explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1986: River Border

2018-06-06T05:03:08Z

Phineas81707:

The title text doesn't have a typo.
[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"It then occurred to Megan that she could break Nebraska state laws and the police couldn't catch her (because the river was in the way)."
:I ''think'' it might actually be because Megan is under the mistaken impression that it's neither Nebraskan nor Missourian territory, so neither set of cops actually have jurisdiction (similar to that thing where apparently there's an area of [https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinandrews/2017/11/26/icymi-you-can-get-away-with-murder-in-part-of-yellowstone-national-park/ Yellowstone] where no one has jurisdiction).
::I believe you're right. The title text seems to confirm this.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 20:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
:::While I saw the possibility of the Lawless Unclaimed Territory explanation (i.e. nobody has jurisdiction), I feel very sure the intended meaning is that the state that can get there has no jurisdiction and the state they're in can't get to them because of the river. (Mainly because Unclaimed Territory is a bit of a logical leap, while Cops Are Cut Off is fairly logical and somewhat true. Note the wording that "cops can't do a thing", not "there are no cops"). What amuses me is that I've heard of this location before AND that it is indeed true that there are no bridges, so it is indeed quite true that you can't reach this location from the rest of Nebraska. But of course I'm sure cops wouldn't hesitate to pass through Missouri. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
::::Good thoughts! I was having a tough time wrapping my head around why the cops wouldn't just use a boat or helicopter, if necessary. That's why I didn't immediately consider it was the river stopping them.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 14:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

:I'd edit it myself, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm right. Thought I'd bring up the possibility so others could decide. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.24|172.68.47.24]] 16:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

::I fixed it. [[User:Grabadora304|Grabadora304]] ([[User talk:Grabadora304|talk]]) {{unsigned|Grabadora304}}
:I also read it as the river physically keeping the police out of the region so I added it back (before even reading these comments), but only as a second possibility, leaving the jurisdiction as the primary. Note that the river actually IS a physical barrier, there are no roads across the river there. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 21:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t the only place in the US, or even in Nebraska, where this has happened. The town of Carter Lake, Iowa is only accessible by car by driving through Omaha.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.84|172.68.143.84]] 17:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

'''The story of the similar situation on the Walloon (Belgian)-Dutch border, and the headless corpse.'''
There used to be a situation like this on the border between Visé, Wallonia, Belgium; and Eijsden-Margraten in the Netherlands.
The border used to follow the path of the river Maas/Meuse at the time of the Treaty of London of 1839. Between 1970 en 1979, the river was straightened, and until 2018, the border no longer followed the path of the river. That led to situations similar to the one in this comic ''on both sides of the river''. Especially the Belgian bit at the Dutch side of the river became popular for drug dealings and illicit sexual escapades. At one time, a group of Antwerpians with moustaches proclaimed the area the independent Republic of Snorravia.
In 2012, a headless corpse was discovered there. (I have heard that it was a suicide, though details are scarce.) That lead eventually to a land swap agreed in 2016–2017, effective January 1st, 2018. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgium-netherlands-land-swap-agreement-river-meuse-borders-a7445751.html
— [[User:Adhemar|Adhemar]] ([[User talk:Adhemar|talk]]) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

: ''The Martian'' allusion - The joke about high seas, piracy, and maritime laws jumped out at me as echoing a joke made in ''The Martain'', which we know is xkcd-approved. Does anyone else think that it's an intentional allusion? [[User:PvOberstein|PvOberstein]] ([[User talk:PvOberstein|talk]]) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

:How exactly can you commit suicide by beheading? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
::He could have committed suicide by slitting his throat, then something happened that caused his head to fall off. But who knows? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 07:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
:::Or by putting on the [[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blindpanic.com%2Fhumor%2Fvecna.htm Head of Vecna]] [[User:Kazzie|Kazzie]] ([[User talk:Kazzie|talk]]) 05:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
::A guillotine would be a handy device for a suicidal beheading. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 13:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so, basically, two people buy plots of land with river flowing between them, after years the river changes course, and they go to court and hire experts to find ''why'' the river changed course and, depending on the outcome, one person can win a chunk of land the other person had paid for? And this is common in 21st century law systems? That's quite depressing. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
:...Except these aren't the property lines of people buying land, these are the borders of subsections of a country. If two people had bought land at this spot, one would now be on the other side (but would still live in Nebraska), the other just wouldn't have waterfront property any more (but would still have property in Missouri). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 03:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
::I was not talking about the comic itself, but about this part of the explanation
In cases of pure accretion, it is possible for a parcel of land to be entirely eroded away on one side of a river, and have material be added to the opposite side of the river. In such cases, one property owner could lose all their land.
::...and
In the real world, however, river systems undergo both accretion and avulsion multiple times over a period of time. This makes the determination of property lines along riverine boundaries one of the most complicated aspects of boundary surveying.
::I am by no means expert, maybe it's just poorly worded explanation, but it certainly gave me the impression that something as arbitrary as the cause of a river changing course can affect whether or not someone gets to keep their land, which is by itself as absurd as the very fact they can lose land due to river changing course. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 08:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

:Jaalenja, you are correct in your reading of my text. A person can lose land due to a river or stream changing location, but since this is due to accretion/reliction, it happens very slowly, over decades. Year by year, a property on the outside of a bend of a river will be eroded by natural forces. Over decades of erosion it's possible to lose acres of land. Given enough time, it's conceivable that an entire property could be eroded, but that's pretty rare. Conversely, a property on the inner side of a bend can gain silt, then sand, then rocks, and eventually vegetation. The time scales that these occurrences happen are usually over generations, which is why most people don't worry about it.

:Quick changes are the avulsive river movements, and in those cases, the property boundary doesn't change, because it was a sudden occurrence and the property didn't get destroyed in the process. It may seem like an odd system, but it has been held to be the most equitable way to deal with such natural forces by the English common law system and later on, the American legal system.[[User:Surveyorap|Surveyorap]] ([[User talk:Surveyorap|talk]]) 01:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Congrats Randy, your title text made me claw my eyes out. Thankfully, I know kung-touch-typing-fu. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.155|172.68.11.155]] 11:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the incomplete because I can't imagine how this explanation could be made any more complete than it is. In fact, this is one of most complete explains I've seen. Great job everybody! [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 18:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the title text as a joke on 'pier'acy and 'marina'time law, as a freshwater-based set of puns rather than a pizza set. [[User:Phineas81707|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707|talk]]) 05:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

1870: Emoji Movie Reviews

2017-08-01T00:13:11Z

Phineas81707: /* Explanation */ They did...

{{comic
| number = 1870
| date = July 31, 2017
| title = Emoji Movie Reviews
| image = emoji_movie_reviews.png
| titletext = There's this idea that emoji are bad for communication because they replace ambiguity and nuance with a limited set of preselected emotions, but it doesn't really survive a collision with real-world usage of the thinking face or upside-down smiley.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Here, have a thing.}}

This comic discusses {{w|The Emoji Movie}} between the cynical, Internet-equipped point of view of Megan and Cueball's language-enthusiasm. They ultimately agree the movie is bad.

Many critics of {{w|The Emoji Movie}} point to superficial problems like the subject matter and the product placement. Here, it's argued that the real reason the film is bad is because the creators cashed in on a trend without doing any research into it.

When [[Megan]] first mentions the The Emoji Movie's panned reviews, [[Cueball]] initially accuses the audience of being overly judgemental of the subject matter. He further expresses his fondness for {{w|emoji}} as an interesting and quirky part of language.

Cueball offers an early defense of ''The Emoji Movie'' by comparing it to ''{{w|The Lego Movie}}'', which - despite effectively being an entire movie of {{w|product placement}} for {{w|Lego}} - received generally positive reviews.

They start talking about a "Meh" emoji, who is the main character of the movie. The idea of "{{w|meh}}" as an emoji is actually ambiguous, as various emoji can be used to describe being unimpressed or neutral towards something. As given in examples from comic those are 😒, 😐 or 😕. The selection of a less identifiable emoji for the leading role also contrasts with the fact that the movie also features more iconic emojis.

Megan mentions that one of the attempted jokes in the film is a room full of emojis that are unpopular. Bizarrely, the eggplant emoji (🍆) is featured among them. This is a clear sign that the creative team in charge of this movie had limited first-hand experience with SMS messaging; as any millennial will tell you, the 🍆 is a sly stand-in for a penis, due to its similar shape. [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/eggplant-emoji-%F0%9F%8D%86] Cueball's reaction is to ask whether the creators of this film might be trying to be controversial on purpose, as it is popular lately (like for example in film {{w|Sausage Party}})

The line from the Wikipedia plot summary was a {{w|Special:Permalink/793251548|direct quote from Wikipedia}}. The sentence was introduced to the article by editor {{w|User:Voicebox64|Voicebox64}} on {{w|Special:Diff/792689187|July 28, 2017}}, and the exact phrasing quoted in the comic came from editor {{w|User:SubZeroSilver|SubZeroSilver}} on {{w|Special:Diff/793088884|July 30}}.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete|Could someone check if the emojis are all correct? Thanks in advance.}}
[Cueball and Megan are walking. Megan is checking her phone, presumably to check reviews about The Emoji Movie.]
:Megan: Reviews for The Emoji Movie are... not good.
:Cueball: People are just snobs about emoji. I like them! Language is cool and weird.
[Megan stops; Cueball is now outside the frame.]
:Megan: It's apparently 80% product placement.
:Cueball (off-screen): Whatever. So was The Lego Movie, and I liked ''that''.
[Cueball looks at Megan's phone.]
:Megan: It features the emoji we all know and love - with a "Meh" emoji in the starring role!
:Cueball: Wait... a "Meh" emoji?
:Megan: I wondered about that, too; the others are all familiar. Do they mean 😒? Or 😐 or 😕?
:Cueball: That's a little confusing...
[Zooms in; Megan is now looking at her phone by herself.]
:Megan: There's a joke in the movie about the "emoji that no one uses" that includes the eggplant emoji.
:Cueball: ...was that on purpose? Or did they not run the script by enough people?
[Megan and Cueball continue walking.]
:Megan: Here's a line from the Wikipedia plot summary:
:Megan: ''Gene and Hi-5 come to a piracy app where they meet the hacker emoji Jailbreak, who wants to reach Dropbox so that she can live in the cloud.''
:Cueball: Okay.
:Cueball: It's possible this movie is bad.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Emoji]]

Talk:1698: Theft Quadrants

2016-06-28T14:11:13Z

Phineas81707:

Come to think of it, I haven't accidentally hit a porn site in years. Is Randall even referring to a real problem? Anyone remember whitehouse dot com? And for the record, kids, [http://purl.net/net/tbc/writing/xxx.htm don't do porn]. ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 12:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)''

I think the sentences "It is hard to steal nuclear launch codes. And a good thing too since they could be used to start a nuclear war." are weird... to me on the first read it sounded like it is a good thing to steal them... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.63|162.158.85.63]]

What is it with Randall and stealing wienermobiles? [http://www.xkcd.com/935/ xkcd 935] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.62|173.245.52.62]] 15:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
:I added it to the explanation, thanks! [[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|talk]]) 16:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
:There's also a wienermobile in xkcd 1110 parked to the right of the Burj. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.33|198.41.239.33]] 11:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A somewhat similar thing really happened in one of the URL shortening services in Taiwan. This case is not that the domain is stolen; the problem is that its database storing shortened URL mappings, because of some mis-operation in converting database data, is rolled back and some shortened URLs are "double-booked." According to the announcement of the service, this affects over 234 thousand entries in the database. This leads to PTT, the largest terminal-based bulletin board system in Taiwan, bans shortened URLs from this service. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.40|108.162.222.40]] 20:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

''sites can be particularly vulnerable if they do not maintain their web site'' - what? You can have domain name without ANY web site at all. "lapse" likely refers to owners stopping paying. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

(Trying again... the CAPTCHA is glitching out on me.) "It is also hard to steal the {{w|Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom|Crown Jewels}}, since they are protected by a [http://yeomenoftheguard.com/Windsor%20Castle.jpg complex security system]." - The items that are the first linked items are not at the location the second link points to... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.131|141.101.98.131]] 16:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

In line with the above comments: the whole section on the crown jewels and the wienermobile seem to miss the point and get hung up on very minor details. Stealing the crown jewels would make a few people fabulously rich, a few people significantly poorer (or jailed, or court-martialled, depending), but would hardly affect anyone else in real terms other than making millions of people - all around the world - very upset. Saying that ''Randall erroneously assumes'' that there would be little consequence to stealing the wienermobile is just silly: there is nothing erroneous about it since it could never have a material effect on more than a few individuals, and the possibility of someone being injured or killed during the robbery is irrelevant since it applies equally well to the nuclear or crown jewels options. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.44|108.162.229.44]] 16:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In regards to stealing tinyurl.com, I don't think it would actually be that easy. In the title text Randall suggests picking up the domain name when it expires. Because some domains were stolen that way in the past, ICANN has changed the rules for the major top-level-domains, including .com. Now, after a domain name expires, the original register has a 45 day auto-renew grace period where they can re-register it without penalty. If they miss that period, they have an additional 30 day grace period where it can be re-registered with a penalty. The domain name stops working when it initially expires so it would be nearly impossible for a company like tinyurl to get to the end of both grace periods without noticing and fixing the problem. These new rules make it effectively impossible for an organization to lose its domain name by failing to renew on a timely basis. [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expired-2013-05-03-en Reference]

Since Randall only mentioned domain expiration as the way it might be stolen, it is unclear whether or not he was considering a more direct domain name hijacking. I'm less familiar with how easy domain hijacking might be but considering that their entire business depends on their domain name, I can't imagine it would actually be that easy.

Regarding the current explanation (and has been pointed out already), saying that "sites can be particularly vulnerable if they do not maintain their web site" is very wrong. This has nothing to do with maintaining a website, and only has to do with maintaining thei domain name. The website and domain name are two very different things, so this isn't just a matter of nitpicking. However, as I have explained above, the entire concept is no longer correct. There is now a grace period up to 75 days long for .com domains during which registrars are not allowed to sell the domain name to another third party. {{unsigned|Cmancone}}

It might be a lot easier than you think to steal the launch codes. For nearly 20 years the USA's launch code was 00000000. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.135|162.158.255.135]] 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

:Be honest: if you were to guess the launch codes, would you have guessed that? [[User:Phineas81707|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707|talk]]) 14:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1687: World War III+

2016-06-01T04:00:15Z

Phineas81707: /* Quote taken out of context */

The mouseover text mentions stripping a quote of its context... although this kind of makes the point of the context can often dilute the meaning, it seems that a counter point could be made by pointing out an example where the context is the source at least two major quotes (such as "No man is an island" and "Ask not for whom the bell tolls" both coming from John Donne).

Or I could just be being frivolous here?

[[User:Joshupetersen|Joshupetersen]] ([[User talk:Joshupetersen|talk]]) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
:or maybe a good example could be Darwin's qoute on the eye, which many creationist nutjobs take out of context and annoy everyone else in the same way Randall shows annoyance in the rollover text
[[User:JMR|JMR]] ([[User talk:JMR|talk]]) 02:03, 30 May 2016 (BST)

Hey, Randall skipped World War XIII. --[[User:XndrK|XndrK]] ([[User talk:XndrK|talk]]) 04:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe World War XIII is just sticks and stones again, considering XII? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.71|173.245.56.71]] 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
:Sticks and stones ''underground!!'' [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.43|141.101.98.43]] 10:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I swear that I've seen this exact joke somewhere before. Not just the general idea, but I mean down to the text. Can't find anything in searches though -- does anyone else remember seeing this before?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.221|108.162.220.221]] 05:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
:It may be a memory of the black Cards Against Humanity 'question' card, that leaves a blank regarding ''what'' WW4 will be fought with so as to be answered with a non-sequiter white card? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.43|141.101.98.43]] 10:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
:There's a practically identical joke in The Onion's ''Book of Known Knowledge''. [[https://books.google.com/books?id=lCpzgOD0A6oC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=onion+einstein+world+war&source=bl&ots=tt8vC86X3m&sig=gtvhl1l2F9pdcuWv7n-_c_sRofQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil5Iedk4LNAhXNCD4KHWluBhQQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=onion%20einstein%20world%20war&f=false]]

Comics released within the United State Memorial Day weekend. The unknown VIII-IX could reference Star Wars movies with their unknown scripts. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.15|141.101.98.15]]
:I made this misreading too, but it's VIII-XI, and I do not know of that many star wars movies planned. Could it be a final fantasy reference? --[[User:PsyMar|PsyMar]] ([[User talk:PsyMar|talk]]) 09:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
That's how I took it (as Final Fantasy). I think this would be unprecedented for Randall, but hilarious if so - it certainly reads like a riff on the FF series wildly varying levels of technology and war. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.5|108.162.219.5]] 19:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding the black background to the transcript just makes it hard to read and kind of defeats the purpose of a transcript (since now it just looks like the comic in a different font). Can we keep this to the standard of all the other transcripts? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.80|141.101.98.80]] 08:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
:How is it harder to read? It is the standard to let the transcript reflect the comic with colors etc. See for instance: [[1168: tar]], [[1685: Patch]] and [[1684: Rainbow]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

== Quote taken out of context ==

The current text says: "He implies that this is actually a full quote by Einstein and that all other occurrences using only the "original" version of this quote are misrepresenting it. In this particular case it is a much stronger quote than the long version from the comic, but it is often the case that quotes taken out of context seem to have an entirely different meaning than originally intended." I completely disagree.

What Einstein is saying is that he is horrified at the weapons that are being developed; and that he fears that if World War III ever breaks out, we will bomb ourselves back into the Stone Age. He is not actually making a prediction about fourth and subsequent world wars.

The longer "quote" as lengthened by Randall says, instead, "Hey, I'll try my hand at being Nostradamus (or St Malachy) and predict specifically which weapons will be used to fight a long series of upcoming world wars!"

This, of course, does entirely change the meaning of the quote. The Einstein quote is to prompt thoughtful contemplation of how we use the powerful weapons we develop. The lengthened quote would prompt either incredulity at the speaker's naivety, or possibly wonder at how he came up with these predictions, if one believes them to be accurate.

In other words, lengthening the quote ''does'' change it to an entirely different meaning than originally intended. The original meant, "Hey, be careful!" The lengthened quote simply means, "I think I'm Nostradamus!" [[User:Jsharpminor|Jsharpminor]] ([[User talk:Jsharpminor|talk]]) 00:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

:I agree, that's what that block of text means, and that's part of the joke. The short, original quote is much stronger than the long version this comic offers, and quotes taken out of context have a different meaning that originally intended ("The end justifies the means", anyone?). You're invited to make it clearer, but I don't see the issue. [[User:Phineas81707|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707|talk]]) 04:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

1687: World War III+

2016-05-30T05:06:11Z

Phineas81707: Sorry... this took so long to do that getting it up was more important than fixing that.

{{comic
| number = 1687
| date = May 30, 2016
| title = World War III+
| image = world_war_iii.png
| titletext = I hate how the media only ever uses the first part of this quote, stripping it of its important context.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic takes a famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein, and expands upon it to absurd levels. The original quote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." The basic premise of this quote is that World War III will be so devastating to the world that there will be nothing more to fight ''with'' afterwards. Randall adds to this quote by suggesting other weapons with which future World Wars could be fought with, with the title text stating that, by most occurrences of this quote not including the rest of the list, the quote's meaning changes dramatically. The Wars listed are:

*V: Crossbows. Crossbows are type of bow that is easier to aim and fire than a regular longbow, but is much more difficult to load. Most often used in medieval eras.
*VI: Lasers. In science fiction, blasts of lasers are often used instead of conventional guns. This suggests that society would have managed to rebuild lasers by World War VI.
*VII: Blowguns. A blowgun is a small tube loaded with a small dart or other projectile, fired by blowing into one end. That lasers would have been replaced by them seems absurd.
*VIII-XI: Skipped over.
*XII: The same weapons as III, but in underground tunnels. This is a parody of saying that X is basically Y 'but in space/underwater/etc', and, if the quote's well-known meaning is accepted, this has terrifying implications for the state of the world.
*XIII is completely unmentioned. This makes some sense, considering that XIII corresponds to 13, a number considered unlucky in many Western cultures, though it may also be an error.
*Before Einstein can discuss World War XIV, the audience of his quote seems to be going away. Einstein claims to have 'a whole list', suggesting that he may know a lot about the future wars to come more so than he has already suggested.

==Transcript==
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. World War V will be fought with crossbows, World War VI will be lasers, and World War VII will be blowguns. I don't know about World Wars VIII through XI. World War XII will use the same weapons as III, but will be fought entirely within underground tunnels. World War XIV will -- Hey, come back! I have a whole list!"

-- Albert Einstein
{{comic discussion}}

1687: World War III+

2016-05-30T05:05:11Z

Phineas81707: Hopefully this is a good starting position.

{{comic
| number = 1687
| date = May 30, 2016
| title = World War III+
| image = world_war_iii.png
| titletext = I hate how the media only ever uses the first part of this quote, stripping it of its important context.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page.}}

This comic takes a famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein, and expands upon it to absurd levels. The original quote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." The basic premise of this quote is that World War III will be so devastating to the world that there will be nothing more to fight ''with'' afterwards. Randall adds to this quote by suggesting other weapons with which future World Wars could be fought with, with the title text stating that, by most occurrences of this quote not including the rest of the list, the quote's meaning changes dramatically. The Wars listed are:

*V: Crossbows. Crossbows are type of bow that is easier to aim and fire than a regular longbow, but is much more difficult to load. Most often used in medieval eras.
*VI: Lasers. In science fiction, blasts of lasers are often used instead of conventional guns. This suggests that society would have managed to rebuild lasers by World War VI.
*VII: Blowguns. A blowgun is a small tube loaded with a small dart or other projectile, fired by blowing into one end. That lasers would have been replaced by them seems absurd.
*VIII-XI: Skipped over.
*XII: The same weapons as III, but in underground tunnels. This is a parody of saying that X is basically Y 'but in space/underwater/etc', and, if the quote's well-known meaning is accepted, this has terrifying implications for the state of the world.
*XIII is completely unmentioned. This makes some sense, considering that XIII corresponds to 13, a number considered unlucky in many Western cultures, though it may also be an error.
*Before Einstein can discuss World War XIV, the audience of his quote seems to be going away. Einstein claims to have 'a whole list', suggesting that he may know a lot about the future wars to come more so than he has already suggested.

==Transcript==
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. World War V will be fought with crossbows, World War VI will be lasers, and World War VII will be blowguns. I don't know about World Wars VIII through XI. World War XII will use the same weapons as III, but will be fought entirely within underground tunnels. World War XIV will -- Hey, come back! I have a whole list!"

-- Albert Einstein
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1458: Small Moon

2016-05-04T08:59:40Z

Phineas81707:

Probably another dig at the Pluto "dwarf planet" controversy?[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.109|199.27.133.109]] 06:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:Implying that it might not be? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.109|108.162.216.109]] 15:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is too good. I laughed for about 2 straight minutes.. :D [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 06:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Added a short placeholder explanation for the comic itself, using [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.109|199.27.133.109]]'s suggestion. Needs refining and explaining of the alt text. Cheers. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.207|173.245.54.207]] 07:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In the movie, they didn't have 3 hours to argue over the thing. Not sure if that's relevant... [[User:Haelbarde|Haelbarde]] ([[User talk:Haelbarde|talk]]) 07:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason it couldn't be a space station would be that something so large would wind up collapsing in on its own gravity. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.204|173.245.54.204]] 08:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:It's not solid, it's a comapritively low density on the whole (on the order of ten thousand million''th''s that of Earth's sea-level atmospheric pressure, if I've not thrown a rogue zero or two in to the calculation by accident, so is doubtless mostly vacuum outside of the functional/habitable/structural areas), there are obviously various gravitational compensators for the inhabited sections (hence "looking sideways out of the equator ring" and along the beam-channel, yet "up from the surface" from the trench system defence turrets and other internal shafts are also vertiginously 'up-down' in nature) and doubtless its structural stength is composed of various Unotanium (i.e. "durasteel") alloys and the like, way beyond what we could currently build with Earthly technology. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I would note that a Death '''Star''' can not be a moon. [[User:Briff|Briff]] ([[User talk:Briff|talk]]) 10:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:Note that it is canon that the "Star Destroyer"s are neither (if taken literally) capable of destroying stars nor (in the sense of "star ship" in general) are they technically destroyer-class ships. You've got to put it down to The Empire just having no sense of relevence when it comes to naming its vessels. Probably too much influence from clone-thinking... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:I will argue that by my understanding of the term, it actually is a moon whenever it is orbiting a planet but it would probably be better to come up with new terminology given the interstellar capabilities. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.183|108.162.237.183]] 12:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Band of Traveling Accountants

I've never heard of the word "deunifying"; did you mean "disuniting" or "disunifying"?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.203|173.245.54.203]] 14:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:That would probably have been me who wrote that. I didn't spend too much time thinking about it, was just putting something up, fully expecting it to get fixed up later [[User:Haelbarde|Haelbarde]] ([[User talk:Haelbarde|talk]]) 00:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I marked the transcript as incomplete; we can't be sure as to who is saying which lines in the final panel without Randall telling us himself. Notably, the second-to-last-line does not sound like something Ben Kenobi would say; more likely it's Han Solo. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.188|108.162.216.188]] 13:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:Agreed. Comment is much more easily seen as coming from Solo than Kenobi. And, if they did rescue Leia during the intervening interval (one of the two scenarios suggested), Kenobi wouldn't be present. Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:I have two reasons why I'd stick with my original Luke and Ben for the last panel: 1) On a cursory read of the comic, without thinking about what would have happened in the movie, the natural assumption is they have been arguing for the entire 3 hours, so its the same two people, and 2) If they had actually been captured by the Death Star, there would no longer be any argument. They would have found upon closer inspection that it is in fact a space station. Note that in the final panel they're arguing about classifying it as a moon, as opposed to the Title Text, in which the options both acknowledge its artificial/station status.[[User:Haelbarde|Haelbarde]] ([[User talk:Haelbarde|talk]]) 00:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:Randall's official transcript (in the source code of http://xkcd.com/1458/, look for <code><div id="transcript" style="display: none"></code>) shows who is saying what in the last panel. Therefore, I have updated the previously "Unknown" speakers in the Transcript section for this comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.155|108.162.238.155]] 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear other editors: "In this galaxy" was wordplay on the {{w|Star Wars opening crawl}}. I find your lack of pop culture disturbing. Changing the phrase to "In this solar system" was incorrect. Furthermore, although the predominant civilization on Earth allows moons of nearly any size, it is not necessarily true that inhabitants of SWG followed the same nomenclature. I think the wording should be restored. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 17:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:In fact, we know for sure that SWG defines "moon" differently {{w|Natural satellite|than we do}}, because when the Millennium Falcon arrived, the Death Star was not orbiting another non-star body (it was the largest body in its spatial neighborhood) and therefore could not be a moon (as defined in this galaxy). - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 18:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:Frankie's observation is something I thought of after seeing the movie as a kid, but the station could actually be orbiting the combined gravity of the debri field of the planet it just destroyed. The 'tidal' forces on the station would be different from the debri than from the planet, because the matter is now distributed differently, but the death star still could be an orbiting body, for a while at least. Once the debri field becomes more distributed the situation would be as Frankie stated. [[User:SeanLynch|SeanLynch]] ([[User talk:SeanLynch|talk]]) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I notice Randall removed the "We'll be back next week" line from his What-If page today. I wonder what's up since it's been over two weeks. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.241|108.162.210.241]] 02:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say this strip is also a reference to the fact that any object of large enough mass in space would have its own gravity? (Setting aside an earlier comment about the Death Star being mostly vacuum) {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.246}}

I haven't seen Star Wars in a while, but was it not Han Solo who said the "It's too big to be a space station" line? After all, Solo was more worldly than Luke at the time. [[User:Phineas81707|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707|talk]]) 08:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)