36Z

Lordpishky: Marshmallows

The efficiency loss is presuamably because the exhaust from the lead rocket is pushing back on the following rocket. It's also really hot, so the follower may be destroyed. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Anyone else getting lots of "site is experiencing difficulties" errors [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yes. It must be drafting behind another, more powerful rocket-themed web page and was experiencing some of that "99% inefficiency." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.136|172.68.26.136]] 15:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
: " getting lots of "site is experiencing difficulties" errors " Yes. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 16:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yes. From the experience of another forum I'm in, it's probably a sudden uptick on (possibly AI-feeding?) site-scraping. On that site, the number of viewers suddenly increased from a few hundred people online, maximum, at any given time, to tens of thousands. The owner of the site put an additional "are you human" check in the way (after about a week of it), and it fell back to less than a hundred simultaneous connections (not that far off the actual observable user-traffic, with a couple of handfuls of Guest lurkers at any given time, rather than the pre-slowdown peaks of three or four times the provably genuine users).
:That site didn't have Cloudflare, unlike here, and didn't use that as a solution. I would have ''hoped'' that this would have mitigated it here, though. Possibly, however, things could have already been hundreds of times worse without it as it is, hard to know for sure.
:And though my reasoning of the cause is just a guess, I'm sure others have noticed that the amount of 503/Connection Issue responses we're getting has substantially reduced the spam-level numbers of "goes nowhere, does nothing" new accounts that this site tends to get (its other anti-spam protections having long since prevented most of those from doing anything, while still seemingly allowing genuine users to interact). Hard to fully qualify that as a positive, but I suspect that genuinely driven 'honest editors' are more likely to persevere and get past the current bottlenecks, so it might (in certain, rather limited, terms) ''improve'' the editing experience. (The other site started to be ''really'' hammered (to then prompt calls for its subsequent changes) on 11/May, which seems to me to coincide very closely with the drop in new spam-style account names on here, which seems to corroborate it being the same global issue causing both sites problems.)
:Not that I wouldn't appreciate less of the 503s/etc. It definitely is a direct annoyance. Which I can't see being solved any time soon (if Cloudflare doesn't blanket add to its proxying protections, itself). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.49|172.68.229.49]] 16:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::Also here. Had to reload the page three times before I could begin writing. And will likely have to reload or try again several times before this is posted --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Added notes on difference between friction and expellant propulsion [[Special:Contributions/172.69.212.151|172.69.212.151]] 16:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a comment about drafting and cycle-sport. It might be used in peletons and certain velodrome events (i.e. not "pursuit" ones). But in my own part of the sport, time-trialling, it is actually ''not allowed'' (excepting in team time-trials), as competitors that have just been passed by a faster rider are not supposed to hang on (figuratively, of course) to their wheel. Nor should you try to catch your minute-man just so that you can stick behind them. Also, the rules on the amount of traffic allowed on the roads during an event, as well as being a direct safety aspect on the busiest of roads, are meant to remove any excessive advantage from passing traffic (especially lorries) pushing/pulling the competitors along. This doesn't mean that the occasional ride won't get some assistance. A fast tractor may be too slow for a fast rider to stay behind, who would really need to pass it when safe to do so, but could be going just fast enough for a slower one to benefit (but at the risk of being spotted doing so and the issue addressed appropriately). But competitor-on-competitor co-pacing (or accompanied riding of any other unofficial kind) is ''definitely a no-no''. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.229.49|172.68.229.49]] 16:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This comic made me think of this video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yuMcAS_wRRQ [[Special:Contributions/172.69.212.145|172.69.212.145]] 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The exhaust of the lead rocket might increase the density of the gas around the following rocket, thus affecting the efficiency of the following rocket's engine. (Giving the effect of being at a lower altitude if in atmospheric flight.) Rockets generally are less efficient in higher density atmosphere, and are designed for a particular density.
If the following rocket was close enough, it might alter the efficiency of the lead rocket by increasing density near the lead rockets engine, or by providing something similar to ground effect for the lead rocket. (The extent of such effects would also depend on any atmosphere.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.19|108.162.245.19]] 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Since rockets often travel at supersonic speeds, it seems like the costs and benefits of drafting might be altered, compared to land vehicles drafting at subsonic speeds. (Would both rockets have shock waves in front, would the shockwave from the trailing rocket interact with the first rocket, ...) Seems like it would be worth mentioning, but I couldn't find much about supersonic slipstreaming. Since I am not a rocket scientist, I wouldn't hazard a guess what might happen. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.115|162.158.41.115]] 19:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I am aware that bicycle races exist and except for occasional articles about cheating (the most interesting method was extracting one's red blood cells, storing up quite a lot, and putting them back in right before the race) don't care. Geese. Drafting is why I see a vee of geese where the leader peels back and becomes a follower accompanied by a bunch of geese that are just a flock. I think that fighter planes can use drafting. I've noticed the effect when a semi blows past me.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.202|172.71.222.202]] 06:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Ironically, Elon Musk has just announced that when the Starship hot-stages from the Super Heavy (meaning one rocket closely following another, both with engines firing, much like the picture), some of the vent ports at the top of the Super Heavy will be blocked so that the thrust from Starship will come out directionally and push the Super Heavy in a predictable direction... thus increasing its efficiency! [[User:Cphoenix|Cphoenix]] ([[User talk:Cphoenix|talk]]) 06:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Also people seem to be ignoring a comically enormous flaw with this method (no matter how well the exhaust of the leading rocket would provide a slipstream -- or obstacle -- for the trailing rocket): it requires TWO rockets. For example, let's assume drafting works perfectly with cars and such, to the point that the trailing car uses no fuel at all, which would be an incredible efficiency increase. It is not a reasonable idea to suggest improving your car efficiency like that by buying a second (bigger) car and having it somehow drive in front of yours, since it would cost you the second car and the fuel for the second car. With cars, it isn't unreasonable to expect maybe a second vehicle will be going the same path and create that slipstream for you, but rockets aren't as widespread, so at most this would only be applicable (with dubious results as the other commenters point out) if mission planners grouped various launches together at the same time so the launch of one mission would benefit from the launch of another mission (with the starting launch always having to pay the full price for their launch). {{unsigned ip|162.158.122.196|07:07, 24 May 2025}}
:If 'rocket drafting' worked like vehicle drafting, but the {{w|Tsiolkovsky rocket equation|Rocket Equation}} ''also'' applied, then conceivably (especially if you get towards 100% efficiency for the dragged vehicle) you'd be able to deliver a whole lot more mass (either unspent fuel or extra cargo with less fuel) to the point at which the guide-rocket has to peel off. It might be considered similar to adding extra disposable lower-stages to the rearwards rocket, instead of giving it a forwards one, but without the need for ''those'' stages to effectively have the payload capacity to carry a (significantly) passive assisted rocket on ''their'' nose.
:(In fact, because a drafting vehicle can smooth the turbulent drag behind the lead vehicle, improving ''both'' their effective efficiencies, if tucked in just right behind the right kind of vehicle, sending two rockets up in tandem would (with such mythical 'drafting' in operation) potentially get both loads up further (and/or with more liftable mass) than either alone. So be sending a rocket up to LEO and trailing it with one that you want to go to GEO, the conceipt would be that you can do the both better. Or just get two up to LEO/GEO/wherever but with less fuel than two missions. And, indeed, we see that the front rocket is probably a 2+2b configuration, and the rear one is probably just a 2-stage (give or take any 'orbital bus' stage, within each faring), so the expectations may be that a normally insufficient unboosted lower rocket is achieving an orbit (or even eventually escape from Earth to lunar/inter-planatery transfer) that normally it would ''absolutely'' require its own additional boosters/third-stages+ for.)
:Of course, rocket drafting as paridied here is bunkum (not helpful, and probably counterproductive). At best, the following rocket could be used to nudge (physically, or by bringing in its supersonic shockwave in close enough behind the lead to lend impetous to the front rocket's rearward thrust) and act as an additional 'loose booster' to add to the initial rocket's eventual travel. But the engineering, and coordination, behind that is very much less ...useful... than just designing the first rocket configuration to have ''extra'' extra boosters (like the Energia base stage, rather than the reduced Energia-M version, say), or creating extra stages for the stack (effectively like converting a Saturn-IB into a Saturn-V, though that did involve far more change than pushing a new Stage-1 onto the bottom of the original two). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.226|141.101.98.226]] 09:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

When cyclists start having afterburner set up, the same problem will occur on TourDeFrance. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.122.252|172.71.122.252]] 15:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Biggest advantage: You can toast marshmallows on the way up as well as down. [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3092: Baker's Units

2025-05-22T01:07:03Z

Lordpishky:

Why did he go with only 9/13ths of a Baker's List? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.65.8|172.69.65.8]] 23:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

A ruler for a "baker's foot" is, apparently, similar to a metal casting patternmaker's {{w|shrink rule}}, although in practice those top out at 2.5%, versus 13/12ths or 8.{3}%. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears to me like g marked by the g-clef is on the second space making the notes b and c which wound be 13 semitones apart. Two compensating errors or just a bit more cleverness for lagniappe?[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 01:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3041: Unit Circle

2025-01-23T19:20:00Z

Lordpishky: pargigaseconds

First [[Special:Contributions/162.158.175.72|162.158.175.72]] 23:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This would actually be so helpful for my geometry class right now '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 23:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Are you saying you have problem with abstract thinking? Why should matter if the unit circle had radius 1 yard, 1 foot, 1 meter or 1 lightsecond? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don’t like having things defined as “x” and like to have exact measurements. The diagram just looks cleaner to me that way '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 23:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There's nothing stopping you from considering non-dimensional lengths to be whatever unit you want. If you just write in, for example, "cm" after any linear dimensions, and corresponding units for areas and volumes, that's fine.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.169|162.158.158.169]] 14:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I prefer units of light-nanoseconds or the metric version parnsecs (don't think about it too hard :P) {{unsigned|SammyChips}} SammyChips 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I like [[3038|square acrminutes per steradian]] '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 02:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Please sign off with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>, or change your signature to include a link to either your talk page or user page. Thank you! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 01:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I did sign with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>, but the option for treating my signature as plain text was enabled. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 15:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::SammyChips, if that is supposed to be Parallax nano-seconds, you should understand that that is probably more like a Giga-Parsec. The parsec is the distance at which an object appears to move one second of arc when the Earth moves halfway around its orbit. (though I'm not sure which orientation.) [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 03:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I told you not to think too hard for that very reason :P It's actually parsec-nanosecond per year, but in a nod to the recent comics dealing with [[3038|unit cancelation]] and [[3040|making up personal scientific jargon]], I collapsed it into its own unit. For those who didn't get it, a light-nanosecond is pretty close to a foot, and the "parnsec" is pretty close to a meter. SammyChips 15:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: You Americans will use anything but the metric system![[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 16:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::parallax giga-seconds?[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 19:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::My Millennium Falcon gets 14 parsecs to the Kessel Run, and that’s the way I likes it! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.34|172.68.186.34]] 06:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm going to take all these desires for weird units with a barn-megaparsec of nackle. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.160|172.69.195.160]] 07:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:yo Tori, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEJWE6cpqw0 ''this''] might help you with geometry too ;) [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I’ve watched that video before-it’s really cool and it’s one of my favorite videos ever '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Are "they" also searching for {{w|Doubling the cube|Apollo's doubled altar}}? [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess the correct wording is that $\pi$ is a trancendent number. Some irrational numbers e.g. $\sqrt{2}$ can be constructed by compass and ruler. {{unsigned ip|172.68.185.165|07:12, 23 January 2025}}
:To be more precise, constructable irrational numbers are those that can be obtained through taking square roots, even repeatedly. Transcendental numbers are out, but so are things like cube roots. Note also that the fact that there are no "absolute units" of length is a quirk of Euclidean geometry -- in, say, hyperbolic world, a unit circle like this could actually work. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.213.153|172.68.213.153]] 09:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Watch out you don't make that unit circle too big, or the square's vertices might {{w|Ideal_triangle|stretch out to infinity}} and ignite the atmosphere! [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 16:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Didn't the unit kilogram lose some of it's mass? It may be working if something similar happened to this unit circle. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.214.117|172.69.214.117]] 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The unit circle has a diameter of 2 units by definition, as a circle's diameter is twice its radius. In this comic, the diameter of the circle is 89 pixels, measured from the center of the outline on one side to the center of the outline on the other side. This implies that at the scale of this scene, the "unit" is 44.5 pixels. Cueball is 201 pixels tall, making him 4.5 "units" tall. Are characters' relative heights consistent enough in ''xkcd'' for this to be meaningful? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:1020: Orion Nebula

2025-01-08T03:43:22Z

Lordpishky: Questioning Orion's facing.

Stay classy Randall... {{unsigned|92.40.254.95}}

The funny thing about people expecting us to believe Orion's penis is a sword is that swords weren't yet invented when Orion was named. However, everyone knew what a penis was. This is what we call an open and shut case.[[Special:Contributions/76.29.225.28|76.29.225.28]] 15:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
:We don't know exactly when Orion was created but, he was mentioned for the first time in the odyssey, about 8th BC. The first swords, the bronze-age swords, are from 17th BC. While Orion is old, is of course not as old as the 17th BC century. So, there were swords when Orion was created. ...But of course, the thing in the constellation is totally a dong. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.129|108.162.215.129]] 19:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Am I insane, or does Cueball have three arms? I thought one of them was a microphone, but all three lines seem to go to his shoulders.
:You do understand, right, that the body has a lower half that needs to be attached to the top somehow? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.170|172.69.34.170]] 22:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.120|172.68.59.120]] 19:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
::I think he/she is referring to the 2nd panel. From Cueball's shoulders, yes, there's the torso going straight down to the legs; but I think he/she means the two arms going to the podium plus apparently a third arm gesticulating above the podium. — [[User:Yfmcpxpj|Yfmcpxpj]] ([[User talk:Yfmcpxpj|talk]]) 19:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Yeah, there is definitely a third arm.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.125|162.158.107.125]] 18:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
::Definitely a microphone. Not a lot of breadth on a stick-figure, and the throat is pretty well in the same place as the shoulders. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.116|198.41.238.116]] 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
:::I think that it was meant to be a microphone, but the drawing was a bit sloppy. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 22:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
From the point of view of an Aussie, that is his head, what you think of his legs are his arms, and his arms are what you've got marked as legs. Makes perfect sense, and it's odd to think everyone in the Northern Hemisphere sees Orion upside down.... (: [[Special:Contributions/172.68.146.168|172.68.146.168]] 01:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

In some drawings Rigel ans Saiph are his knees. If you drop the assumption he is facing toward us then the 'sword' is his butt crack (I'll leave you to work out what that makes the nebula.) (I once went to a planetarium. The presenter's theory was Orion was a woman. I think I'll leave that one up to you also.) [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 03:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3022: Making Tea

2024-12-10T20:24:52Z

Lordpishky: ISO 3103 reference

I wonder where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party making it in Boston Harbor, at ambient temperature, at scale] would fit on this scale. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.162|172.70.206.162]] 04:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: A little to the left of the microwave thing. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.252|162.158.186.252]] 05:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Oh, no, much further to the right. You stole our colony from us, set up some tinpot, pretended 'country' in its place, and you didn't even have the class to make a decent cup of tea first. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.93|12.68.205.93]] 06:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: And, even if [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68085304 this guy] is right, ''way'' too much salt... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Soyuz nyerushimyy respublik svobodnik... [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 14:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Well maybe if you didnt force us to buy discounted tea from you after fighting a war for us, we wouldn't be in this situation. [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 15:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Yeah, a tiny island should not have that much control over a fractionable part of a continent[[User:Danger Kitty|Danger Kitty]] ([[User talk:Danger Kitty|talk]])
: I would like to as a british person to corroborate this, in the 80's my Dad visited the USA (he did go to florida) and still is complaining that the freshly boiled water wasn't poured directly onto the tea bag but was instead the tea bag and the hot water(now luke warm water) and bag was delivered separately!!! The delivery of freshly boiling water on to the bag is the major issue with microwaves, not the nucleation thing in my experience. Bear in mind I don't even actually like tea, still care enough to right this, but i'll be signing this anonymously to avoid shame being bought on my family and my family's familys. Murderous royals are a lot less popular the tea [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.227|108.162.245.227]]
:: I first visited the US in 1980. A friend who was with hate coffee and was horrified when he ordered tea that he got the water and the tea bag separately. When he suggested they add the water as soon as it was boiled, the wait staff thought he was joking. Many years later in Texas, a waiter asked me why I, a Brit, was drinking coffee, not tea. "You don't know how to make it," I replied. (In my house, the electric kettle and teapot sit next to each other on the kitchen worktop.)--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 09:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

When I make ramen, I put the measuring cup in the microwave. Fight me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.87|162.158.167.87]] 05:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: On behalf of the British Empire: whateva. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"...to the point virtually every home has an electric tea kettle as a standard appliance". If I'm reading it correctly, this and the comic suggests we (though not I, as I'm not a tea-drinker) make tea ''in the electric kettle''. Electric tea-urns, yes, or maybe a setup like a samovar. But, generally, the kettle itself (and, so far as I'm aware, always with an electric kettle) is used to heat the water, which you then pour into the tea''pot'' into which the requisite number of tealeaves/teabags are also put to steep. (Or, for the lazy way, into the mug-with-teabag.) I wouldn't be able to use my electric kettle to (for example) make my instant mashed-potato into the actual mash, if I'd have regularly used it to mash tea. Or top up the boiling saucepan that I'd realised I'd not quite enough water in to cover the pasta/vegetables/whatever. Or to easily add nust a little more heat (with less new water) to the washing-up bowl than would be possible from the hot tap, back to as hot as possible without scalding me. – Whether intentional or not, I suspect Randall has the role of kettle and teapot mixed up, and so (without the intent to parody) has the editor who wrote the above. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 05:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Agree, we make tea in a mug using water from a kettle. I'd be furious if an American made tea in my kettle, how will I then make up my instant Nescafe? [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the section on 'Boiling the water in a pot' refers to a teapot - I think it means boiling the water in a pot on the hob, and then making tea with it (in a pot/mug). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.27|172.69.195.27]] 07:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, but I also think there's a language issue with the use of pot vs. pan that makes things more confusing. I think there are several types of cookware that Americans call pot and British call pan. So British would not say they boil water in a pot but rather in a saucepan (if there's no kettle available of course). [[User:Mtcv|Mtcv]] ([[User talk:Mtcv|talk]]) 09:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I (as Brit) am uncommon in using an electric filter coffee machine to make tea (two bags in what is supposed to be the coffee filter). Set up, press the button and come back to a not jug of fresh tea which is not stewed. If later, the hot plate has shut off and it is cold, you can zap it in a mug in the microwave. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 08:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: As another brit, what? I do not understand the mechanics of this, please elaborate. Additionally, my understanding is that the water would be *briefly acquainted* with the tea, thus would be a poor facsimile of "tea" and would rather be closer to something the americans would attempt. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.126|141.101.99.126]] 11:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm guessing the water would drip on to the teabags, then soak all the way through them and drip out into the jug, without allowing sufficient to accumulate that it would run straight out without passing fully through the bag. It's an intriguing idea. But most definitely wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.239|172.70.85.239]] 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMMTVVJI4c Technology Connections]! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.167|141.101.109.167]] 09:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You Westerners have literally no idea how to make proper, good tea! SMH [[User:TPS|TPS]] ([[User talk:TPS|talk]]) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

As a Brit who grew up in sight of the Yorkshire Tea factory – and worked there on occasion – and having travelled very widely around the world – including in the US – I feel I'm supposed to have an opinion. However, I have ''never'' encountered the microwaving of water as mentioned here, and I would not object to it as supposedly problematic for tea-quality reasons. I'd object for reasons of common sense. What mystifies me is the idea that kettles are tea-specific. They are for heating water, not making tea. Coffee uses hot water. Pasta, rice and potatoes use hot water. Peas, carrots, cabbage, sweetcorn...

Baking bread often involves a pan of steaming water in the oven.

"But I can boil water in a pan for cooking pasta or vegetables."

Yes, but you'll be waiting a l-o-o-o-ng time. I'll heat my water in the kettle, pour it into the now-hot pan, cook my pasta, and I'll be eating before your water is boiling.

A kettle is not a tea-making item any more than a frying pan is an omelette-making item; tea is simply one of the things you can make with water from a kettle. Hot water is a basic civilised human commodity, predating recorded history. That we should live in a mechanised world, and the Consumer Nation doesn't have water-boiling appliances as standard (saying instead "I don't have a kettle because I don't drink tea") is ludicrous.

Using a microwave rather than buying a kettle is a bit like not buying a hammer for driving in nails because you've got a big pair of pliers that will do. Sure, they're heavy lumps of metal than live in your toolbag, but they're not the right thing.

The Brits, incidentally, are not tea lovers. They are prolific consumers of awful tea that actual tea lovers wouldn't use for cleaning their drains. The most enthusiastic tea enthusiasts I've ever met were from Maryland.

It's all just social ceremony in the UK. Milk first, tea first, must use a saucer, must use a pot...tea is a British religion, not a British drink.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 14:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder what the Brits would feel about repurposing a single-cup coffee maker. These days, I usually put a tea bag in a mug and place it in a Keurig machine and run it (without a K-cup, of course) to deliver the hot water. Probably the wrong temperature, but fast and easy and the result is good enough. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Would any British person care to evaluate my tea making practices? Boil water in electric kettle. Pour water over teabag, allow to steep, remove teabag. Add sugar and ice cubes. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 15:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:...well, seems a fairly standard "making one mug of tea for oneself" process. It lacks a milk-adding stage (thus no arguments about whether before or after the water). Removing the teabag at that point probably means it's not going to become a Builders' Brew, which is your choicd. Sugar is ok. And... Waitwhat... ''Ice Cubes?!?'' ...can I get back to you on that? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.163|172.70.162.163]] 17:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm (by inadvertent experiments conducted on flatmates) that they indeed do not like tea being make in the kettle. What really makes them angry though is making coffee in the teapot. It ruins the taste of the teapot forever apparently. There is also a faction that insists that a teapot should never be washed, and washing it invokes a lesser anger.[[User:Gopher|Gopher]] ([[User talk:Gopher|talk]]) 15:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

On rare occasions where I don't have a kettle available, I use a microwave oven to boil water for tea. But it doesn't look and taste quite the same, and often leaves an ugly foam at the surface when the tea bag is added. This phenomenon is investigated here: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/22264. So the British might be right... Disclaimer: I'm neither from the UK nor from the US. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.126|172.69.68.126]] 16:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a [https://www.tumblr.com/elodieunderglass/669449994039853056/wizardlyghost-silverjirachi-pidoop tumblr thread] about the topic of teamaking in microwaves, kettles, etc. Funnily enough it showed up in my Instagram reels feed just a few hours before this comic was posted. I was thinking perhaps Randall saw it too and was inspired by it? Both of them have to deal with the different ways of making tea and how "absurd" or "unconventional" (etc.) they are. Even if Randall didn't have it in mind, it's certainly a funny little coincidence. [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing my occasional summertime practice of filling a gallon jar with water and lots of tea bags, setting it on the back porch in the sun for a few hours until the water turns dark brown, then putting the whole thing in the refrigerator and later drinking it over ice would be toward the more angry end of the spectrum.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.204|172.70.126.204]] 16:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Pat
:I think the "in the sun for a few hours" part might just be too incomprehensible to most of us, here in Britain. If we ''have'' a few hours of sun (and we're not abroad and deliberately sunburning ourselves on the beach/beside the pool in our week at the Costa Lotta budget-all-inclusivs holiday) then we're either fuming at our workdesks complaining about the louts stripping down to their shirtsleeves and splashing in the town-centre fountains or we're on our lunch-break and we ''are'' the louts stripping down to our shirtsleeves and splashing in the town-centre fountains. In neither case would sun-stewed tea be a priority. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.163|172.70.162.163]] 17:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth to mention how dangerous it is to boil water in a microwave. https://tastecooking.com/dangerous-microwave-water/
[[User:Mestafais|Mestafais]] ([[User talk:Mestafais|talk]]) 15:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There are several comics with unmarked scales. It would be interesting if the descriptions started using pixels to point where each mark is along the line. As a rough estimate, the four points mentioned here are at X-values: 90px, 115px, 345px, and 645px, indicating that the pot method is 10% as infuriating as the chalice method - or that making tea in a pot ten times would be equally as infuriating as making it once in a chalice (at least, assuming the kettle method causes zero furons. I know of {{w|hedons and dolors}}. I guess 'furons' are a unit of fury, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.236|172.70.46.236]] 16:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting to see the interest in editing this. Had a quick check of the last ten comics, looking at the number of edits made in the first 14 hours (the exact time this page has been around, as of me starting the check) and in total, and extrapolated to edits/day (in the case of total edits, both just to the latest edit and right up to 'now'). Thought it'd be interesting to give you my results (assuming I tallied/etc correctly)...
*3022 - 14hr: '''61''' ('''105'''/day); Total: 61 ('''105/day...''')
*3021 - 14hr: 23 (39/day); Total: 39 (11/day -> 10/day)
*3020 - 14hr: 22 (38/day); Total: 36 (10/day -> 6/day)
*3019 - 14hr: 28 (48/day); Total: 54 (17/day -> 7/day)
*3018 - 14hr: 14 (24/day); Total: 48 (4/day -> 4/day)
*3017 - 14hr: 29 (50/day); Total: 33 (32/day -> 3/day)
*3016 - 14hr: 28 (48/day); Total: 46 (4/day -> 3/day)
*3015 - 14hr: 20 (32/day); Total: '''83''' (5/day -> 5/day)
*3014 - 14hr: 40 (69/day); Total: 66 (16/day -> 3/day)
*3013 - 14hr: 36 (61/day); Total: 68 (3/day -> 3/day)
...of course, the first 14 hours probably biases to British readers/editors, and it was too fiddly to add up ''|bytes changed per edit|'' as a more useful metric than mere number of pokes. But quite a bit of interest we already have here. More edits in fourteen hours than any other article less than fourteen (indeed, 17!) days old... ;) Seems to have really hit a mark, this subject! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.201|172.69.195.201]] 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:This one is super weird. I may be weirdness incarnate... but... [[User:Maybe Bill Cipher|An anonymous Gravity Falls expert]] ([[User talk:Maybe Bill Cipher|talk]]) 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that the more pessimistic interpretation of the two low-end options makes sense, rather than the more generous versions offered in the current explanation. I think the first one does literally mean making tea in the kettle, and the second one does mean boiling water in a teapot. Making tea *using* a kettle isn't anything to get mad about, it's the default practice. That should put it at the zero point of the line, but it isn't, it's to the right. On the other hand, obviously making tea *in* the kettle would incite a modest amount of rage (on the scale of zero to microwaving a mug), and it makes sense that boiling water in a teapot would incite about 50% more, as shown.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.160|172.69.134.160]] 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a standard for making tea, ISO 3103: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3103, and apparently from the Royal Society of Chemistry.
And, of course, it must be really hot for in infinite improbability drive to work properly.
[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 20:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3013: Kedging Cannon

2024-11-20T01:25:19Z

Lordpishky: Suggest Ship is the `Flying Dutchman'

First? [[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 02:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Good essay on real-life (or this-world) kedging-- http://www.sailmagazine.com/cruising/cruising-tips/the-lost-art-of-kedging-how-to-set-a-kedge-anchor/ [[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 02:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Nice. I think I managed to somehow get in first (before I logged in); first time I've done so, so apologies for not knowing all the conventions. I think the title text is the main non-obvious thing, since the simile between a windmill's mechanical function and that of tacking seems clearly intentional,but I'm sure that could be edited to be clearer than my hasty writup. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 02:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

For a brief, brief, moment, my brain failed to swap in and dredge up the memory of what kedging was, and I wondered if they were trying to use the aft cannon as a weak propulsion mechanism (hey, if it was a spacecraft…). And then I remembered what kedging was and—DUH! [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 02:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't for kedging, I probably wouldn't be able to make it all the way through November. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.133|108.162.245.133]] 04:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:Ha ha now exactly what you mean. The three longest month of the year are November November November... :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::Having a certain number of winches helps. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.92|172.68.23.92]] 10:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:My birthday is in November, helps a lot. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.108|172.71.150.108]] 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Wow, whoever wrote the Speed and Economic Analysis section, you are amazing! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.135|172.71.98.135]] 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:Sadly is was done by an anonymous IP address... But cool analysis. Have no idea what he actually calculates or if it is correct though ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::The system described doesn't need two cannons, just two anchors and winches for continuous operation. As something of an anonymous IP address editor myself, I am checking the math and intend to parameterize the assumptions for different size boats, different headwinds, and other different parameters. If I am successful, I will log in to upload a graph showing when cannon kedging is superior (if it ever is....) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.92|172.68.23.92]] 10:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't see depth of the water in the calculation. In the limit, if the anchor is snagging something at the surface of the water, the ship moves forward 300 m per shot. If the anchor is snagging something very very deep, the ship moves forward 0 m per shot. I kinda suspect that there's some assumption built in, and that's what's showing up as the effective speed, but not sure. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.6|162.158.154.6]] 21:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've got a strong hunch that this comic is about a captain who fails to take into account '''recoil / conservation of momentum''', which is a frequent mistake.
The cannon propels the anchor with great force, but, as it is connected to the ship, the ship is pushed back with the same force (minus some heat losses) ''before the anchor can settle''. Therefore, in this setup the ship will only move forward at all if the anchor ends up at a greater horizontal distance from the ship's original position than the distance between the ship's original and post-cannonshot positions.
The third panel, where the ship is drawn further to the left, indicates that the setback is significant and the ship only moves back and forth in the same place. Like, it ''literally'' takes forever. The title text is a hint: Only if the captain manages to harness a source of power that is independent from the vessel's movement (for example: wind from the wrong direction) this cannon will have any propagating effect - using this power for the winch, however, is just as futile as the kedging cannon itself.
For manual kedging, people heave the anchor to a boat and row out to a drop site, so it's not an issue.
Or am I missing something? [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 11:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, this is incorrect; the center of mass of a kedging ship + anchor does not stay in the same place - the anchor has caught on some feature of the seabed so the CoM can move towards the anchor as it is winched in. Even a sea anchor would work so long as the drag in water is sufficiently greater than the drag in air, but at that point you're evolving towards re-inventing the oar.
::As the ship is much heavier than the anchor and it additionally experiences resistance from the water, the amount the ship moves back is much less than the amount the anchor moves forward. I don't know if the ship being drawn further to the left is supposed to indicate that it moved backwards, but even if you assume that the frames are supposed to represent the same area of the ocean (which would imply the ship has moved backwards) you can see that the anchor has landed to the right of the frame, so the ship will have moved forward at the end of the manoeuvre. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92|172.68.205.92]] 12:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the objection is based upon the "on a frictionless surface in a vacuum" thought experiment whereby you try to make progress from continually throwing a tethered object (with insufficient reach to get to the edge of said frictionless surface) then drawing it back in again. With absolutely nothing to assymeyrically provide grip, even throwing it out fast then drawing it back slowly won't get you either towards ''or away from'' the direction of throw after each complete cycle. (Whereas if you untethered it, or let the tether snap, you would at least get some residual frictionless+resistanceless Newtonian movement out of it and could coast back against the thrown direction until you sufficiently escaped the frictionless area.)
:::Of course, in the sea-going example there's various resisting effects that you can use to your advantage (assuming there aren't active wind/water effects sufficient to overcome your desired vector of gains). Either differential between air and water (sea-anchor flies out with less resistance than it encounters when you drag it back in, or just set up something to row/paddle-wheel the same sort of effect of uneven push/pull reciprocation), an assymetrically varying object of resistence (opening/closing umbrella, parachute envelope or, potentially again, sea-anchor equivalent), an off-direction effect that creates a perpendicular force you require "waggly-tail" oaring, or how a boat stays upright so that a relatively turning screw creates propulsive thrust) or even use time-/force-dependent viscosity (shoving hard in one direction creates a different total resistance from pulling the exact same (directionally agnostic) mass softly back again in the opposite direction; rinse and repeat to accumulate whatever differential effect that you generate). Several other options suggest themselves, with fully closed-cycle reciprocations.
:::Though what we have here is a partial 'open-cycle' system. The expelled 'exhaust' of the fired cannon actually acting ''against'' the throw-and-drag process, but probably only marginally, and ''could'' be factored in as a beneficial force either by using sufficient waste-gas "blow back" diverters to extract cannon-direction momentum (not just recoilless, but 'anti-directional recoil', like jet engine reverse-thrust 'scoops' do to aid deceleration once safely touched down upon landing) in just the right way or where the "firing is through a hard medium, but the pull-back is through an easy one" (e.g. direct your projectile directly out-but-down into the water, but have it buoyant enough to breach the surface (or even rise, Zeppelin-like, completely out into the air!) so you can retrieve it with far less dragging effort - then you're travelling in the opposite direction from what you're firing, adding 'redeployable thrust' to the expended 'rocket reaction thrust').
:::Anyway, all that aside, I think that's where Transgalactic was headed (their original "am I missing something?" bit, before all my "no, except..." caveats as to various possible missing bits). Hopefully helps a bit. Even if none of it ''technically'' helps in a totally reactionless (non-depleting) space-thrusting scenario, which of course would be a useful thing to have. (We probably need a way to decouple gravitational mass from inertial mass, and selectively so, to do ''that!'') [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.222|172.70.46.222]] 13:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe instead of using a cannon, we could use a ballista? Saves gunpowder, but requires human labor. I think that would still be more efficient. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 11:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be more efficient to have the sails furled. Every time the anchor is lifted the wind will push the boat back again. {{unsigned ip|172.69.214.135|12:27, 19 November 2024}}

It is definately not visible, but I'm pretty sure there is a beret hiding under that hat.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.10.188|162.158.10.188]] 18:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:That was my first thought. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.108|172.71.150.108]] 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
== Sailing upwind ==

The sailing rig drawn is approximately a "2 masted schooner". There were MANY variations and add-ons in schooners, few this simple, but Munroe is making funnies not a treatise on sailing ships.

Schooners generally are better for 'tacking upwind' than square-rig, while potentially limiting the amount of manpower needed and spar-weight up high.

Yes, kedging will work in any wind or no wind, so this is a superior solution, until the powder runs out. [[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 22:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

== Flying Dutchman ==

My thought at the line `Is that why your ship takes forever to--' was that the ship was the `Flying Dutchman' taking forever to round the cape.
[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 01:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:435: Purity

2024-11-12T16:12:07Z

Lordpishky: /* Math vs. Logic */

See Comte's hierarchy of the sciences from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages his law of three stages]: Mathematics; Astronomy; Physics; Chemistry; Biology; Psychology; Sociology. --[[Special:Contributions/24.85.241.128|24.85.241.128]] 07:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is on top? Quantum Physics or Mathematics? {{unsigned ip|172.70.127.40|17:57, 9 April 2024}}
:Quantum Physics is probably top, bottom, up, down, strange ''and'' charmed... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.20|172.70.162.20]] 21:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition to Comte, Randall's tweaking P.W. Anderson's 1972 article "More Is Different." Anderson gives a similar list and then says "But this hierarchy does not imply that science X is "just applied Y*" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 22:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Shame it leaves out Engineering running parellel to all of them - maybe Engineering is just too busy getting shit done? {{unsigned|2.121.172.39}}

- What can we learn from this? - Actually as an Engineer I have a different view point to 2.121.172.39. We are implementers of original ideas and a few of us are lucky to be original idea generators. As a successful full time Engineer I still find time to be a philosopher and aspiring teacher (who simply didn't want to be poor, which is hard to do when specializing in the other two professions). How ever I do keep asking myself often who wrote the laws that mathematicians and theoretical scientists keep re-discovering for us... - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"[http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf More is Different]", written by Nobel laureate P.W. Anderson, is an insightful critique of constructivism. Quote:
<blockquote>But this hierarchy does not imply that science X is "just applied Y." At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one.</blockquote>
[[User:Allenz|Allenz]] ([[User talk:Allenz|talk]]) 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This one resonated around the Internet quite a bit more than average, and deservedly so. I'd think it'd be almost as far-reaching as the grownups one. I did wonder, after I saw this, how one would take into account things like linguistics, logic, and philosophy. Then I read ''Gödel, Escher, Bach'' and returned to normal. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 03:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Could one argue that Mathematics is applied Philosophy? [[User:Nsimonetti|NikoNarf]] ([[User talk:Nsimonetti|talk]]) 15:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

;Physics and mathematics

Physics, chemistry, biology, earth science,... are science on how things '''work'''. Mathematics and philosophy are science on how things '''can be predicted to work'''. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.32|108.162.222.32]] 10:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
A friend of mine compared the math-physics relationship to linguist-regular person. A linguist researches all the little details in a language that a normal person merely uses in his everyday life without giving the language itself much thought.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.215|141.101.99.215]] 08:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war here, I'd just like to say that "physics is the real joy in the world" would make absolutely no sense to me if I was not a native English speaker or I simply wasn't getting the comic's point in the first place. Not only does it have shades of grammatical incorrectness, it does absolutely nothing to actually explain how mathematics and physics can be compared to sex and masturbation. Thus I've changed the title text around to a compromise between my edit and what it was before. I hope this is more acceptable. [[User:Jetman123|Jetman123]] ([[User talk:Jetman123|talk]]) 13:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:I'm still not happy with the title text explain:
:*The explain implies that masturbation "is all just in your head" and not "involves interactions with real objects". Isn't a vagina/penis also a real object?
:My last edit on this wasn't perfect as well, so it still needs an enhancement. The joke is more like this: Math/maturbation gives only satisfaction to the subject acting on this — Physics/sex are related to the real world (applied science/babies). And this is surely exaggerated by Randall because physics couldn't exist without mathematics — those faculties just joking about each other. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Some experts say the universe is a computer. Some other experts say all computers can be hacked. If both groups are right, then it follows that physics is one stack-overflow exploit away from being reduced to applied computer science. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Logicians: hi.

From: [http://redd.it/25xhm2 '''The psychology of the pure mathematician''']

* ''"On the other hand, physicists like to say physics is to math as sex is to masturbation."''
* ''Are physicists born with particles- or are they implanted because they are born without balls?''
* ''Would a mathematician have much better analogies than orgasms?''

I wouldn't know.

* Math is to physics as,
* drugs are to prostitutes,
* green eggs are to ham,
* ''quod erat demonstrandum'' is to ''cogito ergo sum'',
* masterbating is to shakespearing,
* coffee is to sugar,
* Spock is to House,
* category theory is to Kama Sutra,
* Cicero is to Caesar.

Sorry physics, but it seems to me that your particle accelerators are gluttonously huge scientifically unnecessary and totally useless particle-crunchers, functionally comparable to fastest-known super-computer designs for discovering new large prime numbers. I wonder if physicists are actually the ''heaviest'' consumers of funding that would otherwise be available to support mathematicians, who are obviously the ''lightest'' consumers of research funding and also the most productive of new discoveries. Mathematicians can actually tell the difference between an arbitrary mathematical information computational process, and an orgy of man-boy physicists playing with their tiny balls in a spaceship-submarine with a warp-core that could give anyone an involuntary geek-gasm easily shrinking physics to the size of sex. QED.

Thanks for the joke, any offense taken it was not my intention to return. I just felt the need to point out that, although I agree that physics is a respectable second-best, sexy is a long way from first.

''Nafindix'' [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.107|199.27.128.107]] 06:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Random side note: One could argue that mathematics is applied philosophy (if we take philosophy as a way to create an understanding of the world), and that philosophy (as a product of human societies) is applied sociology. It's a weak argument, but the circular-ness is appealing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.69|108.162.238.69]] 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
: {{W|Equivocation}}!--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 06:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Last night, I passed around my phone in a discussion group, and it showed the philosopher both on the left, and again WAY OVER on the right, with a "Whoa!" This morning, it is back to how it is presented above. Randall, are you messing with me? [[User:Knechod|Knechod]] ([[User talk:Knechod|talk]]) 17:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

First, the terminology: cold science is an observation described with math, that can give stable objective (meaning they could be potentially disproved by an experiment) predictions in a certain range of conditions. Philosophy is an interpretation of science. Math is purely artificial and doesn't require translation, it is pretty much the only abstract symbol system we have now that follows the principle of objectivity, and any solid generalization model requires abstraction by definition. A natural language can't do that because it's subjective, and it's philosophy that is about subjective terms, what do they mean and how do they relate to objectivity and perceived reality. Gather 5 quantum physicists and show them an equation - they will nod agreeably, but ask them to explain it - and they will fight eventually. Despite that, mobile phones work the same way in hands of any person, because that's an applied science, which is roughly equivalent to engineering + inventing. So in that terms the relationship between sciences can be seen as an example of what's called emergence [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence], and this concept quite well exists inside any particular science, i.e. in physics thermodynamics is just a generalization of Newtonian mechanics for certain kind of systems (a temperature is a mean kinetic energy of comprising particles, and so on), and mechanics itself is one of generalizations of electrodynamics (things like friction and collision are electromagnetic by nature). The same applies to all other sciences - they just describe different systems of different scales, and most borders become very smeared nowadays, with things like molecular biology, quantum electrodynamics (which is essentially a whole new branch of math), chemical kinetics, ethology and many other continuously evolving cross-disciplinary branches of science. So there's no contradiction here, sciences are different in many aspects but yet they all are reflections of a global pattern, and thus should operate on the same conceptual field. And in this case the contextual field is maths itself. In the end even our subjective descriptions of reality could (and probably would) be represented as a set of math equations, because our brains are nothing more than big calculators, and our language is nothing more than a system of symbols, represented with geometrical shapes and sound waves, and the same ''mathematical'' patterns are repeated all over the different aspects of those. All is one, just like our universe itself. octaharon @ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.212|141.101.77.212]] 09:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
:Sincerely, Summer Glau [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

[[Media:Example.ogg]]When you think about it, math is just applied language, and language is is just applied sociology.--[[User:ExistentialGrasshopper34|ExistentialGrasshopper34]] ([[User talk:ExistentialGrasshopper34|talk]]) 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Logicians: hi.[[User:Scci0927|Scci0927]] ([[User talk:Scci0927|talk]]) 02:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

==Math vs. Logic==
It should be mentioned that Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach sets logic as being even more pure than mathematics. All mathematical systems can be derived given basic logical precepts. That is how many mathematical/geometrical proofs are structured.

I totally agree. Mathematics is just applied Logic. (Perhaps we can go one more step, to say that Logic is just applied Philosophy?) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.25|172.70.114.25]] 15:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

But you have to stop there. Per my comment `What about metalogics?': `LOOK! THERE ARE NO REAL MATHEMATICIANS WORKING ON THAT!' --St. Carl of Sagan (Yes, it was said in a [quite] raised voice).

'course, you ''can't'' stop there was a recurring theme in GEB. Hmm. Can you go 2nd order and prove that metalogics cannot be proven self-consistent and therefore Gödel's proof is suspect... as well as the proof Gödel's proof is suspect is suspect?
[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 16:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)