explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3229: Grammar

2026-04-07T19:54:54Z

ProphetZarquon: E

E3EeE E3eE!! [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 22:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
: E
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I created a transcript, but used OCR for all the E's because I kept losing count of how many there were. If someone wants to factcheck that, please do. [[Special:Contributions/104.28.215.220|104.28.215.220]] 22:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
: Factchecked 19 E's counted in the image and 19 E's counted in the transcript. [[Special:Contributions/12.155.149.34|12.155.149.34]] 23:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the bot picked up the April Fool's "feature" as interactive, should we keep it or remove? [[Special:Contributions/104.28.215.220|104.28.215.220]] 22:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Side note: I have heard people using both alternate niche methods of language structure, kinda like those people who adopt a losing format even after it's clear it has lost. On character who has on occasion dabbled in both is Homer Simpson, BTW. --[[Special:Contributions/94.73.49.13|94.73.49.13]]
:I still say that Video2000 was the superior home VCR format, in every way...[[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 23:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
: Not really niche - a significant proportion of spoken language is non-grammatical. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 16:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Any "competitors" to grammar would still be grammars since a grammar, by definition, describes how a language is structured. [[Special:Contributions/75.248.235.98|75.248.235.98]] 00:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:Well, the Random Words one ''seems'' to have no particular structure beyond being word-utterances, and the EEEEEEEEEEEEEE one doesn't even have much that ''can'' be structuralised (though I'm half expecting it to actually supposed to be a modem 'yowl', it needn't even be that), so I'm willing to bet that this exempts them from any consistent quality of being grammar. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
: The second example used the term word-s which in itself is a structure with grammar. And the last example might well have grammar, if eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee is a single morpheme, we siply wouldn't be able to recognize the grammar. [[Special:Contributions/195.65.24.115|195.65.24.115]]

I interpreted "words order words random words words random good" differently. I assumed it was missing commas and should be read as "words-order", "words-random" "words-words" "random-good". Maybe(probably?) not what Randall intended, but if anyone interpreted it the same as me, you're not alone! {{unsigned ip|69.204.108.174|00:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)}}

i reconsider this: non-verbal communication isn't another rival for communication, as it is a subset (after seeing and liking [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3229:_Grammar&diff=next&oldid=409748 this anon's edit]), but i'm not sure what other methods there could be than just communication and non-communication; Lenhart says "rivals" plural -- [[User:Somefan|somefan]] ([[User talk:Somefan|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Somefan|contribs]]) 00:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:Pretty sure the joke is that any alternative to communication would by definition be impossible to communicate. --[[User:Biotronic|Biotronic]] ([[User talk:Biotronic|talk]]) 08:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::Actually, I worded that wrong - what I meant is that '' is an example of non-communication, which is not very effective at transmitting information --[[User:Biotronic|Biotronic]] ([[User talk:Biotronic|talk]]) 08:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 00:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:steal orange me steal eat orange me eat orange steal me eat orange steal me you [[User:King Pando|King Pando]] ([[User talk:King Pando|talk]]) 02:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

orange orange orange
orange orange orange
orange orange orange
yellow
orange you glad I didn't say orange? [[Special:Contributions/98.22.184.160|98.22.184.160]] 11:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that light/photons are the most popular way of transmitting information? to (most) humans anyway... {{unsigned ip|2a02:a468:b8cb:0:5a82:a830:1528:55af|13:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)}}
: Only up until the last mile. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Why waste time use good grammar when bad grammar do trick? [[Special:Contributions/70.40.121.82|70.40.121.82]] 15:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:Cuz if you're doing too bad grammar, sometimes you'll see some sentences that triggers Uncanny Valley effect (or related stuff). (I would guess this way) [[User:Cream Starlight|Cream Starlight]] ([[User talk:Cream Starlight|talk]]) 15:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

::It's a reference to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bctjSvn-OC8 this scene] from the American version of The Office. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 16:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

In Cookie Clicker, there’s a news ticker message that says “Neeeeews : "neeeew EEEEEE keeeeey working fineeeeeeeee", reeeports gleeeeeeeeful journalist.” Might be a reference to that. [[Special:Contributions/185.124.31.68|185.124.31.68]] 15:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Erm, isn't the current description kind of missing the point? "Grammar is one of the most popular ways to structure a language" is a tautology. "Grammar" studies how languages are structured, so ANY organization scheme of a language (from random to highly structured) would be classified as that language's grammar. Trying to say there are "other ways to structure a language" would just be a different form of grammar. Same thing with the title text. "Communication" is transmitting information from one individual to another. Any alternative to "Communication" isn't transmitting information. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.32.31|57.140.32.31]] 16:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The "words order random words" part may be a reference to {{w|Nim Chimpsky}}'s sign language "sentences" like "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you". [[Special:Contributions/193.179.120.253|193.179.120.253]] 18:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3073: Tariffs

2025-04-11T13:53:28Z

ProphetZarquon: indent

{{notice|This comic and explanation is about present-day politics and {{w|Donald Trump|Donald Trump, the current President of the United States}}. Additionally, the comic is about a political policy point that has disparate viewpoints which are both backed by extensive study and rarely implemented well. Please {{w|WP:DFTT|don’t feed the trolls}}, meaning that you don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, {{w|WP:RBI|revert, block and ignore}}. If you are not an admin and need assistance in blocking someone, send a message to [[User:Kynde]] or [[User:Theusaf]]. As with these contentious topics, please do not edit if you believe you have a conflict of interest or might be writing in a biased and slanted manner (in regards to both major American political parties). Be {{w|WP:BOLD|bold}}, but not reckless. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t {{w|WP:CIVIL|attack people}}, and always {{w|WP:AGF|assume good faith}}. Thanks, '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Uh, still no April fools [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 23:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
:The April fools is the president the U.S. Elected. (note: I am Usanian)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.232|172.70.214.232]] 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I have good news [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I felt like using all caps is a good idea for explanations, since the comic itself is all caps [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 00:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
: Please don't. If you did that, then all of the other explanations and transcripts would have to be edited to all-caps, which makes it harder to read. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Doesn't just about ''every'' xkcd comic use all-caps? That would make pretty much the entire wiki unreadable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.35|172.71.155.35]] 04:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::Plus, there are very few uses of lowercase letters. It just doesn't make sense. [[User:Whoa|Whoa]] ([[User talk:Whoa|talk]]) 21:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with the explanation? It's showing this weird string of letters: expDia thud enzo Isla idiosyncrasies talk 3totheaudienceandtheotherswhoareyouheresoearlyinthedayafterMittenslefttodois sign up for both ofuscan'twaitforthemostparttobeabrightandwarmwelcomeandIhopethatyouwillfindapenthatwillOrbitz pap [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23 7 April 2025 EST
: Vandals --[[User:Btx40|Btx40]] ([[User talk:Btx40|talk]]) 00:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::I'm getting a few Cloudflare messages that the server isn't responding. I'm used to explainxkcd giving straight 503s, etc, but this is the kind of thing (code 522, in at least one case) that you get only when an active pressure (crap-spamming, etc) is being applied. I'm wondering if there's some pushback from the pro-tariff (or at least 'pro-Donald') online community. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 11:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, just HOPEFULLY, we can prevent the comment section from devolving into insults like https://xkcd.com/1756/: I'm With Her. [[User:Thehydraclone|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone|talk]]) 01:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I concur, though I want to stress that I think it's very important that we try to make this comic explanation as neutral as possible. Is it possible to not show a bias towards either side of the issue? Randall's comic obviously has a point of view, but perhaps the explanation on this site can be a little bit more neutral. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 11:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:You stink! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.181|172.70.91.181]] 13:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comic [[2566]] was supposed to be a joke... --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.175.87|172.68.175.87]] 03:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"venmo" needs explaining. Apparently it's some sort of USAian proprietary payment system? And I think Ponytail's company is providing a service (which the USA exports of lot of), rather than selling equipment - services usually not being captured by simple trade figures for goods. And in order to post here I have to identify features of foreign street scenes in order to train a monopolist's proprietary image recognition system. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.115|162.158.216.115]] 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Ah, didn't read this first, but I ''just'' put a link in for that (slightly awkwardly, but best I could - expecting a later editor to better phrase/place it). Hadn't heard of it, myself. Presumably Leftpondians know about it a lot more, perhaps most do, given how much business it gets/facilitates ''only'' in the US. Anyway, consider me one of those that learnt something new today! (Not that I can, or would, use it, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.71|172.70.163.71]] 13:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added this comic as an answer to a Politics.SE question. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/60191/does-it-make-sense-to-treat-trade-deficit-as-tariffs/60229#60229 [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This is unironically the best explanation of Trump's tariffs I've seen --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.171|162.158.212.171]] 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I had a Facebook friend post almost the exact same analogy the day before this comic was released. So it is an idea that is out there. But since Trump do not care for the people who elected him, it is not his problem that everything gets more expensive in the US --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Midwit take from Randall that fundamentally misunderstands that the goal is to bring back manufacturing capability to the USA. Warren Buffett proposed these exact tariff measures 20 years ago and is only now saying they're bad because Orange Man Bad Amirite. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.75|16:43, 8 April 2025}}
:I've just read the paper you linked, which suggests issuing tradable / saleable import certificates to create a liquid market incentivizing a trade balance, one which is not country or industry directed at all and has, basically, nothing to do with Trump's "plan." They are not "the exact same" at all, and I'm not surprised that someone using "orange man bad" language is engaging in deception. {{unsigned ip|172.69.214.221|17:24, 8 April 2025}}
:Are you even sure you *want* to bring back manufacturing of all kinds to the USA? Do you understand what that entails? Every single sane economist on earth has been telling Trump from the start that this is an astonishingly bad idea, but he refuses to listen. Then again, every single sane climate scientist has been doing the same thing, and nobody listens to them either. All fitting, then.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.136|172.70.243.136]] 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:And what exactly is wrong with domestic manufacturing? Don't get me wrong, I don't consider (R) good, but the concept of "they're all just stupid" doesn't explain anything in the real world. {{unsigned ip|162.158.103.81|10:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}
::Well. It makes as much sense for the USA to manufacture iPhones domestically as it does for you to grow your own wheat and sunflowers and gather rock salt and process all that to bake bread. The world economy works by distributing work and relying on specialization. Doing everything on your own is grossly inefficient and it's simply impossible to keep up your standard of living that way.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.178|172.71.172.178]] 10:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Another response is that if you're determined to prove that your country doesn't need to trade with the rest of the world (at an extreme, what NK is trying to do, though majorly propped up by China despite this), the rest of the world might decide that it doesn't need to trade with you.
::The US has been (successfully) pursuading much of the world that it is a vital part of the world economy for a long time, and benefited more from it than cold, hard balance sheets could ever show. (Even in 'not friendly' nations, there has been cultural soft-power arise from the value of american denim jeans or records or even just the idea that there are more ways to do things than their current despotic ruler would openly admit to.) You could always find places to spend black-market dollars in Moscow, Havana or any place in any "Democratic Republic" (that's neither democratic nor strictly a republic) you could mention, and to the overall net benefit of the US. As well as being friendly to friendly countries, it has been insidious to those less than amicable (at a governing level).
::There's probably something to be said for not ''entirely'' relying upon third party countries (or at least not entirely upon ''singular'' third party countries, or entire political blocks/'blocs') that could suddenly put you under pressure regarding vital resources and components. Look at the hoops that Russia had to jump through, dependant upon China (and even NK!) for resources it was suddenly in need of. But the US was already in the position to be trading with any and all parts of the world (that it chose to), the ''cost'' was that maybe it couldn't sell quite as much worth in the form of cadillacs to a small group of islands that provided it with a given value of fish, but the value is that they'll ''keep on'' preferentially selling fish (that obviously the US can make use of).
::Now... Well, such fish that may be caught might go elsewhere, the world markets shuffle about, perhaps China gets more fish (perhaps NK does?) if it has demands for them, or perhaps it no longer seems worthwhile fishing so much from those islands. If there's nothing else for fishermen to do, maybe they'll go elsewhere to find something, but don't expect them to immigrate to the US and fish there, 'internally'. Not with the recent policies on immigration. So, the US probably has fewer fish, China has more soft-power (and probably hard-power, too) and the world adjusts to a state where in trying to win 'trade wars' against the whole world, the US has surrendered most of its trading power to the kind of countries that were previously trying hard to become its equals (and now become its superiors).
::If the current guy was ''really'' serious about "Gina" being his trading opponent, he'd work specifically against their influence, not actually make it more likely to increase. And that doesn't fit well with trying to split China and Russia again (even if he's making Russia and the US comrades in arms, again, in a separate deal).
::Before anyone points at the ungainly notice about bias/slanted opinion, I'm just outlining an interpretation here that shows contradictions in the scheme of the ultimate "re-on-shoring of ''everything''" drive being nothing but good. There's probably a better balance. Possibly not a guaranteed win:win, but at worst a lose-least:lose-least one. But such a Prisoner's Dilemma situation can't happen when one of the prisoners seems to only believe in win:lose results, so that they always aim (however wrongly) only for a maximised return on their side, resulting in an unsatisfactory lose:lose (or even lose:gain, to their own disadvantage) outcome. Also, I'm not 'Merkin myself. I'd ''rather'' a stronger US than various other nations getting stronger, actually, and that's why I'm worried that the world may pivot in ways that (openly, at least) the current US Administration don't actually want.
::But global trade is hard. "Who would have though it to be so hard..." Who knows where this will lead (especially if it strays out of the purely financial sphere, which of course it is already doing). Simply restoring manufacturing to the US is not the simple panacea that some might suggest. Aluminium (yeah, I know, but that's my spelling) can be made far cheaper in Canada than in the US and that's not going to change within four years (maybe not fourteen, could take more than forty!) and this and all the other supply-ripples won't happen fast enough (especially with far too much stick and practically no carrot) to fulfil the aspirations being espoused. So you absolutely can't take the current plans at face value. I'd be surprised if most of the ones touting them even believe them, and there must actually be more ulterior motives behind the wrecking-ball that's being unleashed, to which they're in more of a position to benefit from. (Time will tell, maybe. Perhaps it'll all work like a charm, but I'd heavily bet against it if I actually had the resources to significantly benefit out of the future failure, and yet couldn't do anything to reverse it.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.110|172.71.241.110]] 11:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There should be a "don't feed the trolls" banner at the top of the discussion. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:There's already a "Don't be a jerk!" rule noted at the bottom. Could just move it to the top, I suppose. (Or better, just move it to the top only for topics that are likely to lure people into acting like jerks. Good way to tell whether a given strip is going to upset a lot of people...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.96|172.70.42.96]] 22:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::made a notice about it up top '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::TORI! YOU'RE BACK! [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm from Germany, with the opposite issue. I never understood why having an export surplus should be a good thing. Let's make a bilance. OUT: Cars, machines, chemicals,... IN: Little printed paper snips (or little bytes if paid more modern). Sounds like a bad swap to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.186|162.158.112.186]] 07:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Former Financial Times and World Bank economist Tim Harford's "Undercover Economist" pop-econ books explain this quite well. (I don't think I can do Harford's explanation justice here but I shall try; any mistakes are my own) Germany wants to trade (for example) oil with OPEC, but all it has to trade are (for example) BMWs and OPEC doesn't want enough BMWs relative to how much oil Germany wants. So, Germany sells the extra BMWs to America in return for US dollars (the international currency for oil trading) and uses the US dollars to buy the oil. Economically, a BMW factory is basically a machine that converts steel into petrol via a really roundabout process. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 18:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Randall saw the most recent video from StandUpMaths. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.161|16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure if it was actually intended, but it seems that everyone missed the potential second meaning in the last frame. It's possible that Ponytail was referring to lidar diodes as a heat source used to cook the pizza, and Cueball either mistakenly or sardonically responded as if the mentioned diodes was instead suggested as a topping. That might also be a jab at political discussion, which is often full of spirited rebuttals based on misinterpretations of the opposing side's comments. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to lock comment sections? I feel like it would be especially helpful in comics like these. And while Reddit is usually not a good example for anything them locking the comments for contentious content (hehe) is actually a really good idea. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.75|172.68.12.75]] 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:The talk page ''could'' be semi-protected (to various degrees: admin-only editing, autoconfirmed-only editing) by an admin (your best bet would be to ask [[User:Kynde]]). I would recommend against such drastic moves for the moment, as the vandalism and trolling isn’t that bad (''yet''). If it does get worse, I’ll make sure to send a message to Kynde. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Fair enough, haste never gets anyone anywhere and it'd appear unjustified to do something that severe if it isn't that bad enough. But if it gets to the level of the I'm With Her comment section and nobody has asked for it to be locked, I'll ask Kynde like you asked. In any case, I'll wait. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.147|172.71.223.147]] 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I cannot agree that Reddit (or any site's) locking of comments is a good idea; it's a declaration of failure better dealt with by not having anything there at all except a statement that the topic is outside the scope acceptable by one's site. Even worse though, ''removing'' comments that are not abusive, promoting harm, etc, while leaving others that may be either similar or inverse, ''especially'' for difficult topics, is UNACCEPTABLE from any forum hoping to host discussion of anything the least bit controversial. '''Removing non-violating comments is even worse than locking threads, which is also bad.''' I'm outta here & probably won't be back; unhealthy moderation practices make for unhealthy discussions. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Eh? There don't appear to have been any comments removed so far, and the discussion above leans towards ''not'' doing anything if possible. So you're leaving because people aren't doing things you don't want them to do? Seems... odd. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 08:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::'''My own comment here was removed.''' The reason I replied specifically to your comment in particular, is because it was discussing the problem at hand. (I can hope the removal of comments was in error, but I find it more likely that a large number of comments regarded as junk (venting anger, or nonsense word spam, or ads) were removed, & some 'inciting' comments got removed along with them.) I understand that moderation is an unsolved challenge but a site where I get edited out of conversations, is not worth my time to participate.
:::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Please notice that I said “vandalism and trolling”, not comments. I agree with you and am against removing comments (such as from I’m With Her). I think that we can agree that vandalism can be immediately removed and that we shouldn’t respond to trolls/rage bait, correct? The intention of my message was to have the talk page or the explanation page semi-protected ''if'' the vandalism got too bad and it’s better to limit messages temporarily. This is the same policy that Wikipedia uses by semi-protecting controversial and often vandalised articles, one that has worked for years. Besides, the main intention of these talk pages is to discuss how to improve the article and have discussions about how to explain or word things, not promote political ideology. If that occurs, semi-protection would be a good tool to use to limit such off-topic discussions. There’s a time and place for that. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::As you can see from my reply above (& hopefully by context from ''where'' I replied), I was not objecting to your reply, but to the suggestion of locking. Perma-locks suck... as does coming back to see comments gone. I am not angry that moderation was discussed; I'm deeply discouraged by how it was (already) applied.
:::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, explainxkcd has gone off the cliff, and not just on this particular article, but repeatedly, and it’s getting worse and worse. I'm not going to edit it myself, but might I suggest a rule of thumb? If it isn’t necessary to help some understand the COMIC, then don’t put it in there in the first place! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.176|172.69.23.176]] 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Repeatedly"? By what criteria? Obviously in your opinion, anyway, and I'm not going to tell you what to think (or try to guess what you're thinking), but I believe you're being subjective. Nice to hear from you, though. Please do come by again some time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.226|141.101.98.226]] 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Seconded. This really should be the policy. I have strong political opinions like just about everyone (and like everyone, I certainly think that my views are logically derived from cold hard objective facts), but I have refrained from editing this page because I am VERY aware that it would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, and detract from the purpose of this website. "Explain xkcd" is for explaining xkcd, it's not a a platform to persuade the internet to adopt your political opinions. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 20:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:I really don't know what you guys are talking about, at least regarding the explanation for this specific comic. I believe the contributors have done a pretty good job keeping the explanation pretty close to neutral, except maybe it might be just a little opinionated in one paragraph. Most of the "extra" explanation in there provides some necessary background that may not be quite as obvious to future readers. Any leaning toward one opinion or another is mostly an explanation of the leaning attributed to the characters by the author himself. If you have a specific rebuke against a portion that seems more opinionated or subjective, either tag it in the explanation without changing the explanation itself, or bring up the specifics in this discussion. Please try not to bash this whole site and the contributors because of your own opinions. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 00:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think there's much partisan in the explanation. The comic itself expresses Randall's opinion of Trump's tariffs, and the explanation just describes the context and explains how the comic expresses this opinion. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::Here's a small test. Do you believe it is essentially IMPOSSIBLE that the 2020 election was rigged, and therefore Trump's statements were obviously, objectively, and incontrovertibly "false"? Because if you do, [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/02/poll-biden-2020-election-illegitimate 36% of Americans (as of December 2023)] would disagree with you. Now to be sure, that IS a minority - but it's also more than a 1:2 ratio of Americans saying "no" vs Americans saying "yes". If 100 million people say "no" to something while 200 million say "yes" (or more accurately, 122 million say "no," 211 million say "yes," and 7 million say "no comment"), it's safe to say that the claim is ''still genuinely controversial'' - especially when the very institutions being accused of misconduct are themselves being cited as evidence, giving them every incentive to downplay the severity of the problems and assert their own trustworthiness. (An analogy might be made of a police officer who has been accused of a crime being cited as an expert witness in his own trial.) Now, I realize that everyone has to simplify the world around them to some extent, and for some people, that takes the form of relying on axioms like "important people with important jobs have decided it, and that settles the matter." If that is how someone chooses to see the world, I won't be able to change their mind on that. But that doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. And there's something nefarious about branding anyone who doesn't accept that particular paradigm as if they are thereby worthy of contempt, and their perspective as deserving censorship. (And, if you think I am exaggerating when I say "censorship," then do you agree we should change the word "false" in the second paragraph to merely "controversial" or "widely-criticized"?) No one is immune to motivated reasoning or cognitive biases; that includes myself. I really do my best to keep that in mind as I form my opinions. I hope everyone reading this does the same. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 23:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::So, let me get this straight. If I convince enough people that the earth is flat (and there are a few special snowflakes in that camp already), it becomes a ''genuinely controversial'' claim? Just because 36% of Americans have either never tried to understand how elections actually work, bothered to help an election, or are—sorry—utterly dense, that doesn't mean we should treat their opinion as fact. The majority of Russians believes their war on Ukraine is justified. Does that mean we must consider that a possibility? No! It's just propaganda! Why do we even need to discuss this??[[Special:Contributions/172.70.240.90|172.70.240.90]] 13:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how best to integrate it into the explanation, but I think https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations should be cited somewhere in the article, and I think it should be stated in more explicit terms that Trump's reciprocal tariffs are based on what is effectively a calculation of the United States' trade deficits with other countries. I think the article would benefit from more explicit descriptions and coverage of the tariff announcement for posterity, as I can imagine someone being really confused about this 10 years from now. I think reactions and backlash should be mentioned to provide context, but the article shouldn't get too detailed with any justifications for said reactions, so as not to take a side. Right now I feel that the article is a bit too in-the-weeds with explaining exactly what tariffs are and what a trade deficit is without providing context for why the comic is politically relevant, which I think is necessary to understand the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.166|162.158.62.166]] 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

At the moment the article says that "Donald Trump claimed that if the U.S. has a trade deficit with another country, then the U.S. is getting ripped off." This claim seems pretty ridiculous, but I have no idea whether it is what Mr. Trump said. Since the whole cartoon seems based on this premise, I think it would help to have a citation to make this clearer for posterity. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.109|172.71.150.109]] 05:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:It's pretty much his whole schtick on this. Googling gives numerous direct reports or videos of his rhetoric where he says, often visible in the summary (or, with videos, subtitle/surtitles on the thumbnail view). I included an actual quote, thought that better than linking to BBC News (annoying those who don't trust the BBC as a source), Fox News (annoy those who don't trust Fox as a source), etc... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.42|172.71.26.42]] 08:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::It would be better to link it to a source though, rather than just leaving it as an unevidenced quote.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 08:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Choose ''your'' prefered source and example of the quote, then. Not hard to find. (Or to have tripped over and generally get blasted with over the last week or so, if you've not been avoiding newspapers, blocking news notifications and avoiding all TV/radio news in anticipation of an upcoming film release.) As long as it isn't the National Enquirer or The Onion, it'll probably do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.18|172.71.241.18]] 09:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3073: Tariffs

2025-04-11T13:51:58Z

ProphetZarquon: Removal already occurred; not angry at discussion of removal, discouraged by actual handling

{{notice|This comic and explanation is about present-day politics and {{w|Donald Trump|Donald Trump, the current President of the United States}}. Additionally, the comic is about a political policy point that has disparate viewpoints which are both backed by extensive study and rarely implemented well. Please {{w|WP:DFTT|don’t feed the trolls}}, meaning that you don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, {{w|WP:RBI|revert, block and ignore}}. If you are not an admin and need assistance in blocking someone, send a message to [[User:Kynde]] or [[User:Theusaf]]. As with these contentious topics, please do not edit if you believe you have a conflict of interest or might be writing in a biased and slanted manner (in regards to both major American political parties). Be {{w|WP:BOLD|bold}}, but not reckless. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t {{w|WP:CIVIL|attack people}}, and always {{w|WP:AGF|assume good faith}}. Thanks, '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Uh, still no April fools [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 23:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
:The April fools is the president the U.S. Elected. (note: I am Usanian)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.232|172.70.214.232]] 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I have good news [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I felt like using all caps is a good idea for explanations, since the comic itself is all caps [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 00:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
: Please don't. If you did that, then all of the other explanations and transcripts would have to be edited to all-caps, which makes it harder to read. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Doesn't just about ''every'' xkcd comic use all-caps? That would make pretty much the entire wiki unreadable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.35|172.71.155.35]] 04:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::Plus, there are very few uses of lowercase letters. It just doesn't make sense. [[User:Whoa|Whoa]] ([[User talk:Whoa|talk]]) 21:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with the explanation? It's showing this weird string of letters: expDia thud enzo Isla idiosyncrasies talk 3totheaudienceandtheotherswhoareyouheresoearlyinthedayafterMittenslefttodois sign up for both ofuscan'twaitforthemostparttobeabrightandwarmwelcomeandIhopethatyouwillfindapenthatwillOrbitz pap [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23 7 April 2025 EST
: Vandals --[[User:Btx40|Btx40]] ([[User talk:Btx40|talk]]) 00:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::I'm getting a few Cloudflare messages that the server isn't responding. I'm used to explainxkcd giving straight 503s, etc, but this is the kind of thing (code 522, in at least one case) that you get only when an active pressure (crap-spamming, etc) is being applied. I'm wondering if there's some pushback from the pro-tariff (or at least 'pro-Donald') online community. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 11:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, just HOPEFULLY, we can prevent the comment section from devolving into insults like https://xkcd.com/1756/: I'm With Her. [[User:Thehydraclone|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone|talk]]) 01:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I concur, though I want to stress that I think it's very important that we try to make this comic explanation as neutral as possible. Is it possible to not show a bias towards either side of the issue? Randall's comic obviously has a point of view, but perhaps the explanation on this site can be a little bit more neutral. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 11:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:You stink! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.181|172.70.91.181]] 13:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comic [[2566]] was supposed to be a joke... --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.175.87|172.68.175.87]] 03:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"venmo" needs explaining. Apparently it's some sort of USAian proprietary payment system? And I think Ponytail's company is providing a service (which the USA exports of lot of), rather than selling equipment - services usually not being captured by simple trade figures for goods. And in order to post here I have to identify features of foreign street scenes in order to train a monopolist's proprietary image recognition system. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.115|162.158.216.115]] 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Ah, didn't read this first, but I ''just'' put a link in for that (slightly awkwardly, but best I could - expecting a later editor to better phrase/place it). Hadn't heard of it, myself. Presumably Leftpondians know about it a lot more, perhaps most do, given how much business it gets/facilitates ''only'' in the US. Anyway, consider me one of those that learnt something new today! (Not that I can, or would, use it, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.71|172.70.163.71]] 13:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added this comic as an answer to a Politics.SE question. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/60191/does-it-make-sense-to-treat-trade-deficit-as-tariffs/60229#60229 [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This is unironically the best explanation of Trump's tariffs I've seen --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.171|162.158.212.171]] 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I had a Facebook friend post almost the exact same analogy the day before this comic was released. So it is an idea that is out there. But since Trump do not care for the people who elected him, it is not his problem that everything gets more expensive in the US --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Midwit take from Randall that fundamentally misunderstands that the goal is to bring back manufacturing capability to the USA. Warren Buffett proposed these exact tariff measures 20 years ago and is only now saying they're bad because Orange Man Bad Amirite. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.75|16:43, 8 April 2025}}
:I've just read the paper you linked, which suggests issuing tradable / saleable import certificates to create a liquid market incentivizing a trade balance, one which is not country or industry directed at all and has, basically, nothing to do with Trump's "plan." They are not "the exact same" at all, and I'm not surprised that someone using "orange man bad" language is engaging in deception. {{unsigned ip|172.69.214.221|17:24, 8 April 2025}}
:Are you even sure you *want* to bring back manufacturing of all kinds to the USA? Do you understand what that entails? Every single sane economist on earth has been telling Trump from the start that this is an astonishingly bad idea, but he refuses to listen. Then again, every single sane climate scientist has been doing the same thing, and nobody listens to them either. All fitting, then.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.136|172.70.243.136]] 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:And what exactly is wrong with domestic manufacturing? Don't get me wrong, I don't consider (R) good, but the concept of "they're all just stupid" doesn't explain anything in the real world. {{unsigned ip|162.158.103.81|10:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}
::Well. It makes as much sense for the USA to manufacture iPhones domestically as it does for you to grow your own wheat and sunflowers and gather rock salt and process all that to bake bread. The world economy works by distributing work and relying on specialization. Doing everything on your own is grossly inefficient and it's simply impossible to keep up your standard of living that way.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.178|172.71.172.178]] 10:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Another response is that if you're determined to prove that your country doesn't need to trade with the rest of the world (at an extreme, what NK is trying to do, though majorly propped up by China despite this), the rest of the world might decide that it doesn't need to trade with you.
::The US has been (successfully) pursuading much of the world that it is a vital part of the world economy for a long time, and benefited more from it than cold, hard balance sheets could ever show. (Even in 'not friendly' nations, there has been cultural soft-power arise from the value of american denim jeans or records or even just the idea that there are more ways to do things than their current despotic ruler would openly admit to.) You could always find places to spend black-market dollars in Moscow, Havana or any place in any "Democratic Republic" (that's neither democratic nor strictly a republic) you could mention, and to the overall net benefit of the US. As well as being friendly to friendly countries, it has been insidious to those less than amicable (at a governing level).
::There's probably something to be said for not ''entirely'' relying upon third party countries (or at least not entirely upon ''singular'' third party countries, or entire political blocks/'blocs') that could suddenly put you under pressure regarding vital resources and components. Look at the hoops that Russia had to jump through, dependant upon China (and even NK!) for resources it was suddenly in need of. But the US was already in the position to be trading with any and all parts of the world (that it chose to), the ''cost'' was that maybe it couldn't sell quite as much worth in the form of cadillacs to a small group of islands that provided it with a given value of fish, but the value is that they'll ''keep on'' preferentially selling fish (that obviously the US can make use of).
::Now... Well, such fish that may be caught might go elsewhere, the world markets shuffle about, perhaps China gets more fish (perhaps NK does?) if it has demands for them, or perhaps it no longer seems worthwhile fishing so much from those islands. If there's nothing else for fishermen to do, maybe they'll go elsewhere to find something, but don't expect them to immigrate to the US and fish there, 'internally'. Not with the recent policies on immigration. So, the US probably has fewer fish, China has more soft-power (and probably hard-power, too) and the world adjusts to a state where in trying to win 'trade wars' against the whole world, the US has surrendered most of its trading power to the kind of countries that were previously trying hard to become its equals (and now become its superiors).
::If the current guy was ''really'' serious about "Gina" being his trading opponent, he'd work specifically against their influence, not actually make it more likely to increase. And that doesn't fit well with trying to split China and Russia again (even if he's making Russia and the US comrades in arms, again, in a separate deal).
::Before anyone points at the ungainly notice about bias/slanted opinion, I'm just outlining an interpretation here that shows contradictions in the scheme of the ultimate "re-on-shoring of ''everything''" drive being nothing but good. There's probably a better balance. Possibly not a guaranteed win:win, but at worst a lose-least:lose-least one. But such a Prisoner's Dilemma situation can't happen when one of the prisoners seems to only believe in win:lose results, so that they always aim (however wrongly) only for a maximised return on their side, resulting in an unsatisfactory lose:lose (or even lose:gain, to their own disadvantage) outcome. Also, I'm not 'Merkin myself. I'd ''rather'' a stronger US than various other nations getting stronger, actually, and that's why I'm worried that the world may pivot in ways that (openly, at least) the current US Administration don't actually want.
::But global trade is hard. "Who would have though it to be so hard..." Who knows where this will lead (especially if it strays out of the purely financial sphere, which of course it is already doing). Simply restoring manufacturing to the US is not the simple panacea that some might suggest. Aluminium (yeah, I know, but that's my spelling) can be made far cheaper in Canada than in the US and that's not going to change within four years (maybe not fourteen, could take more than forty!) and this and all the other supply-ripples won't happen fast enough (especially with far too much stick and practically no carrot) to fulfil the aspirations being espoused. So you absolutely can't take the current plans at face value. I'd be surprised if most of the ones touting them even believe them, and there must actually be more ulterior motives behind the wrecking-ball that's being unleashed, to which they're in more of a position to benefit from. (Time will tell, maybe. Perhaps it'll all work like a charm, but I'd heavily bet against it if I actually had the resources to significantly benefit out of the future failure, and yet couldn't do anything to reverse it.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.110|172.71.241.110]] 11:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There should be a "don't feed the trolls" banner at the top of the discussion. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:There's already a "Don't be a jerk!" rule noted at the bottom. Could just move it to the top, I suppose. (Or better, just move it to the top only for topics that are likely to lure people into acting like jerks. Good way to tell whether a given strip is going to upset a lot of people...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.96|172.70.42.96]] 22:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::made a notice about it up top '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::TORI! YOU'RE BACK! [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm from Germany, with the opposite issue. I never understood why having an export surplus should be a good thing. Let's make a bilance. OUT: Cars, machines, chemicals,... IN: Little printed paper snips (or little bytes if paid more modern). Sounds like a bad swap to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.186|162.158.112.186]] 07:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Former Financial Times and World Bank economist Tim Harford's "Undercover Economist" pop-econ books explain this quite well. (I don't think I can do Harford's explanation justice here but I shall try; any mistakes are my own) Germany wants to trade (for example) oil with OPEC, but all it has to trade are (for example) BMWs and OPEC doesn't want enough BMWs relative to how much oil Germany wants. So, Germany sells the extra BMWs to America in return for US dollars (the international currency for oil trading) and uses the US dollars to buy the oil. Economically, a BMW factory is basically a machine that converts steel into petrol via a really roundabout process. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 18:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Randall saw the most recent video from StandUpMaths. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.161|16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure if it was actually intended, but it seems that everyone missed the potential second meaning in the last frame. It's possible that Ponytail was referring to lidar diodes as a heat source used to cook the pizza, and Cueball either mistakenly or sardonically responded as if the mentioned diodes was instead suggested as a topping. That might also be a jab at political discussion, which is often full of spirited rebuttals based on misinterpretations of the opposing side's comments. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to lock comment sections? I feel like it would be especially helpful in comics like these. And while Reddit is usually not a good example for anything them locking the comments for contentious content (hehe) is actually a really good idea. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.75|172.68.12.75]] 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:The talk page ''could'' be semi-protected (to various degrees: admin-only editing, autoconfirmed-only editing) by an admin (your best bet would be to ask [[User:Kynde]]). I would recommend against such drastic moves for the moment, as the vandalism and trolling isn’t that bad (''yet''). If it does get worse, I’ll make sure to send a message to Kynde. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Fair enough, haste never gets anyone anywhere and it'd appear unjustified to do something that severe if it isn't that bad enough. But if it gets to the level of the I'm With Her comment section and nobody has asked for it to be locked, I'll ask Kynde like you asked. In any case, I'll wait. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.147|172.71.223.147]] 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I cannot agree that Reddit (or any site's) locking of comments is a good idea; it's a declaration of failure better dealt with by not having anything there at all except a statement that the topic is outside the scope acceptable by one's site. Even worse though, ''removing'' comments that are not abusive, promoting harm, etc, while leaving others that may be either similar or inverse, ''especially'' for difficult topics, is UNACCEPTABLE from any forum hoping to host discussion of anything the least bit controversial. '''Removing non-violating comments is even worse than locking threads, which is also bad.''' I'm outta here & probably won't be back; unhealthy moderation practices make for unhealthy discussions. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Eh? There don't appear to have been any comments removed so far, and the discussion above leans towards ''not'' doing anything if possible. So you're leaving because people aren't doing things you don't want them to do? Seems... odd. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 08:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::::'''My own comment here was removed.''' The reason I replied specifically to your comment in particular, is because it was discussing the problem at hand. (I can hope the removal of comments was in error, but I find it more likely that a large number of comments regarded as junk (venting anger, or nonsense word spam, or ads) were removed, & some 'inciting' comments got removed along with them.) I understand that moderation is an unsolved challenge but a site where I get edited out of conversations, is not worth my time to participate.
::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Please notice that I said “vandalism and trolling”, not comments. I agree with you and am against removing comments (such as from I’m With Her). I think that we can agree that vandalism can be immediately removed and that we shouldn’t respond to trolls/rage bait, correct? The intention of my message was to have the talk page or the explanation page semi-protected ''if'' the vandalism got too bad and it’s better to limit messages temporarily. This is the same policy that Wikipedia uses by semi-protecting controversial and often vandalised articles, one that has worked for years. Besides, the main intention of these talk pages is to discuss how to improve the article and have discussions about how to explain or word things, not promote political ideology. If that occurs, semi-protection would be a good tool to use to limit such off-topic discussions. There’s a time and place for that. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::As you can see from my reply above (& hopefully by context from ''where'' I replied), I was not objecting to your reply, but to the suggestion of locking. Perma-locks suck... as does coming back to see comments gone. I am not angry that moderation was discussed; I'm deeply discouraged by how it was (already) applied.
:::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, explainxkcd has gone off the cliff, and not just on this particular article, but repeatedly, and it’s getting worse and worse. I'm not going to edit it myself, but might I suggest a rule of thumb? If it isn’t necessary to help some understand the COMIC, then don’t put it in there in the first place! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.176|172.69.23.176]] 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Repeatedly"? By what criteria? Obviously in your opinion, anyway, and I'm not going to tell you what to think (or try to guess what you're thinking), but I believe you're being subjective. Nice to hear from you, though. Please do come by again some time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.226|141.101.98.226]] 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Seconded. This really should be the policy. I have strong political opinions like just about everyone (and like everyone, I certainly think that my views are logically derived from cold hard objective facts), but I have refrained from editing this page because I am VERY aware that it would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, and detract from the purpose of this website. "Explain xkcd" is for explaining xkcd, it's not a a platform to persuade the internet to adopt your political opinions. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 20:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:I really don't know what you guys are talking about, at least regarding the explanation for this specific comic. I believe the contributors have done a pretty good job keeping the explanation pretty close to neutral, except maybe it might be just a little opinionated in one paragraph. Most of the "extra" explanation in there provides some necessary background that may not be quite as obvious to future readers. Any leaning toward one opinion or another is mostly an explanation of the leaning attributed to the characters by the author himself. If you have a specific rebuke against a portion that seems more opinionated or subjective, either tag it in the explanation without changing the explanation itself, or bring up the specifics in this discussion. Please try not to bash this whole site and the contributors because of your own opinions. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 00:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think there's much partisan in the explanation. The comic itself expresses Randall's opinion of Trump's tariffs, and the explanation just describes the context and explains how the comic expresses this opinion. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::Here's a small test. Do you believe it is essentially IMPOSSIBLE that the 2020 election was rigged, and therefore Trump's statements were obviously, objectively, and incontrovertibly "false"? Because if you do, [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/02/poll-biden-2020-election-illegitimate 36% of Americans (as of December 2023)] would disagree with you. Now to be sure, that IS a minority - but it's also more than a 1:2 ratio of Americans saying "no" vs Americans saying "yes". If 100 million people say "no" to something while 200 million say "yes" (or more accurately, 122 million say "no," 211 million say "yes," and 7 million say "no comment"), it's safe to say that the claim is ''still genuinely controversial'' - especially when the very institutions being accused of misconduct are themselves being cited as evidence, giving them every incentive to downplay the severity of the problems and assert their own trustworthiness. (An analogy might be made of a police officer who has been accused of a crime being cited as an expert witness in his own trial.) Now, I realize that everyone has to simplify the world around them to some extent, and for some people, that takes the form of relying on axioms like "important people with important jobs have decided it, and that settles the matter." If that is how someone chooses to see the world, I won't be able to change their mind on that. But that doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. And there's something nefarious about branding anyone who doesn't accept that particular paradigm as if they are thereby worthy of contempt, and their perspective as deserving censorship. (And, if you think I am exaggerating when I say "censorship," then do you agree we should change the word "false" in the second paragraph to merely "controversial" or "widely-criticized"?) No one is immune to motivated reasoning or cognitive biases; that includes myself. I really do my best to keep that in mind as I form my opinions. I hope everyone reading this does the same. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 23:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::So, let me get this straight. If I convince enough people that the earth is flat (and there are a few special snowflakes in that camp already), it becomes a ''genuinely controversial'' claim? Just because 36% of Americans have either never tried to understand how elections actually work, bothered to help an election, or are—sorry—utterly dense, that doesn't mean we should treat their opinion as fact. The majority of Russians believes their war on Ukraine is justified. Does that mean we must consider that a possibility? No! It's just propaganda! Why do we even need to discuss this??[[Special:Contributions/172.70.240.90|172.70.240.90]] 13:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how best to integrate it into the explanation, but I think https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations should be cited somewhere in the article, and I think it should be stated in more explicit terms that Trump's reciprocal tariffs are based on what is effectively a calculation of the United States' trade deficits with other countries. I think the article would benefit from more explicit descriptions and coverage of the tariff announcement for posterity, as I can imagine someone being really confused about this 10 years from now. I think reactions and backlash should be mentioned to provide context, but the article shouldn't get too detailed with any justifications for said reactions, so as not to take a side. Right now I feel that the article is a bit too in-the-weeds with explaining exactly what tariffs are and what a trade deficit is without providing context for why the comic is politically relevant, which I think is necessary to understand the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.166|162.158.62.166]] 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

At the moment the article says that "Donald Trump claimed that if the U.S. has a trade deficit with another country, then the U.S. is getting ripped off." This claim seems pretty ridiculous, but I have no idea whether it is what Mr. Trump said. Since the whole cartoon seems based on this premise, I think it would help to have a citation to make this clearer for posterity. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.109|172.71.150.109]] 05:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:It's pretty much his whole schtick on this. Googling gives numerous direct reports or videos of his rhetoric where he says, often visible in the summary (or, with videos, subtitle/surtitles on the thumbnail view). I included an actual quote, thought that better than linking to BBC News (annoying those who don't trust the BBC as a source), Fox News (annoy those who don't trust Fox as a source), etc... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.42|172.71.26.42]] 08:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::It would be better to link it to a source though, rather than just leaving it as an unevidenced quote.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 08:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Choose ''your'' prefered source and example of the quote, then. Not hard to find. (Or to have tripped over and generally get blasted with over the last week or so, if you've not been avoiding newspapers, blocking news notifications and avoiding all TV/radio news in anticipation of an upcoming film release.) As long as it isn't the National Enquirer or The Onion, it'll probably do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.18|172.71.241.18]] 09:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3073: Tariffs

2025-04-10T01:56:01Z

ProphetZarquon: Removing non-violating comments = extremely unhealthy censorship; goodbye explainxkcd

{{notice|This comic and explanation is about present-day politics and {{w|Donald Trump|Donald Trump, the current President of the United States}}. Additionally, the comic is about a political policy point that has disparate viewpoints which are both backed by extensive study and rarely implemented well. Please {{w|WP:DFTT|don’t feed the trolls}}, meaning that you don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, {{w|WP:RBI|revert, block and ignore}}. If you are not an admin and need assistance in blocking someone, send a message to [[User:Kynde]] or [[User:Theusaf]]. As with these contentious topics, please do not edit if you believe you have a conflict of interest or might be writing in a biased and slanted manner (in regards to both major American political parties). Be {{w|WP:BOLD|bold}}, but not reckless. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t {{w|WP:CIVIL|attack people}}, and always {{w|WP:AGF|assume good faith}}. Thanks, '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Uh, still no April fools [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 23:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
:The April fools is the president the U.S. Elected. (note: I am Usanian)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.232|172.70.214.232]] 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I have good news [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I felt like using all caps is a good idea for explanations, since the comic itself is all caps [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 00:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
: Please don't. If you did that, then all of the other explanations and transcripts would have to be edited to all-caps, which makes it harder to read. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Doesn't just about ''every'' xkcd comic use all-caps? That would make pretty much the entire wiki unreadable. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.35|172.71.155.35]] 04:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::Plus, there are very few uses of lowercase letters. It just doesn't make sense. [[User:Whoa|Whoa]] ([[User talk:Whoa|talk]]) 21:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with the explanation? It's showing this weird string of letters: expDia thud enzo Isla idiosyncrasies talk 3totheaudienceandtheotherswhoareyouheresoearlyinthedayafterMittenslefttodois sign up for both ofuscan'twaitforthemostparttobeabrightandwarmwelcomeandIhopethatyouwillfindapenthatwillOrbitz pap [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23 7 April 2025 EST
: Vandals --[[User:Btx40|Btx40]] ([[User talk:Btx40|talk]]) 00:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::I'm getting a few Cloudflare messages that the server isn't responding. I'm used to explainxkcd giving straight 503s, etc, but this is the kind of thing (code 522, in at least one case) that you get only when an active pressure (crap-spamming, etc) is being applied. I'm wondering if there's some pushback from the pro-tariff (or at least 'pro-Donald') online community. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 11:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, just HOPEFULLY, we can prevent the comment section from devolving into insults like https://xkcd.com/1756/: I'm With Her. [[User:Thehydraclone|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone|talk]]) 01:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I concur, though I want to stress that I think it's very important that we try to make this comic explanation as neutral as possible. Is it possible to not show a bias towards either side of the issue? Randall's comic obviously has a point of view, but perhaps the explanation on this site can be a little bit more neutral. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 11:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:You stink! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.181|172.70.91.181]] 13:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comic [[2566]] was supposed to be a joke... --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.175.87|172.68.175.87]] 03:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"venmo" needs explaining. Apparently it's some sort of USAian proprietary payment system? And I think Ponytail's company is providing a service (which the USA exports of lot of), rather than selling equipment - services usually not being captured by simple trade figures for goods. And in order to post here I have to identify features of foreign street scenes in order to train a monopolist's proprietary image recognition system. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.115|162.158.216.115]] 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:Ah, didn't read this first, but I ''just'' put a link in for that (slightly awkwardly, but best I could - expecting a later editor to better phrase/place it). Hadn't heard of it, myself. Presumably Leftpondians know about it a lot more, perhaps most do, given how much business it gets/facilitates ''only'' in the US. Anyway, consider me one of those that learnt something new today! (Not that I can, or would, use it, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.71|172.70.163.71]] 13:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added this comic as an answer to a Politics.SE question. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/60191/does-it-make-sense-to-treat-trade-deficit-as-tariffs/60229#60229 [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This is unironically the best explanation of Trump's tariffs I've seen
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.171|162.158.212.171]] 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:I had a Facebook friend post almost the exact same analogy the day before this comic was released. So it is an idea that is out there. But since Trump do not care for the people who elected him, it is not his problem that everything gets more expensive in the US --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Midwit take from Randall that fundamentally misunderstands that the goal is to bring back manufacturing capability to the USA. Warren Buffett proposed these exact tariff measures 20 years ago and is only now saying they're bad because Orange Man Bad Amirite. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.75|16:43, 8 April 2025}}
:I've just read the paper you linked, which suggests issuing tradable / saleable import certificates to create a liquid market incentivizing a trade balance, one which is not country or industry directed at all and has, basically, nothing to do with Trump's "plan." They are not "the exact same" at all, and I'm not surprised that someone using "orange man bad" language is engaging in deception. {{unsigned ip|172.69.214.221|17:24, 8 April 2025}}
:Are you even sure you *want* to bring back manufacturing of all kinds to the USA? Do you understand what that entails? Every single sane economist on earth has been telling Trump from the start that this is an astonishingly bad idea, but he refuses to listen. Then again, every single sane climate scientist has been doing the same thing, and nobody listens to them either. All fitting, then.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.136|172.70.243.136]] 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:And what exactly is wrong with domestic manufacturing? Don't get me wrong, I don't consider (R) good, but the concept of "they're all just stupid" doesn't explain anything in the real world. {{unsigned ip|162.158.103.81|10:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}
::Well. It makes as much sense for the USA to manufacture iPhones domestically as it does for you to grow your own wheat and sunflowers and gather rock salt and process all that to bake bread. The world economy works by distributing work and relying on specialization. Doing everything on your own is grossly inefficient and it's simply impossible to keep up your standard of living that way.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.178|172.71.172.178]] 10:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Another response is that if you're determined to prove that your country doesn't need to trade with the rest of the world (at an extreme, what NK is trying to do, though majorly propped up by China despite this), the rest of the world might decide that it doesn't need to trade with you.
::The US has been (successfully) pursuading much of the world that it is a vital part of the world economy for a long time, and benefited more from it than cold, hard balance sheets could ever show. (Even in 'not friendly' nations, there has been cultural soft-power arise from the value of american denim jeans or records or even just the idea that there are more ways to do things than their current despotic ruler would openly admit to.) You could always find places to spend black-market dollars in Moscow, Havana or any place in any "Democratic Republic" (that's neither democratic nor strictly a republic) you could mention, and to the overall net benefit of the US. As well as being friendly to friendly countries, it has been insidious to those less than amicable (at a governing level).
::There's probably something to be said for not ''entirely'' relying upon third party countries (or at least not entirely upon ''singular'' third party countries, or entire political blocks/'blocs') that could suddenly put you under pressure regarding vital resources and components. Look at the hoops that Russia had to jump through, dependant upon China (and even NK!) for resources it was suddenly in need of. But the US was already in the position to be trading with any and all parts of the world (that it chose to), the ''cost'' was that maybe it couldn't sell quite as much worth in the form of cadillacs to a small group of islands that provided it with a given value of fish, but the value is that they'll ''keep on'' preferentially selling fish (that obviously the US can make use of).
::Now... Well, such fish that may be caught might go elsewhere, the world markets shuffle about, perhaps China gets more fish (perhaps NK does?) if it has demands for them, or perhaps it no longer seems worthwhile fishing so much from those islands. If there's nothing else for fishermen to do, maybe they'll go elsewhere to find something, but don't expect them to immigrate to the US and fish there, 'internally'. Not with the recent policies on immigration. So, the US probably has fewer fish, China has more soft-power (and probably hard-power, too) and the world adjusts to a state where in trying to win 'trade wars' against the whole world, the US has surrendered most of its trading power to the kind of countries that were previously trying hard to become its equals (and now become its superiors).
::If the current guy was ''really'' serious about "Gina" being his trading opponent, he'd work specifically against their influence, not actually make it more likely to increase. And that doesn't fit well with trying to split China and Russia again (even if he's making Russia and the US comrades in arms, again, in a separate deal).
::Before anyone points at the ungainly notice about bias/slanted opinion, I'm just outlining an interpretation here that shows contradictions in the scheme of the ultimate "re-on-shoring of ''everything''" drive being nothing but good. There's probably a better balance. Possibly not a guaranteed win:win, but at worst a lose-least:lose-least one. But such a Prisoner's Dilemma situation can't happen when one of the prisoners seems to only believe in win:lose results, so that they always aim (however wrongly) only for a maximised return on their side, resulting in an unsatisfactory lose:lose (or even lose:gain, to their own disadvantage) outcome. Also, I'm not 'Merkin myself. I'd ''rather'' a stronger US than various other nations getting stronger, actually, and that's why I'm worried that the world may pivot in ways that (openly, at least) the current US Administration don't actually want.
::But global trade is hard. "Who would have though it to be so hard..." Who knows where this will lead (especially if it strays out of the purely financial sphere, which of course it is already doing). Simply restoring manufacturing to the US is not the simple panacea that some might suggest. Aluminium (yeah, I know, but that's my spelling) can be made far cheaper in Canada than in the US and that's not going to change within four years (maybe not fourteen, could take more than forty!) and this and all the other supply-ripples won't happen fast enough (especially with far too much stick and practically no carrot) to fulfil the aspirations being espoused. So you absolutely can't take the current plans at face value. I'd be surprised if most of the ones touting them even believe them, and there must actually be more ulterior motives behind the wrecking-ball that's being unleashed, to which they're in more of a position to benefit from. (Time will tell, maybe. Perhaps it'll all work like a charm, but I'd heavily bet against it if I actually had the resources to significantly benefit out of the future failure, and yet couldn't do anything to reverse it.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.110|172.71.241.110]] 11:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There should be a "don't feed the trolls" banner at the top of the discussion. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.8|162.158.159.8]] 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:There's already a "Don't be a jerk!" rule noted at the bottom. Could just move it to the top, I suppose. (Or better, just move it to the top only for topics that are likely to lure people into acting like jerks. Good way to tell whether a given strip is going to upset a lot of people...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.96|172.70.42.96]] 22:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::made a notice about it up top '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::TORI! YOU'RE BACK! [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 07:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm from Germany, with the opposite issue. I never understood why having an export surplus should be a good thing. Let's make a bilance. OUT: Cars, machines, chemicals,... IN: Little printed paper snips (or little bytes if paid more modern). Sounds like a bad swap to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.186|162.158.112.186]] 07:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Former Financial Times and World Bank economist Tim Harford's "Undercover Economist" pop-econ books explain this quite well. (I don't think I can do Harford's explanation justice here but I shall try; any mistakes are my own) Germany wants to trade (for example) oil with OPEC, but all it has to trade are (for example) BMWs and OPEC doesn't want enough BMWs relative to how much oil Germany wants. So, Germany sells the extra BMWs to America in return for US dollars (the international currency for oil trading) and uses the US dollars to buy the oil. Economically, a BMW factory is basically a machine that converts steel into petrol via a really roundabout process. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.32|172.70.85.32]] 18:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Randall saw the most recent video from StandUpMaths. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.161|16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure if it was actually intended, but it seems that everyone missed the potential second meaning in the last frame. It's possible that Ponytail was referring to lidar diodes as a heat source used to cook the pizza, and Cueball either mistakenly or sardonically responded as if the mentioned diodes was instead suggested as a topping. That might also be a jab at political discussion, which is often full of spirited rebuttals based on misinterpretations of the opposing side's comments. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to lock comment sections? I feel like it would be especially helpful in comics like these. And while Reddit is usually not a good example for anything them locking the comments for contentious content (hehe) is actually a really good idea. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.75|172.68.12.75]] 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:The talk page ''could'' be semi-protected (to various degrees: admin-only editing, autoconfirmed-only editing) by an admin (your best bet would be to ask [[User:Kynde]]). I would recommend against such drastic moves for the moment, as the vandalism and trolling isn’t that bad (''yet''). If it does get worse, I’ll make sure to send a message to Kynde. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Fair enough, haste never gets anyone anywhere and it'd appear unjustified to do something that severe if it isn't that bad enough. But if it gets to the level of the I'm With Her comment section and nobody has asked for it to be locked, I'll ask Kynde like you asked. In any case, I'll wait. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.147|172.71.223.147]] 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I cannot agree that Reddit (or any site's) locking of comments is a good idea; it's a declaration of failure better dealt with by not having anything there at all except a statement that the topic is outside the scope acceptable by one's site. Even worse though, ''removing'' comments that are not abusive, promoting harm, etc, while leaving others that may be either similar or inverse, ''especially'' for difficult topics, is UNACCEPTABLE from any forum hoping to host discussion of anything the least bit controversial. '''Removing non-violating comments is even worse than locking threads, which is also bad.''' I'm outta here & probably won't be back; unhealthy moderation practices make for unhealthy discussions.
:::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, explainxkcd has gone off the cliff, and not just on this particular article, but repeatedly, and it’s getting worse and worse. I'm not going to edit it myself, but might I suggest a rule of thumb? If it isn’t necessary to help some understand the COMIC, then don’t put it in there in the first place! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.176|172.69.23.176]] 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::"Repeatedly"? By what criteria? Obviously in your opinion, anyway, and I'm not going to tell you what to think (or try to guess what you're thinking), but I believe you're being subjective. Nice to hear from you, though. Please do come by again some time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.226|141.101.98.226]] 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Seconded. This really should be the policy. I have strong political opinions like just about everyone (and like everyone, I certainly think that my views are logically derived from cold hard objective facts), but I have refrained from editing this page because I am VERY aware that it would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, and detract from the purpose of this website. "Explain xkcd" is for explaining xkcd, it's not a a platform to persuade the internet to adopt your political opinions. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 20:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:I really don't know what you guys are talking about, at least regarding the explanation for this specific comic. I believe the contributors have done a pretty good job keeping the explanation pretty close to neutral, except maybe it might be just a little opinionated in one paragraph. Most of the "extra" explanation in there provides some necessary background that may not be quite as obvious to future readers. Any leaning toward one opinion or another is mostly an explanation of the leaning attributed to the characters by the author himself. If you have a specific rebuke against a portion that seems more opinionated or subjective, either tag it in the explanation without changing the explanation itself, or bring up the specifics in this discussion. Please try not to bash this whole site and the contributors because of your own opinions. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 00:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how best to integrate it into the explanation, but I think https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations should be cited somewhere in the article, and I think it should be stated in more explicit terms that Trump's reciprocal tariffs are based on what is effectively a calculation of the United States' trade deficits with other countries. I think the article would benefit from more explicit descriptions and coverage of the tariff announcement for posterity, as I can imagine someone being really confused about this 10 years from now. I think reactions and backlash should be mentioned to provide context, but the article shouldn't get too detailed with any justifications for said reactions, so as not to take a side. Right now I feel that the article is a bit too in-the-weeds with explaining exactly what tariffs are and what a trade deficit is without providing context for why the comic is politically relevant, which I think is necessary to understand the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.166|162.158.62.166]] 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

3073: Tariffs

2025-04-08T14:35:06Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Explanation */ most common reserve currency (not the only)

{{comic
| number = 3073
| date = April 7, 2025
| title = Tariffs
| image = tariffs_2x.png
| imagesize = 681x809px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = [later] I don't get why our pizza slices have such terrible reviews; the geotextile-infused sauce gives the toppings incredible slope stability!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPOILER FOR AVATAR 2 (Neteyam dies) - Please change this comment when editing this page. Explanation of the consequences of stopping imports (the last panel) is needed. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a parody of the global tariffs that {{w|Donald Trump}} {{w|tariffs in the second Trump administration|imposed in 2025}}, which were announced shortly before the comic's release. [[Cueball]] describes the tariffs and, specifically, why the plan has garnered widespread disapproval for several seemingly illogical decisions, to [[Ponytail]] using a pizza store analogy.

Similar to [[2396: Wonder Woman 1984]], Ponytail blocked news sites to avoid {{w|spoiler (media)|spoiler}}s about ''Avatar 2'' (officially titled ''{{w|Avatar: The Way of Water}}'') in early 2021, but did not re-enable notifications until just now. ''Avatar 2'' was released on December 16, 2022, but this means that she has missed all news since 2021, including the re-election of Trump in 2024. She is surprised by the fact that Donald Trump is still the president in early 2025. She may be under the impression that Trump refused to step down when [[Joe Biden]]'s presidency officially began on Jan. 20, 2021. Trump has made repeated, extremely dubious claims that {{w|2020_United_States_presidential_election#False_claims_of_fraud| the election was "stolen"}} shortly after the 2020 elections, indicating his reluctance to accept the results. On one hand, a U.S. president serving nonconsecutive terms has only happened once before in U.S. history with Grover Cleveland serving from 1885 to 1889 and again from 1893 to 1897. On the other hand, only {{w|Franklin D. Roosevelt}} ever had more than two four-year terms, and that was before the {{w|Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd Amendment}} made it even less of a possibility that one could have started a third ([[2875: 2024|without getting false teeth, that is]]).

Ponytail has further missed Trump's wide-ranging tariffs, and the attending news coverage that has served to introduce many people to what tariffs are and how they work. Cueball attempts to explain by comparing the U.S. with the Geotechnical Survey company that Ponytail works for, as they are both producers of high value, technologically advanced goods, and comparing the countries the U.S. imports from to a pizza place, since the U.S. primarily imports lower value consumer goods and materials used to make the goods that the U.S. then exports, similar to how pizzas feed the workers in Ponytail's company.

A trade deficit occurs when party A buys more from party B than they sell to party B. Donald Trump, the president of the United States at the time the comic released, claimed that if the U.S. has a trade deficit with another country, then the U.S. is getting ripped off and the other country must be punished. In the comic, Cueball mockingly echoes Trump's belief to better explain his policies. As Ponytail explains, there is nothing wrong with having a trade deficit if you think you are getting your money's worth for what you are buying.{{Citation needed}} The U.S. can benefit from a trade deficit in some cases: the flow of foreign capital (like factory machinery) into the country can allow for more development, and some kinds of production are dangerous or polluting relative to the value of the goods produced. In addition, up to today, the U.S. treasury commands the world's most common reserve currency, which is also the currency used for most world trade, making outflow of foreign currency not really a problem.{{Actual citation needed}}

A tariff is a tax on imports from another country. Most politicians try to balance tariffs carefully in order to keep domestic products competitive with imported goods. In contrast, Donald Trump introduced tariffs unilaterally and aggressively with the aim to "punish" countries with which the United States had a trade deficit. He also claims that tariffs on good manufactured abroad will encourage US companies to increase their domestic manufacturing in order to avoid these tariffs, which will then provide more domestic middle-class jobs. Trump's opponents and even many of his supporters worry excessive tariffs will backfire and cause countries to target the American consumer with even higher prices (especially prices of goods which the United States cannot produce domestically at all) resulting in a "trade war."

In the comic, Cueball proposes that Ponytail impose a tax or "tariff" on the pizza store until they start buying from Ponytail, using the {{w|Venmo}} transactions platform. Notably, the tariff is applied on the people who deliver the products to Ponytail's company, just like in real life. Ponytail notes that such a tariff might encourage the pizza store to stop selling to her, which Cueball considers (in his position as devil's advocate for the whole concept) a victory. In reality, nations have very little control of where the products go after being produced inside their own borders. Instead, it is left up to the companies (the delivery companies, in this case) to decide where to produce (or procure) the goods. What tariff proponents often omit, is that companies will simply pass on the costs associated with tariffs to the consumers, making the pizza more expensive for the consumer but with no benefit to the supplier. In practical terms, the pizza company may even just stop taking orders from this company, having other customers that are easier to deliver to. Even if there's a saturated pizza industry, with several pizza outlets all vying for the local business, it may still be less problematic to compete for the slightly smaller 'rest of the town' market, perhaps even to offer deliveries to places previously outside their area, than to work with whatever requirements the survey company is imposing.

In contrast to real world countries like China or Canada which, as of 2025, procure a substantial amount of goods from the U.S., Ponytail notes that the pizza company has little use for land survey equipment, unless they are constructing their own stores from the ground up without outside contractors. Ponytail suggests surveying pizzas using their equipment, which would serve little purpose.

The U.S. used to be a dominant producer of consumer goods up until the 1970s, after which companies started offshoring production that utilized low-skilled labor to third-world countries. In contrast, Ponytail's company likely has never been a producer of food. {{w|LIDAR}} is a technique using lasers to measure distances. Ponytail's company is using the technology to do surveying. In the final panel and title text, Cueball suggests that they use their LIDAR components to make their own pizzas, which would be inedible and potentially toxic.{{Citation needed}} Cueball may be referencing the annoyance Italians have at unconventional pizza toppings.

The title text references slope stability, or the ability of an inclined slope to withstand movement. Toppings often slide off poorly-made pizzas when it is being eaten, leading to dissatisfaction. {{w|Geotextile}}s are permeable fabrics used for support and various other functions. The narrator claims that geotextiles prevent toppings from sliding off the pizza. However, very few geotextiles are edible.{{Citation needed}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.I don’t like reCAPTCHAS}}
:[Ponytail walks over to Cueball while looking at a phone in her hand. Cueball turns away from the laptop on his desk to look at her.]
:Ponytail: You know how I blocked all news sites at the start of 2021 to avoid spoilers for Avatar 2, and then forgot to start checking them again?
:Cueball: Yeah, we've been meaning to talk to you about that...

:[Ponytail stops in front of Cueball and is facing him.]
:Ponytail: Well, I just checked the news for the first time, and why is the economy tanking?
:Cueball: Uh, the president is mad at other countries and imposed lots of tariffs.

:[Closeup on Ponytail's head.]
:Ponytail: Wait, who's the president now?
:Cueball (off-panel): Donald Trump.
:Ponytail: ...Still??
:Cueball (off-panel): No, again.

:[Pan out. Ponytail is no longer holding the phone.]
:Ponytail: OK, fine, what's a tariff? Why is he doing this?
:Cueball: You know that pizzeria your company orders from? They don't buy anything from ''you'', right?
:Ponytail: Why would they? We do geotechnical landscape surveys.

:[Closeup on Cueball, arms spread.]
:Cueball: Right, so they're ripping you off! ''You're'' paying ''them'' tons of money, and what are ''you'' getting for it?
:Ponytail (off-panel): I mean... pizza?
:Cueball: See? They're not helping ''your'' business at all!
:Cueball: What a ripoff!

:[Pan out. Ponytail has her hand under her chin.]
:Ponytail: What would they even buy from us? I guess we could survey a pizza...
:Cueball: Yes, perfect! You refuse to let the delivery driver past your security desk unless they Venmo you for an equivalent value of LIDAR scans.

:[Closeup on Ponytail's head.]
:Ponytail: Wouldn't they just stop taking our orders?
:Cueball (off-panel): Perfect, balance restored!

:[Pan out.]
:Ponytail: OK, but I still want pizza.
:Cueball: Can you just make one? You have all that gear.
:Ponytail: I don't think pizza made with LIDAR diodes would be very good.
:Cueball: Ugh, why is everyone so picky about toppings?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Donald Trump]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:3071: Decay Chain

2025-04-04T14:22:34Z

ProphetZarquon: iPhone 13 mini

... should have gone down to the 5S. That was really rock bottom... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.36|172.70.114.36]] 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: My old SE was a real workhorse. Small enough to comfortably use in one hand, power button on the top so I don't have to worry about turning it off when gripping it, headphone jack, black background on the reboot screen, and twice as much storage as my current iphone 7. It kept working until the screen cracked and glass was peeling out of the screen, and several months beyond that, when the screen just went blank and refused to turn on. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 05:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No april fools' comic? Sad. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 01:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Takes some time. Might still be one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, escape speed was late for 18 days, maybe the new interactive comic will be the same [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 05:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes we could still hope for a treat. However, last time the election did not go as he wished he did not make any [[:Category:April fools' comics|April fools' comics]] as he was quite [[Sad]] at the time, it was in 2017 see this [[1818:_Rayleigh_Scattering#No_April_Fools.27_Day_comic_in_2017|trivia]]... It might be even worse this time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::As anyone with liberal political views (which includes me), I think this is the worst it could've possibly gone. Might not get an april fools comic for the next four years. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 13:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::I SERIOUSLY hope there is one.My opinion is that there is [[2871: Definitely|defineatly]] one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 13:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Probably will be one 2017 is a long time ago(relatively) [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just because the last absence was eight years ago, under a similar political climate, I can't see that being a prime factor behind not doing an April Fool. If the circumstances alone makes him not think up anything funny, he'd be drying up in the realm of normal comics. (And, please, before anyone says that this is happening, I shall pre-emptively disagree; business as usual, IMO, by which I mean it's all still good.)
::::::If it's a large-scale flight of imagination that's not happened, that doesn't even need joyous thoughts every day. In fact, a degree of depression could well drive some of the development as a coping mechanism.
::::::On the whole, though, I'd say that any reason why (if it happens/doesn't happen) there's nothing this year is the sheer amount of effort required. Conceptualising, planning, coding and drawing seem to be the main units of work. All but the latter can be helped by a team, but certainly the core of the latter really needs to be kept personal, even if some flood-filling or careful recompositing can be farmed out to others he trusts to not spoil his style.
::::::There was a tradition in the UK for the {{w|Morecambe and Wise}} Christmas Show to be ''the'' thing to watch (as an example), and it was probably the most stressful show for the writers and stars because it got to the stage that it had such a reputation for being entertaining (by the standards of the era - but repeats, even decades later, still are enjoyed...) that it ''had'' to be good.
::::::I can quite imagine that Randall is in a similar position of only just getting one April Fool over with, and wondering whatever he's going to do to follow it (never mind any other non-Fool specials he's also working towards). Even while feeding us our regular three comics a week, like an insatiable chick in a nest demanding more and more food from its parents.
::::::I even have had a few ideas of my own, that I'd happily contribute (and could even help with, having satisfied myself with proofs of concept), but I respect him too much to bother him with unsolicited advice from someone he doesn't know. Plus, I'd rather get pleasingly surprised by the true Randall spirit (or none at all) than feel like I forced him into doing ''my'' thing. (Or, worse, being to close to his own ideas, and deciding that he can't do that any more, lest it look like he took my concept and ''pretended'' it was already in his mind.)
::::::I actually don't know how he set about prior works (solo or collaboration), but I'd have to already be far closer to him (socially, or perhaps with prior professional outreaches, neith of which are on the horizon) to have a proper idea. With everything he may have on his plate (''What If? 3'' and/or other books, more YouTubed conversions, some decidedly non-Fool future specials that he might have plans for, the continuing thrice-weekly comics...) maybe there just wasn't a way to give us want we're waiting for this year (maybe that was 2017's basic issue?). Or maybe he's ''almost there'', just not yet.
::::::He won't read this (that's ok, I don't read his Twitter - though that's mostly because it's been made too awkward to read things there without an account on the now-X, and I'm well past the point that I might have ever considered signing up) so this is not for his benefit, but for those who seem to think it's a cut'n'dried contract that he ''will'' entertain you. When he will only as much as he feels he can. With the caveat of "horses for courses", as he'll never please everybody, however much he might try.
::::::Be calm, fellow xkcd community members. ''Maybe'' we're due a truly humdingery ''Summertime'' special release (or Halloween, or Christmas, or next April (twice as good as a normal year!), or just at some random time that may or may not coincide with a book launch, or... If we already knew about it, would it be as nice a surprise..? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.59|172.71.178.59]] 16:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I thought it obvious that this presidency ''was'' the joke? Did not everyone get the joke? I mean, maybe it's in bad taste, but the irony is ''right there''.
:::::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

A quick search for "newest iPhone" gave me that 16 (various models) is the newest. That is, if it's newer than 15. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.15.141|172.68.15.141]] 04:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Most stars only produce Bell rotary phones, perhaps producing touch tone or even cordless phones briefly as they move off the main sequence. Massive stars can produce up to Nokia phones, but that's the final stage that stars can produce in their normal lifespan. All smartphones are produced in supernova. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 05:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I thought they were produced in a Movistar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.167|172.70.163.167]] 09:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: The iPhone 13 mini is not listed because it's a rare isotope that only forms within highly compact spacetime conditions that no longer exist in our region of the universe.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I miss an explanation of the iPhone models. Are these the only ones there are? In which order were they released? (Of course, I could google iPhone, but that would defeat the purpose of this page, wouldn’t it?) It feels strange that there is an iPhone 7, but no 8 and 9, then X (assuming X means 10), 11, 12 only with the addition “pro max” and so on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.67|172.70.43.67]] 06:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think there is an 8
:There are more phones theorised to exist in nature, but they're mostly only found in high-energy colliders. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.179|172.68.205.179]] 07:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Note that the comic shows a {{w|decay chain}} not a {{w|table of nuclides}}, i.e. it only shows iPhones which occur during the decay of an iPhone 16 pro max. I also wonder why iPhone X apparently has Z=9, but according to {{w|List of iPhone models}} apparently no iPhone 9 was ever observed. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.89|172.69.109.89]] 09:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Before iPhone 11, Apple tended to bump the major number only every second year. They released the iPhones 8 and X the same year, then XS and XR the next year. So: ... 6, 6S, 7, (8 and X), (XS and XR), (11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max), ...
Maybe this references how especially for iPhones, new models are constantly made and old ones traded in or discarded? As if the new phones are actually the same and current phones are just getting worse? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.10|162.158.167.10]] 07:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this like how Randall's TI-85 decayed into a TI-83? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.17.144|172.69.17.144]] 11:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think that's a corollary worth noting in the description!
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So, is there a {{w|neutronium}} analogue, in the "iPhone <no number> expert super plus pro max elite extra master genius limited edition"? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.29|172.71.178.29]] 12:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a real element that has a similar decay chain. [[User:Bigyihsuan|Bigyihsuan]] ([[User talk:Bigyihsuan|talk]]) 13:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder what the actual weights are of the phones and if that does track... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.69|172.68.54.69]] 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Presumably it ends with the 7 because that's currently the earliest iPhone still receiving security updates [[Special:Contributions/172.69.114.83|172.69.114.83]] 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I think this needs to be mentioned in the official explanation, that's the only sensible explanation for why "stable" ends at 7 (assuming it is true that 7 is the last supported model for OS updates, I did not double check.
::I agree that 7 being the earliest with updates, should be mentioned. (It's the first reason I thought of as well, for it being the final decay state.)
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Side note: the SIM part could also be related to the fact that, since the iPhone first came out, the standard size of SIMs has changed twice (by shrinking). In a curious twist of things, different phones have different compatibilities with each standard SIM size: some accept SIMs one size bigger if trimmed to size, some accept SIMs one size smaller if surrounded by extra material (cardboard or plastic) to bring them to size, some accept both and some accept one; I'm not sure about compatibility two sizes away. (TL;DR: the phone may be ejectng the incompatible SIM)--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.38|172.64.236.38]] 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3071: Decay Chain

2025-04-04T13:42:03Z

ProphetZarquon: Joke presidency

... should have gone down to the 5S. That was really rock bottom... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.36|172.70.114.36]] 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: My old SE was a real workhorse. Small enough to comfortably use in one hand, power button on the top so I don't have to worry about turning it off when gripping it, headphone jack, black background on the reboot screen, and twice as much storage as my current iphone 7. It kept working until the screen cracked and glass was peeling out of the screen, and several months beyond that, when the screen just went blank and refused to turn on. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 05:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No april fools' comic? Sad. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 01:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Takes some time. Might still be one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, escape speed was late for 18 days, maybe the new interactive comic will be the same [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 05:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes we could still hope for a treat. However, last time the election did not go as he wished he did not make any [[:Category:April fools' comics|April fools' comics]] as he was quite [[Sad]] at the time, it was in 2017 see this [[1818:_Rayleigh_Scattering#No_April_Fools.27_Day_comic_in_2017|trivia]]... It might be even worse this time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::As anyone with liberal political views (which includes me), I think this is the worst it could've possibly gone. Might not get an april fools comic for the next four years. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 13:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::I SERIOUSLY hope there is one.My opinion is that there is [[2871: Definitely|defineatly]] one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 13:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Probably will be one 2017 is a long time ago(relatively) [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just because the last absence was eight years ago, under a similar political climate, I can't see that being a prime factor behind not doing an April Fool. If the circumstances alone makes him not think up anything funny, he'd be drying up in the realm of normal comics. (And, please, before anyone says that this is happening, I shall pre-emptively disagree; business as usual, IMO, by which I mean it's all still good.)
::::::If it's a large-scale flight of imagination that's not happened, that doesn't even need joyous thoughts every day. In fact, a degree of depression could well drive some of the development as a coping mechanism.
::::::On the whole, though, I'd say that any reason why (if it happens/doesn't happen) there's nothing this year is the sheer amount of effort required. Conceptualising, planning, coding and drawing seem to be the main units of work. All but the latter can be helped by a team, but certainly the core of the latter really needs to be kept personal, even if some flood-filling or careful recompositing can be farmed out to others he trusts to not spoil his style.
::::::There was a tradition in the UK for the {{w|Morecambe and Wise}} Christmas Show to be ''the'' thing to watch (as an example), and it was probably the most stressful show for the writers and stars because it got to the stage that it had such a reputation for being entertaining (by the standards of the era - but repeats, even decades later, still are enjoyed...) that it ''had'' to be good.
::::::I can quite imagine that Randall is in a similar position of only just getting one April Fool over with, and wondering whatever he's going to do to follow it (never mind any other non-Fool specials he's also working towards). Even while feeding us our regular three comics a week, like an insatiable chick in a nest demanding more and more food from its parents.
::::::I even have had a few ideas of my own, that I'd happily contribute (and could even help with, having satisfied myself with proofs of concept), but I respect him too much to bother him with unsolicited advice from someone he doesn't know. Plus, I'd rather get pleasingly surprised by the true Randall spirit (or none at all) than feel like I forced him into doing ''my'' thing. (Or, worse, being to close to his own ideas, and deciding that he can't do that any more, lest it look like he took my concept and ''pretended'' it was already in his mind.)
::::::I actually don't know how he set about prior works (solo or collaboration), but I'd have to already be far closer to him (socially, or perhaps with prior professional outreaches, neith of which are on the horizon) to have a proper idea. With everything he may have on his plate (''What If? 3'' and/or other books, more YouTubed conversions, some decidedly non-Fool future specials that he might have plans for, the continuing thrice-weekly comics...) maybe there just wasn't a way to give us want we're waiting for this year (maybe that was 2017's basic issue?). Or maybe he's ''almost there'', just not yet.
::::::He won't read this (that's ok, I don't read his Twitter - though that's mostly because it's been made too awkward to read things there without an account on the now-X, and I'm well past the point that I might have ever considered signing up) so this is not for his benefit, but for those who seem to think it's a cut'n'dried contract that he ''will'' entertain you. When he will only as much as he feels he can. With the caveat of "horses for courses", as he'll never please everybody, however much he might try.
::::::Be calm, fellow xkcd community members. ''Maybe'' we're due a truly humdingery ''Summertime'' special release (or Halloween, or Christmas, or next April (twice as good as a normal year!), or just at some random time that may or may not coincide with a book launch, or... If we already knew about it, would it be as nice a surprise..? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.59|172.71.178.59]] 16:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I thought it obvious that this presidency ''was'' the joke? Did not everyone get the joke? I mean, maybe it's in bad taste, but the irony is ''right there''.
:::::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

A quick search for "newest iPhone" gave me that 16 (various models) is the newest. That is, if it's newer than 15. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.15.141|172.68.15.141]] 04:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Most stars only produce Bell rotary phones, perhaps producing touch tone or even cordless phones briefly as they move off the main sequence. Massive stars can produce up to Nokia phones, but that's the final stage that stars can produce in their normal lifespan. All smartphones are produced in supernova. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 05:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I thought they were produced in a Movistar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.167|172.70.163.167]] 09:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I miss an explanation of the iPhone models. Are these the only ones there are? In which order were they released? (Of course, I could google iPhone, but that would defeat the purpose of this page, wouldn’t it?) It feels strange that there is an iPhone 7, but no 8 and 9, then X (assuming X means 10), 11, 12 only with the addition “pro max” and so on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.67|172.70.43.67]] 06:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think there is an 8
:There are more phones theorised to exist in nature, but they're mostly only found in high-energy colliders. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.179|172.68.205.179]] 07:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Note that the comic shows a {{w|decay chain}} not a {{w|table of nuclides}}, i.e. it only shows iPhones which occur during the decay of an iPhone 16 pro max. I also wonder why iPhone X apparently has Z=9, but according to {{w|List of iPhone models}} apparently no iPhone 9 was ever observed. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.89|172.69.109.89]] 09:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Before iPhone 11, Apple tended to bump the major number only every second year. They released the iPhones 8 and X the same year, then XS and XR the next year. So: ... 6, 6S, 7, (8 and X), (XS and XR), (11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max), ...
Maybe this references how especially for iPhones, new models are constantly made and old ones traded in or discarded? As if the new phones are actually the same and current phones are just getting worse? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.10|162.158.167.10]] 07:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this like how Randall's TI-85 decayed into a TI-83? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.17.144|172.69.17.144]] 11:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think that's a corollary worth noting in the description!
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So, is there a {{w|neutronium}} analogue, in the "iPhone <no number> expert super plus pro max elite extra master genius limited edition"? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.29|172.71.178.29]] 12:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a real element that has a similar decay chain. [[User:Bigyihsuan|Bigyihsuan]] ([[User talk:Bigyihsuan|talk]]) 13:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder what the actual weights are of the phones and if that does track... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.69|172.68.54.69]] 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Presumably it ends with the 7 because that's currently the earliest iPhone still receiving security updates [[Special:Contributions/172.69.114.83|172.69.114.83]] 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I think this needs to be mentioned in the official explanation, that's the only sensible explanation for why "stable" ends at 7 (assuming it is true that 7 is the last supported model for OS updates, I did not double check.
::I agree that 7 being the earliest with updates, should be mentioned. (It's the first reason I thought of as well, for it being the final decay state.)
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Side note: the SIM part could also be related to the fact that, since the iPhone first came out, the standard size of SIMs has changed twice (by shrinking). In a curious twist of things, different phones have different compatibilities with each standard SIM size: some accept SIMs one size bigger if trimmed to size, some accept SIMs one size smaller if surrounded by extra material (cardboard or plastic) to bring them to size, some accept both and some accept one; I'm not sure about compatibility two sizes away. (TL;DR: the phone may be ejectng the incompatible SIM)--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.38|172.64.236.38]] 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3071: Decay Chain

2025-04-04T13:38:10Z

ProphetZarquon: iPhone 7 still gets updates; lowest "stable" number

... should have gone down to the 5S. That was really rock bottom... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.36|172.70.114.36]] 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: My old SE was a real workhorse. Small enough to comfortably use in one hand, power button on the top so I don't have to worry about turning it off when gripping it, headphone jack, black background on the reboot screen, and twice as much storage as my current iphone 7. It kept working until the screen cracked and glass was peeling out of the screen, and several months beyond that, when the screen just went blank and refused to turn on. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 05:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No april fools' comic? Sad. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 01:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Takes some time. Might still be one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, escape speed was late for 18 days, maybe the new interactive comic will be the same [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 05:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes we could still hope for a treat. However, last time the election did not go as he wished he did not make any [[:Category:April fools' comics|April fools' comics]] as he was quite [[Sad]] at the time, it was in 2017 see this [[1818:_Rayleigh_Scattering#No_April_Fools.27_Day_comic_in_2017|trivia]]... It might be even worse this time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::As anyone with liberal political views (which includes me), I think this is the worst it could've possibly gone. Might not get an april fools comic for the next four years. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 13:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::I SERIOUSLY hope there is one.My opinion is that there is [[2871: Definitely|defineatly]] one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 13:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Probably will be one 2017 is a long time ago(relatively) [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just because the last absence was eight years ago, under a similar political climate, I can't see that being a prime factor behind not doing an April Fool. If the circumstances alone makes him not think up anything funny, he'd be drying up in the realm of normal comics. (And, please, before anyone says that this is happening, I shall pre-emptively disagree; business as usual, IMO, by which I mean it's all still good.)
::::::If it's a large-scale flight of imagination that's not happened, that doesn't even need joyous thoughts every day. In fact, a degree of depression could well drive some of the development as a coping mechanism.
::::::On the whole, though, I'd say that any reason why (if it happens/doesn't happen) there's nothing this year is the sheer amount of effort required. Conceptualising, planning, coding and drawing seem to be the main units of work. All but the latter can be helped by a team, but certainly the core of the latter really needs to be kept personal, even if some flood-filling or careful recompositing can be farmed out to others he trusts to not spoil his style.
::::::There was a tradition in the UK for the {{w|Morecambe and Wise}} Christmas Show to be ''the'' thing to watch (as an example), and it was probably the most stressful show for the writers and stars because it got to the stage that it had such a reputation for being entertaining (by the standards of the era - but repeats, even decades later, still are enjoyed...) that it ''had'' to be good.
::::::I can quite imagine that Randall is in a similar position of only just getting one April Fool over with, and wondering whatever he's going to do to follow it (never mind any other non-Fool specials he's also working towards). Even while feeding us our regular three comics a week, like an insatiable chick in a nest demanding more and more food from its parents.
::::::I even have had a few ideas of my own, that I'd happily contribute (and could even help with, having satisfied myself with proofs of concept), but I respect him too much to bother him with unsolicited advice from someone he doesn't know. Plus, I'd rather get pleasingly surprised by the true Randall spirit (or none at all) than feel like I forced him into doing ''my'' thing. (Or, worse, being to close to his own ideas, and deciding that he can't do that any more, lest it look like he took my concept and ''pretended'' it was already in his mind.)
::::::I actually don't know how he set about prior works (solo or collaboration), but I'd have to already be far closer to him (socially, or perhaps with prior professional outreaches, neith of which are on the horizon) to have a proper idea. With everything he may have on his plate (''What If? 3'' and/or other books, more YouTubed conversions, some decidedly non-Fool future specials that he might have plans for, the continuing thrice-weekly comics...) maybe there just wasn't a way to give us want we're waiting for this year (maybe that was 2017's basic issue?). Or maybe he's ''almost there'', just not yet.
::::::He won't read this (that's ok, I don't read his Twitter - though that's mostly because it's been made too awkward to read things there without an account on the now-X, and I'm well past the point that I might have ever considered signing up) so this is not for his benefit, but for those who seem to think it's a cut'n'dried contract that he ''will'' entertain you. When he will only as much as he feels he can. With the caveat of "horses for courses", as he'll never please everybody, however much he might try.
::::::Be calm, fellow xkcd community members. ''Maybe'' we're due a truly humdingery ''Summertime'' special release (or Halloween, or Christmas, or next April (twice as good as a normal year!), or just at some random time that may or may not coincide with a book launch, or... If we already knew about it, would it be as nice a surprise..? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.59|172.71.178.59]] 16:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

A quick search for "newest iPhone" gave me that 16 (various models) is the newest. That is, if it's newer than 15. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.15.141|172.68.15.141]] 04:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Most stars only produce Bell rotary phones, perhaps producing touch tone or even cordless phones briefly as they move off the main sequence. Massive stars can produce up to Nokia phones, but that's the final stage that stars can produce in their normal lifespan. All smartphones are produced in supernova. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 05:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I thought they were produced in a Movistar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.167|172.70.163.167]] 09:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I miss an explanation of the iPhone models. Are these the only ones there are? In which order were they released? (Of course, I could google iPhone, but that would defeat the purpose of this page, wouldn’t it?) It feels strange that there is an iPhone 7, but no 8 and 9, then X (assuming X means 10), 11, 12 only with the addition “pro max” and so on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.67|172.70.43.67]] 06:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think there is an 8
:There are more phones theorised to exist in nature, but they're mostly only found in high-energy colliders. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.179|172.68.205.179]] 07:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Note that the comic shows a {{w|decay chain}} not a {{w|table of nuclides}}, i.e. it only shows iPhones which occur during the decay of an iPhone 16 pro max. I also wonder why iPhone X apparently has Z=9, but according to {{w|List of iPhone models}} apparently no iPhone 9 was ever observed. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.89|172.69.109.89]] 09:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Before iPhone 11, Apple tended to bump the major number only every second year. They released the iPhones 8 and X the same year, then XS and XR the next year. So: ... 6, 6S, 7, (8 and X), (XS and XR), (11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max), ...
Maybe this references how especially for iPhones, new models are constantly made and old ones traded in or discarded? As if the new phones are actually the same and current phones are just getting worse? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.10|162.158.167.10]] 07:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this like how Randall's TI-85 decayed into a TI-83? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.17.144|172.69.17.144]] 11:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think that's a corollary worth noting in the description!
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So, is there a {{w|neutronium}} analogue, in the "iPhone <no number> expert super plus pro max elite extra master genius limited edition"? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.29|172.71.178.29]] 12:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a real element that has a similar decay chain. [[User:Bigyihsuan|Bigyihsuan]] ([[User talk:Bigyihsuan|talk]]) 13:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder what the actual weights are of the phones and if that does track... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.69|172.68.54.69]] 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Presumably it ends with the 7 because that's currently the earliest iPhone still receiving security updates [[Special:Contributions/172.69.114.83|172.69.114.83]] 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I think this needs to be mentioned in the official explanation, that's the only sensible explanation for why "stable" ends at 7 (assuming it is true that 7 is the last supported model for OS updates, I did not double check.
::I agree that 7 being the earliest with updates, should be mentioned. (It's the first reason I thought of as well, for it being the final decay state.)
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Side note: the SIM part could also be related to the fact that, since the iPhone first came out, the standard size of SIMs has changed twice (by shrinking). In a curious twist of things, different phones have different compatibilities with each standard SIM size: some accept SIMs one size bigger if trimmed to size, some accept SIMs one size smaller if surrounded by extra material (cardboard or plastic) to bring them to size, some accept both and some accept one; I'm not sure about compatibility two sizes away. (TL;DR: the phone may be ejectng the incompatible SIM)--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.38|172.64.236.38]] 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3071: Decay Chain

2025-04-04T13:36:10Z

ProphetZarquon: TI-85 to TI-83 decay should be mentioned as a related comic

... should have gone down to the 5S. That was really rock bottom... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.36|172.70.114.36]] 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: My old SE was a real workhorse. Small enough to comfortably use in one hand, power button on the top so I don't have to worry about turning it off when gripping it, headphone jack, black background on the reboot screen, and twice as much storage as my current iphone 7. It kept working until the screen cracked and glass was peeling out of the screen, and several months beyond that, when the screen just went blank and refused to turn on. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 05:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No april fools' comic? Sad. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 01:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Takes some time. Might still be one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, escape speed was late for 18 days, maybe the new interactive comic will be the same [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 05:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes we could still hope for a treat. However, last time the election did not go as he wished he did not make any [[:Category:April fools' comics|April fools' comics]] as he was quite [[Sad]] at the time, it was in 2017 see this [[1818:_Rayleigh_Scattering#No_April_Fools.27_Day_comic_in_2017|trivia]]... It might be even worse this time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::As anyone with liberal political views (which includes me), I think this is the worst it could've possibly gone. Might not get an april fools comic for the next four years. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 13:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::I SERIOUSLY hope there is one.My opinion is that there is [[2871: Definitely|defineatly]] one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 13:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Probably will be one 2017 is a long time ago(relatively) [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just because the last absence was eight years ago, under a similar political climate, I can't see that being a prime factor behind not doing an April Fool. If the circumstances alone makes him not think up anything funny, he'd be drying up in the realm of normal comics. (And, please, before anyone says that this is happening, I shall pre-emptively disagree; business as usual, IMO, by which I mean it's all still good.)
::::::If it's a large-scale flight of imagination that's not happened, that doesn't even need joyous thoughts every day. In fact, a degree of depression could well drive some of the development as a coping mechanism.
::::::On the whole, though, I'd say that any reason why (if it happens/doesn't happen) there's nothing this year is the sheer amount of effort required. Conceptualising, planning, coding and drawing seem to be the main units of work. All but the latter can be helped by a team, but certainly the core of the latter really needs to be kept personal, even if some flood-filling or careful recompositing can be farmed out to others he trusts to not spoil his style.
::::::There was a tradition in the UK for the {{w|Morecambe and Wise}} Christmas Show to be ''the'' thing to watch (as an example), and it was probably the most stressful show for the writers and stars because it got to the stage that it had such a reputation for being entertaining (by the standards of the era - but repeats, even decades later, still are enjoyed...) that it ''had'' to be good.
::::::I can quite imagine that Randall is in a similar position of only just getting one April Fool over with, and wondering whatever he's going to do to follow it (never mind any other non-Fool specials he's also working towards). Even while feeding us our regular three comics a week, like an insatiable chick in a nest demanding more and more food from its parents.
::::::I even have had a few ideas of my own, that I'd happily contribute (and could even help with, having satisfied myself with proofs of concept), but I respect him too much to bother him with unsolicited advice from someone he doesn't know. Plus, I'd rather get pleasingly surprised by the true Randall spirit (or none at all) than feel like I forced him into doing ''my'' thing. (Or, worse, being to close to his own ideas, and deciding that he can't do that any more, lest it look like he took my concept and ''pretended'' it was already in his mind.)
::::::I actually don't know how he set about prior works (solo or collaboration), but I'd have to already be far closer to him (socially, or perhaps with prior professional outreaches, neith of which are on the horizon) to have a proper idea. With everything he may have on his plate (''What If? 3'' and/or other books, more YouTubed conversions, some decidedly non-Fool future specials that he might have plans for, the continuing thrice-weekly comics...) maybe there just wasn't a way to give us want we're waiting for this year (maybe that was 2017's basic issue?). Or maybe he's ''almost there'', just not yet.
::::::He won't read this (that's ok, I don't read his Twitter - though that's mostly because it's been made too awkward to read things there without an account on the now-X, and I'm well past the point that I might have ever considered signing up) so this is not for his benefit, but for those who seem to think it's a cut'n'dried contract that he ''will'' entertain you. When he will only as much as he feels he can. With the caveat of "horses for courses", as he'll never please everybody, however much he might try.
::::::Be calm, fellow xkcd community members. ''Maybe'' we're due a truly humdingery ''Summertime'' special release (or Halloween, or Christmas, or next April (twice as good as a normal year!), or just at some random time that may or may not coincide with a book launch, or... If we already knew about it, would it be as nice a surprise..? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.59|172.71.178.59]] 16:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

A quick search for "newest iPhone" gave me that 16 (various models) is the newest. That is, if it's newer than 15. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.15.141|172.68.15.141]] 04:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Most stars only produce Bell rotary phones, perhaps producing touch tone or even cordless phones briefly as they move off the main sequence. Massive stars can produce up to Nokia phones, but that's the final stage that stars can produce in their normal lifespan. All smartphones are produced in supernova. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 05:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I thought they were produced in a Movistar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.167|172.70.163.167]] 09:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I miss an explanation of the iPhone models. Are these the only ones there are? In which order were they released? (Of course, I could google iPhone, but that would defeat the purpose of this page, wouldn’t it?) It feels strange that there is an iPhone 7, but no 8 and 9, then X (assuming X means 10), 11, 12 only with the addition “pro max” and so on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.67|172.70.43.67]] 06:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think there is an 8
:There are more phones theorised to exist in nature, but they're mostly only found in high-energy colliders. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.179|172.68.205.179]] 07:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Note that the comic shows a {{w|decay chain}} not a {{w|table of nuclides}}, i.e. it only shows iPhones which occur during the decay of an iPhone 16 pro max. I also wonder why iPhone X apparently has Z=9, but according to {{w|List of iPhone models}} apparently no iPhone 9 was ever observed. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.89|172.69.109.89]] 09:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Before iPhone 11, Apple tended to bump the major number only every second year. They released the iPhones 8 and X the same year, then XS and XR the next year. So: ... 6, 6S, 7, (8 and X), (XS and XR), (11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max), ...
Maybe this references how especially for iPhones, new models are constantly made and old ones traded in or discarded? As if the new phones are actually the same and current phones are just getting worse? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.10|162.158.167.10]] 07:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this like how Randall's TI-85 decayed into a TI-83? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.17.144|172.69.17.144]] 11:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think that's a corollary worth noting in the description!
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So, is there a {{w|neutronium}} analogue, in the "iPhone <no number> expert super plus pro max elite extra master genius limited edition"? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.29|172.71.178.29]] 12:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a real element that has a similar decay chain. [[User:Bigyihsuan|Bigyihsuan]] ([[User talk:Bigyihsuan|talk]]) 13:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder what the actual weights are of the phones and if that does track... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.69|172.68.54.69]] 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Presumably it ends with the 7 because that's currently the earliest iPhone still receiving security updates [[Special:Contributions/172.69.114.83|172.69.114.83]] 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I think this needs to be mentioned in the official explanation, that's the only sensible explanation for why "stable" ends at 7 (assuming it is true that 7 is the last supported model for OS updates, I did not double check.

Side note: the SIM part could also be related to the fact that, since the iPhone first came out, the standard size of SIMs has changed twice (by shrinking). In a curious twist of things, different phones have different compatibilities with each standard SIM size: some accept SIMs one size bigger if trimmed to size, some accept SIMs one size smaller if surrounded by extra material (cardboard or plastic) to bring them to size, some accept both and some accept one; I'm not sure about compatibility two sizes away. (TL;DR: the phone may be ejectng the incompatible SIM)--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.38|172.64.236.38]] 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3066: Cosmic Distance Calibration

2025-03-24T13:17:20Z

ProphetZarquon: Spacing

yay. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What makes such labels as real objects absurd is not the required size, but the required orientation to be readable from a single point in the universe - earth. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 19:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:All facing towards us AND all the right way up! That's geographically unlikely. ;-) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.157|172.71.178.157]] 10:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

A straightforward application of the Anthropic principle. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.187.189|104.23.187.189]] 19:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the title text... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.162|162.158.62.162]] 20:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I like this part of the linked article: ''But cosmologists get only one universe to observe.'' -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that the crosshairs in question are markers to indicate which star is being labeled, not anything to do with video games. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.137.59|162.158.137.59]] 23:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's my suspicion as well: just markers like the labels, not diffraction spikes or anything like that. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The crosshairs are all the same size because new red giant stars are all the same brightness. They are "TRGB" or "Tip of the Red Giant Branch" standard candles. Every star in that phase of evolution is exactly the same absolute brightness, so we can tell how far away it is by measuring the observed luminosity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 00:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

[[2035: Dark Matter Candidates]] also hypothesizes that astronomical labels are physically there, the orbit paths in this case. Should it be added? [[User:Intara|Intara]] ([[User talk:Intara|talk]]) 00:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

OH MY GOD! Why are there two blue boxes saying we need to complete 58 explanations? I would suggest that just one would be less distracting/disruptive. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.70|172.68.2.70]] 03:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
: Perhaps one box wasn't enough... although it seems reasonable to have an increasing number of cartoons that nobody felt able to explain. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.29|172.70.91.29]] 10:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:: I agree. I put the second box it in on request at an earlier time, when it said something different. But have now removed the top box. That there are 60+ incomplete explanations can still be seen from the one I left. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::: Thanks. Unfortunately that second box didn't have the desired effect, it just resulted in some removals of incomplete notices without the issues being fixed. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 09:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the crosshairs: TBH, I don't think the comic refers to diffraction patterns/spikes. I think it simply refers to literal crosshairs, as in "some stars are marked with crosshairs in this image and the astronomers think those crosshairs are some kind of real, physical phenomena". See the comic itself for an example of such a crosshair (the zoomed star has one!). --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.138|172.68.7.138]] 05:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
: After noticing that other comments in this discussion page mentioned the same as I did, I took the liberty to update the text. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.34|172.68.12.34]] 05:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This comic seems extra ironic, given that NASA has been grossly misreporting the distances to extremely distant objects lately, due to lack of adjustment for observed differences in spacetime, in order to express things "simply". Most people of course don't care & those using more reliable resources are unaffected, but hobbyists & reporters etc are going "Wait, what? Those numbers are way off..."
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

There's surely no problem with stars having labels that look like they are to be read ''only'' by us, at our distance (and at this time). All each star needs to do is to send out highly-directional flashes (relatively, at least!) of light, such that the ones that will arrive at Earth around now were projecting information suitable for us back then, but light arriving at stars five hundred years ago, at a similar distance on a perpendicular track, will feature suitable information shone out five hundred years earlier (while sending vaguely in this direction only information destined to be useful for the star 'between' us, five hundred light-years in that direction). I'm sure you can appreciate how simple it is to accomplish this, all you need to do is have different patterns of photos continually travelling out in different sectros of different shells of ever-changing light, out into the universe, all ready to convey exactly the right information to the observer who happens to eventually be where the light gets observed, inexactly the right orientation ''and'' notation/language, as well! Simple! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92|172.68.205.92]] 22:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Holograms are a thing, people. A different label could be aimed at each viewer. Heck, there might only be one viewer at present. And who said the labels are made of matter? This is the worst explanation page I have ever seen here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.235|172.68.54.235]] 11:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
:Though holograms don't just appear 'in thin air' (or, indeed, vacuum). You're either looking at a medium imprinted with a clever diffraction patterns to shape the intensity of light projected out in various directions, or illuminating an amorphous media with precisely targeted light (e.g. lasers in a very mildly misty atmosphere, so that only where you have the brightest lines of laser, ''or'' the convergence of two or more less obvious beams, do you get omnidirectionally visible lines/areas/voxels) to produce an apparent object.
:If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3066: Cosmic Distance Calibration

2025-03-24T13:16:16Z

ProphetZarquon: Signed

yay. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What makes such labels as real objects absurd is not the required size, but the required orientation to be readable from a single point in the universe - earth. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 19:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:All facing towards us AND all the right way up! That's geographically unlikely. ;-) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.157|172.71.178.157]] 10:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

A straightforward application of the Anthropic principle. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.187.189|104.23.187.189]] 19:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the title text... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.162|162.158.62.162]] 20:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I like this part of the linked article: ''But cosmologists get only one universe to observe.'' -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that the crosshairs in question are markers to indicate which star is being labeled, not anything to do with video games. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.137.59|162.158.137.59]] 23:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's my suspicion as well: just markers like the labels, not diffraction spikes or anything like that. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The crosshairs are all the same size because new red giant stars are all the same brightness. They are "TRGB" or "Tip of the Red Giant Branch" standard candles. Every star in that phase of evolution is exactly the same absolute brightness, so we can tell how far away it is by measuring the observed luminosity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 00:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

[[2035: Dark Matter Candidates]] also hypothesizes that astronomical labels are physically there, the orbit paths in this case. Should it be added? [[User:Intara|Intara]] ([[User talk:Intara|talk]]) 00:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

OH MY GOD! Why are there two blue boxes saying we need to complete 58 explanations? I would suggest that just one would be less distracting/disruptive. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.70|172.68.2.70]] 03:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
: Perhaps one box wasn't enough... although it seems reasonable to have an increasing number of cartoons that nobody felt able to explain. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.29|172.70.91.29]] 10:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:: I agree. I put the second box it in on request at an earlier time, when it said something different. But have now removed the top box. That there are 60+ incomplete explanations can still be seen from the one I left. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::: Thanks. Unfortunately that second box didn't have the desired effect, it just resulted in some removals of incomplete notices without the issues being fixed. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 09:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the crosshairs: TBH, I don't think the comic refers to diffraction patterns/spikes. I think it simply refers to literal crosshairs, as in "some stars are marked with crosshairs in this image and the astronomers think those crosshairs are some kind of real, physical phenomena". See the comic itself for an example of such a crosshair (the zoomed star has one!). --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.138|172.68.7.138]] 05:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
: After noticing that other comments in this discussion page mentioned the same as I did, I took the liberty to update the text. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.34|172.68.12.34]] 05:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This comic seems extra ironic, given that NASA has been grossly misreporting the distances to extremely distant objects lately, due to lack of adjustment for observed differences in spacetime, in order to express things "simply". Most people of course don't care & those using more reliable resources are unaffected, but hobbyists & reporters etc are going "Wait, what? Those numbers are way off..."
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

There's surely no problem with stars having labels that look like they are to be read ''only'' by us, at our distance (and at this time). All each star needs to do is to send out highly-directional flashes (relatively, at least!) of light, such that the ones that will arrive at Earth around now were projecting information suitable for us back then, but light arriving at stars five hundred years ago, at a similar distance on a perpendicular track, will feature suitable information shone out five hundred years earlier (while sending vaguely in this direction only information destined to be useful for the star 'between' us, five hundred light-years in that direction). I'm sure you can appreciate how simple it is to accomplish this, all you need to do is have different patterns of photos continually travelling out in different sectros of different shells of ever-changing light, out into the universe, all ready to convey exactly the right information to the observer who happens to eventually be where the light gets observed, inexactly the right orientation ''and'' notation/language, as well! Simple! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92|172.68.205.92]] 22:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Holograms are a thing, people. A different label could be aimed at each viewer. Heck, there might only be one viewer at present. And who said the labels are made of matter? This is the worst explanation page I have ever seen here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.235|172.68.54.235]] 11:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
:Though holograms don't just appear 'in thin air' (or, indeed, vacuum). You're either looking at a medium imprinted with a clever diffraction patterns to shape the intensity of light projected out in various directions, or illuminating an amorphous media with precisely targeted light (e.g. lasers in a very mildly misty atmosphere, so that only where you have the brightest lines of laser, ''or'' the convergence of two or more less obvious beams, do you get omnidirectionally visible lines/areas/voxels) to produce an apparent object.
:If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3066: Cosmic Distance Calibration

2025-03-24T13:15:55Z

ProphetZarquon: Images can be projected directly to receptors without a screen medium in between

Talk:3066: Cosmic Distance Calibration

2025-03-22T14:16:55Z

ProphetZarquon: NASA reporting ranges incorrectly of late

Talk:3064: Lungfish

2025-03-18T15:08:58Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Anecdotes */ also 5etools (9).json

Huh, first time I've seen a comic the literal minute it was posted. Weird seeing a completely empty explainxkcd page. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 16:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Got the basics of a transcript going. --[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

People often talk about DNA being the program that builds life, but it seems to me more as if its the static-data used by the program that builds life [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.236|172.70.90.236]] 16:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'd say RNA sequences seem more like the program that builds life, to me?
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone know how to add categories? If so, I can handle those. --[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating the category Genetics as a subcategory to biology, if it hasn't already been done. --[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi chat, we got a new undiscovered xkcd page to talk about: [[Dot]]. Any info would be helpful. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 16:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

"a common issue when coding" or it could be just editing a doc, a picture, a video, etc.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.21|172.71.151.21]] 17:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
: I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CODE, OKAY??? {{unsigned|DollarStoreBa'al|17:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Somewhat related, is is quite common for someone to have filenames like "Thesis (final)", "Thesis (really final)", "Thesis (really really final)" (instead of "Thesis" it might be "Presentation"). I have just checked the RCS log of my MSc Thesis: the 2.16 version was the final, but then there were the 3.1 and 3.2, which were the correction of two typos. [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 18:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Anybody else notice that the science in this one is completely incorrect? I added a note, but I'm curious why the comic doesn't instead mention something like Trichomonas or rice/cotton/bread wheat, which actually *do* feature widespread gene duplication [[User:tofudragon7]]
:I think the incorrectness of the science is the basis of the joke [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.39|172.70.206.39]] 14:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

''"append "Copy of" to the start of the filename"'' Append comes after. I think the word we want is "'''prepend'''". Not as familliar as append, but Google reports wide and serious usage. A further note: MS's hack ruins the idea of alphabetized filenames, all the "Copy of" in one place. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 21:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
: I think the word we actually want is 'add', since 'prepend to the start' would be tautological.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.4|141.101.99.4]] 10:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

== Anecdotes ==

I've got both "5etools (3).json (16)" & "5etools (9).json" on my phone ''right now.''
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3064: Lungfish

2025-03-18T15:07:16Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Anecdotes */ new section

Huh, first time I've seen a comic the literal minute it was posted. Weird seeing a completely empty explainxkcd page. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 16:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Got the basics of a transcript going. --[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

People often talk about DNA being the program that builds life, but it seems to me more as if its the static-data used by the program that builds life [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.236|172.70.90.236]] 16:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'd say RNA sequences seem more like the program that builds life, to me?
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone know how to add categories? If so, I can handle those. --[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating the category Genetics as a subcategory to biology, if it hasn't already been done. --[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 16:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi chat, we got a new undiscovered xkcd page to talk about: [[Dot]]. Any info would be helpful. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 16:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

"a common issue when coding" or it could be just editing a doc, a picture, a video, etc.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.21|172.71.151.21]] 17:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
: I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CODE, OKAY??? {{unsigned|DollarStoreBa'al|17:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Somewhat related, is is quite common for someone to have filenames like "Thesis (final)", "Thesis (really final)", "Thesis (really really final)" (instead of "Thesis" it might be "Presentation"). I have just checked the RCS log of my MSc Thesis: the 2.16 version was the final, but then there were the 3.1 and 3.2, which were the correction of two typos. [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 18:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Anybody else notice that the science in this one is completely incorrect? I added a note, but I'm curious why the comic doesn't instead mention something like Trichomonas or rice/cotton/bread wheat, which actually *do* feature widespread gene duplication [[User:tofudragon7]]
:I think the incorrectness of the science is the basis of the joke [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.39|172.70.206.39]] 14:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

''"append "Copy of" to the start of the filename"'' Append comes after. I think the word we want is "'''prepend'''". Not as familliar as append, but Google reports wide and serious usage. A further note: MS's hack ruins the idea of alphabetized filenames, all the "Copy of" in one place. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 21:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
: I think the word we actually want is 'add', since 'prepend to the start' would be tautological.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.4|141.101.99.4]] 10:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

== Anecdotes ==

I've got "5etools (3).json (16)" on my phone ''right now.''
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3064: Lungfish

2025-03-18T15:02:54Z

ProphetZarquon: RNA builds life?

3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-15T16:39:21Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Explanation */ Earth not a classical planet

{{comic
| number = 3063
| date = March 14, 2025
| title = Planet Definitions
| image = planet_definitions_2x.png
| imagesize = 653x1435px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Under the 'has cleared its orbital neighborhood' and 'fuses hydrogen into helium' definitions, thanks to human activities Earth technically no longer qualifies as a planet but DOES count as a star.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|A table might be better to format the explanation.}}

This comic addresses the {{w|IAU definition of planet|controversy of whether of Pluto is a planet}} and explores many definitions, most of them humorous/nonsensical, of what a planet could be.

;Traditionalist: {{w|Pluto}} is a planet (9 planets)
:In modern times, there was {{w|IAU definition of planet#Background|no formal definition of a "planet"}} prior to 2006. However, it was generally accepted as a colloquialism that there were nine planets around the {{w|Sun}}, Pluto included, primarily starting with Pluto's discovery in 1930, based upon that time's scientific consensus that there ought to be another planet to account for peculiarities in the the orbits of the other outer planets. As more sophisticated methods of mapping the {{w|Solar System}} were developed and {{w|Eris (dwarf planet)|Eris}} was discovered to be even more massive than Pluto (which may not have been as significant as the theories that lead to its discovery suggested) it became clear to astronomers that a more standardized definition was needed. In 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) published their formal redefinition of a "planet" to require a planet to be gravitationally dominant within its orbit, disqualifying Pluto (and Eris) which is now considered a "dwarf planet." This has been subject to push back from countless people, including [https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 some planetary scientists], but in mostly nostalgic laypeople dissatisfied with Pluto being "demoted" or otherwise relegated when schoolchildren and adults alike have 'known' that there are nine planets for the most part of the last century (and [[988: Tradition|tradition]] has previously been refered to as whatever was current during "Baby Boomers' childhoods").
:Ironically, some of the latest study of the outer solar-system includes the possibility of yet ''another'' {{w|Planet Nine}}, but only time will tell if such an object exists and whether it would cross the IAU's current threshold or even require the threshold itself to be reassessed once more.

;Modern: Pluto is not a planet (8 planets)
:When the IAU redefined what a planet is in 2006, Pluto no longer qualifies as a planet (since it wasn't able to clear its neighborhood around its orbit). Using the modern, and recently official, definition of a planet, only eight celestial objects qualified.

;Expansive: Dwarf planets are planets (17+ planets)
:It is likely that since the term "dwarf planet" contained "planet" in its name, Randall considered those as also planets under this category.
:It is also likely that the number of planets includes the ones that are considered planets and the ones that are considered to have compacted into fully solid bodies, {{w|Dwarf planet#Most likely dwarf planets| as defined by Grundy ''et al.'',}} those being {{w|Ceres (dwarf planet)|Ceres}}, Pluto, Eris, {{w|Makemake}}, {{w|Haumea}}, {{w|Gonggong (dwarf planet)|Gonggong}}, {{w|Quaoar}}, {{w|Orcus (dwarf planet)|Orcus}} and {{w|Sedna (dwarf planet)|Sedna}}.
:The basis for this viewpoint is the possible alternative re-evaluation that the IAU could have adopted, in that all newly discovered things ''like'' Pluto (being considered a planet) should therefore be considered a planet. Indeed, Ceres had been observed some time before Pluto and had been called a planet (or a "minor planet") within both scientific and public realms.

;Ultratraditionalist: Only the classical planets are planets (5 planets)
:The {{w|classical planets}} are objects found and considered by the Greek astronomers in classical antiquity to be considered planets. Their definition of "planet" considered visible objects that move across the sky relative to the fixed stars, the original word itself being translated as "wanderer". There are seven classical planets, but if one were to only consider the ones that fall under the IAU's definition of a planet (this being ''less'' traditional), then there would only be five. (The Sun and the {{w|Moon}} would be disqualified.)
:Being (mostly) true to the spirit of the historic naming convention, this would be a conservative but 'valid' version of the criterion. Notably, Earth itself is not considered a planet by these criteria.

;Condescending: Only giant planets are planets; the rest are big {{w|asteroid}}s (4 planets)
:This definition may refer to the {{w|giant planets}}, planets much larger than the {{w|Earth}}. Only the four outer (IAU-defined) planets fall under this definition.
:Relegation of anything smaller, including our own planet, is an extreme attitude, but most of the initial [[:Category:Exoplanets|exoplanets]] discovered were, by practical necessity in their detection, also only of the "giant planet" kind.

;Simplistic: Anything gravitationally round is a planet (37+ planets)
:Using the Wikipedia {{w|list of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System}}, there are 37 objects listed. That includes the Sun, 8 planets, 9 dwarf planets and 19 {{w|Natural satellite|moon}}s, but falls short of also highlighting all of the smallest visible objects (as per Universalist, below).
:This definition is essentially ''part'' of the actual current definition of a planet, leaving out the main factor that specifically disqualifies Pluto.

;Grounded: Only objects a spaceship has landed on are planets (10 planets)
:This list includes objects in the Solar System that a spacecraft has {{w|List of landings on extraterrestrial bodies|performed a soft landing on}}. The list includes {{w|Venus}}, Earth, {{w|Mars}}, the Moon, {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}}, {{w|433 Eros|Eros}}, {{w|25143 Itokawa|Itokawa}}, {{w|162173 Ryugu|Ryugu}} and {{w|101955 Bennu|Bennu}}. Notably, {{w|comet}} {{w|Philae (Spacecraft)|landings}} are not included in the list.
:The justification for this seeks to be that we must 'touch' the object before we consider it as worthy of being classified as more than a mere blob (or dot) in space.

;Regolithic: Anything covered in dirt and ice and stuff is a planet (infinite)
:This list excludes the {{w|Gas Giant}}s and the {{w|Ice Giant}}s. The list would likely include dwarf planets, asteroids, moons and comets. This is effectively the opposite of the "condescending" definition: every object in the solar system is included in one definition or the other (except for the Sun).
:This is also an extension on the prior classification. In this case ''could'' we meaningfully touch the object, with predominatingly atmospheric bodies being not considered so.

;Lunar: You can't be a planet if you don't have a moon (12+ objects)
:Only some objects in the solar system have known and acknowledged moons orbiting them. The value given may be {{w|List of natural satellites|the number of planets and dwarf planets}} that have moons, when excluding {{w|Haumea}} for not reaching {{w|hydrostatic equilibrium}} despite having moons. The Sun is excluded because its satellites are not moons, because ... oh, look, a Squirrel!
:Adopting this definition would suggest that a planetary body is not worthy of the name if it doesn't (with no matter for what reason) demonstrably have the means to dominate its local area by being the overwhelming focus of all adjacent bodies' own orbits.

;Solipsistic: Earth is the only planet (1 planet)
:{{w|Solipsism}} is the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Randall extrapolated this idea to mean that only one's own planet that they are standing on is sure to exist.
:This projects (and relies upon) a more philosophical and/or semiotic assesment than any scientific one.

;Judgemental: Only the prettiest ones are planets (6 planets)
:This list is likely formulated from Randall's own perception of the prettiest planets in the Solar System. Strangely, seven objects are highlighted:
:* Earth
:* Jupiter
:* One of Jupiter's moons (unclear)
:* Saturn
:* One of Saturn's moons (unclear, possibly Titan)
:* Neptune's moon (probably Triton)
:* Pluto
:The subjectivity of this version of the definition makes it unlikely that a consensus of this form could be established.

;Empiricist: Only worlds that I, author of this table, have personally seen are planets (12 planets)
:This list may refer to the celestial objects in the Solar System that have been made visible at night, probably using an optical telescope (a hobbyist one, perhaps Randall's, or from time borrowed on a major institutional installation). Jupiter's {{w|Galilean moons|four largest moons}} are [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112024151/http://denisdutton.com/jupiter_moons.htm technically visible to the naked eye] but hard to distinguish due to Jupiter's brightness, while Neptune is considered too faint to see (even if you know where to look). It may also be the case that Randall has never taken the time to look for Neptune while using a telescope. Apparently Randall has seen Uranus, which technically [https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-see-uranus-in-night-sky ''is'' visible to the naked eye] under the very best viewing conditions, but these conditions are rare and it again requires knowing exactly where to look.
:The omission of the Sun from the list of worlds that Randall has personally seen is interesting. Yes, people are not supposed to stare at the Sun{{citation needed}}, but it is not too uncommon to accidentally look in its direction for a split-second before instinctively closing one's eyes and turning one's head away.
:As a different form of subjectivity, the value of this grouping's criteria is questionable, but not uncommon in other 'softer' sciences.

;Marine biologist: Only objects with oceans are planets (6+ planets)
:This list includes Earth, {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}}, {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, Titan, and {{w|Enceladus}}. Most of these have had the presence of significant water identified from the way local magnetic/electric fields are detected, but see the following item.
:There is a resemblance, here, to a loose understanding of what a "world" is, i.e. one that possesses various distinct 'terrains' beyond mere dry (and possibly considered featureless) rock. A marine biologist would, of course consider a marine (if not pellagic or bathyspheric) environment to be an essential element of any world.

;Maritime: Only objects with ''surface'' oceans are planets (2 planets)
:In the comic, only Earth and a Saturnian moon (likely to be Titan) are highlighted. Earth is the only body known in the solar system to have liquid water on the surface significant enough to be called an ocean. Titan's cold and dense atmosphere notably maintains surface 'seas' of methane and nitrogen, where other moons (given as additonal in the prior item) seem to have their liquid water beneath either whole-surface ice caps or otherwise deep under the surface.
:From the narrower point of view of a sailor, for example, there is no benefit in considering water hidden away far beneath the surface, and it might as well not be there. Whereas it's possible that a well-prepared mariner could eventually sail the strange seas of Titan, as easily (or easier) as an airman might {{w|Dragonfly (Titan space probe)|fly through its skies}}.

;Universalist: They're all planets (infinite)
:This list claims that all objects are planets, all drawn items (also presumably all undrawn/undrawable items) being marked as such, including the Sun.
:Giving up on any thought of exclusivity, this unconventional view willingly inducts all visible objects into consideration.

;Existentialist: What if {{w|outer space|space}} ''itself'' is a planet??? (Duude)
:This list is different from the list above as it claims that all of space, rather than only the objects existing in space, are planets. The interjection ''Duude'' expresses one's amazement at this 'revelation' and replaces the number count— and is sometimes stereotyped to imply the speaker is high on marijuana or other drugs popular with the 1960s hippie counterculture.
:The strange stretch of imagination, as prompted by some narcotic or other, abandons all pretense at sensibly sorting everything into "planet" or "not planet", as not only is everything a planet, but so is the nothing ''between'' these titular planets.

;Spiteful: ''Only'' Pluto is a planet (1 planet)
:This list is a malicious play on the demotion of Pluto by demoting all other planets except Pluto instead, leaving Pluto as the only planet in the solar system.
:This is the taxonomic equivalent of refusing to play and taking your ball home to spite those who you think don't deserve it.

;(title text) {{w|Star}}: Earth is a star (2 stars)
:In May 1934, Mark Oliphant, Paul Harteck and Ernest Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory, published an intentional deuterium fusion experiment, and made the discovery of both tritium and helium-3. This is widely considered the first experimental demonstration of fusion. Randall considers that this makes Earth fall into the category of a star due to the human-induced ability for Earth to fuse hydrogen into helium using nuclear fusion.
:By changing not only the definition, but the term being defined, this drifts yet further from any consensus view on the original question and into a typical punchline absurdity.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A table with 3 columns, and 17 rows below the the header row, labelled "Definition", "# of planets" and "Solar system".]
:[In each row, the first column has a single word, in bold, then a descriptive sentence. The second column has a digit or other 'value'. The third column is a not-to-scale drawing of the Solar system, featuring the Sun, various 'planetary' bodies and an apparently selective sample of moons/asteroids, as follows: The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth + The Moon, Mars + two moons (Phobos and Deimos), a small selection of Asteroid Belt bodies (Ceres in the midst of other, smaller, examples), Jupiter + four moons (likely Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto), a ringed Saturn + usually one moon (probably Titan) or two (possibly Enceladus or Iapetus, as required), Uranus + four or five moons (likely to be Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon, but one of these (shown upon the face of Uranus) only appears in some iterations of the base image), Neptune + one moon (probably Triton), Pluto + one moon (Charon), four more plutoid/Kuiper Belt objeccts (too little context to identify, but possibly Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong and Eris, in distance order), the first two of them with distinct moons indicated (entirely dependent upon which main objects they are).]
:[Each row's illustrated solar system has indivudal combinations of green highlights applied to the otherwise repeated diagram.]
:[Row 1: Definition:] Traditionalist: Pluto is a planet [Number:] 9 [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto]
:[Row 2: Definition:] Modern: Pluto is not a planet [Number:] 8 [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune]
:[Row 3: Definition:] Expansive: Dwarf planets are planets [Number:] 17+ [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres (in Asteroid Belt), Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the further main bodies]
:[Row 4: Definition:] Ultratraditionalist: Only the classical planets are planets [Number:] 5 [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn]
:[Row 5: Definition:] Condescending: Only giant planets are planets; the rest are big asteroids. [Number:] 4 [Highlit: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune]
:[Row 6: Definition:] Simplistic: Anything gravitationally round is a planet [Number:] 37+ [Highlit: The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, Ceres (without other asteroids), Jupiter + moons, Saturn with Titan, Uranus and its moons, Neptune with its moon, Pluto and the four further dwarf planets]
:[Row 7: Definition:] Grounded: Only objects a spaceship has landed on are planets [Number:] 10 [Highlit: Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, five (non-Ceriese) asteroids and Titan]
:[Row 8: Definition:] Regolithic: Anything covered in dirt and ice and stuff is a planet [Number:] [infinity symbol] [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, Ceres with all other asteroids depicted in the Asteroid Belt, the moons of Jupiter, the sole moon! of Saturn, the moons of Uranus, the moon of Neptune, Pluto with Charon, and all remaining dwarf planets with their moons]
:[Row 9: Definition:] Lunar: You can't be a planet if you don't have a moon [Number:] 12+ [Highlit: Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and three of the other dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt, including one with no obviously drawn moon]
:[Row 10: Definition:] Solipsitic: Earth is the only planet [Number:] 1 [Highlit: The Earth]
:[Row 11: Definition:] Judgemental: Only the prettiest ones are planets [Number:] 6 [Highlit: The Earth, Jupiter with one of its moons (not identified), Saturn, one of ''two'' Saturnian moons in this image and Pluto]
:[Row 12: Definition:] Empiricist: Only worlds that I, author of this table, have personally seen are planets [Number:] 12 [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, The Earth, The Moon, Mars, Jupiter with its four moons, Saturn and Uranus]
:[Row 13: Definition:] Marine biologist: Only objects with oceans are planets [Number:] 6+ [Highlit: The Earth, three Jovian moons, the two illustrated Saturnian moons]
:[Row 14: Definition:] Maritime: Only objects with [next word in italics] surface oceans are planets [Number:] 2 [Highlit: The Earth and Titan]
:[Row 15: Definition:] Universalist: They're all planets [Number:] [infinity symbol] [Highlit: All drawn objects, including The Sun and all other objects including all the moons/asteroids]
:[Row 16: Definition:] Existantialist: What if space [next word in italics] itself is a planet??? [Word, in italics:] Duude [Highlit: The whole third column cell]
:[Row 17: Definition:] Spiteful: [next word in italics] Only Pluto is a planet [Number:] 1 [Highlit: Pluto]

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/6/66/20250314195557%21planet_definitions_2x.png original version of the comic], there were two errors that would alter be fixed. The "Traditionalist" definition highlighted Neptune's satellite {{w|Triton (moon)|Triton}} instead of Pluto. The images of the Solar System for the "Traditionalist" and "Modern" definitions were swapped, resulting in Pluto being incorrectly highlighted in "Modern" and omitted in "Traditionalist.

*The "Judgemental" definition has seven colored objects instead of the labelled six. This mistake has never been fixed.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Comics edited after their publication]]

3048: Suspension Bridge

2025-02-09T03:35:36Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Explanation */ removed "(or footway)", as the common term for an improved footway, is a road (roads are not typically exclusive to automobiles; a

{{comic
| number = 3048
| date = February 7, 2025
| title = Suspension Bridge
| image = suspension_bridge_2x.png
| imagesize = 362x365px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = As a first step, they can put in a secondary deck, to help drivers try it out and find out how fun the jumps are. After a while no one will use the old flat deck and they can remove it.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT JUMPING ON A BRIDGE - Needs explanation of title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A {{w|suspension bridge}} works by exploiting the strength in tension of a cable, or series of links, in what is ''usually'' described as a {{w|catenary}} curve (but see later) suspended between towers or other elevated positions and firmly anchored to the ground at either end. Such a cable, or parallel cables, can span a large gap, across which an arch (with compressive forces) or cantilever (with compression below and tension above) bridge structure would be more difficult. The slung droop of the connection, and various other issues (the susceptibility to resonance from moving loads, as well as the sheer impracticality of travelling along this link) means that the surface of the usual road itself is suspended from this cable by vertical (and perhaps diagonal) suspending stringers of suitable lengths to maintain a more level track. This usually means that the greatest clearance beneath the traversable part of the bridge is not far below the middle of the main curve of the cable, which is often now a more a parabolic shape, due to the weight of the road and the large number of vertical cables required.

Randall suggests 'improving' the suspension bridge by having ''just'' the catenary curve, needing much less structure, and giving an increased clearance for anything passing beneath (in this case, a tall-masted sailboat) if they pass closer to the supporting towers. This, of course, means that the traffic can ''only'' cross upon the cables themselves, in a way that is not explained at all by this side-section view. Due to the steep nature of the way the cable must pass over the supports, this produces a steep gradient up to and then down from the tower which sends traffic temporarily onto a free ballistic trajectory, assuming it has enough speed. This is described as "fun jumps", {{w|Bug_(engineering)#"It's_not_a_bug,_it's_a_feature"|as if it is how bridges ''should'' work}}. This would likely inflict damage on the car, and might result in unfortunate accidents.{{cn}}

The title text suggests a gradual introduction of this new form of bridge, a practice which is common when introducing new large-scale societal changes. According to Randall, the bridges would at first be a sort of hybrid between the old and new design, where any driver could choose between taking the catenary curve or driving along the tried-and-true flat road. As more and more people sample the "fun jumps" path, he claims, word will spread about how much 'better' this path is, and once it's been widely adopted, the flat road will be discontinued. In reality, a more likely result would be that drivers who take the catenary curve quickly spread word about how ''dangerous'' this path is (and/or spread themselves, and their wrecked vehicles, all around the terrain that the bridge is supposed to cross), and any usage would quickly disappear.

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

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Engineering]]

Talk:3027: Exclusion Principle

2024-12-21T15:38:33Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Polymagnetic topologies as "color" charge, strong vs weak, etc? */ new section

It should be noted, that amusingly, since the quantum gravity has yet to be full explained thanks to the fact that gravity affects, and that for all we know, Exclusion Principle may be just as valid, if not more so, to be on the list as Gravity (even though Exclusion Principle should not, generally, be on this list.) {{unsigned|LilithRose|06:48, 21 December 2024}}

== Polymagnetic topologies as "color" charge, strong vs weak, etc? ==

I'm increasingly under the impression that these forces & principles, are each an expression of complex electromagnetic interactions? I've never quite understood why they're viewed as separate forces, instead of distinct-but-related expressions of a single type of force across complex topologies.

Particularly, I'm unclear why quark\gluon "color" interactions are seen as anything other than topologically-asymmetric fields interlocking; it just looks like the behavior of polymagnet fields, to me. (By the way, I'm glad there's now a common term, "polymagnetic", for the patterned fields that I'm sure many of us assembled while playing with tiny neodymium magnets & wire, as kids! Arranging multiple cores for a smaller, denser field, & observing that the patterns could interlock, felt like major 'Aha!' moments for me, at the time.)

I was so frustrated by my own feeling of "this complex thing I know very little about, really seems to have a very basic underlying principle that's being widely misconstrued", that [https://www.perplexity.ai/search/i-m-increasingly-under-the-imp-Q83bSr8pRXqMf64_VxKMZQ I've petitioned a mindless bot to hear my case.] (You'd have to scroll at least about halfway down, to get to any prompts even slightly interesting.) I'm probably wasting ''everyone's'' time with this, but it has been bothering me, more & more for ''decades,'' & my reading so far hasn't lessened that.

Why is everyone so insistent that these 'other' forces aren't magnetism? Seems like quite literally ''everything'' is magnetism, to me. Besides a formal education in the matter, what the heck am I missing, here?

[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3025: Phase Change

2024-12-17T18:55:56Z

ProphetZarquon: Baby's first word + | Bouba's Delivery Service?

Baba is First. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:what [[User:Rustykid52|Rustykid52]] ([[User talk:Rustykid52|talk]]) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Rustykid is you [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.133|162.158.202.133]] 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::I believe Psychoticpotato is referencing a phenomena wherein "baba" is generally easier for a baby to say, than either "dada" or even "mama" & it also happens to sound a bit like "bottle"; ergo, it's often one's 'first word'.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Randall, I hate it. 😊 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 18:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oi, why was my transcript deleted? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.64|172.69.134.64]] 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:It’s been restored. Maybe pop a message to Apollo11 if you want an explanation from him? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The comic may have been inspired by the Ologies podcast episode on mnemologie part one posted on December the fourth. There Dr. Michael Yassa exblains the effect. {{unsigned ip|162.158.111.86|00:57, 17 December 2024}}

For water vapour we use fushu. From r/linguisticshumor {{unsigned ip|172.69.165.2|01:01, 17 December 2024}}

About the phrase 'as can the sound of the word "water" itself [being "soft and round"]' - "Water" is a mix, the beginning and end are "soft/round" but the middle is quite "hard/sharp." [[Special:Contributions/172.71.170.109|172.71.170.109]] 15:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Depends. It's only fairly sharp in my accent, and virtually gone in other dialectical variations. And even at its 'hardest', it can be likened to the pitter-pat of rain on a surface (hard surface, yes, but much 'softer' rain). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.182|172.69.43.182]] 17:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that this also relates to a nonsense shape theory (ex, the bouba kiki theory, to be exact) but I'm not entirely sure... [[User:Definitely Bill Cipher|A dream demon]] ([[User talk:Definitely Bill Cipher|talk]]) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't know if you trying to say exactly what (part of) the article already says, or something different that I don't understand. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.182|172.69.43.182]] 17:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Does Bouba also have a delivery service?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3022: Making Tea

2024-12-11T14:21:02Z

ProphetZarquon: Burn from flash-boiling water in the microwave

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 did say 'uncommon' but Kenwood made a coffee/tea machine to do this. It sounds like it shouldn't work, but 167 below has the basics right. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 09:13, 11 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)
:::Your guess is right. It works because the (finely cut) leaves are exposed to boiling hot water for a few minutes, you wouldn't drink any before you have half a jug and that is quite 'bright'. Better than a teabag in a mug! Want it stronger, use more bags. Big advantage - you set it up, press button, come back in 5 to 25 minutes and your tea is waiting, including a second mug, not and not stewed. Wrong - but works so right. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 09:13, 11 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)
: How long does it take you to boil water for, let's say enough water for four people's worth of pasta, using an electric kettle? I reckon that's about 4 liters of water? I'm genuinely curious. Now also double the time, because as mentioned in the explanation, American outlets produce half the power of British outlets. And let me not fail to mention that almost all American homes have either special higher power outlets for stoves or gas powered stoves, and frequently have special high-power outlets for microwaves as well. 4 liters of water to boil takes about 5-6 minutes on a low-end American stove, about 3-4 minutes on a gas stove, and about 2 minutes on an induction stove. None of which strikes me as a particularly long time, especially when the most popular varieties of pasta in America all need to be boiled for 8+ minutes. How does this compare to twice the length of time as your electric kettle? Because if your Electric Kettle actually allows you to be eating your pasta before our water has even boiled, that would require your kettle to boil water in around -2min to -6min. And if your electric kettle can time travel, then that is truly an astonishing device. Honestly my takeaway from this is that British Stoves must be apparently heated by a single candle if "boiling water for pasta" is considered to take a "l-o-o-o-ng time". {{unsigned ip|162.158.126.161|21:51, 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)
:I have a >5 inch burn scar on my forearm, to arrest to that.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:21, 11 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)
:Well obviously. I mean this one ''really'' matters![[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.23|141.101.98.23]] 08:52, 11 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)
: An American making tea in the correct way by boiling water in the kettle and then pouring that into a teapot with the tea would still probably conspire to make it badly and make the Brit angry. And Brits really do get quite upset about the idea of tea made with water boiled in a stovetop pan.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.23|141.101.98.23]] 08:55, 11 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)

All this blather and not one bit about that quintessential Kiwi staple, [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gumboot_tea gumboot tea]. Boil the kettle (about the size of a Dutch oven), throw in handfuls of leaf black tea, and let it sit until consumed. Reheat as needed. One sip, and the source of the Commonwealth aversion to the insane Yankee habit of drinking tea black is immediately apparent. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.123.8|172.70.123.8]] 20:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

So, I have a Quooker that boils my water. Add tea (leaves)... done. But *don't* add milk, please.... spoil... {{unsigned|Palmpje|20:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)}}

''Ultimately, the real difference comes down to convenience: In the USA, the standard voltage for electric appliances (including an electric kettle) is 120 volts, while it is twice that (240 volts in practice, though nominally 230V) in the UK. Since the amperage for an electric kettle is the the same in both countries (15 amps), this means that an equivalent kettle in the UK has twice the power (3.2kw versus 1.6kw), and can heat the water in a fraction of the time. Meanwhile, a standard microwave has a similar power in both countries (from 700 to 1000 watts), for reasons unrelated to the supply voltage it is equipped to use. Therefore, heating a small cup in a microwave might take a few moments longer than a kettle in the USA, but is many times slower to wait for compared to using an electric kettle in the UK.'' Electric kettles are a bit faster in the UK due to the voltage difference, but it's not that much and I highly doubt speed is the main concern here. The main 'convenience' difference between boiling water in a kettle vs a microwave is quantity: Brits usually don't just make one cup/mug of tea! On the rare occasion Americans drink tea, it's more often just the one person drinking one cup, making a microwave a convenient choice.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.90|162.158.233.90]] 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Add in some [https://www.foodandwine.com/why-you-should-add-salt-to-tea-8549735 salt]! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not about voltage. They use different gauge heater wire to get the Watts wanted/allowed.

The classic UK plug is nominal 13 Amps. (The circuits may be nominal 16A but there is now better insulation than in 1949.) At 230 Volts that would be 3KW (near enuff). That will be the "legal numbers". At 240V it may be 3,250W true. OTOH a 10V sag might be expected in all but the poshest wall-wiring.

amazon.co.uk sells kettles nearly all rated 3KW. Exceptions are Greepas at 1800W ("However, some customers have reported that it's very slow to boil"); also Philips 2200W, Daewoo 1400W, and OLEGA 1500W 'Fast Boiling'.

OTOH!!

On Amazon US site nearly all kettles are 1500W, a few lower like 1100W. At assumed 120V 1500W is 12.5Amps. 15Amp circuits are still common in older houses (despite changes in 1960s) but we supposed to de-rate for 'long-running' (not clearly specified in old code) so 12 Amps is in a ballpark.

Note that all US kettles are lower power than all but the tamest UK kettles. Essentially half power.

And IIRC, the 13/16A rating which allows super-power kettles in the UK was not for tea but for "electric fire", room heat. In post-War rebuilding, smokey coal was already depreciated in cities, steam plumbing and chimneys are expensive. Copper wire is costly too, but you "have" to have electric, and low-cost plans like ring-main were investigated.
[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"accept that tea-appropriate boiling water can be obtained directly from the sink's plumbing" - unless it comes out literally at boiling temperature, it isn't tea appropriate. I live in France now, and order catering bags of tea from Amazon because French tea is dismally awful, not helped at all by this fairly widespread belief that black tea steeps at 60C. When I share tea bags with friends, I have to keep reminding them, boiling! Boiling! So, see, there are worse things than using a microwave to heat the water... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.126.208|172.71.126.208]] 06:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not boiling - OFF boiling. Higher than 60C, yes, but if you put actually boiling water straight on to the tea (or worse, boil the water with the tea in it), that's at least as bad. (And how far off the boil exactly depends on the type of tea.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.22|141.101.98.22]] 09:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

What's up with the "We want to ensure'''[sic]''' the good people of the U.K"?
I really can't see the US Embassy insuring them for any amount, so what gives? [[User:Ryden|Ryden]] ([[User talk:Ryden|talk]]) 12:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:Came here to make the same note. “Ensure” is not misspelled, why is it marked with “[sic]”? [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 12:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== Other mistakes ==

Boy, they ''really'' get mad when you microwave the Chalice.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3022: Making Tea

2024-12-11T14:18:52Z

ProphetZarquon:

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 did say 'uncommon' but Kenwood made a coffee/tea machine to do this. It sounds like it shouldn't work, but 167 below has the basics right. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 09:13, 11 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)
:::Your guess is right. It works because the (finely cut) leaves are exposed to boiling hot water for a few minutes, you wouldn't drink any before you have half a jug and that is quite 'bright'. Better than a teabag in a mug! Want it stronger, use more bags. Big advantage - you set it up, press button, come back in 5 to 25 minutes and your tea is waiting, including a second mug, not and not stewed. Wrong - but works so right. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 09:13, 11 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)
: How long does it take you to boil water for, let's say enough water for four people's worth of pasta, using an electric kettle? I reckon that's about 4 liters of water? I'm genuinely curious. Now also double the time, because as mentioned in the explanation, American outlets produce half the power of British outlets. And let me not fail to mention that almost all American homes have either special higher power outlets for stoves or gas powered stoves, and frequently have special high-power outlets for microwaves as well. 4 liters of water to boil takes about 5-6 minutes on a low-end American stove, about 3-4 minutes on a gas stove, and about 2 minutes on an induction stove. None of which strikes me as a particularly long time, especially when the most popular varieties of pasta in America all need to be boiled for 8+ minutes. How does this compare to twice the length of time as your electric kettle? Because if your Electric Kettle actually allows you to be eating your pasta before our water has even boiled, that would require your kettle to boil water in around -2min to -6min. And if your electric kettle can time travel, then that is truly an astonishing device. Honestly my takeaway from this is that British Stoves must be apparently heated by a single candle if "boiling water for pasta" is considered to take a "l-o-o-o-ng time". {{unsigned ip|162.158.126.161|21:51, 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)
:Well obviously. I mean this one ''really'' matters![[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.23|141.101.98.23]] 08:52, 11 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)
: An American making tea in the correct way by boiling water in the kettle and then pouring that into a teapot with the tea would still probably conspire to make it badly and make the Brit angry. And Brits really do get quite upset about the idea of tea made with water boiled in a stovetop pan.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.23|141.101.98.23]] 08:55, 11 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)

All this blather and not one bit about that quintessential Kiwi staple, [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gumboot_tea gumboot tea]. Boil the kettle (about the size of a Dutch oven), throw in handfuls of leaf black tea, and let it sit until consumed. Reheat as needed. One sip, and the source of the Commonwealth aversion to the insane Yankee habit of drinking tea black is immediately apparent. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.123.8|172.70.123.8]] 20:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

So, I have a Quooker that boils my water. Add tea (leaves)... done. But *don't* add milk, please.... spoil... {{unsigned|Palmpje|20:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)}}

''Ultimately, the real difference comes down to convenience: In the USA, the standard voltage for electric appliances (including an electric kettle) is 120 volts, while it is twice that (240 volts in practice, though nominally 230V) in the UK. Since the amperage for an electric kettle is the the same in both countries (15 amps), this means that an equivalent kettle in the UK has twice the power (3.2kw versus 1.6kw), and can heat the water in a fraction of the time. Meanwhile, a standard microwave has a similar power in both countries (from 700 to 1000 watts), for reasons unrelated to the supply voltage it is equipped to use. Therefore, heating a small cup in a microwave might take a few moments longer than a kettle in the USA, but is many times slower to wait for compared to using an electric kettle in the UK.'' Electric kettles are a bit faster in the UK due to the voltage difference, but it's not that much and I highly doubt speed is the main concern here. The main 'convenience' difference between boiling water in a kettle vs a microwave is quantity: Brits usually don't just make one cup/mug of tea! On the rare occasion Americans drink tea, it's more often just the one person drinking one cup, making a microwave a convenient choice.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.90|162.158.233.90]] 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Add in some [https://www.foodandwine.com/why-you-should-add-salt-to-tea-8549735 salt]! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not about voltage. They use different gauge heater wire to get the Watts wanted/allowed.

The classic UK plug is nominal 13 Amps. (The circuits may be nominal 16A but there is now better insulation than in 1949.) At 230 Volts that would be 3KW (near enuff). That will be the "legal numbers". At 240V it may be 3,250W true. OTOH a 10V sag might be expected in all but the poshest wall-wiring.

amazon.co.uk sells kettles nearly all rated 3KW. Exceptions are Greepas at 1800W ("However, some customers have reported that it's very slow to boil"); also Philips 2200W, Daewoo 1400W, and OLEGA 1500W 'Fast Boiling'.

OTOH!!

On Amazon US site nearly all kettles are 1500W, a few lower like 1100W. At assumed 120V 1500W is 12.5Amps. 15Amp circuits are still common in older houses (despite changes in 1960s) but we supposed to de-rate for 'long-running' (not clearly specified in old code) so 12 Amps is in a ballpark.

Note that all US kettles are lower power than all but the tamest UK kettles. Essentially half power.

And IIRC, the 13/16A rating which allows super-power kettles in the UK was not for tea but for "electric fire", room heat. In post-War rebuilding, smokey coal was already depreciated in cities, steam plumbing and chimneys are expensive. Copper wire is costly too, but you "have" to have electric, and low-cost plans like ring-main were investigated.
[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"accept that tea-appropriate boiling water can be obtained directly from the sink's plumbing" - unless it comes out literally at boiling temperature, it isn't tea appropriate. I live in France now, and order catering bags of tea from Amazon because French tea is dismally awful, not helped at all by this fairly widespread belief that black tea steeps at 60C. When I share tea bags with friends, I have to keep reminding them, boiling! Boiling! So, see, there are worse things than using a microwave to heat the water... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.126.208|172.71.126.208]] 06:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not boiling - OFF boiling. Higher than 60C, yes, but if you put actually boiling water straight on to the tea (or worse, boil the water with the tea in it), that's at least as bad. (And how far off the boil exactly depends on the type of tea.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.22|141.101.98.22]] 09:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

What's up with the "We want to ensure'''[sic]''' the good people of the U.K"?
I really can't see the US Embassy insuring them for any amount, so what gives? [[User:Ryden|Ryden]] ([[User talk:Ryden|talk]]) 12:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:Came here to make the same note. “Ensure” is not misspelled, why is it marked with “[sic]”? [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 12:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== Other mistakes ==

Boy, they ''really'' get mad when you microwave the Chalice.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3017: Neutrino Modem

2024-11-30T15:19:46Z

ProphetZarquon: "Created by a 1978 NEUTRINO FAX MACHINE" as if "modem" = retro

If someone wants to describe the logo on the Neutrino Modem in the transcript, have at it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how long it took Cueball to send and receive enough packets to be able to calculate that average ping time? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you ping every IPv4 address on the planet once a second, 3-4 packets will be received per day. Unfortunately, the packet loss is bidirectional, so your chance of hearing the reply is equally low. So maybe when the earth is 16 times older than it is now you will have a reply. [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 23:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That packet loss rate (detecting only 1 in 100 trillion) is actually a very high rate of neutrino detection, isn't it? And that's assuming a "packet" is a single neutrino. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 23:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:Ah, yes, just added something about that. Going by (confirmable) solar-neutrino detection rates, because I couldn't work with figures for generated/detected neutrino streams (and, besides, you might then have {{w|2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly|FTL latency times!}} :D ), it seemed that we're detecting hundreds of events ''per day'' in "cubic kilometre" detectors which would be being hit by perhaps 60-65 million neutrinos ''per second per square centimetre'' so I don't think it's far wrong (scaling up to the square face of the cube, over a full day) to suggest one in 50 long-Trillion (or 50 short-sextillion) neutrinos is identifiably captured. The rates might be better for merely "several olympic swimming pools of fluid" detectors, so I fudged it rather than talk of 1018ish rates with respect to the 1014ish ones quoted. (Which, because it is at least ''two'' neutrinos, one there and one back (with magically implied Ping Request/Ping Response status), is more like two 107ish rates anyway, in order that the neutrino-spamming is equally intense from either side in order to attempt to minimally convey a message... Could still be short-trillions sent, one ping request detected, short-trillions replied to that one as a similar 'overkill', yet one valid returnee received.)
:But if I'm overestimating (or underusing, on the flipside) anything by an order of magnitude or three, then it still doesn't really change the comparison. The numbers are still huge. We don't even know the transmission bandwidth, just that somehow Ping-Request then Ping-Reply (and no other ACKing and handshaking or OSI Physical Layer overheads, never mind other layer 2, 3 and 4 fine details) happened at practically the speed of light regardless of the necessary near-simultaneous spamming of attempts that the boxes that each endpoint concerned must have to juggle when prodded accordingly. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.41|141.101.96.41]] 14:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The explanation says that it's Blondie floating behind Cueball, but I think it's actually Ponytail. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 01:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do I have the feeling that the sysadmin from the title text is the same as in [[705: Devotion to Duty]]? --[[User:Frog23|Frog23]] ([[User talk:Frog23|talk]]) 12:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

In 2012 scientists at Fermilab have managed to use the world's strongest source of a neutrino beam to send a message (ASCII code for the word "neutrino") over a distance of 1 km. The communication speed was 1 bit per 10 seconds, with an error rate of 1%. (And the neutrino detector isn't something that you can build in your backyard, either.) [https://physicsworld.com/a/neutrino-based-communication-is-a-first/] - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] ([[User talk:Mike Rosoft|talk]]) 22:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:You just don't have a big enough back yard. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 02:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't give Amazon Web Services any more ideas - they might try this for their next datacenter! [[User:Numbermaniac|Numbermaniac]] ([[User talk:Numbermaniac|talk]]) 10:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The bot text (do not delete too soon), says "Created by a 1978 NEUTRINO FAX MACHINE", as if the concept of a "modem" is somehow a retro concept (presumably limited in this conception, to audible signals, rather than being the basis of virtually all digital telecommunication). I feel that perhaps a very concise explanation of what constitutes a "modem" may be useful?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3015: D&D Combinatorics

2024-11-24T15:55:37Z

ProphetZarquon: /* The physical difficulties of an M-of-N locking system */ trivial to build

The bot originally created this page as “D Combinatorics”. I renamed it to the correct title and tried to get as many of the references as possible (including a few redirects). [[User:JBYoshi|JBYoshi]] ([[User talk:JBYoshi|talk]]) 00:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

:The title in the Atom feed (which I'm assuming the bot consumes) is "D Combinatorics". I'm guessing something in Randall's pipeline didn't like the ampersand. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.160|162.158.154.160]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

::Yup, if you look at [https://xkcd.com/3015/info.0.json 3015's JSON] you see that <code>title</code> and <code>safe_title</code> differ, and if you look at the HTML page source you'll see '''3''' different things: <code><title>xkcd: D Combinatorics</title></code>, <code><meta property="og:title" content="D&amp;D Combinatorics"></code>, and <code><div id="ctitle">D&D Combinatorics</div></code>! So probably what happened is Randall entered D&D but was supposed to enter D&amp;D, and the openGraph tags adder code, having to be HTML-aware, decoded & normalized D&D as HTML would, but the other parts of the pipeline just ate it for some reason.

:By raw combinatorics: 71 + 52 + 34 + 20 + 10 + 4 + 1 ways to get each of 16 - 22 respectively, for a total of 192, out of 4(6^3) = 864 total. 192/864 simplifies to exactly 2/9. I have no idea how Randall found this; if anyone has an idea, please let me know. [[User:Kaisheng21|Kaisheng21]] ([[User talk:Kaisheng21|talk]]) 01:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I used some simple python code to loop over every dice and confirm and it's 2/9 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.111|162.158.158.111]] 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we edited the transcript at the same time. The odds of rolling 16 or higher in this situation seem to be 2/9? [[User:Darkmatterisntsquirrels|Darkmatterisntsquirrels]] ([[User talk:Darkmatterisntsquirrels|talk]]) 01:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

: There are 864 possible rolls (6 * 6 * 6 * 4). If you enumerate all of the rolls you will find that 192 are 16 or higher. 192/864 = 2/9, the value from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a table of outcomes to clarify how it works out to 2/9, anyone know how to make it pretty? -- Laurence Cheers

A much simpler approach: Roll two six sided dice and sum the result. You are successful if the result is 5 or 9. That happens 8 times out of 36. 8/36 = 2/9. (Or successful if the sum is 4 or 6, or 2 or 7, or 2,3,4 or 11, or several other combinations.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Clever, but dice rolls in D&D involving summing all the dice, applying modifiers, if any, and then comparing to one or more threshold values. Your method makes it very difficult to apply modifiers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.8|162.158.41.8]] 02:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think you misunderstand the problem here. This is not skill, no modifiers apply, it's purely probability [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.111|162.158.158.111]] 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor quibble, arrows aren't fired (unless they're flaming or self-propelled, perhaps), they are shot. (Shotguns are fired of course.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.73|162.158.41.73]] 02:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Arrows are "loosed", even more accurately. At least to avoid the confusion from how so many things may be shot, or ''a'' shot. (Many different nouns, from a physical measure of liquer/coffee/vaccine to a projectile, or an even abstract fundemental of chance; and, as verb, projectiles perhps may be shot, then so may their targets.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 14:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Rolling 22 or lower on percentile dice (or, equivalently, 79 or higher) is close enough, and easier to come up with. (Give or take whether 00 is treated as 100 or zero.) Or directly represent the action: roll a d10. If it's 1-5, you lose. If it's 6-10, roll again; if it's 1-5 you lose, 6-9 you win, 10 roll again. (Modify slightly if you want to distinguish the case of grabbing *two* cursed arrows.) [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 03:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

== Alternative exact solution for getting this probability using dice ==

Roll: 1d8, 2d6, 1d4 succeed on 19 or higher.

== Alternative way to calculate the probability of drawing two non-cursed arrows ==

I couldn’t remember the formula for binomial coefficients (“n choose k”), but there’s an easy way to calculate that the probability of drawing no cursed arrows is 2/9 without that formula. You just need to multiply the probabilities that each of the arrows drawn is not cursed. Since only two arrows are drawn, you only have to multiply two numbers.

The probability that the first arrow is not cursed is 5/10 – there are 5 non-cursed arrows and 5 cursed arrows out of 10 total. After taking out one non-cursed arrow, there are 4 non-cursed arrows and 5 cursed arrows out of 9 total, so the probability that the second arrow is not cursed is 4/9. Multiplying the two probabilities, the probability of drawing two non-cursed arrows is (4*5)/(10*9) = 20/90 = 2/9.

I was considering writing this observation in the Explanation section of the page, but I’m not if it belongs there. This solution avoids using formulas from combinatorics, so it might not be connected enough to the comic.—[[User:Roryokane|Roryokane]] ([[User talk:Roryokane|talk]]) 06:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

== My simple-minded approach ==

• Roll d10 once for your first arrow: if 1 to 5, the arrow is cursed, otherwise not;

• Roll d10 again for your second arrow: same rules, but repeat until you have a different number from the first one (so d10 is in fact only a d9 this time)

• I won't calculate probabilities – these are your arrows, live with it ;-)
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.51|172.69.109.51]] 07:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:That has the benefit (over 3d6+1d4) of telling you which arrow(s) (if either) was cursed. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 07:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:If you don't like re-rolls, you can make d9 out of 2d3. Nine possibilities, so just assign one of them (perhaps by rolling them one at a time) to be the more significant digit. Don't have a d3 handy? Use d6 and modulo off the extra! (1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=3) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.91|172.68.150.91]] 05:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

== The physical difficulties of an M-of-N locking system ==
There seems to be doubt that a "N locks and M keys to unlock them" system could be easily accomplished. I think it could be trivial, with strategically interlocking locked-restraints. A chain formed of bike-locks can give a larger locked loop that can be unlocked by just unlocking any ''single'' one of the constituent locks, leaving the other locked loops to not matter (or you could also try the {{w|Borromean rings}} system, whereby it is again secure against itself, until just one ring is opened up to reveal that the rest now ''aren't even locked at all''...). With almost arbitrary ability to cross-link (or, if you will, repeated/alternating-reflected Borromean triplet connections), you can extend the requirements to more than one unlocking being required (by looping chain elements to mre than just the 'adjacent' loops, sideways onto a parallel meta-loop or up/down the chain, all you might do is allow some slack (could be sufficient to get a thing held directly closed by the taut loop-of-loops, but not enough if the passage of the loop through a hasp/sneck actually prevents the otherwise free movement of the final slide-to-unlock action to occur), but a second (or third, or fourth) unlocking can be required to open-end the whole metaloop of locks. At the top end, M=N solutions are also trivial (e.g. two keys, two locks popularly of safety deposit boxes or [[2677: Two Key System|other things]]). Which is not to say that a specific M-of-N puzzle (where 1<M<N) might not need a ''little'' bit of thought to actually design and implement, but there's no obvious reason why all such combinations shouldn't be nicely doable. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 14:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Can we first confirm that the M-of-N Encryption was what Randall was referencing in the first place? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.140|172.71.154.140]] 03:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::No, first confirm that this is what the explanation treats as what Randall was referencing. As it was, "complicated lock mechanics" and/or "magic" were suggested as the only ways of doing this, when this (or what we thought this was) just needs a little thought and N bike-locks suitably entangled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 13:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm glad someone else chimed in on this, because it is definitely ''not'' difficult to require unlocking of multiple discrete locks! I can't even figure out why one might think it would be?
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

==Polyhedral Dice==
"other polyhedral dice, with the number of faces denoted by dX (e.g., d10 is a 10-sided die, with numbers from 1 to 10 on it)." - the d10 may be a poor choice as exemplar here; Back in the last century, when I was playing D&D, d10 were typically (and uniquely) numbered 0-9, not 1-10. This may no longer be the case, and I may be showing my age, but if it is still the norm, the d8 or d20 might be a better choice of example. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.6|172.68.210.6]] 02:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:Typically, I've only seen 0-9 d10s, as part of a "d100" dice pair, with one reading 0-9 & the other reading 0⁰-9⁰... Single d10, mostly seem to come in 1-10? Maybe it depends which reseller one shops at...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

== You've all been nerd-sniped. ==

[[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 10:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3015: D&D Combinatorics

2024-11-24T15:49:16Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Polyhedral Dice */ 0-9 vs 1-10

The bot originally created this page as “D Combinatorics”. I renamed it to the correct title and tried to get as many of the references as possible (including a few redirects). [[User:JBYoshi|JBYoshi]] ([[User talk:JBYoshi|talk]]) 00:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

:The title in the Atom feed (which I'm assuming the bot consumes) is "D Combinatorics". I'm guessing something in Randall's pipeline didn't like the ampersand. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.160|162.158.154.160]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

::Yup, if you look at [https://xkcd.com/3015/info.0.json 3015's JSON] you see that <code>title</code> and <code>safe_title</code> differ, and if you look at the HTML page source you'll see '''3''' different things: <code><title>xkcd: D Combinatorics</title></code>, <code><meta property="og:title" content="D&amp;D Combinatorics"></code>, and <code><div id="ctitle">D&D Combinatorics</div></code>! So probably what happened is Randall entered D&D but was supposed to enter D&amp;D, and the openGraph tags adder code, having to be HTML-aware, decoded & normalized D&D as HTML would, but the other parts of the pipeline just ate it for some reason.

:By raw combinatorics: 71 + 52 + 34 + 20 + 10 + 4 + 1 ways to get each of 16 - 22 respectively, for a total of 192, out of 4(6^3) = 864 total. 192/864 simplifies to exactly 2/9. I have no idea how Randall found this; if anyone has an idea, please let me know. [[User:Kaisheng21|Kaisheng21]] ([[User talk:Kaisheng21|talk]]) 01:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I used some simple python code to loop over every dice and confirm and it's 2/9 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.111|162.158.158.111]] 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we edited the transcript at the same time. The odds of rolling 16 or higher in this situation seem to be 2/9? [[User:Darkmatterisntsquirrels|Darkmatterisntsquirrels]] ([[User talk:Darkmatterisntsquirrels|talk]]) 01:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

: There are 864 possible rolls (6 * 6 * 6 * 4). If you enumerate all of the rolls you will find that 192 are 16 or higher. 192/864 = 2/9, the value from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a table of outcomes to clarify how it works out to 2/9, anyone know how to make it pretty? -- Laurence Cheers

A much simpler approach: Roll two six sided dice and sum the result. You are successful if the result is 5 or 9. That happens 8 times out of 36. 8/36 = 2/9. (Or successful if the sum is 4 or 6, or 2 or 7, or 2,3,4 or 11, or several other combinations.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.139|172.68.54.139]] 01:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Clever, but dice rolls in D&D involving summing all the dice, applying modifiers, if any, and then comparing to one or more threshold values. Your method makes it very difficult to apply modifiers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.8|162.158.41.8]] 02:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think you misunderstand the problem here. This is not skill, no modifiers apply, it's purely probability [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.111|162.158.158.111]] 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor quibble, arrows aren't fired (unless they're flaming or self-propelled, perhaps), they are shot. (Shotguns are fired of course.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.73|162.158.41.73]] 02:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Arrows are "loosed", even more accurately. At least to avoid the confusion from how so many things may be shot, or ''a'' shot. (Many different nouns, from a physical measure of liquer/coffee/vaccine to a projectile, or an even abstract fundemental of chance; and, as verb, projectiles perhps may be shot, then so may their targets.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 14:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Rolling 22 or lower on percentile dice (or, equivalently, 79 or higher) is close enough, and easier to come up with. (Give or take whether 00 is treated as 100 or zero.) Or directly represent the action: roll a d10. If it's 1-5, you lose. If it's 6-10, roll again; if it's 1-5 you lose, 6-9 you win, 10 roll again. (Modify slightly if you want to distinguish the case of grabbing *two* cursed arrows.) [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 03:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

== Alternative exact solution for getting this probability using dice ==

Roll: 1d8, 2d6, 1d4 succeed on 19 or higher.

== Alternative way to calculate the probability of drawing two non-cursed arrows ==

I couldn’t remember the formula for binomial coefficients (“n choose k”), but there’s an easy way to calculate that the probability of drawing no cursed arrows is 2/9 without that formula. You just need to multiply the probabilities that each of the arrows drawn is not cursed. Since only two arrows are drawn, you only have to multiply two numbers.

The probability that the first arrow is not cursed is 5/10 – there are 5 non-cursed arrows and 5 cursed arrows out of 10 total. After taking out one non-cursed arrow, there are 4 non-cursed arrows and 5 cursed arrows out of 9 total, so the probability that the second arrow is not cursed is 4/9. Multiplying the two probabilities, the probability of drawing two non-cursed arrows is (4*5)/(10*9) = 20/90 = 2/9.

I was considering writing this observation in the Explanation section of the page, but I’m not if it belongs there. This solution avoids using formulas from combinatorics, so it might not be connected enough to the comic.—[[User:Roryokane|Roryokane]] ([[User talk:Roryokane|talk]]) 06:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

== My simple-minded approach ==

• Roll d10 once for your first arrow: if 1 to 5, the arrow is cursed, otherwise not;

• Roll d10 again for your second arrow: same rules, but repeat until you have a different number from the first one (so d10 is in fact only a d9 this time)

• I won't calculate probabilities – these are your arrows, live with it ;-)
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.51|172.69.109.51]] 07:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:That has the benefit (over 3d6+1d4) of telling you which arrow(s) (if either) was cursed. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 07:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:If you don't like re-rolls, you can make d9 out of 2d3. Nine possibilities, so just assign one of them (perhaps by rolling them one at a time) to be the more significant digit. Don't have a d3 handy? Use d6 and modulo off the extra! (1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=3) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.91|172.68.150.91]] 05:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

== The physical difficulties of an M-of-N locking system ==
There seems to be doubt that a "N locks and M keys to unlock them" system could be easily accomplished. I think it could be trivial, with strategically interlocking locked-restraints. A chain formed of bike-locks can give a larger locked loop that can be unlocked by just unlocking any ''single'' one of the constituent locks, leaving the other locked loops to not matter (or you could also try the {{w|Borromean rings}} system, whereby it is again secure against itself, until just one ring is opened up to reveal that the rest now ''aren't even locked at all''...). With almost arbitrary ability to cross-link (or, if you will, repeated/alternating-reflected Borromean triplet connections), you can extend the requirements to more than one unlocking being required (by looping chain elements to mre than just the 'adjacent' loops, sideways onto a parallel meta-loop or up/down the chain, all you might do is allow some slack (could be sufficient to get a thing held directly closed by the taut loop-of-loops, but not enough if the passage of the loop through a hasp/sneck actually prevents the otherwise free movement of the final slide-to-unlock action to occur), but a second (or third, or fourth) unlocking can be required to open-end the whole metaloop of locks. At the top end, M=N solutions are also trivial (e.g. two keys, two locks popularly of safety deposit boxes or [[2677: Two Key System|other things]]). Which is not to say that a specific M-of-N puzzle (where 1<M<N) might not need a ''little'' bit of thought to actually design and implement, but there's no obvious reason why all such combinations shouldn't be nicely doable. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.165|172.69.79.165]] 14:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Can we first confirm that the M-of-N Encryption was what Randall was referencing in the first place? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.140|172.71.154.140]] 03:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::No, first confirm that this is what the explanation treats as what Randall was referencing. As it was, "complicated lock mechanics" and/or "magic" were suggested as the only ways of doing this, when this (or what we thought this was) just needs a little thought and N bike-locks suitably entangled. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 13:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

==Polyhedral Dice==
"other polyhedral dice, with the number of faces denoted by dX (e.g., d10 is a 10-sided die, with numbers from 1 to 10 on it)." - the d10 may be a poor choice as exemplar here; Back in the last century, when I was playing D&D, d10 were typically (and uniquely) numbered 0-9, not 1-10. This may no longer be the case, and I may be showing my age, but if it is still the norm, the d8 or d20 might be a better choice of example. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.210.6|172.68.210.6]] 02:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:Typically, I've only seen 0-9 d10s, as part of a "d100" dice pair, with one reading 0-9 & the other reading 0⁰-9⁰... Single d10, mostly seem to come in 1-10? Maybe it depends which reseller one shops at...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

== You've all been nerd-sniped. ==

[[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 10:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3010: Geometriphylogenetics

2024-11-12T06:31:16Z

ProphetZarquon: Which came first, the triangle or the egg?

Does the phrase "maximum likelihood" have any relationship to phylogenetics? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
: {{w|Computational_phylogenetics#Maximum_likelihood|Profoundly so}}. Most contemporary analyses, especially of large datasets, use either maximum-likelihood methodologies or Bayesian inference (q.v.). I will see if I can say something coherent and comprehensible about this in the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.58|172.71.147.58]] 03:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::If it was you who added the explanation for the title text, nicely done! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 05:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"Pointy circle" is, of course, an oxymoron. Randall is also making a joke about how older phylogenetic trees were based on anatomy, like saying that squares and triangles are close because they have exoskeletons with straight lines and joints. Now, the tree is (where possible) based on genetic similarity. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 05:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hippos can't swim? Did the BBC lie to us? https://youtu.be/X20NjqMiQyo?si=8pN-xwgKJEWM08ZF
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.135|172.68.186.135]] 06:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Why was phylogenetic analysis required to establish this relationship? Reuleaux triangles are an intermediate form, demonstrating a close relation between circles and triangles. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.208|172.71.130.208]] 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

''Obviously'', he's doing phylogenetics wrong: the pentagons (& hexagons, not shown) should also be shown as descending from the circles. Plus, the ovoids (far more than a middle step between lentiform & triangle, truly an extant branch in their own right) are not represented ''at all''. A major oversight, to cut such corners, given the point he's circling about?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2995: University Commas

2024-10-09T15:15:46Z

ProphetZarquon: my God and mother

As Wikipedia notes, the {{w|Harvard comma}} is actually a thing, and synonymous with the Oxford comma. It's hard to understand whether Randall was just ignoring that.
It's interesting to also look at how the various commas are meaningful. For instance, the Yale comma here appears to be just plain ungrammatical, you'd never put a comma between a verb and a its direct object; similarly the Cambridge comma and Princeton commas are ungrammatical, you'd never put one after the word "and." The Stanford comma is unambiguously normal and it's not clear how you could have such a list without it (absent replacement with a [Stanford?] semicolon). The Columbia comma is being used to separate "mac and cheese" into "mac, and[,] cheese" which changes the semantic meaning (arguably into something meaningless, but maybe we're listing Apple Computers or even Macintosh apple fruit abbreviated). The MIT comma is a cute programming joke for multiline lists. Maybe there are hidden trick meanings (like MIT) I'm missing. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:On their own, few of them are intrinsically bad, in the right context.
:*"Please, buy" - valid comma. Prefixed subclause (general plea).
:*"Please buy, apples" - valid comma (more specific plea).
:*"apples, mac" - valid comma (list-type).
:*"mac, and" - valid comma (potentially a conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"mac and, cheese" - valid comma (potentially a post-conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"and cheese, milk" - valid comma (follow-up sub-clause).
:*"cheese, milk, and" - Oxford comma. (Thus invalid, by default. IMO.)
:*"milk and, bread." - ...would be valid, as above, except for the sentence ending.
:*"and bread,." - Ok. Definitely the worst. (Except for the Oxford Comma, which is still worserer!)
:Obviously, combinations of them (or counterpart lack of them, in some cases) can clash badly. Some can work well together, but using ()s, ;s or feetnete* is often better than diving in and out of sub-clauses in the midst of a comma-bound list and potentially making it ambiguous whether you're diving in/out of a clarifying aside or replacing a non-terminating conjunction or perhaps one of the other usages to which a comma might apply.
:* Or just generally rewriting a multi-clausal sentence completely! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 23:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry, no: "and," is bad grammar, except when illustrating a dramatic (but grammatically wrong) verbal pause; ", and" is fine for noting a pause used to divide a list, but it's best to use semicolons in a divided list. IE: "milk; bread; mac and cheese; blood, sweat, and tears". (Again, "blood, sweat and tears", would be atypical cadence if spoken aloud; therefore, the comma.) I don't care what style guides say, only what works well.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Commas can go in a number of places in lists, and, occasionally, after the word "and". [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Potentially, anything is possible... I can see how a sentence like "Please buy apples, mac and cheese, milk, and, bread being out of stock, oats" would work, but I really don't see how the commas after "and" could work ''in this sentence''. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If each item in a list shall be followed by a comma then the MIT comma is quite proper. SDT [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.206|172.68.245.206]] 05:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The UCLA comma may refer to the 8 clap, a chant at UCLA which is begins with a string of 8 claps. {{unsigned ip|172.68.205.178|07:33, 8 October 2024}}

I thought the UCLA & Michigan commas referred to quotes within citations. This isn't uncommon in literary studies, where you quote articles quoting books. Depending on your quotation style, this can result in a long string of 3-4 "commas" (as in: short lines in punctuation marks). If you place the quote between actual commas, make that 4-5. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the tirade against the Oxford comma in the article is not relevant for understanding the comic. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" is not saying that Ayn Rand is the mother. To express that one should write "To my mother, Ayn Rand, and to God". Thus the ambiguity can be resolved. I believe one of the editors is mixing in their personal taste here. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.71|172.71.160.71]] 09:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Tirade? Hardly. It explains when it doesn't help (and when it might).
:And I think you misread. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" indeed does not say that Ayn Rand is the mother. In fact it ''explicitly'' says that "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God'"... erm... does ''not'' say the thing that 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God' ''potentially'' does. (See table below.)
:The choice of how to disambiguate "my mother, who is Ayn Rand", as a concept, is another thing and has multiple options. Disambiguating in the direction of a simple list is the contention surrounding the Oxford(/Serial) Comma itself (it is, by definition, being used in the list format), given that some circumstances are most helped by it and others are most helped by its absence. If you're strongly for the OC, you'll hopefully rewrite problematic OCed formulations so that you can use it. If you're strongly against it you should change problamatic non-OCed versions so that you can better go without one. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.128|172.70.85.128]] 10:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Inspired (a bit) by the Three Laws permutation table, a set of possible ambiguations from the straight list...
{| class="wikitable"
!A !!B !!C !!"A, B and C" !!"A, B, and C"
|-
|my parents||Ayn Rand||God||"my parents (who are Ayn Rand and God)"||''list only''*
|-
|my parents||God||Ayn Rand||"my parents (who are God and Ayn Rand)"||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||my parents||God||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||God||my parents||''list only''* ||"Ayn Rand (who is God), and my parents"
|-
|God||my parents||Ayn Rand||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|God||Ayn Rand||my parents||''list only''* ||"God (who is Ayn Rand), and my parents"
|}
:-* - Assuming no other "All You Zombies" and/or divine incarnation scenarios.
:...maybe it's too early in the morning, but I'm sure I'm missing other ambiguities I've commented on before. (Without necesarily going into the asterisked territories.) Anyone want to amend this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.105|172.68.186.105]] 09:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Love it! [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::There's additional potential ambiguity if you go with the singular "my mother" as opposed to the plural "my parents". "My mother, Ayn Rand, and God" (with the Oxford comma) could be listing 2 separate entities while indicating that my mother is Ayn Rand, or could be listing 3 separate entities. "My mother, Ayn Rand and God" (without the Oxford comma) could be referring to a single entity while indicating that my mother is both Ayn Rand and God, or listing 3 separate entities. (In a phrase like, "My mother, Ayn Rand and God, gave it to me," the comma after God indicates that it's one entity, but you lose that clarity with "It was given to me by my mother, Ayn Rand and God." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.66|172.68.70.66]] 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What if my mother, Ayn Rand, and God are actually the trinity?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.87|172.69.195.87]] 08:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I myself, was fully expecting one of the examples given, to be: "To my God and mother, Ayn Rand".
::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize that this comic focuses on University commas, however I feel that some mention should be made about the Walken Comma and the Shatner Comma! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.103|172.70.114.103]] 10:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:What, do you,    mean by,   that? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.106|172.69.195.106]] 13:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Here's the explanation: [https://www.joeydevilla.com/2015/06/26/a-visual-guide-to-the-different-comma-styles/ Walken and Shatner Commas] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.228|162.158.62.228]] 11:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

{{w|Mac and cheese}} is probably not well-known outside the US (especially not under that name). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.115|172.71.160.115]] 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:As usual, the Brits don't know how to name food. "Macaroni cheese" sounds like the macaroni is made of cheese. But I added an explanation and link to the Wikipedia page. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Don't be silly, that would clearly be named "cheese macaroni". Macaroni cheese is clearly cheese for macaroni, and it's simply polite to serve macaroni to have it with as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.114|172.71.151.114]] 14:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::: By the logic of your second interpretation, "cheese macaroni" is clearly macaroni for cheese. The lexical existence of this separate form of macaroni begs the question: what kind of macaroni goes best with macaroni cheese? The plain kind or cheese macaroni? The answer is neither! The best kind of macaroni to serve with macaroni cheese is clearly macaroni-cheese macaroni. But then what kind of cheese goes best with that? None other than (macaroni cheese)-macaroni cheese, which in turn is best served with ((macaroni cheese) macaroni)-cheese macaroni. This interleaving of macaroni and cheese never ends, meaning that no matter where you choose to stop, you will always end up with a sub-optimal pairing. So it's best to just not eat any form of cheese with any form of macaroni, to avoid disappointment. As an aside, the logic of your first interpretation implies that "macaroni cheese" is actually cheese that's made of macaroni. [[User:MelodiousThunk|MelodiousThunk]] ([[User talk:MelodiousThunk|talk]]) 12:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:'Mac & cheese' is, sadly, probably more common in the UK now than the proper 'macaroni cheese'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.47|141.101.99.47]] 08:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the added red text in the Notation column, but it needs to be explained in the Explanation column. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.8|162.158.90.8]] 00:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2995: University Commas

2024-10-09T15:11:15Z

ProphetZarquon: "and," makes me feel angry

As Wikipedia notes, the {{w|Harvard comma}} is actually a thing, and synonymous with the Oxford comma. It's hard to understand whether Randall was just ignoring that.
It's interesting to also look at how the various commas are meaningful. For instance, the Yale comma here appears to be just plain ungrammatical, you'd never put a comma between a verb and a its direct object; similarly the Cambridge comma and Princeton commas are ungrammatical, you'd never put one after the word "and." The Stanford comma is unambiguously normal and it's not clear how you could have such a list without it (absent replacement with a [Stanford?] semicolon). The Columbia comma is being used to separate "mac and cheese" into "mac, and[,] cheese" which changes the semantic meaning (arguably into something meaningless, but maybe we're listing Apple Computers or even Macintosh apple fruit abbreviated). The MIT comma is a cute programming joke for multiline lists. Maybe there are hidden trick meanings (like MIT) I'm missing. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 23:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:On their own, few of them are intrinsically bad, in the right context.
:*"Please, buy" - valid comma. Prefixed subclause (general plea).
:*"Please buy, apples" - valid comma (more specific plea).
:*"apples, mac" - valid comma (list-type).
:*"mac, and" - valid comma (potentially a conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"mac and, cheese" - valid comma (potentially a post-conjunctive sub-clause).
:*"and cheese, milk" - valid comma (follow-up sub-clause).
:*"cheese, milk, and" - Oxford comma. (Thus invalid, by default. IMO.)
:*"milk and, bread." - ...would be valid, as above, except for the sentence ending.
:*"and bread,." - Ok. Definitely the worst. (Except for the Oxford Comma, which is still worserer!)
:Obviously, combinations of them (or counterpart lack of them, in some cases) can clash badly. Some can work well together, but using ()s, ;s or feetnete* is often better than diving in and out of sub-clauses in the midst of a comma-bound list and potentially making it ambiguous whether you're diving in/out of a clarifying aside or replacing a non-terminating conjunction or perhaps one of the other usages to which a comma might apply.
:* Or just generally rewriting a multi-clausal sentence completely! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 23:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry, no: "and," is bad grammar, except when illustrating a dramatic (but grammatically wrong) verbal pause; ", and" is fine for noting a pause used to divide a list, but it's best to use semicolons in a divided list. IE: "milk; bread; mac and cheese; blood, sweat, and tears". (Again, "blood, sweat and tears", would be atypical cadence if spoken aloud; therefore, the comma.) I don't care what style guides say, only what works well.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Commas can go in a number of places in lists, and, occasionally, after the word "and". [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Potentially, anything is possible... I can see how a sentence like "Please buy apples, mac and cheese, milk, and, bread being out of stock, oats" would work, but I really don't see how the commas after "and" could work ''in this sentence''. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If each item in a list shall be followed by a comma then the MIT comma is quite proper. SDT [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.206|172.68.245.206]] 05:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The UCLA comma may refer to the 8 clap, a chant at UCLA which is begins with a string of 8 claps. {{unsigned ip|172.68.205.178|07:33, 8 October 2024}}

I thought the UCLA & Michigan commas referred to quotes within citations. This isn't uncommon in literary studies, where you quote articles quoting books. Depending on your quotation style, this can result in a long string of 3-4 "commas" (as in: short lines in punctuation marks). If you place the quote between actual commas, make that 4-5. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the tirade against the Oxford comma in the article is not relevant for understanding the comic. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" is not saying that Ayn Rand is the mother. To express that one should write "To my mother, Ayn Rand, and to God". Thus the ambiguity can be resolved. I believe one of the editors is mixing in their personal taste here. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.71|172.71.160.71]] 09:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Tirade? Hardly. It explains when it doesn't help (and when it might).
:And I think you misread. "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God' does not" indeed does not say that Ayn Rand is the mother. In fact it ''explicitly'' says that "'To my mother, Ayn Rand and God'"... erm... does ''not'' say the thing that 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God' ''potentially'' does. (See table below.)
:The choice of how to disambiguate "my mother, who is Ayn Rand", as a concept, is another thing and has multiple options. Disambiguating in the direction of a simple list is the contention surrounding the Oxford(/Serial) Comma itself (it is, by definition, being used in the list format), given that some circumstances are most helped by it and others are most helped by its absence. If you're strongly for the OC, you'll hopefully rewrite problematic OCed formulations so that you can use it. If you're strongly against it you should change problamatic non-OCed versions so that you can better go without one. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.128|172.70.85.128]] 10:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Inspired (a bit) by the Three Laws permutation table, a set of possible ambiguations from the straight list...
{| class="wikitable"
!A !!B !!C !!"A, B and C" !!"A, B, and C"
|-
|my parents||Ayn Rand||God||"my parents (who are Ayn Rand and God)"||''list only''*
|-
|my parents||God||Ayn Rand||"my parents (who are God and Ayn Rand)"||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||my parents||God||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|Ayn Rand||God||my parents||''list only''* ||"Ayn Rand (who is God), and my parents"
|-
|God||my parents||Ayn Rand||''list only''* ||''list only''*
|-
|God||Ayn Rand||my parents||''list only''* ||"God (who is Ayn Rand), and my parents"
|}
:-* - Assuming no other "All You Zombies" and/or divine incarnation scenarios.
:...maybe it's too early in the morning, but I'm sure I'm missing other ambiguities I've commented on before. (Without necesarily going into the asterisked territories.) Anyone want to amend this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.105|172.68.186.105]] 09:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Love it! [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::There's additional potential ambiguity if you go with the singular "my mother" as opposed to the plural "my parents". "My mother, Ayn Rand, and God" (with the Oxford comma) could be listing 2 separate entities while indicating that my mother is Ayn Rand, or could be listing 3 separate entities. "My mother, Ayn Rand and God" (without the Oxford comma) could be referring to a single entity while indicating that my mother is both Ayn Rand and God, or listing 3 separate entities. (In a phrase like, "My mother, Ayn Rand and God, gave it to me," the comma after God indicates that it's one entity, but you lose that clarity with "It was given to me by my mother, Ayn Rand and God." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.66|172.68.70.66]] 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What if my mother, Ayn Rand, and God are actually the trinity?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.87|172.69.195.87]] 08:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize that this comic focuses on University commas, however I feel that some mention should be made about the Walken Comma and the Shatner Comma! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.103|172.70.114.103]] 10:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:What, do you,    mean by,   that? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.106|172.69.195.106]] 13:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Here's the explanation: [https://www.joeydevilla.com/2015/06/26/a-visual-guide-to-the-different-comma-styles/ Walken and Shatner Commas] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.228|162.158.62.228]] 11:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

{{w|Mac and cheese}} is probably not well-known outside the US (especially not under that name). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.115|172.71.160.115]] 13:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:As usual, the Brits don't know how to name food. "Macaroni cheese" sounds like the macaroni is made of cheese. But I added an explanation and link to the Wikipedia page. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Don't be silly, that would clearly be named "cheese macaroni". Macaroni cheese is clearly cheese for macaroni, and it's simply polite to serve macaroni to have it with as well. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.114|172.71.151.114]] 14:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::: By the logic of your second interpretation, "cheese macaroni" is clearly macaroni for cheese. The lexical existence of this separate form of macaroni begs the question: what kind of macaroni goes best with macaroni cheese? The plain kind or cheese macaroni? The answer is neither! The best kind of macaroni to serve with macaroni cheese is clearly macaroni-cheese macaroni. But then what kind of cheese goes best with that? None other than (macaroni cheese)-macaroni cheese, which in turn is best served with ((macaroni cheese) macaroni)-cheese macaroni. This interleaving of macaroni and cheese never ends, meaning that no matter where you choose to stop, you will always end up with a sub-optimal pairing. So it's best to just not eat any form of cheese with any form of macaroni, to avoid disappointment. As an aside, the logic of your first interpretation implies that "macaroni cheese" is actually cheese that's made of macaroni. [[User:MelodiousThunk|MelodiousThunk]] ([[User talk:MelodiousThunk|talk]]) 12:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:'Mac & cheese' is, sadly, probably more common in the UK now than the proper 'macaroni cheese'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.47|141.101.99.47]] 08:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the added red text in the Notation column, but it needs to be explained in the Explanation column. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.8|162.158.90.8]] 00:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2992: UK Coal

2024-10-01T20:21:12Z

ProphetZarquon: Link formatting

nuclear power is better in all aspects anyway [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.105|172.70.90.105]] 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: Not true - the rabbits can't get into the radiation suits.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.62|172.70.85.62]] 14:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Here before the explanation :) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 20:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:Ew.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I made an initial explanation, but it needs a lot of work still; hopefully someone with more experience editing on this wiki can improve it (this is my first explanation) [[User:MathEnthusiast|MathEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:MathEnthusiast|talk]]) 20:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"the sole rabbit-run coal plant was shut down in the 1990s."
Just checking, but this isn't referencing some particularly egregious, badly managed coal power plant in the U.K., is it? [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 20:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:I don’t think so; I believe it’s simply that Ratcliffe-on-Soar power plant is the last UK coal plant to be shut down.
::The 1990 comment in particular. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.36.171|172.68.36.171]] 15:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Randal uses SI units in the formula, as every person with the tiniest bit of tech/science education would, but then gives the result in inches (3.15) instead of centimeters (8.0). Americans are weird. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.110.162|162.158.110.162]] 20:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:^^ This! {{unsigned ip|172.70.90.109}}

One should not forget that the 3 inches are very unevenly distributed. Some areas on top of coal mines have sunken in much further creating new flooding risks that require continued future interventions.
--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.34|172.64.236.34]] 21:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:Indeed, I used to line in the north of England and road signs would say, "Road liable to subsidence." I also wonder about the year 1853. Mining was going on long before that. The industrial revolution started in the mid-eighteenth century.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.22|141.101.98.22]] 07:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::Presumably, that's just the earliest that UK DESNZ has data for.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.23.209|172.71.23.209]] 18:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that Watership Down is sometimes categorized as "children's literature", but it always catches me off guard. The Wikipedia page for it calls it an "adventure novel" and it's in the adult fiction section at my library. I'm just wondering if perhaps the explanation here should be a little less specific in its categorization of the book.[[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone who lived through the 1980s Miner's Strike (not directly affected, my father worked at a steel-works, not at a pit like my friends' fathers) and then the decline of the steel manufacturing industry (which ''did'' affect my father, obviously), I have rather naturally kept a general eye on the extraction and use of coal. There still are working coal-mines (though there isn't going to be that new one, in Cumbria), and there are still uses for UK coal (enough to import to add to tht which we dig out). It's really a bit early to say that the layer of total coal dug out ''won't'' deepen slightly (very, very slightly) in the future. And coal that is dug is only loosely associated with coal which is turned into electricity, so the last coal-generator stopping seems like an oddly off-topic detail for Randall to leap into the amortised accumulation of extracted volume. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.165|172.68.205.165]] 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Full conversion to US Customary Units (AKA US Bullshit Units):

(25e9 Tonnes / (1.3 kg/L * 2.4e5 km^2)) * (1000 kg / 1 Tonne) * (1 km^2 / (1000 m)^2 ) * (1 m^3 / 1000 L) * (39.37 in / 1 m ) ~= 3"

--[[User:JayTeeEll|JayTeeEll]] ([[User talk:JayTeeEll|talk]]) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

He has not added the amount of "flotation" that results from the removal of all that material from the islands. Have the islands risen more than 3 inches in the crust, due to the removal? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 23:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Scotland's still going up (after the last Ice-Age melt) and the south of Britain is still going down, IIRC. Which'll confuse matters. But I don't see how the component contributions to raising level (due to the digging out) could outpace the removal (due to that digging), by any significant amount. Rebound takes a while, and the effects should roughly equal out (so long as we haven't been digging too deep). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.151|172.68.205.151]] 23:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: He doesn't mention anything about the surface height at all, though. He says that an average 3" has been dug up and burnt, but not that the country is 3" lower as a result.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.204|172.70.86.204]] 13:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Between the diagram and the text (including title-text), it looks as if he is indeed lowering the surface' from what it might have been without the extraction. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.35|172.70.86.35]] 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a nagging feeling that although rabbit-run coal plants aren't (known to be) a thing, there must be Victorian children's books (e.g. Beatrix Potter) in which bunnies use coal scuttles or coal fires. "When Horace Hedgehog arrived, it was tea-time, so Mr Hoppy put some more coal on the fire..." [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 00:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

:Funnily enough, ''Peter Rabbit'', by Beatrix Potter was published in 1901, the same year as Queen Victoria’s passing, which marked the end of the Victorian Era. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 15:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:I felt confident that there was probably a place named Rabbit Run, with a coal-based facility nearby, but all I found was [https://rabbitrun.wales a rather pedestrian footrace].
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

UK DESNZ refers to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which is a ministerial department of the UK government. So basically that text is citing the source for the data.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 03:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

To help balance this out, should someone import coal into the formerly coal producing areas to fill in the now empty veins, or would that be selling coal to Newcastle? [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 05:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

From the miner's strike onwards, a lot of coal was imported (particularly from (Poland) to run the coal-fired power stations since it was much cheaper, so wasn't dug out the ground in the UK. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.105|172.70.90.105]] 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The formula doesn't take into account that the UK has ...changed land area over that period. Land area of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) was 315000 km² until 1922.
This changes the reading in SI units from 8 cm to 7 cm, but the rounded value in inches is unchanged, 3 in. Which explains why you call those units of his glorious majesty Imperial, I guess. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.180|172.71.172.180]] 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
: I checked the source and it doesn't say wether production data for 1853-1922 is for the CURRENT territory of UK or includes production in the territory now belonging to Eire. Maybe we should inquire. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.89|162.158.111.89]] 11:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the punctuation spatter in "The UK shut down their last coal power plant today, which means that over the course of the industrial revolution, they dug up and burned an average of 3 inches of their country." And the place I'd put a new comma might confuse others' sensibilities. Perhaps "..., which means that (over the ... revolution) they dug ...". Or just get rid of the one after revolution and accept a rather long run-on clause. Not that it's changable here, being Transcript of what's there but it's strangely off in grammatical meter and span from how I would try to say/write the same words. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.101|172.70.85.101]] 10:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I missed the joke somewhere with this: "The volume of earth described, 0.1 nm × 240,000 km2, is equal to 24 m3. This is a humorous play on depictions of anthropomorphic rabbits in children's literature." Are these two separate statements that happened to be placed in a misleading way, or is something funny about 24 cubic meters having to do with anthropomorphic rabbits? {{unsigned ip|162.158.111.237}}

Talk:2992: UK Coal

2024-10-01T20:13:19Z

ProphetZarquon: Rabbit Run ≠ placename ?

nuclear power is better in all aspects anyway [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.105|172.70.90.105]] 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: Not true - the rabbits can't get into the radiation suits.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.62|172.70.85.62]] 14:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Here before the explanation :) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.9|172.71.154.9]] 20:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:Ew.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I made an initial explanation, but it needs a lot of work still; hopefully someone with more experience editing on this wiki can improve it (this is my first explanation) [[User:MathEnthusiast|MathEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:MathEnthusiast|talk]]) 20:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"the sole rabbit-run coal plant was shut down in the 1990s."
Just checking, but this isn't referencing some particularly egregious, badly managed coal power plant in the U.K., is it? [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 20:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:I don’t think so; I believe it’s simply that Ratcliffe-on-Soar power plant is the last UK coal plant to be shut down.
::The 1990 comment in particular. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.36.171|172.68.36.171]] 15:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Randal uses SI units in the formula, as every person with the tiniest bit of tech/science education would, but then gives the result in inches (3.15) instead of centimeters (8.0). Americans are weird. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.110.162|162.158.110.162]] 20:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:^^ This! {{unsigned ip|172.70.90.109}}

One should not forget that the 3 inches are very unevenly distributed. Some areas on top of coal mines have sunken in much further creating new flooding risks that require continued future interventions.
--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.34|172.64.236.34]] 21:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

:Indeed, I used to line in the north of England and road signs would say, "Road liable to subsidence." I also wonder about the year 1853. Mining was going on long before that. The industrial revolution started in the mid-eighteenth century.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.22|141.101.98.22]] 07:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::Presumably, that's just the earliest that UK DESNZ has data for.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.23.209|172.71.23.209]] 18:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that Watership Down is sometimes categorized as "children's literature", but it always catches me off guard. The Wikipedia page for it calls it an "adventure novel" and it's in the adult fiction section at my library. I'm just wondering if perhaps the explanation here should be a little less specific in its categorization of the book.[[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone who lived through the 1980s Miner's Strike (not directly affected, my father worked at a steel-works, not at a pit like my friends' fathers) and then the decline of the steel manufacturing industry (which ''did'' affect my father, obviously), I have rather naturally kept a general eye on the extraction and use of coal. There still are working coal-mines (though there isn't going to be that new one, in Cumbria), and there are still uses for UK coal (enough to import to add to tht which we dig out). It's really a bit early to say that the layer of total coal dug out ''won't'' deepen slightly (very, very slightly) in the future. And coal that is dug is only loosely associated with coal which is turned into electricity, so the last coal-generator stopping seems like an oddly off-topic detail for Randall to leap into the amortised accumulation of extracted volume. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.165|172.68.205.165]] 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Full conversion to US Customary Units (AKA US Bullshit Units):

(25e9 Tonnes / (1.3 kg/L * 2.4e5 km^2)) * (1000 kg / 1 Tonne) * (1 km^2 / (1000 m)^2 ) * (1 m^3 / 1000 L) * (39.37 in / 1 m ) ~= 3"

--[[User:JayTeeEll|JayTeeEll]] ([[User talk:JayTeeEll|talk]]) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

He has not added the amount of "flotation" that results from the removal of all that material from the islands. Have the islands risen more than 3 inches in the crust, due to the removal? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 23:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Scotland's still going up (after the last Ice-Age melt) and the south of Britain is still going down, IIRC. Which'll confuse matters. But I don't see how the component contributions to raising level (due to the digging out) could outpace the removal (due to that digging), by any significant amount. Rebound takes a while, and the effects should roughly equal out (so long as we haven't been digging too deep). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.151|172.68.205.151]] 23:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: He doesn't mention anything about the surface height at all, though. He says that an average 3" has been dug up and burnt, but not that the country is 3" lower as a result.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.204|172.70.86.204]] 13:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Between the diagram and the text (including title-text), it looks as if he is indeed lowering the surface' from what it might have been without the extraction. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.35|172.70.86.35]] 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a nagging feeling that although rabbit-run coal plants aren't (known to be) a thing, there must be Victorian children's books (e.g. Beatrix Potter) in which bunnies use coal scuttles or coal fires. "When Horace Hedgehog arrived, it was tea-time, so Mr Hoppy put some more coal on the fire..." [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 00:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:Funnily enough, ''Peter Rabbit'', by Beatrix Potter was published in 1901, the same year as Queen Victoria’s passing, which marked the end of the Victorian Era. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 15:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:I felt confident that there was probably a place named Rabbit Run, with a coal-based facility nearby , but all I found was [a rather pedestrian footrace|https://www.rabbitrun.wales/].

UK DESNZ refers to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which is a ministerial department of the UK government. So basically that text is citing the source for the data.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 03:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

To help balance this out, should someone import coal into the formerly coal producing areas to fill in the now empty veins, or would that be selling coal to Newcastle? [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 05:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

From the miner's strike onwards, a lot of coal was imported (particularly from (Poland) to run the coal-fired power stations since it was much cheaper, so wasn't dug out the ground in the UK. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.105|172.70.90.105]] 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The formula doesn't take into account that the UK has ...changed land area over that period. Land area of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) was 315000 km² until 1922.
This changes the reading in SI units from 8 cm to 7 cm, but the rounded value in inches is unchanged, 3 in. Which explains why you call those units of his glorious majesty Imperial, I guess. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.172.180|172.71.172.180]] 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
: I checked the source and it doesn't say wether production data for 1853-1922 is for the CURRENT territory of UK or includes production in the territory now belonging to Eire. Maybe we should inquire. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.89|162.158.111.89]] 11:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the punctuation spatter in "The UK shut down their last coal power plant today, which means that over the course of the industrial revolution, they dug up and burned an average of 3 inches of their country." And the place I'd put a new comma might confuse others' sensibilities. Perhaps "..., which means that (over the ... revolution) they dug ...". Or just get rid of the one after revolution and accept a rather long run-on clause. Not that it's changable here, being Transcript of what's there but it's strangely off in grammatical meter and span from how I would try to say/write the same words. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.101|172.70.85.101]] 10:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I missed the joke somewhere with this: "The volume of earth described, 0.1 nm × 240,000 km2, is equal to 24 m3. This is a humorous play on depictions of anthropomorphic rabbits in children's literature." Are these two separate statements that happened to be placed in a misleading way, or is something funny about 24 cubic meters having to do with anthropomorphic rabbits? {{unsigned ip|162.158.111.237}}

Talk:2976: Time Traveler Causes of Death

2024-08-25T14:46:15Z

ProphetZarquon: Agreed, even though bombardment was a looong time, Chicxulub DID have an 'impact' on the scale of millions of years...

How'd I do for my first 'explanation?' I know it's short...[[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 17:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:I added to it. It's a good start. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.191|172.69.134.191]] 17:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::Please sign your comments [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:::How's this [[Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1|127.0.0.1]] 18:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:::added a table [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 18:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::::added a very necessary "citation needed" thingy - it's traditional [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt|talk]]) 08:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a thin line for "meteor" just below "trampled", if the time traveller lands during the Chicxulub impact event? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:Probably a mistake on Randall’s part. He might correct it later (he’s updated other comics before), but unless you have a magic red telephone that reach his personal number right now, all we can do is wait (or add it to the Explanation/Trivia). [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 19:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::For sure not a mistake. Only one day in the entire history of Earth you would die directly from the impact. But the heavy bombardment there would be many days this would happen. Although I just updated the table saying that asphyxiation would still go much faster than waiting for such a meteor. I'm certain that Randall would not update the comic for that. Mainly he updates if he has made a spelling mistake that could alter the meaning or has forgotten some part of a drawing that might seem important. And these events are rare.--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:"Meteors" doesn't refer to "the impact" that killed the dinosaurs, it refers to the bombardment period, where the atmosphere was heated to furnace temperatures... No waiting necessary; the impacts were constant for thousands of years. Technically it'd be the heat, not the impacts, that'd kill you, but the heat was a direct result of megatons of debris making atmospheric entry on an ongoing basis. (For a fun fictional description of such a phenomena, check out 'Seveneves' & take the ending with a huge block of salt.)
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 03:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::Was the Chicxulub aftermath at all sufficient for "thousands of years" of 'aftershock' impacts? (Or at least enough to make a line on the comic, essentially the same marker as the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary layer is, geologically.) There were long-term climate effects, but by "bombardment" you seem to refer more to the Late Heavy Bombardment 'Meteors'. From "Seveneyes", which I haven't yet read but I have a general idea of the setup, you're effectively invoking a rerunning the aftermath of the Theia impact (4.5b years ago) in that much of the impact mass/broken Earth that had not at that time fallen back to Earth is now doing so.
::To be thorough, showing thin lines for various "Traps" (like the Deccan ones, coincidental and maybe or maybe not coincidental with Chicxulub, or the Siberian ones) where vulcanism and/or climate might be a very brief (geologically speaking) alternative to the surrounding non-volcano and non-climate 'primary threat'. But it's funnier, as it is, glossing over such transient issues. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.245|172.69.43.245]] 04:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::: Yeah, Chicxulub was ''much'' later than the last major bombardment period, & relatively brief even compared to the shorter ice ages, whereas the bombardment period was basically hell on earth for a ''very'' long time... Then again, given the number of species that died out after Chicxulub, even looked at over a million year period or more (anything less than 10 MY would be a bit hard to represent at the scale shown), I do think somewhat indirect results of the "dino-killer" impact(s), such as increased volcanism & climate shift & food chain disruption, which occurred ''because'' of such impact, ''should'' be counted all as one cause of death, in the context of this chart; I guess Randall didn't agree, though?
:::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think that the Cryogenian Ice Age was cold enough to be an immediate threat to a typical human, especially if that human was wearing winter clothes, just a long-term threat (mostly due to food). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.68|162.158.41.68]] 21:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:Given asphixiation issues could be avoided by taking along appropriate breathing apparatus (and other life-saving solutions may exist for other periods), or just by not leaving your 'tardis' machine (with its airtight door, as hinted at, which may only be a problem if you can't open it again upon return), I think we're talking of essentially unprepared travel to these other times.
:Maybe without a machine (or without taking it with you, given the comic indicating there is one). Not realising what you're walking into, like stumbling through a {{w|Primeval (TV series)|swirling time-wedgie}} or {{w|Pebble in the Sky|being blasted through time}}, might be the primary reason to become a time-traveler. And the everyday Joe that finds themselves doing that out of ignorance is mostly unlikely to have been pre-prepared for any such trip.
:Or otherwise explain the stuck-door of the 'now-ish' era as being you generally would survive most now-ish trips (assuming you didn't do something like land in WW2 directly under a bomb or become captured by people who would be highly suspicious of your digital watch and your lack of valid id), or not actually going anywhen at all, then your death causes could be headlined by something ''really'' trivial like being stuck in a cupboard that forms the basis of the time-machine. (Or {{w|The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe|a wardrobe}}... Which I wouldn't put past being Randall's actual reference, on past form.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.174|172.69.43.174]] 22:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:It's not that hard to die of hypothermia in modern winters. Surely that's more likely during an ice age. And the claim isn't that you're really likely to die from these things, just that they're the most likely cause of death at the time. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::Seems like the entire idea dwells on the fact that you do not think about going back to the present when realizing you are in a dangerous place. If there are air in the time machine then you should have time to go back before dying of the lack of oxygen. But of course if you land in lava it may be too late. What if you went further back and ended in a gas cloud. Would you die of lack of oxygen as well? Guess the actual biggest problem about time travel, if they where possible, is you also have to travel vast distances in space, since Earth has moved quite a bit no matter if you travel 1 hour into the past or a million/billion years. You would end up in empty space unless you also could travel very long distances through space... Sun moves around the galaxy so wont matter going a year back since the Earth are still not back to where it was. And the galaxy also moves... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The door is stuck, and you seem to assume the poor traveler is stuck /inside/. I would rather scream for the time police to save me if I am stuck /outside/ in this crappy age :-) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.54|172.69.109.54]] 08:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

For all the times xkcd has focused on raptors and how to prevent predatory raptor attacks, I'm disappointed that "Trampled" is the main concern for travelers going to the Mesozoic Era. [[User:TCMits|TCMits]] ([[User talk:TCMits|talk]]) 14:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe the Mesozoic raptors also just tended to get trampled? Only in the modern day are raptors free from the threat of trampling and thus to become a threat to Randall. Especially if the present-day threat is a merely a stuck door. It all fits because, when it comes to things like doors, raptors are known to be Clever Girls! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.79|141.101.98.79]] 00:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2976: Time Traveler Causes of Death

2024-08-25T03:32:39Z

ProphetZarquon: Bombardment period featured impacts so constant that the atmosphere cooked; not much time to asphyxiate.

How'd I do for my first 'explanation?' I know it's short...[[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 17:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:I added to it. It's a good start. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.191|172.69.134.191]] 17:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::Please sign your comments [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:::How's this [[Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1|127.0.0.1]] 18:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:::added a table [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 18:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::::added a very necessary "citation needed" thingy - it's traditional [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt|talk]]) 08:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a thin line for "meteor" just below "trampled", if the time traveller lands during the Chicxulub impact event? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:Probably a mistake on Randall’s part. He might correct it later (he’s updated other comics before), but unless you have a magic red telephone that reach his personal number right now, all we can do is wait (or add it to the Explanation/Trivia). [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 19:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::For sure not a mistake. Only one day in the entire history of Earth you would die directly from the impact. But the heavy bombardment there would be many days this would happen. Although I just updated the table saying that asphyxiation would still go much faster than waiting for such a meteor. I'm certain that Randall would not update the comic for that. Mainly he updates if he has made a spelling mistake that could alter the meaning or has forgotten some part of a drawing that might seem important. And these events are rare.--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:"Meteors" doesn't refer to "the impact" that killed the dinosaurs, it refers to the bombardment period, where the atmosphere was heated to furnace temperatures... No waiting necessary; the impacts were constant for thousands of years. Technically it'd be the heat, not the impacts, that'd kill you, but the heat was a direct result of megatons of debris making atmospheric entry on an ongoing basis. (For a fun fictional description of such a phenomena, check out 'Seveneves' & take the ending with a huge block of salt.)
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 03:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think that the Cryogenian Ice Age was cold enough to be an immediate threat to a typical human, especially if that human was wearing winter clothes, just a long-term threat (mostly due to food). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.68|162.158.41.68]] 21:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:Given asphixiation issues could be avoided by taking along appropriate breathing apparatus (and other life-saving solutions may exist for other periods), or just by not leaving your 'tardis' machine (with its airtight door, as hinted at, which may only be a problem if you can't open it again upon return), I think we're talking of essentially unprepared travel to these other times.
:Maybe without a machine (or without taking it with you, given the comic indicating there is one). Not realising what you're walking into, like stumbling through a {{w|Primeval (TV series)|swirling time-wedgie}} or {{w|Pebble in the Sky|being blasted through time}}, might be the primary reason to become a time-traveler. And the everyday Joe that finds themselves doing that out of ignorance is mostly unlikely to have been pre-prepared for any such trip.
:Or otherwise explain the stuck-door of the 'now-ish' era as being you generally would survive most now-ish trips (assuming you didn't do something like land in WW2 directly under a bomb or become captured by people who would be highly suspicious of your digital watch and your lack of valid id), or not actually going anywhen at all, then your death causes could be headlined by something ''really'' trivial like being stuck in a cupboard that forms the basis of the time-machine. (Or {{w|The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe|a wardrobe}}... Which I wouldn't put past being Randall's actual reference, on past form.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.174|172.69.43.174]] 22:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:It's not that hard to die of hypothermia in modern winters. Surely that's more likely during an ice age. And the claim isn't that you're really likely to die from these things, just that they're the most likely cause of death at the time. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::Seems like the entire idea dwells on the fact that you do not think about going back to the present when realizing you are in a dangerous place. If there are air in the time machine then you should have time to go back before dying of the lack of oxygen. But of course if you land in lava it may be too late. What if you went further back and ended in a gas cloud. Would you die of lack of oxygen as well? Guess the actual biggest problem about time travel, if they where possible, is you also have to travel vast distances in space, since Earth has moved quite a bit no matter if you travel 1 hour into the past or a million/billion years. You would end up in empty space unless you also could travel very long distances through space... Sun moves around the galaxy so wont matter going a year back since the Earth are still not back to where it was. And the galaxy also moves... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The door is stuck, and you seem to assume the poor traveler is stuck /inside/. I would rather scream for the time police to save me if I am stuck /outside/ in this crappy age :-) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.54|172.69.109.54]] 08:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

For all the times xkcd has focused on raptors and how to prevent predatory raptor attacks, I'm disappointed that "Trampled" is the main concern for travelers going to the Mesozoic Era. [[User:TCMits|TCMits]] ([[User talk:TCMits|talk]]) 14:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe the Mesozoic raptors also just tended to get trampled? Only in the modern day are raptors free from the threat of trampling and thus to become a threat to Randall. Especially if the present-day threat is a merely a stuck door. It all fits because, when it comes to things like doors, raptors are known to be Clever Girls! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.79|141.101.98.79]] 00:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

2971: Celestial Event

2024-08-13T13:32:45Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Explanation */ have ≠ has

{{comic
| number = 2971
| date = August 12, 2024
| title = Celestial Event
| image = celestial_event_2x.png
| imagesize = 471x300px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If we can get a brood of 13-year cicadas going, we might have a chance at making this happen before the oceans evaporate under the expanding sun.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT THAT APPEARS EVERY FOUR POINT THREE BILLION YEARS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[Randall]] has often obsessed over celestial events he wishes to see, and here lists three of these in this comic, hence the title. Recently there have been two total {{w|solar eclipse}}s in the US (2017 and 2024), so that has been ticked of his bucket list. And there have been {{w|aurora|northern lights}} this year far down into mainland US. So likely he has seen those now also. If he has seen a {{w|comet}} visible to the naked eye is not known. But there have been some candidates in his lifetime.

The next two on the list are not celestial events, but cloud cover is relevant in order to see the first three. And finally he mentions the emergence of 17-year {{w|Periodical cicadas|cicadas}} which occurred most recently in the midwestern US in 2024 before this comic was released and in the eastern US in 2021.

An extra special celestial event would be to see all the three first thing at the same time during a 17-year cicada event. Northern light and a comet can only be seen during the night, except during a total solar eclipse where they could be visible for the few minutes of totality. (Although it rarely gets really dark during totality and it is so short that night vision cannot be achieved before the totality is over.)

This joke of the comic comes by Randall multiplying the fraction of time that these selected classes of events occur over a particular location on the Earth's surface, in this case, {{w|Cambridge, Massachusetts}}, where the cartoonist was living when this comic was published. The resulting product is the expected frequency that all of them would occur at the same time at that location. The value he calculates is once every 4.3 billion years. This is in the same ballpark as the current age of the Earth, about 4.5 billion years.

The calculation itself is not going to be accurate, which is likely part of the joke. Multiplying probabilities only works for random variables that are entirely independent. If nothing else, orbits are (luckily) not random{{cn}}. It also requires that all of the probabilities remain constant over time. In reality, cicadas will not existing for very long compared to the time scale, since Earth will become uninhabitable to complex life within a billion years time{{cn}}. Also the moon is moving away from Earth and total solar eclipses will seize to occur{{cn}} relatively soon on these timescales.

Conversion of "days" and "months" to fractional years, required for conservation of units in the equation, is ambiguous as presented due to the leap year phenomenon and the inconsistent number of days in a month. Differing values for these fractional years yield a range of frequency solutions between 4.2 and 4.4 billion years. If the value for days in a year is given as 365.25 (the mean value for all years, ignoring infrequent additional 'leap year' corrections), as in the first term of the equation ((20/365.25)/11), and the mean value for days in two months is given as 60.9 as in the second term ((60.9/365.25)/50), the result is 4.2995 *10^9 years.

In the title text Randall mentioned 13 year cicadas. Massachusetts is near the northern limit of {{w|Periodical_cicadas|Magicicada}} distribution, and only one 17-year brood is established there (and not in Cambridge, MA). In other parts of the US, a 13-year brood and a 17-year brood emerged during 2024, an event that only happens once every 13x17 = 221 years. This caused a lot of noise and double the amount of dead cicadas after they had mated. Randall wondered whether it would be possible to get a brood of 13 year cicadas started near his home. In that case he could replace 13 with 17 in the calculation. Then he hopes to achieve his "really spectacular show" before Earth's ocean evaporate. However, 4.3 billion year x13/17 is still more than 3 billion years. The oceans will not last that long, and given the merely 40 million year history of the genus Magicicada and its relatives, neither will the periodical cicadas.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Approximate frequency in my area

:Active northern lights: 20 days per solar cycle

:A naked-eye "Great Comet": 2 months every 50 years

:Total eclipse: once every 350 years

:Clear skies: 50% of the time

:17-year cicada emergence: 2 months every 17 years

opening bracket

20 days over 11 years multiplied by

2 months over 50 years multiplied by

1 over 350 years multiplied by

one half multiplied by

2 months over 17 years

closing bracket to the power of -1

equals 4.3 billion years

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Every 4 billion years or so, my neighborhood gets to see a ''really'' spectacular show.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Solar eclipses]]
[[Category:Time]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:2967: Matter

2024-08-03T21:15:56Z

ProphetZarquon: Nonsensical sentence?

This one is a head-scratcher. Do skateboarders call "anti-" things goofy? What's the deal with that Dirac statistic? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 23:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:It's like being a 'southpaw' boxer (or at least being able to stand the opposite way, maybe in order to flip/spin the board the opposite way from what you would end up kicking it normally).
:The Dirac thing is... well, quantum physics has various uses/restrictions upon spin (and colour, etc) that isn't really physical spin (or colour) as we know it, but sort of means a kind of particle-based rotational momentum, which has to be conserved/transfered/agree in various quantum interactions (and is a quantised state, meaning that only certain spin-values can exist in a given situation).
:Both the skateboarding and the elementary physics issues are (in their own way) rather technical matters, and I know a lot more about one than the other (but think I understand the other a lot more, from just reading up on it, than I know I actually understand the original one based on what I actually was taught). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 00:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:''"Do skateboarders call "anti-" things goofy?"'' FWIW, I first heard 'goofy' in the 1960s skateboard fad, using your left foot where the right foot normally goes. It appears this was 2 or 3 years before Mr Hawk was born, so it isn't his invention. I would wonder if surfers (Hawaii and California) got goofy even earlier. [[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]])
:: Looks like a fair summary: [https://www.surfertoday.com/surfing/where-does-the-term-goofy-footed-surfer-come-from Goofy Foot] --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 02:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::: I first heard the term "goofy foot" back in Skate or Die on the NES. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.133|162.158.212.133]] 07:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm way over the hill, and that linked 20 minute video on spin was the first explanation of that quantum number which seemed fully satisfactory and didn't leave me feeling like I was missing something crucial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYeRS5a3HbE&t=18m30s "The spin number characterizes how fast the state of a particle changes when we rotate it in space." WHERE HAS THAT EXPLANATION BEEN ALL MY LIFE?!?! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.90|172.68.22.90]] 04:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:Spin is a terrible name, it should be "twist factor" for example. It's a derivative unit error, like calling acceleration in terms of speed. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.198|162.158.90.198]] 07:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Problem loading previous comic, I get MediaWiki error. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:Can't replicate that, and doesn't sound like the kind of errors I might get (504s, "sorry too busy"-style message, etc). Is it still happening for you? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.18|172.70.85.18]] 19:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This part doesn't make any sense to me; was this section AI generated? "That is why it is very difficult to compress matter based on fermions and even to get goofy matter (which are not identical particles), as they should be brought in contact with in the comic, near enough or mixed enough with the normal matter."
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2966: Exam Numbers

2024-08-01T05:21:20Z

ProphetZarquon: ∞+10

pre-algebra: 4, calculus: pi^2 / 4 (about 2.467), physics: cosmological constant: depends on how you measure it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.48|162.158.167.48]] 18:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Game theory: -5x10⁶ (maybe helpful, maybe not... just be thankful I didn't include an ''i'' factor in there somewhere...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Interesting; I went with ∞+10. So, between our answers, that makes the average...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Could somebody reformat all the math here in whatever LaTeX plugin this wiki uses? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.102|162.158.222.102]] 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Probably not, because the MathML here is broken. But, also, nothing I see requires anything particularly complicated, it can all stay in fairly straightforward (standardly formatted) text. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.224|141.101.98.224]] 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I had to look up "TREE(3)." Seriousness aside, I think the largest number would be the astrological sign 1 that has its end_points_ as galaxy clusters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.184|172.68.245.184]] 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Which astrological sign? Search engines aren't helping. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 20:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::The nonexistent one I just made up that looks like a "1." 😃 [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.6|172.71.222.6]] 21:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Infinity is _not_ a number. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If infinity _is_ a number, it might be a possible solution to the game theory question. The average of any set of numbers that includes infinity is infinity, and infinity + 10 is still infinity. I probably wouldn't try that in most classes, but a game theory professor might approve "gaming" the system, as it were.
:If I would prefer no-one (else) to win, I might submit -∞ as my answer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.74|172.70.90.74]] 20:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Infinity is absolutely not a number, and is the one answer I would mark as unambiguously wrong for the last one. Just say TREE(G_64) or something. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 20:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:This is correct. No one in post-grad math would write “infinity” and expect that answer to work. Infinity is NOT a number except for seven-year-olds. Yet the explanation above continues to posit it as a possible correct answer. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 20:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:In IEEE floating point math, Infinity is ''not'' Not A Number. The latter is an indication of error (in a context where errors can't be signalled immediately) and an entirely separate concept to infinity. But both are not Normal Numbers. Or even Denormalized Numbers. Floating point math is a whole lot trickier than it appears to be at first glance, and only extremely tangentially related to mathematical reals. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.54|172.68.205.54]] 00:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I did a bit of a deep dive into wikipedia and the googology wiki and the answer to the last question depends on a few things (along with assuming ZFC). If transfinite ordinals count as numbers, then those at the end of {{w|List of large cardinal properties}} take the cake (if i'm reading it right). Otherwise, something based off [https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Rayo%27s_number Rayo's number] is the best googologists have come up with so far. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 20:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Bumpf

Isn’t the joke in the pre-algebra that it would require algebra in order ro calculate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 20:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I agree that it would be worth adding wording along the lines that “the joke here is that you need algebra to solve the equation”. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You know, formatting math on this wiki would be a lot easier if the Math extension were correctly installed, but evidently it's not: <math>\int_0^\pi x \sin^2 x \;dx</math> [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that integral really correct? I asked Wolfram Alpha and it gave me
: integral x sin^2(x) dx = 1/8 (2 x (x - sin(2 x)) - cos(2 x)) + constant
which does not seem to be the same as
: −2x sin(2x)+cos(2x)−2x)/28 + C.
But maybe there's something with half-angle formulas that makes them the same? … but I don't think so, they don't evaluate the same for x=0. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 02:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:Yup, looks like it was supposed to be
:: -(2x sin(2x)+cos(2x)-2x^2)/8
:but they messed up the places of the negation and square.
:Though the important part here isn't what it is at any f(x), but what it is for any f(x)-f(y). In this particular case, f(pi)-f(0). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.121|162.158.41.121]] 04:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

== Number ==

A number, by definition, is a construct used to classify and/or compare values. How rigorous this needs be for one limits the extent to which they accept things as being a number. Even things like "apple" could be interpreted as (dimensioned) numbers, with a possible value being "1 fruit"; In that regard, one may consider things like apple=orange<grapes.

Just "infinity" is nearly useless in this regard, as it's "no end thing". Usually interpreted (when necessary) as the countable infinite cardinal x=aleph_null, this prevents most useful comparisons, including dimensional analysis since x^n=x for all counting (aka. finite positive integer) n. Spacetime may or may not be boundless, but we can't tell how many edges may or may not loop. Is it infinity? Yes. Is it infinite? God only knows. Can you *count to it*? God can. Does that make it a number? Depends. Is "infinity plus one" a sane concept? No, it can't be finite, ordinal, and/or real in a way addition is defined; It's without end, and if you could add to it, that would indicate an end.

In contrast, classification has its roots in trade, and barter, and tipping. How much of a thing is enough, but not too much. Somebody may accept between 1/2 and 2/3 of a pie you're splitting, because less wouldn't be fair and more may give them a stomach ache; Is 3<=6x<=4 a number? It's similar in uselessness to "infinity", but whether something is less or more can at least still be established within its range. In the limit, Surreal numbers are the principal example of classification, taking the arithmetic mean of the maximum and minimum of their lower and upper bounds, or the predecessor or successor, or zero. For example, y={y|1} is the biggest number less than one, with z<=y<1 for all z<1. It's less than one, but not any "smaller" than one, with an immeasurably infinitesimal difference 0<1-y.

Choice of axioms is very important for all this, since its full extent can render everything except finite non-negative integers "not a number" (by Presburger Arithmetic), or allow everything up to and including unique antichain cardinalities (by Martin's Maximum).

The sixth power of the smallest ordinal with the cardinality of the continuum in the constructed universe (w_1^6 where beth_n=C(w_n)) is the biggest number I can personally conceptualize, although I can consistently work with w_2 in this system as well. Does the fact that this is infinite make it any less useful as a number than 2.5? No. It says I can think accurately about all the standard ways of comparing things in up to 6 infinitely divisible dimensions. Just because one cannot necessarily picture something others can't doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If a one-eyed person can only see a 2 spatial + 1 temporal dimensional image, that doesn't mean depth doesn't exist, it just means it's "hidden" from that perspective. 3+1+2 has two "hidden" dimensions compared to normal 3+1 spacetime, and beth_1 is infinitely divisible unlike the quantum (at most beth_0) nature of our known universe, but I can still work with 3+1+1, and 3+1+2 in the same way people can think about a (possibly looping) universe where everything can be bigger or smaller, and spatial geometry itself may be some degree of spherical, and people have been working with fractions since antiquity, so why should I limit myself to what other people can grasp?

In summary: "number" is too vague for claiming most things "aren't" to be reasonable. Infinite values (that aren't just "infinity", that's vague enough by itself to be almost as unreasonable) are just one one example of a valid answer most people seem to be up in arms about. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.181|162.158.41.181]] 01:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:All right, all right. I yield. That’s some... _impressive_ reasoning. If we are going to redefine words to meaninglessness then there is no hope of engaging in useful discussion. I’m sure Randall will at least get a good laugh out of the idea that post-grad math students would submit “infinity” as the largest number they could think of. I still think it a disservice to readers to posit infinity as a _valid_ answer, though. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 05:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2964: Olympic Sports

2024-07-27T15:00:19Z

ProphetZarquon: Synchronized Flailing

What took bro so long
Is he stupid [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.119|141.101.98.119]] 13:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:Seems totally unclear what you're referring to, here.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think "''Synchronized'' Swimming" would be the most hilarious. One person flailing while a whole team tries to make it look choreographed.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2950: Situation

2024-06-25T18:38:05Z

ProphetZarquon: Sarcasm, silly!

For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Noting that in all cases ''except'' the Tacoma Narrows, the design flaws were but a part of the issue, with operational decisions at the time playing a big part in the designed-in risks becoming reasons for an actual incident. The bridge could never have been "run safely", once built, unlike trying to ignore bunker fires whilst speeding through iceberg-alley or conducting stress tests in parallel with other non-standard procedures or just not refusing to conduct flights under certain weather conditions. Yes, the other things, by skipping the 'bad end' they actually had, would still be susceptible to future incidents (lessons not now having been properly learnt, or even known to be learnable, so still liable to being mishandled).
:But the only thing that could have saved the Tacoma bridge was to have been so much more alert (and less 'amused') by Galloping Gerti and immediately rushed into developing the better analytical models that could lead to an expensive in-situ retrofit (as with the Millenium Bridge, across the Thames, though that didn't have unavoidable wind issues and ''could'' be managed 'at leisure', whilst being made safer). And, without the rather spectacular demonstration of failure, it was probably not on the cards to 'not do nothing', even if it wasn't already too late to avert history in any reasonable way.
:It's human hubris/failings (at various levels) in each case, of course. But operational and design-time errors do more damage in combination than either by themselves. (Case in point, no deaths from the bridge collapse... actually handled pretty well, considering.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.95|172.68.35.95]] 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It would have been so easy to draw a dam about to burst just behind the ocean liner {{[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.140|162.158.159.140]] 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)|172.70.43.54|20:22, 24 June 2024}}
:Any particular dam-burst? There are many, but I'm not sure that we have an 'iconic' one... There's perhaps Taum Sauk, Vajont Dam, Brumadinho dam, El Cobre, Uttarakhand, Dale Dike Reservoir or Derna, picking a selection of notable ones. You couldn't count the deliberate Operation Chastise breaches or the (probably-)deliberate Kakhovka Dam one, nor all those 'nearly a disaster' ones (like Ulley and Toddbrook, two relatively recent concerns in the UK). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::For whatever reason, the first thing that springs to my mind, is the flood scene from Team America World Police. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::Johnstown Flood is what came to mind, caused by the South Fork Dam is the most iconic US one, and long enough ago to joke about relative to more recent, larger ones [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.140|162.158.159.140]] 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::Also a huge molasses tank would have been a good reference to one of the worst non-water floods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-water_floods [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.140|172.70.43.140]] 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Winds caused by maintenance on a nuclear reactor... What? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.173|172.69.208.173]] 22:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, this explanation text is reaching, hard. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling what leaked from the O-ring 'fuel' somewhat understates the issue. The O-ring failure let the SRB rocket exhaust itself burn through and damage the attachment strut and the external tank. [[User:Dkfenger|Dkfenger]] ([[User talk:Dkfenger|talk]]) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:But, rocket fuel can't melt metal struts! ;S [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::But it can get it hot enough that it then rips apart, causing other failures. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:::That was sarcasm, silly. ;P
:::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that the ship/bridge combination also refers to the Key Bridge collapse, given that MV ''Dali'' just left Baltimore today, passing through the wreckage of the Key Bridge and under a Chesapeake Bay Bridge temporarily closed to traffic. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.92|172.71.222.92]] 03:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:Not shown: Ship electrical system with redundant buses, multiple breaker trips, and all bus ties closed. Not existent: Dolphins and breakers surrounding the piers of a fracture-critical bridge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.84|172.70.175.84]] 03:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing in the comic implies anything about the Key Bridge. Coincidence of timing, at best. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there's potential here, for a Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock kind of game, where each disaster can cause two others & prevent two others. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

50 comics until 3000! [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2950: Situation

2024-06-25T07:07:40Z

ProphetZarquon: Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock, disaster edition

For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Noting that in all cases ''except'' the Tacoma Narrows, the design flaws were but a part of the issue, with operational decisions at the time playing a big part in the designed-in risks becoming reasons for an actual incident. The bridge could never have been "run safely", once built, unlike trying to ignore bunker fires whilst speeding through iceberg-alley or conducting stress tests in parallel with other non-standard procedures or just not refusing to conduct flights under certain weather conditions. Yes, the other things, by skipping the 'bad end' they actually had, would still be susceptible to future incidents (lessons not now having been properly learnt, or even known to be learnable, so still liable to being mishandled).
:But the only thing that could have saved the Tacoma bridge was to have been so much more alert (and less 'amused') by Galloping Gerti and immediately rushed into developing the better analytical models that could lead to an expensive in-situ retrofit (as with the Millenium Bridge, across the Thames, though that didn't have unavoidable wind issues and ''could'' be managed 'at leisure', whilst being made safer). And, without the rather spectacular demonstration of failure, it was probably not on the cards to 'not do nothing', even if it wasn't already too late to avert history in any reasonable way.
:It's human hubris/failings (at various levels) in each case, of course. But operational and design-time errors do more damage in combination than either by themselves. (Case in point, no deaths from the bridge collapse... actually handled pretty well, considering.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.95|172.68.35.95]] 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It would have been so easy to draw a dam about to burst just behind the ocean liner {{unsigned ip|172.70.43.54|20:22, 24 June 2024}}
:Any particular dam-burst? There are many, but I'm not sure that we have an 'iconic' one... There's perhaps Taum Sauk, Vajont Dam, Brumadinho dam, El Cobre, Uttarakhand, Dale Dike Reservoir or Derna, picking a selection of notable ones. You couldn't count the deliberate Operation Chastise breaches or the (probably-)deliberate Kakhovka Dam one, nor all those 'nearly a disaster' ones (like Ulley and Toddbrook, two relatively recent concerns in the UK). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::For whatever reason, the first thing that springs to my mind, is the flood scene from Team America World Police.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Winds caused by maintenance on a nuclear reactor... What? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.173|172.69.208.173]] 22:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, this explanation text is reaching, hard.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling what leaked from the O-ring 'fuel' somewhat understates the issue. The O-ring failure let the SRB rocket exhaust itself burn through and damage the attachment strut and the external tank. [[User:Dkfenger|Dkfenger]] ([[User talk:Dkfenger|talk]]) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:But, rocket fuel can't melt metal struts! ;S
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that the ship/bridge combination also refers to the Key Bridge collapse, given that MV ''Dali'' just left Baltimore today, passing through the wreckage of the Key Bridge and under a Chesapeake Bay Bridge temporarily closed to traffic. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.92|172.71.222.92]] 03:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:Not shown: Ship electrical system with redundant buses, multiple breaker trips, and all bus ties closed. Not existent: Dolphins and breakers surrounding the piers of a fracture-critical bridge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.84|172.70.175.84]] 03:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there's potential here, for a Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock kind of game, where each disaster can cause two others & prevent two others.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

50 comics until 3000! [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2950: Situation

2024-06-25T07:02:06Z

ProphetZarquon: Flood scene from Team America World Police

For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Noting that in all cases ''except'' the Tacoma Narrows, the design flaws were but a part of the issue, with operational decisions at the time playing a big part in the designed-in risks becoming reasons for an actual incident. The bridge could never have been "run safely", once built, unlike trying to ignore bunker fires whilst speeding through iceberg-alley or conducting stress tests in parallel with other non-standard procedures or just not refusing to conduct flights under certain weather conditions. Yes, the other things, by skipping the 'bad end' they actually had, would still be susceptible to future incidents (lessons not now having been properly learnt, or even known to be learnable, so still liable to being mishandled).
:But the only thing that could have saved the Tacoma bridge was to have been so much more alert (and less 'amused') by Galloping Gerti and immediately rushed into developing the better analytical models that could lead to an expensive in-situ retrofit (as with the Millenium Bridge, across the Thames, though that didn't have unavoidable wind issues and ''could'' be managed 'at leisure', whilst being made safer). And, without the rather spectacular demonstration of failure, it was probably not on the cards to 'not do nothing', even if it wasn't already too late to avert history in any reasonable way.
:It's human hubris/failings (at various levels) in each case, of course. But operational and design-time errors do more damage in combination than either by themselves. (Case in point, no deaths from the bridge collapse... actually handled pretty well, considering.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.95|172.68.35.95]] 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It would have been so easy to draw a dam about to burst just behind the ocean liner {{unsigned ip|172.70.43.54|20:22, 24 June 2024}}
:Any particular dam-burst? There are many, but I'm not sure that we have an 'iconic' one... There's perhaps Taum Sauk, Vajont Dam, Brumadinho dam, El Cobre, Uttarakhand, Dale Dike Reservoir or Derna, picking a selection of notable ones. You couldn't count the deliberate Operation Chastise breaches or the (probably-)deliberate Kakhovka Dam one, nor all those 'nearly a disaster' ones (like Ulley and Toddbrook, two relatively recent concerns in the UK). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::For whatever reason, the first thing that springs to my mind, is the flood scene from Team America World Police.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Winds caused by maintenance on a nuclear reactor... What? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.173|172.69.208.173]] 22:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, this explanation text is reaching, hard.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling what leaked from the O-ring 'fuel' somewhat understates the issue. The O-ring failure let the SRB rocket exhaust itself burn through and damage the attachment strut and the external tank. [[User:Dkfenger|Dkfenger]] ([[User talk:Dkfenger|talk]]) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:But, rocket fuel can't melt metal struts! ;S
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that the ship/bridge combination also refers to the Key Bridge collapse, given that MV ''Dali'' just left Baltimore today, passing through the wreckage of the Key Bridge and under a Chesapeake Bay Bridge temporarily closed to traffic. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.92|172.71.222.92]] 03:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:Not shown: Ship electrical system with redundant buses, multiple breaker trips, and all bus ties closed. Not existent: Dolphins and breakers surrounding the piers of a fracture-critical bridge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.84|172.70.175.84]] 03:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

50 comics until 3000! [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2950: Situation

2024-06-25T07:00:02Z

ProphetZarquon: Nuclear wind?

For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Noting that in all cases ''except'' the Tacoma Narrows, the design flaws were but a part of the issue, with operational decisions at the time playing a big part in the designed-in risks becoming reasons for an actual incident. The bridge could never have been "run safely", once built, unlike trying to ignore bunker fires whilst speeding through iceberg-alley or conducting stress tests in parallel with other non-standard procedures or just not refusing to conduct flights under certain weather conditions. Yes, the other things, by skipping the 'bad end' they actually had, would still be susceptible to future incidents (lessons not now having been properly learnt, or even known to be learnable, so still liable to being mishandled).
:But the only thing that could have saved the Tacoma bridge was to have been so much more alert (and less 'amused') by Galloping Gerti and immediately rushed into developing the better analytical models that could lead to an expensive in-situ retrofit (as with the Millenium Bridge, across the Thames, though that didn't have unavoidable wind issues and ''could'' be managed 'at leisure', whilst being made safer). And, without the rather spectacular demonstration of failure, it was probably not on the cards to 'not do nothing', even if it wasn't already too late to avert history in any reasonable way.
:It's human hubris/failings (at various levels) in each case, of course. But operational and design-time errors do more damage in combination than either by themselves. (Case in point, no deaths from the bridge collapse... actually handled pretty well, considering.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.95|172.68.35.95]] 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It would have been so easy to draw a dam about to burst just behind the ocean liner {{unsigned ip|172.70.43.54|20:22, 24 June 2024}}
:Any particular dam-burst? There are many, but I'm not sure that we have an 'iconic' one... There's perhaps Taum Sauk, Vajont Dam, Brumadinho dam, El Cobre, Uttarakhand, Dale Dike Reservoir or Derna, picking a selection of notable ones. You couldn't count the deliberate Operation Chastise breaches or the (probably-)deliberate Kakhovka Dam one, nor all those 'nearly a disaster' ones (like Ulley and Toddbrook, two relatively recent concerns in the UK). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Winds caused by maintenance on a nuclear reactor... What? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.173|172.69.208.173]] 22:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, this explanation text is reaching, hard.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 07:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling what leaked from the O-ring 'fuel' somewhat understates the issue. The O-ring failure let the SRB rocket exhaust itself burn through and damage the attachment strut and the external tank. [[User:Dkfenger|Dkfenger]] ([[User talk:Dkfenger|talk]]) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:But, rocket fuel can't melt metal struts! ;S
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that the ship/bridge combination also refers to the Key Bridge collapse, given that MV ''Dali'' just left Baltimore today, passing through the wreckage of the Key Bridge and under a Chesapeake Bay Bridge temporarily closed to traffic. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.92|172.71.222.92]] 03:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:Not shown: Ship electrical system with redundant buses, multiple breaker trips, and all bus ties closed. Not existent: Dolphins and breakers surrounding the piers of a fracture-critical bridge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.84|172.70.175.84]] 03:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

50 comics until 3000! [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2950: Situation

2024-06-25T06:58:38Z

ProphetZarquon: Fuel melting metal? Inconceivable

For reference, the bridge in question is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:Noting that in all cases ''except'' the Tacoma Narrows, the design flaws were but a part of the issue, with operational decisions at the time playing a big part in the designed-in risks becoming reasons for an actual incident. The bridge could never have been "run safely", once built, unlike trying to ignore bunker fires whilst speeding through iceberg-alley or conducting stress tests in parallel with other non-standard procedures or just not refusing to conduct flights under certain weather conditions. Yes, the other things, by skipping the 'bad end' they actually had, would still be susceptible to future incidents (lessons not now having been properly learnt, or even known to be learnable, so still liable to being mishandled).
:But the only thing that could have saved the Tacoma bridge was to have been so much more alert (and less 'amused') by Galloping Gerti and immediately rushed into developing the better analytical models that could lead to an expensive in-situ retrofit (as with the Millenium Bridge, across the Thames, though that didn't have unavoidable wind issues and ''could'' be managed 'at leisure', whilst being made safer). And, without the rather spectacular demonstration of failure, it was probably not on the cards to 'not do nothing', even if it wasn't already too late to avert history in any reasonable way.
:It's human hubris/failings (at various levels) in each case, of course. But operational and design-time errors do more damage in combination than either by themselves. (Case in point, no deaths from the bridge collapse... actually handled pretty well, considering.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, the Challenger engineers *did* warn about the O-ring risk, but were overridden by management. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.95|172.68.35.95]] 19:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It would have been so easy to draw a dam about to burst just behind the ocean liner {{unsigned ip|172.70.43.54|20:22, 24 June 2024}}
:Any particular dam-burst? There are many, but I'm not sure that we have an 'iconic' one... There's perhaps Taum Sauk, Vajont Dam, Brumadinho dam, El Cobre, Uttarakhand, Dale Dike Reservoir or Derna, picking a selection of notable ones. You couldn't count the deliberate Operation Chastise breaches or the (probably-)deliberate Kakhovka Dam one, nor all those 'nearly a disaster' ones (like Ulley and Toddbrook, two relatively recent concerns in the UK). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 22:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Winds caused by maintenance on a nuclear reactor... What? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.173|172.69.208.173]] 22:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling what leaked from the O-ring 'fuel' somewhat understates the issue. The O-ring failure let the SRB rocket exhaust itself burn through and damage the attachment strut and the external tank. [[User:Dkfenger|Dkfenger]] ([[User talk:Dkfenger|talk]]) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:But, rocket fuel can't melt metal struts! ;S
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that the ship/bridge combination also refers to the Key Bridge collapse, given that MV ''Dali'' just left Baltimore today, passing through the wreckage of the Key Bridge and under a Chesapeake Bay Bridge temporarily closed to traffic. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.92|172.71.222.92]] 03:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:Not shown: Ship electrical system with redundant buses, multiple breaker trips, and all bus ties closed. Not existent: Dolphins and breakers surrounding the piers of a fracture-critical bridge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.84|172.70.175.84]] 03:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

50 comics until 3000! [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2949: Network Configuration

2024-06-22T16:38:23Z

ProphetZarquon: VIM

I'm not currently on a device that is easy to edit with, but this definitely belongs in the Cueball Computer Problems category. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be too much abstraction and virtualization in the OSI layers? OTOH the new civilizations are adapted to their packet. Probably made it easier to formulate the routing rules from what it should do, instead of how it should do it. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.62|162.158.94.62]] 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

...cursed. All of it. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 08:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The "always a netcat, but different function in each universe" seems very reminiscent of the gag in ''Hitch-hiker's Guide'' where every species has its own drink called something similar to "gin and tonic". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.244|172.69.43.244]] 09:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

:Good catch. I'm not sure if it's a direct reference, but it's definitely in the same vein. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.193.142|162.158.193.142]] 13:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
::Though later (and therefore possibly an inspired trope, "Swedish Meatballs" (in its Earth form, at least) is apparently just as widespread in the Babylon 5 universe. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.96|172.69.194.96]] 14:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Please finish your parenthetical statements [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.227|162.158.41.227]] 15:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC))

Notably, most civilizations also develop something called VIM, but it's usually an STD.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:525: I Know You're Listening

2024-06-21T21:06:39Z

ProphetZarquon: Reply to unsigned: I flip the bird; why can't we be friends?

Whether or not this is what the Citation request needs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Criticism would be helpful. Most people tend to go for the "What if it's the ''wrong'' god that you believe in?" counter to the wager. i.e. the parts of your religious observance that most please Zeus might well anger Odin greatly, or something similar for any two gods (pantheonic ''or'' sole Authority, this factor also being a major issue of choice) that you might care to compare between. This is mostly covered in the "Argument from inconsistent revelations" section of the above, it appears.

Personally my favoured counter-argument is that any sufficiently omniscient god worth his pillar-of-salt should ''know'' whether you are Wagering, and probably has a special area of Hell (or Tantarus) reserved for those that try to toady up to him by faking a belief (covered by the "Argument from inauthentic belief" section). I choose to believe that an honest non-believer might at least get a look-in at any middle-ground afterlife (regardless of their lack in belief of same), but I also don't have amy great reason to believe that this attitude is going to reward me, either.

(c.f. also the assumption that 'innocents', and people who have never been exposed to the Word Of GodTM are entitled to a free pass to some non-Hell level of afterlife, the punishment only applying after having been introduced to the whole Judeo-Christian system of post-death existence. On this basis, missionaries that go out and inform remote tribespeoples and oceanic islanders of the state of affairs are actually potentially making things a lot worse for their target audience than they ''would'' have been... Assuming that they're right in the first place.)

But note that, for every philosophical argument, there's an equal and opposite philosophical argument. I just plan on being good in the mortal world (where I know I will be rewarded, or at least regarded in a reasonably good light, if perhaps a bit of a doorstep) and if this doesn't help out when I hypothetically find myself at the Pearly Gates then I probably wouldn't have hit on the right form and combination of observances anyway so its not a wager that I could have reasonably 'won'.

This is, of course, way heavier an edit than I had intended, and I'm not suggesting that this is the best intepretation, just my own, and probably not worth a discussion over. [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 09:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(Forgot to say... non-deity eavesdroppers probably wouldn't have the omniscience, so go ahead and randomly profess your belief in them! [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 09:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

:"Wouldn't have hit on the right form and combination of observances anyway"? Hmm. If only this hypothetical God had hypothetically given us some hypothetical information... like a book or something. That would have been helpful. --[[User:Jlc|Jlc]] ([[User talk:Jlc|talk]]) 02:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

:My best argument against pretending to believe something you doesn't is: do you really want to spend an ethernity with people whose belief you faked? For (extreme) example, if only Jehovah's witnesses go to heaven (and assuming you are not one), do you WANT to go there? Similarly, abstinents probably don't want to end in Valhalla. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

::This is a lot of unnecessary talk, even realized to be such by the one who wrote it. The explanation, as written, is fine without this extraneity. [[Special:Contributions/152.119.255.250|152.119.255.250]] 16:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Since you did remove the incomplete tag I did add some more explains for Pascal's Wager. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You get the record for longest expoundition of a title text.[[Special:Contributions/72.70.180.234|72.70.180.234]] 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, check your e-mail. (Not you; him.)

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the new Category:Multiple Cueballs. Since there is only one Cueball that "talks" it is obvious to keep him listed as Cueball. Just made a note that the other guy also looks like Cueball. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cueball's calculation here is wrong. Yes, if there's nobody listening, he doesn't lose anything. But if there is, what happens when they think he's on to them could get unpleasant for him. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.64}}

I'd do this on the internet but there's a good chance they actually are listening. Though they can't arrest commies for being commies, they can still watchlist them and monitor them closely, especially those who admit to plotting revolution. So yes, I know the government is listening, and the government knows I know they're listening. My only wonder is what are the consequences going to be? And how much faster will it be because I know they're listening?

Perhaps Cueball shouldn't be so quick as to say such... [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 05:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It is funny how embarrassing doing this actually feels, and how hard it seems to be to utter out. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.88|172.68.11.88]] 22:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

who else say I know your listening, alone.
{{unsigned ip}}
:I just flip the bird at presumed hidden cameras. If I actually thought someone were ''listening'', I'd play ''Why Can't We Be Friends''.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

2948: Electric vs Gas

2024-06-19T22:08:19Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Explanation */ electric motors are more powerful for their size; their batteries are not

{{comic
| number = 2948
| date = June 19, 2024
| title = Electric vs Gas
| image = electric_vs_gas_2x.png
| imagesize = 284x385px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = An idling gas engine may be annoyingly loud, but that's the price you pay for having WAY less torque available at a standstill.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HYDROGEN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE RUNNING A GENERATOR. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Internal combustion engines are the most common technology used to propel vehicles. In US vernacular, the most common motor fuel is known as "gasoline", or "gas" for short, leading to these engines being referred to as "gas engines".

Electric motors, which were long considered to be impractical for most forms of transportation, are rapidly rising in popularity, and now constitute 18% of all global vehicle sales. [[Randall]] has long been a strong proponent of electric vehicles.

In this strip, [[White Hat]] claims to be comparing the pros and cons of electric motors and gas engines. The joke is that every point he makes goes in favor of electric motors. Despite it being posed as a dilemma, it's very clear which side of the debate White Hat is promoting.

The strip offers the following points in favor of electric motors:

* "Cleaner and more efficient". Internal combustion engines produce and vent harmful combustion products, while electric motors produce no byproducts. The efficiency of both gas and electric motors vary, but the typical vehicle in the US converts around 25% of available energy into motion, while the typical electric vehicle is in the neighborhood of 80%. It should be noted that all of this refers to the motors only, and ignores how the fuel and electricity are produced. Even when considering inefficiencies in the source production and transmission and storage and release of energy included, battery driven electric vehicles are generally much more efficient than internal combustion propelled vehicles.

* "More powerful". While this is misleading and objectively incorrect in the context of most consumer vehicles, electric motors are able to deliver a lot of power from a small motor if an ample energy supply is available. Due to battery limitations, short or partial runtime use cases, such as dragsters, hand tools, yard tools, toys and electric scooters, net the most benefit from the small size of a high powered electric motor.

* "Annoyingly loud". Internal combustion engines, by their nature, produce significant noise. Despite noise attenuation measures (such as mufflers), they contribute significantly to urban noise. Properly designed electric motors are nearly silent.

* "WAY less torque available at standstill". Internal combustion engines need to continually operate within a specific range of rotational speeds, which means that a complex system of transmission gearing is needed to convert this motion into the specific speeds needed at the wheels. When starting from a stand-still, this means that torque must be applied to the wheels relatively gradually to avoid stalling the engine. Electric motors, by contrast, generally produce their peak torque when at a standstill. This results in electric vehicles having significantly better acceleration and engine responsiveness.

It should be noted that White Hat is deliberately confining his arguments to electric vs gas ''motors'' rather than electric or gas-powered ''vehicles''. Doing so ignores the basic reason why internal combustion vehicles have long dominated transportation: hydrocarbon fuels are a very dense and fairly easy to handle form of energy storage. Providing electrical power to a moving vehicle requires a large number of high-capacity batteries, which was impractical until comparatively recently (other methods, such as fuel cells, have been proposed but remain experimental).

A more comprehensive comparison would include the cons of electric vehicles, including:

* Higher cost of purchase (primarily due to the cost of batteries), (partially offset by lower costs of operation
* Long charging times
* Limited range
* Shortened range in hot weather
* Significantly shortened range in cold weather
* Limited charging infrastructure
* Higher vehicle weight

Other pros of electric vehicles aren't mentioned
* Lower costs of operation (partially offset by higher costs of purchase)
* Higher reliability
* Lower maintenaince and repair costs

Advancing technologies may change how serious these cons are, but they currently remain genuine issues.

White Hat's argument that electric motors are superior in every way is likely true, if we consider only the motor itself. This is evidenced by the fact that gas motors are virtually never used in applications where a reliable source of electricity is available to run an electric motor. However, if we consider the entire system of motor, power, power storage, and the costs of producing the vehicles and their power sources (i.e., refining the fuel or producing the electricity) the matter becomes significantly more complex.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, with his palm raised, is talking to Cueball.]
:White Hat: Electric motors and gas engines each have their pros and cons.
:White Hat: On one hand, electric motors are cleaner and more efficient. On the other hand, electric motors are more powerful.
:White Hat: So it's hard to say which is better overall.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Climate change]]

2948: Electric vs Gas

2024-06-19T21:54:39Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Explanation */ battery electric lacks efficiency prior to power delivery

{{comic
| number = 2948
| date = June 19, 2024
| title = Electric vs Gas
| image = electric_vs_gas_2x.png
| imagesize = 284x385px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = An idling gas engine may be annoyingly loud, but that's the price you pay for having WAY less torque available at a standstill.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HYDROGEN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE RUNNING A GENERATOR. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Internal combustion engines are the most common technology used to propel vehicles. In US vernacular, the most common motor fuel is known as "gasoline", or "gas" for short, leading to these engines being referred to as "gas engines".

Electric motors, which were long considered to be impractical for most forms of transportation, are rapidly rising in popularity, and now constitute 18% of all global vehicle sales. [[Randall]] has long been a strong proponent of electric vehicles.

In this strip, [[White Hat]] claims to be comparing the pros and cons of electric motors and gas engines. The joke is that every point he makes goes in favor of electric motors. Despite it being posed as a dilemma, it's very clear which side of the debate White Hat is promoting.

The strip offers the following points in favor of electric motors:

* "Cleaner and more efficient". Internal combustion engines produce and vent harmful combustion products, while electric motors produce no byproducts. The efficiency of both gas and electric motors vary, but the typical vehicle in the US converts around 25% of available energy into motion, while the typical electric vehicle is in the neighborhood of 80%. It should be noted that all of this refers to the motors only, and ignores how the fuel and electricity are produced. With inefficiencies in the source production and transmission and storage and release of energy included, battery driven electric vehicles are generally less efficient than internal combustion propelled vehicles, requiring more steps to produce and store and convert energy into kinetic energy.

* "More powerful". While this is misleading and objectively incorrect in the context of vehicles, electric motors are able to have a lot of power in small form factors, such as in toys and electric scooters.

* "Annoyingly loud". Internal combustion engines, by their nature, produce significant noise. Despite noise attenuation measures (such as mufflers), they contribute significantly to urban noise. Properly designed electric motors are nearly silent.

* "WAY less torque available at standstill". Internal combustion engines need to continually operate within a specific range of rotational speeds, which means that a complex system of transmission gearing is needed to convert this motion into the specific speeds needed at the wheels. When starting from a stand-still, this means that torque must be applied to the wheels relatively gradually to avoid stalling the engine. Electric motors, by contrast, generally produce their peak torque when at a standstill. This results in electric vehicles having significantly better acceleration and engine responsiveness.

It should be noted that White Hat is deliberately confining his arguments to electric vs gas ''motors'' rather than electric or gas-powered ''vehicles''. Doing so ignores the basic reason why internal combustion vehicles have long dominated transportation: hydrocarbon fuels are a very dense and fairly easy to handle form of energy storage. Providing electrical power to a moving vehicle requires a large number of high-capacity batteries, which was impractical until comparatively recently (other methods, such as fuel cells, have been proposed but remain experimental).

A more comprehensive comparison would include the cons of electric vehicles, including:

* Higher cost (primarily due to the cost of batteries)
* Long charging times
* Limited range
* Shortened range in hot weather
* Significantly shortened range in cold weather
* Limited charging infrastructure
* Lower reliability
* Higher repair costs
* Higher vehicle weight

Advancing technologies may change how serious these cons are, but they currently remain genuine issues.

White Hat's argument that electric motors are superior in every way is likely true, if we consider only the motor itself. This is evidenced by the fact that gas motors are virtually never used in applications where a reliable source of electricity is available to run an electric motor. However, if we consider the entire system of motor, power, power storage, and the costs of producing the vehicles and their power sources (i.e., refining the fuel or producing the electricity) the matter becomes significantly more complex.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, with his palm raised, is talking to Cueball.]
:White Hat: Electric motors and gas engines each have their pros and cons.
:White Hat: On one hand, electric motors are cleaner and more efficient. On the other hand, electric motors are more powerful.
:White Hat: So it's hard to say which is better overall.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Climate change]]

Talk:2946: 1.2 Kilofives

2024-06-15T17:24:16Z

ProphetZarquon: /* Comic discussion */ nowiki

== Challenge: Come up with a way like this to say the comic number #2946. ==

Challenge: Come up with a way like this to say the comic number #2946. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:How about 4.91 hectosixes? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.190|172.69.33.190]] 04:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A kibitwo, four decascore, four score and eighteen. Two octooctotwentythrees and two. A gross-score, three score and 6. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A semidozen tetrahectaenneacontahena. [[User:Xkcd machine guy|Xkcd machine guy]] ([[User talk:Xkcd machine guy|talk]]) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A decapentagross minus a semiennea. [[User:Xkcd machine guy|Xkcd machine guy]] ([[User talk:Xkcd machine guy|talk]]) 10:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly, four score and seven is exactly how you say 87 in French (quatre-vingt sept) and Basque (laurogeita zazpi). Both count on base 20. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.138|172.70.90.138]] 05:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

== Comic discussion ==

Fun fact: libqalculate and the "Qalculate"/"qalc" programs can just deal with the title text:
qalc "50milli score"
50 × (10^−3) × score = 1
But it fails on the main part, the best that works is:
qalc "1.2kilo 5"
1.2 × 10³ × 5 = 6000
"five" gets interpreted as Euler's number × imaginary unit × unknown "f" × unknown "v". On my old laptop, I must have some other configuration or maybe an old version, because there it gets interpreted as 0×i×e=0, so you can enter "five plus five" and get 0. Maybe another challenge would be to get arbitrary misleading results out from equations like this. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps East Hills NY, but their "Welcome" boards don't mention population, https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.7805262,-73.632634,3a,15y,25.75h,92.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf5guvv2tETuyn0f_lSFh7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&coh=205409&entry=ttu so this might just be a random name that R. came up with[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 07:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In the comic *fives* does not stand for the number five alone, but for five people. So using it with a prefix is more valid. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.4|172.68.110.4]] 10:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
: Five kilopeople would be valid.
: [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.63|172.70.91.63]] 10:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it would have made more sense to say "half a kilodozen". --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45|141.101.69.45]] 11:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:It's just slightly off a gross of ultimate answers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why Randall chose to make Cueball the character saying that and not Black Hat/classhole. [[User:Turquoise Hat|Turquoise Hat]] ([[User talk:Turquoise Hat|talk]]) 15:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:Live long enough to become the villain.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I realized that kilofives can be abbreviated as **k5**, as in "the population is 1.2 k5". Or if you're a roman, as **D**. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.92|172.71.22.92]] 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't CIↃ have been rendered as <nowiki></nowiki>?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2946: 1.2 Kilofives

2024-06-15T17:23:38Z

ProphetZarquon: Spacing

== Challenge: Come up with a way like this to say the comic number #2946. ==

Challenge: Come up with a way like this to say the comic number #2946. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:How about 4.91 hectosixes? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.190|172.69.33.190]] 04:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A kibitwo, four decascore, four score and eighteen. Two octooctotwentythrees and two. A gross-score, three score and 6. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A semidozen tetrahectaenneacontahena. [[User:Xkcd machine guy|Xkcd machine guy]] ([[User talk:Xkcd machine guy|talk]]) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A decapentagross minus a semiennea. [[User:Xkcd machine guy|Xkcd machine guy]] ([[User talk:Xkcd machine guy|talk]]) 10:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly, four score and seven is exactly how you say 87 in French (quatre-vingt sept) and Basque (laurogeita zazpi). Both count on base 20. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.138|172.70.90.138]] 05:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

== Comic discussion ==

Fun fact: libqalculate and the "Qalculate"/"qalc" programs can just deal with the title text:
qalc "50milli score"
50 × (10^−3) × score = 1
But it fails on the main part, the best that works is:
qalc "1.2kilo 5"
1.2 × 10³ × 5 = 6000
"five" gets interpreted as Euler's number × imaginary unit × unknown "f" × unknown "v". On my old laptop, I must have some other configuration or maybe an old version, because there it gets interpreted as 0×i×e=0, so you can enter "five plus five" and get 0. Maybe another challenge would be to get arbitrary misleading results out from equations like this. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps East Hills NY, but their "Welcome" boards don't mention population, https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.7805262,-73.632634,3a,15y,25.75h,92.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf5guvv2tETuyn0f_lSFh7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&coh=205409&entry=ttu so this might just be a random name that R. came up with[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 07:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In the comic *fives* does not stand for the number five alone, but for five people. So using it with a prefix is more valid. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.4|172.68.110.4]] 10:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
: Five kilopeople would be valid.
: [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.63|172.70.91.63]] 10:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it would have made more sense to say "half a kilodozen". --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45|141.101.69.45]] 11:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:It's just slightly off a gross of ultimate answers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why Randall chose to make Cueball the character saying that and not Black Hat/classhole. [[User:Turquoise Hat|Turquoise Hat]] ([[User talk:Turquoise Hat|talk]]) 15:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:Live long enough to become the villain.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I realized that kilofives can be abbreviated as **k5**, as in "the population is 1.2 k5". Or if you're a roman, as **D**. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.92|172.71.22.92]] 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't CIↃ have been rendered as ?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2946: 1.2 Kilofives

2024-06-15T17:22:52Z

ProphetZarquon: C=<?

== Challenge: Come up with a way like this to say the comic number #2946. ==

Challenge: Come up with a way like this to say the comic number #2946. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:How about 4.91 hectosixes? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.190|172.69.33.190]] 04:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A kibitwo, four decascore, four score and eighteen. Two octooctotwentythrees and two. A gross-score, three score and 6. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A semidozen tetrahectaenneacontahena. [[User:Xkcd machine guy|Xkcd machine guy]] ([[User talk:Xkcd machine guy|talk]]) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A decapentagross minus a semiennea. [[User:Xkcd machine guy|Xkcd machine guy]] ([[User talk:Xkcd machine guy|talk]]) 10:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly, four score and seven is exactly how you say 87 in French (quatre-vingt sept) and Basque (laurogeita zazpi). Both count on base 20. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.138|172.70.90.138]] 05:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

== Comic discussion ==

Fun fact: libqalculate and the "Qalculate"/"qalc" programs can just deal with the title text:
qalc "50milli score"
50 × (10^−3) × score = 1
But it fails on the main part, the best that works is:
qalc "1.2kilo 5"
1.2 × 10³ × 5 = 6000
"five" gets interpreted as Euler's number × imaginary unit × unknown "f" × unknown "v". On my old laptop, I must have some other configuration or maybe an old version, because there it gets interpreted as 0×i×e=0, so you can enter "five plus five" and get 0. Maybe another challenge would be to get arbitrary misleading results out from equations like this. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps East Hills NY, but their "Welcome" boards don't mention population, https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.7805262,-73.632634,3a,15y,25.75h,92.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf5guvv2tETuyn0f_lSFh7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&coh=205409&entry=ttu so this might just be a random name that R. came up with[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 07:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In the comic *fives* does not stand for the number five alone, but for five people. So using it with a prefix is more valid. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.4|172.68.110.4]] 10:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
: Five kilopeople would be valid.
: [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.63|172.70.91.63]] 10:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it would have made more sense to say "half a kilodozen". --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45|141.101.69.45]] 11:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:It's just slightly off a gross of ultimate answers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why Randall chose to make Cueball the character saying that and not Black Hat/classhole. [[User:Turquoise Hat|Turquoise Hat]] ([[User talk:Turquoise Hat|talk]]) 15:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:Live long enough to become the villain.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I realized that kilofives can be abbreviated as **k5**, as in "the population is 1.2 k5". Or if you're a roman, as **D**. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.92|172.71.22.92]] 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't CIↃ have been rendered as ?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2946: 1.2 Kilofives

2024-06-15T17:19:41Z

ProphetZarquon: Header 2

Talk:2946: 1.2 Kilofives

2024-06-15T17:18:53Z

ProphetZarquon: Header

== Challenge: Come up with a way like this to say the comic number #2946. ==

Challenge: Come up with a way like this to say the comic number #2946. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:How about 4.91 hectosixes? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.190|172.69.33.190]] 04:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A kibitwo, four decascore, four score and eighteen. Two octooctotwentythrees and two. A gross-score, three score and 6. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A semidozen tetrahectaenneacontahena. [[User:Xkcd machine guy|Xkcd machine guy]] ([[User talk:Xkcd machine guy|talk]]) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:A decapentagross minus a semiennea. [[User:Xkcd machine guy|Xkcd machine guy]] ([[User talk:Xkcd machine guy|talk]]) 10:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly, four score and seven is exactly how you say 87 in French (quatre-vingt sept) and Basque (laurogeita zazpi). Both count on base 20. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.138|172.70.90.138]] 05:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact: libqalculate and the "Qalculate"/"qalc" programs can just deal with the title text:
qalc "50milli score"
50 × (10^−3) × score = 1
But it fails on the main part, the best that works is:
qalc "1.2kilo 5"
1.2 × 10³ × 5 = 6000
"five" gets interpreted as Euler's number × imaginary unit × unknown "f" × unknown "v". On my old laptop, I must have some other configuration or maybe an old version, because there it gets interpreted as 0×i×e=0, so you can enter "five plus five" and get 0. Maybe another challenge would be to get arbitrary misleading results out from equations like this. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps East Hills NY, but their "Welcome" boards don't mention population, https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.7805262,-73.632634,3a,15y,25.75h,92.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf5guvv2tETuyn0f_lSFh7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&coh=205409&entry=ttu so this might just be a random name that R. came up with[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 07:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In the comic *fives* does not stand for the number five alone, but for five people. So using it with a prefix is more valid. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.4|172.68.110.4]] 10:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
: Five kilopeople would be valid.
: [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.63|172.70.91.63]] 10:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it would have made more sense to say "half a kilodozen". --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45|141.101.69.45]] 11:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:It's just slightly off a gross of ultimate answers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why Randall chose to make Cueball the character saying that and not Black Hat/classhole. [[User:Turquoise Hat|Turquoise Hat]] ([[User talk:Turquoise Hat|talk]]) 15:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:Live long enough to become the villain.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I realized that kilofives can be abbreviated as **k5**, as in "the population is 1.2 k5". Or if you're a roman, as **D**. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.92|172.71.22.92]] 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)