explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3204: Dinosaurs And Non-Dinosaurs

2026-02-07T15:48:00Z

Terdragontra:

I don't think that's a stork. My guess would be that it's a heron.
The bird in the lower right also looks like some sort of shorebird, but I've got no clue. {{unsigned ip|99.26.146.61|19:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)}}

I feel like this comic should be in the explanation https://xkcd.com/1211/
[[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:2E5:B900:66D3:74AD:D92D:356B|2600:4041:2E5:B900:66D3:74AD:D92D:356B]] 20:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Could it have a brief layman's explanation of how/why the top right *aren't* dinosaurs? Y'know beyond just "well, technically..."
[[Special:Contributions/91.84.189.119|91.84.189.119]] 06:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

:They are not dinosaurs because dinosaurs are only a subgroup of prehistoric animals living on land. Others are flying or underwater reptiles (don’t know the real names of those), or just plain reptiles who have existed (as a group) for far longer. Dinos are technically named „land reptiles“, but are not reptiles. It’s a bit confusing and this is where my half knowledge ends
[[Special:Contributions/2A00:1E:82C2:D401:F4A3:23F3:8A2D:63B1|2A00:1E:82C2:D401:F4A3:23F3:8A2D:63B1]] 09:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

::Saying “dinosaurs are not reptiles” isn’t true, but more importantly is a strange thing to say in a scientific context. If you are using “reptile” informally, then the definition of one is fuzzy anyways. If using it cladistically, then reptile pretty much means “sauropsid” which includes dinosaurs and thus birds, which are not informally/traditionally included, so you might as well use the less ambiguous term “sauropsid”. [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 15:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Did anyone else think that "Pseudo-such" things were a made up thing for staplers? [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 13:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC

I’m interested at the things somewhere on the boundaries. Some basal forms are sometimes included as dinosaurs and sometimes just outside the clade. And som nonbird dinosaurs are somewhat birdlike, and shoebills feel more dinosaury than the average bird (while hummingbirds feel less so). [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 15:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3204: Dinosaurs And Non-Dinosaurs

2026-02-07T15:46:38Z

Terdragontra:

Talk:3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-15T13:20:09Z

Terdragontra:

The one currently posted has Pluto highlighted in the second box and not highlighted in the first box. Too hard to tell if it's trolling or a genuine mistake. :-D

:Apparently a mistake since it's fixed now. [[User:HughNo|HughNo]] ([[User talk:HughNo|talk]]) 19:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And the first one also has a moon hilighted instead I think?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.5|162.158.126.5]] 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Was about to write the same. The coloring in the first two lines arund Pluto seem wrong (or mistankingly switched). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.246|172.71.222.246]] 16:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This, this is the hill I will die on. I was radicalised by this paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 Moons Are Planets: "Scientific Usefulness Versus Cultural Teleology in the Taxonomy of Planetary Science"]
In short; planets are what planetary scientists study. Round things with the *good stuff*: atmospheres, oceans, volcanoes (of lava or water ice) (see diagram page 53).
Pluto, Titan, Ceres, Io and Europa are all in the sweet spot where you're not so small you're just a lump of rocks who happen to be stuck together into a lump, and not so large you're just a mostly undifferentiated mass of fusing hydrogen/helium plasma.
And it's consistent with our pre-20th Century understanding of what a planet is, whereas the IAU definition is trying to preserve 19th Century astrology. An amazing read and a strong recommend for anyone who cares about this subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.138|172.69.79.138]] 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this sort of count as pi-related for pi day? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 17:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:he doesn't do themed comics anymore 😔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Sure he does. [[2962]] and [[2969]] weren't too long ago. Seems like it, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.222|172.71.182.222]] 03:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I was somewhat disappointed to get to the end of the table without seeing either an astrology or Sailor Moon joke. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that Uranus is marked under "Empiricist" because of the "Randall has seen Uranus" joke? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.178|172.70.42.178]] 18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The "{{w|Classical planet|Classical Planets}}" should be 7, including the Sun and the Moon.
:The average distance of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth must be slightly farther away than the orbit of the Sun around the Earth, since the Moon lags behind the Sun a little more each day, but the orbits must cross or we would never have a solar eclipse :P [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Regolithic one depend on the exact definitions of "dirt", "ice", and "covered"? It seems that an argument could be made that the giant planets also count there but have a much thicker atmosphere on the outside, and disqualifying because of the atmosphere could exclude others like Earth depending on the exact threshold used. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Has Randall not seen the sun before?
:I'm impressed that he has seen Uranus (unless that actually is a joke), especially if he saw it unaided (apparently it actually can be barely seen with the naked eye if the conditions are incredibly good). [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Could the sun be classified as a "world"? --[[User:MothWaves|MothWaves]] ([[User talk:MothWaves|talk]]) 19:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I assumed he meant "seen directly with my eyes", so that a photograph would not count, but looking through a telescope during an astronomy night at the local University would count. And he hasn't looked *closely* at the Sun, because of the need for eye protection. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically, spacecraft have landed on Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn. Just not in a survivable manner. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Have we really not sent anything directly into the Sun yet? [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::The most "into the Sun" we've done is [https://science.nasa.gov/mission/parker-solar-probe/ the Parker Solar Probe], and it hasn't attempted to 'land' there (apart from that being effectively impossible, even beyond the likes of Cassini's final fall "onto" Saturn). It's also ''very hard'' to even send things into the Sun, because the direct method would need you to send a craft from Earth backwards at the same speed as the Earth orbits forwards (or very close to that), otherwise all you can do is fall ''past'' it and loop back up again. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 01:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the Pluto error in Traditionalist and Modernist images were fixed. I now see Pluto highlighted in traditionalist and Pluto unhighlighted in Modern. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.91|172.68.7.91]] 19:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

indeed, it seems fine now, i removed my earlier comment--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.116|162.158.233.116]] 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

//Jean-Luc Margot wrote a serious planet definition proposal// in 2024 as a starting point for community conversations and welcomes feedback. In 2019 I wrote a small article myself on planet and moon classes simply by size. //Mondklassen "wwwahnsinn"// (in German).
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.108|162.158.159.108]] 19:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm disputing that there has never been a formal definition of "planet" prior to 2006 - the ancient Greek definition of "wandering [relative to seemingly-fixed stars] points of light in the night sky" seems formal enough to me. I marked it {{tl|actual citation needed}}. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 19:52, 14 March 2025‎
: I've reworded the sentence to say "in modern times" so we aren't making unfounded and likely-incorrect claims about antiquity. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else strongly dislike the term '''natural satellite''' replacing ''moon''? Under the new nomenclature, only Earth's moon is 'the Moon'. All other moons are now merely natural satellites. Phobos, Deimos, Ganymede, are no longer considered moons. My biggest problem with the new definition is that planets themselves are natural satellites of stars. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.225|172.71.182.225]] 20:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely that the Saturnian moon highlighted in the Maritime definition is Titan, since it has liquid seas and lakes on its surface. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.5|172.69.6.5]] 21:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I've noted in the Transcript that (despite apparently being ''identical'' pre-highlight drawings in all other ways, or at least very consistently reproduced), Saturn is given one moon ''most'' of the time, but two moons on occasion. Similarly, Uranus's moons (spread from upper-right to lower-left) do-or-do-not include the dot (in one case suffering a highlighting) moving across the face of the planet. From an analytical perspective, I'm wondering if Randall did indeed copypaste the 'normal' iillustration, but then have to manually add in "whoops, I forgot I need to highlight a further item thaat I haven't already drawn" into some of the established copies, touching up where necessary (and maybe where still not necessary too). ...But I'm not sure it matters what he did or did not do. It's just an observation about the result. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190|172.69.79.190]] 23:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, Titan's present in all the diagrams, and a second moon of Saturn shows up when highlighting is necessary. The bonus "Marine Biologist" planet is clearly Enceladus, but the bonus "Judgemental" planet doesn't line up with it: presumably it's one of Saturn's other moons. Which one? My wild guess is Iapetus. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.27|172.68.150.27]] 01:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you, but was it really necessary to include a snide dig at Baby Boomers? Not a BB myself - I'm gen X, if we're using those facile labels - but surely we don't need to encourage intergenerational resentment and conflict. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.116|172.68.174.116]] 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC) 
As a historian, I strongly disagree with the snide definition of tradition. (No, not a BB.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 07:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's a direct quote from a prior comic, that whoever wrote it in the first placce ysed, so I've rewritten it to perhaps ''not'' look quite so much like some editor's own grudge/snidiness (which it may or may not be, but not without Randall giving justifiable precedent to say it). Maybe can be tweaked further, but it might be a shame to lose the inter-comic referential humour that (regardless of tone) is staple for this site. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.109|162.158.74.109]] 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe we're currently missing part of the joke in the mouseover text. Not only is Earth now a star because of human fusion, it's also no longer a planet, because, due to human satellites and spacecraft, it no longer clears its orbit.
[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.42|198.41.227.42]] 06:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the usual singular of criteria criterion? According to my dictionary, a criterium is a type of cycling race.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.100|172.71.26.100]] 09:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:Indeed. Maybe a thinko, though, rather. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.139|172.69.79.139]] 11:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I am curious why only one of the Galilean moons counts as pretty, and I wonder which one (either Ganymede or Callisto, given where its drawn). They are all pretty to me, I like how surprisingly distinct they look from one another.
[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 13:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

== Citations ==

I added a bunch of Wikipedia citations. I went by the WP rule (citation needed) of linking the first non-parenthesized instance of a word/phrase. That does make for some awkward things, like lists with only some of the items linked, and the {{w|natural satellite|moon}} link in a mention under '''Simplistic''' rather than on the more relevant '''Lunar'''.
–[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 22:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

'''Round vs Spheroidal'''
According to the "simplistic" definition, the rings themselves (also round) are separate planets. If the simplistic definition had merely been "spheroidal" rather than "round", they would not be. I'd love to see a version of the chart where Saturn is green, but the rings are white. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.166|172.71.99.166]] 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-15T13:18:41Z

Terdragontra:

The one currently posted has Pluto highlighted in the second box and not highlighted in the first box. Too hard to tell if it's trolling or a genuine mistake. :-D

:Apparently a mistake since it's fixed now. [[User:HughNo|HughNo]] ([[User talk:HughNo|talk]]) 19:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And the first one also has a moon hilighted instead I think?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.5|162.158.126.5]] 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Was about to write the same. The coloring in the first two lines arund Pluto seem wrong (or mistankingly switched). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.246|172.71.222.246]] 16:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This, this is the hill I will die on. I was radicalised by this paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 Moons Are Planets: "Scientific Usefulness Versus Cultural Teleology in the Taxonomy of Planetary Science"]
In short; planets are what planetary scientists study. Round things with the *good stuff*: atmospheres, oceans, volcanoes (of lava or water ice) (see diagram page 53).
Pluto, Titan, Ceres, Io and Europa are all in the sweet spot where you're not so small you're just a lump of rocks who happen to be stuck together into a lump, and not so large you're just a mostly undifferentiated mass of fusing hydrogen/helium plasma.
And it's consistent with our pre-20th Century understanding of what a planet is, whereas the IAU definition is trying to preserve 19th Century astrology. An amazing read and a strong recommend for anyone who cares about this subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.138|172.69.79.138]] 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this sort of count as pi-related for pi day? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 17:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:he doesn't do themed comics anymore 😔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Sure he does. [[2962]] and [[2969]] weren't too long ago. Seems like it, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.222|172.71.182.222]] 03:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I was somewhat disappointed to get to the end of the table without seeing either an astrology or Sailor Moon joke. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that Uranus is marked under "Empiricist" because of the "Randall has seen Uranus" joke? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.178|172.70.42.178]] 18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The "{{w|Classical planet|Classical Planets}}" should be 7, including the Sun and the Moon.
:The average distance of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth must be slightly farther away than the orbit of the Sun around the Earth, since the Moon lags behind the Sun a little more each day, but the orbits must cross or we would never have a solar eclipse :P [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Regolithic one depend on the exact definitions of "dirt", "ice", and "covered"? It seems that an argument could be made that the giant planets also count there but have a much thicker atmosphere on the outside, and disqualifying because of the atmosphere could exclude others like Earth depending on the exact threshold used. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Has Randall not seen the sun before?
:I'm impressed that he has seen Uranus (unless that actually is a joke), especially if he saw it unaided (apparently it actually can be barely seen with the naked eye if the conditions are incredibly good). [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Could the sun be classified as a "world"? --[[User:MothWaves|MothWaves]] ([[User talk:MothWaves|talk]]) 19:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I assumed he meant "seen directly with my eyes", so that a photograph would not count, but looking through a telescope during an astronomy night at the local University would count. And he hasn't looked *closely* at the Sun, because of the need for eye protection. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically, spacecraft have landed on Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn. Just not in a survivable manner. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Have we really not sent anything directly into the Sun yet? [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::The most "into the Sun" we've done is [https://science.nasa.gov/mission/parker-solar-probe/ the Parker Solar Probe], and it hasn't attempted to 'land' there (apart from that being effectively impossible, even beyond the likes of Cassini's final fall "onto" Saturn). It's also ''very hard'' to even send things into the Sun, because the direct method would need you to send a craft from Earth backwards at the same speed as the Earth orbits forwards (or very close to that), otherwise all you can do is fall ''past'' it and loop back up again. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 01:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the Pluto error in Traditionalist and Modernist images were fixed. I now see Pluto highlighted in traditionalist and Pluto unhighlighted in Modern. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.91|172.68.7.91]] 19:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

indeed, it seems fine now, i removed my earlier comment--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.116|162.158.233.116]] 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

//Jean-Luc Margot wrote a serious planet definition proposal// in 2024 as a starting point for community conversations and welcomes feedback. In 2019 I wrote a small article myself on planet and moon classes simply by size. //Mondklassen "wwwahnsinn"// (in German).
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.108|162.158.159.108]] 19:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm disputing that there has never been a formal definition of "planet" prior to 2006 - the ancient Greek definition of "wandering [relative to seemingly-fixed stars] points of light in the night sky" seems formal enough to me. I marked it {{tl|actual citation needed}}. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 19:52, 14 March 2025‎
: I've reworded the sentence to say "in modern times" so we aren't making unfounded and likely-incorrect claims about antiquity. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else strongly dislike the term '''natural satellite''' replacing ''moon''? Under the new nomenclature, only Earth's moon is 'the Moon'. All other moons are now merely natural satellites. Phobos, Deimos, Ganymede, are no longer considered moons. My biggest problem with the new definition is that planets themselves are natural satellites of stars. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.225|172.71.182.225]] 20:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely that the Saturnian moon highlighted in the Maritime definition is Titan, since it has liquid seas and lakes on its surface. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.5|172.69.6.5]] 21:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I've noted in the Transcript that (despite apparently being ''identical'' pre-highlight drawings in all other ways, or at least very consistently reproduced), Saturn is given one moon ''most'' of the time, but two moons on occasion. Similarly, Uranus's moons (spread from upper-right to lower-left) do-or-do-not include the dot (in one case suffering a highlighting) moving across the face of the planet. From an analytical perspective, I'm wondering if Randall did indeed copypaste the 'normal' iillustration, but then have to manually add in "whoops, I forgot I need to highlight a further item thaat I haven't already drawn" into some of the established copies, touching up where necessary (and maybe where still not necessary too). ...But I'm not sure it matters what he did or did not do. It's just an observation about the result. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190|172.69.79.190]] 23:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, Titan's present in all the diagrams, and a second moon of Saturn shows up when highlighting is necessary. The bonus "Marine Biologist" planet is clearly Enceladus, but the bonus "Judgemental" planet doesn't line up with it: presumably it's one of Saturn's other moons. Which one? My wild guess is Iapetus. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.27|172.68.150.27]] 01:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you, but was it really necessary to include a snide dig at Baby Boomers? Not a BB myself - I'm gen X, if we're using those facile labels - but surely we don't need to encourage intergenerational resentment and conflict. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.116|172.68.174.116]] 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC) 
As a historian, I strongly disagree with the snide definition of tradition. (No, not a BB.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 07:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's a direct quote from a prior comic, that whoever wrote it in the first placce ysed, so I've rewritten it to perhaps ''not'' look quite so much like some editor's own grudge/snidiness (which it may or may not be, but not without Randall giving justifiable precedent to say it). Maybe can be tweaked further, but it might be a shame to lose the inter-comic referential humour that (regardless of tone) is staple for this site. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.109|162.158.74.109]] 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe we're currently missing part of the joke in the mouseover text. Not only is Earth now a star because of human fusion, it's also no longer a planet, because, due to human satellites and spacecraft, it no longer clears its orbit.
[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.42|198.41.227.42]] 06:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the usual singular of criteria criterion? According to my dictionary, a criterium is a type of cycling race.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.100|172.71.26.100]] 09:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:Indeed. Maybe a thinko, though, rather. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.139|172.69.79.139]] 11:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

== Citations ==

I added a bunch of Wikipedia citations. I went by the WP rule (citation needed) of linking the first non-parenthesized instance of a word/phrase. That does make for some awkward things, like lists with only some of the items linked, and the {{w|natural satellite|moon}} link in a mention under '''Simplistic''' rather than on the more relevant '''Lunar'''.
–[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 22:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

'''Round vs Spheroidal'''
According to the "simplistic" definition, the rings themselves (also round) are separate planets. If the simplistic definition had merely been "spheroidal" rather than "round", they would not be. I'd love to see a version of the chart where Saturn is green, but the rings are white. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.166|172.71.99.166]] 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I am curious why only one of the Galilean moons counts as pretty, and I wonder which one (either Ganymede or Callisto, given where its drawn). They are all pretty to me, I like how surprisingly distinct they are from one another.
[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 13:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:1370: President

2024-08-25T17:23:00Z

Terdragontra:

I believe Curly is Buns from Old Timers, the girl who was born on the web. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1058 the-talk]
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.89|173.245.56.89]] 12:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
:One is "buns" in the transcript and the other is "Curly"... interesting... --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The main joke in my oppinion is that the child correctly phrases the fact that every generation faces the "problem" that the next generation suddenly are adults too and runs the world. It is very embarrassing for pony tail. This is not discussed yet in the explain. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)^

Perhaps [[137: Dreams]] is related to this one? --[[User:Alu42|Alu42]] ([[User talk:Alu42|talk]]) 17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the title text is overly optimistic. It's not that we're *all* going to be pouring over the rambling blog posts of a teenager: It's that the news media will. And if they have an axe to grind they will create meaning that suits their agenda where there is none.
:Better rambling blogs than Snapchats, methinks. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.225|103.22.201.225]] 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, the "axe to grind" basically sums up the problem with that reasoning. Yes, most people won't bother trying to go through decades of blogs and snapchats... only certain people with a keen interest in bringing you down (or enough money to pay someone else to do it) will. And once those people have cherry-picked a handful of bad examples from your life, they can display it as if it's the ''real'' truth about you. And everyone else will just take their word for it, because, well, who wants to bother combing through decades of blogs and snapchats to get a sense of the ''real'' you?--[[User:Druid816|Druid816]] ([[User talk:Druid816|talk]]) 04:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The first wave of the internet generation will still be at a disadvantage. As early adopters, they will be competing with late adopters who won't have a record of their youthful indiscretions. This will make the internet generation appear more irresponsible by comparison, and likely result in them having worse chances to get positions of power, like the presidency. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:They will be (presumably) at least 40 when they seek higher political office (For example, ''President of the Incorporated Territory of the Former United States and Junior Representative to the People's Congress of Greater China''). Half the electorate will be even younger than them and will have had similar youthful indiscretions, so they won't really care. -- [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.225|103.22.201.225]] 06:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
::Not quite, as the percentage of younger voters who actively participate in politics (specifically through voting) is significantly less than those of older age groups, who also tend to be more partisan in their ideology. Therefore, one can expect that the older portion of the political world wouldn't make any kind of warm welcome to candidates from the first wave of the internet generation. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.186|199.27.128.186]] 03:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Explaining something to children (or vice versa like here) is a common feature in the comic. Recently is was [[1364: Like I'm Five]] where there is no actual children in the comic and also this year we had [[1352: Cosmologist on a Tire Swing]]. I was thinking if there was need for a Category: Children? Any thoughts? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

2021 called, Presidents will ruin their own reputation by themselves and they'll still have enough support to be seriously considered for re-election. This comic hasn't aged well ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.146|162.158.126.146]] 14:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:I think this comic has aged pretty damn well, for that exact reason. Doesn't matter how much of a fool a politician makes of themselves, now or in the past. They'll still run, and probably have a good shot. --[[User:Magicalus|Magicalus]] ([[User talk:Magicalus|talk]]) 15:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ambitious of anyone to think the 2032 Presidential election will represent a generation that grew up on the Internet. The average age of U.S. Presidential candidates seems to be 65 and up, so we would need to wait until the 2060 election at least.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.181|172.69.134.181]] 20:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Randall has discussed the silliness of some intergenerational discourse before, and certainly some of it is, but I think he isn't appreciating the fact that the difference in life experience between successive generations is growing larger and larger, as technology increases exponentially. This is causing problems, and will cause more, I think. In particular, we used to go to our elders for practical wisdom, but less and less of their wisdom is applicable. As a society we are stumbling in the dark; worse yet, we are accelerating into it. [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 17:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2962: President Venn Diagram

2024-07-26T16:55:34Z

Terdragontra:

<noinclude>{{notice|This site is intended to explain the technical details and inspirations (perhaps humorous) behind the comics. This particular page is for Discussion/Talk about the particular comic in question, which ''will'' involve some personal overviews and meta-discussion. But it is not the ideal place to reproduce the wi(l)der issue of public opinion, which the actual political process will eventually establish, and many other public forums and outlets exist in which you can convey your own current leanings/observations on the whole election-related happenings. Please be <s>sensible</s> ''typically geeky in your wit'', and try to keep all the ideological heat and partisan arguments out of this as much as possible.|image=warning!!.png|}}</noinclude>

Another really timely comic. Biden just dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris yesterday. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Forget Biden, Hillary and Obama. This is the endorsement that counts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.199|172.68.23.199]] 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose no one is allowed to say that the upper right circle is mislabeled. It was supposed to say incompetent, dishonest and despicable. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.25|162.158.90.25]] 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:You're allowed to say it, but then we're allowed to suggest (with rather more emperical proof) that her presumptive opponent better fits your rewording. How about we all just don't try to re-run the old arguments (or pre-run the upcoming election) in that sort of tone, eh?
:(To be clear, Randall has made positive comments to his favoured candidate, rather than stooping to arbitrarily attacking their opponent. If you can't at least be as positive in your own convictions then it's really not going to help your cause.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.6|172.69.195.6]] 04:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::First, Harris has more than one opponent, not just within her own party, but in the general election to follow if she’s nominated. Second, the many good qualities of my favo[u]red candidate are irrelevant to this comic, so I didn’t mention ''her''. Third, I didn’t start this political discussion; Randall did, by making a refutable claim in his comic. Lastly, there’s nothing arbitrary about a resident of California pointing out [https://truthout.org/articles/kamala-harris-has-a-distinguished-career-of-serving-injustice/ facts about the former attorney general of California] that people in other states, such as Massachusetts, might be completely ignorant of. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 05:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Ugh, those abuses from the supposed party of police accountability. Politics in this country are so performative. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.75|108.162.216.75]] 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
: You could say it, but then the box which says 'Kamala Harris' is mislabeled and 'Donald Trump' should be placed in the box above the middle one. [[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 07:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::Also by saying the first circle is mislabeled you also say Randall is all those things. And if you feel that way, then remember you are free to NOT read his comics... I'm always on Randall's side in politics it seems, but I'm from another country, so I wont vote for any presidential candidates even if Randall was on the ballot ;-) I won't say more here now... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Note the difference between “upper right” and “upper left.” [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.198|172.70.207.198]] 21:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well Kamala, you had a good run. Randall has the touch of death when it comes to picking political candidates. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.39|162.158.154.39]] 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:You mean that no candidate endorsed by XKCD has ever won? ;) https://xkcd.com/2383/ [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Randall was smart enough to not make a comic endorsing Joe *before* he got elected like he did with Hilldawg and (now) Kamala.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 11:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
: Not so; Randall endorsed [https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/ Obama in 2008]. [[User:-insert valid name here-|-insert valid name here-]] ([[User talk:-insert valid name here-|talk]]) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe Randall secretly wants Kamala to lose and is doing 5D chess. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.130.122|172.69.130.122]] 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Randall angling for VP? [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 02:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Randall would be good president. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Meh, he seems to at least not be good at public speaking. And from what he says about himself, he would be distracted way too easily. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:I, as an Epsilon Eridani native, think he would be a spectacular president, but his research priorities would swiftly result in [https://www.space.com/universe-end-false-vacuum-decay false vacuum decay], so please, for the sake of the universe, please do not elect him. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.218|172.70.214.218]] 20:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:: Is this a reference to some particular sci fi story, or do you coincidentally have the same favorite star name I do?

The layout of this Venn diagram reminds me of https://xkcd.com/112/ {{unsigned ip|162.158.166.234|03:04, 23 July 2024}}

I think I would probably swap the two. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.23|162.158.174.23]] 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be very interested in which non-Politicians Randall would put into the top middle section. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:People eligible to be president who would make a good president but aren't politicians? I would be much more interested in who he would list in the right middle section, that is, people who would make good presidents and love Venn diagrams, but are ineligible. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.133|172.69.6.133]] 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess Munroe has no issues with questions about ongoing U.S. backed genocides shrugged off with "shrimp and grits!"? {{unsigned|Markifi|05:39, 23 July 2024}}

What really strikes me is that the USA have a (de facto) 2-Party system and still go so much into personal attacks and endorsements, etc. which in my mind could be the decision-making bit between 2 similiar parties in a multi-party system, or 2 equally sympathic parties to me. But in my mind a 2-party system should at least have the upside of actually discussing policy, and voters deciding based on that... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If Randall was in charge he could stop supplying weapons to Israel probably [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.63|172.69.195.63]] 10:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:Randall sempai- we are targeted too. {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.52|15:37, 23 July 2024}}

Re: the mouseover text: "[[1062:_Budget_News|I am more of a deficit sugar glider]]" ought to be in the running. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.157|172.69.58.157]] 12:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

personally I'd put most candidates either the top left [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.24|172.69.58.24]] 17:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Neat. A Euler diagram (and no, Venn cannot just have this one). {{unsigned ip|172.71.158.226|18:18, 23 July 2024}}
:Quite! Venn called his diagrams "{{w|Euler diagram|Euler circles}}." [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.137|172.71.151.137]] 22:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the 'eligible' topic is related to a campaign against Harris saying she isn't eligible because she's not american enough. This (fake) news was reposted in France by french Trump's fans. {{unsigned ip|172.69.225.223|20:36, 23 July 2024}}
:No, the topic of Constitutional eligibility, it is more nuanced than each said is represented to state it. Kamala Harris was undisputedly (I believe) born in the US. This makes her a native-born citizen. The Constitution calls for a natural-born citizen but doesn't define that. From writings at the time (I don't remember which) natural-born means born to two citizen parents. Apparently, neither of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth, so once again (as with Obama, Ted Cruz, others) there are fair questions by thinking people. [[User:ProfDigory|ProfDigory]] ([[User talk:ProfDigory|talk]]) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

_sigh_ I was about to come in here and suggest that we don't do the obvious political battle here but then I realized I'd be up all night because someone was WRONG on the internet [[386: Duty Calls]]! [[User:Tomb|Tomb]] ([[User talk:Tomb|talk]]) 21:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I, too, have rather strong political opinions that absolutely nobody here cares about. But I also wanted to extend a heartfelt thank-you to the person who put the cautionary banner to not make the main article into a debate platform. I hope its presence becomes a staple of articles on all forthcoming controversial comics, as we commence our quadrennial plunge into the bubbling muck of American election season. -MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.59|172.68.34.59]] 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to include a link to the actual United States Constitution in regard to the Presidential eligibility section? In other words, I'm wondering if it would be preferable to link directly to a primary source of information as opposed to a tertiary source like Wikipedia? Either way, I have a [https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-1-clause-5 link to the document on the Congress.gov website] for those who may want to have a read. [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have a longer version of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWR2uTfrh-k&ab_channel=GOPWarRoom ? I want to see the diagram props! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.19|172.71.147.19]] 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:"So many memes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XOjRsJiBTF0&ab_channel=FoxNews [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.129|172.70.214.129]] 22:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:I see you are a netizen of exquisite taste. Might I suggest https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=kamala+venn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.29|108.162.245.29]] 22:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::Oh my God, infinite anonymous clipping! https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5125621/user-clip-venn-diagram [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.3|172.71.150.3]] 23:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5125622/user-clip-circle-venn-diagram A fourth Eulerian circle emerges!] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 23:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been decided. As per the [https://x.com/yashar/status/1815476912355205212 edict of the National Republican Senatorial Committee,] the problems with Kamala Harris are: (1) Her laugh is weird. And, (2) she loves Venn diagrams. Let the games begin! We shall [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI_lxFv203I&ab_channel=SaturdayNightLive focus on the two issues Americans do care about: swine flue and fracking.] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.200|172.68.23.200]] 22:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:For anyone who didn't click on the link provided above, "habit of laughing at inappropriate moments" (NOT "laugh is weird") and "loves Venn diagrams" were two bullet points out of seventeen, both of them listed under the final section labeled "Weird" after many more obviously concerning policy positions. So, this discussion entry is yet another example of dishonest misrepresentation from the Left. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.61|172.68.34.61]] 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::And dishonest misrepresentation is definitely not something that you get from the Right, right?</sarcasm> "Crime Of The Century", I ''don't'' think...
::This is why I instantly and instinctively thought it a bad idea for Randall to make his opinion known, in this comic. Not because I have reason to diagree with his (singular boiled-down to minimal description) assessment, but because everyone not ''totally'' on the same hymnsheet is likely to start complaining that only ''their'' boiled-down assessment (usually an objection) has any veracity... And sparks an ideogical tit-for-tat with far more heat than light. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a really sad comic. Harris is a top cop and a corrupt one. America deserves better than either party is offering, and the supposed party of police accountability should not be running Harris. It's sad that Randall is telling himself otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.91|172.70.178.91]] 13:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:I was not aware that Harris was ever in the police, herself, and cannot find any reference to it in a quick search. I know she advocated police bodycams, which only corrupt cops need to properly fear/avoid using, though obviously one can always be corrupt "in your spare time", or if you're not a uniformed officer/just sat at a desk. Anyway, you have an opinion, and feel free to make your own webcomic if you have better names, wish to add other names and/or want to change the basis upon which Harris's name is judged. It might well be that (of all likely candidates, as well as the unlikely one that is "me") Randall honestly sees Kamala as (one of) the better individual(s) for the role. If everyone agreed, there'd be no need to ask everybody and try to distil the resulting popularity contest into a close-fought result that maybe half the country won't like (but who ''would'' like a result that the other half(ish) of the country wouldn't like), give or take various statistical anomalies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.103|172.70.85.103]] 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:: RE: [https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-call-Kamala-Harris-a-cop Why do people call Kamala Harris a cop?] - Top answer: "Because she was a prosecutor, both for San Francisco and as Attorney General of California. Many people conflate cops and prosecutors as they work closely. Harris had a reputation as a tough prosecutor, but also refused to seek the death penalty against the killer of a San Francisco police officer, and started a rehabilitation program that let some offenders clear their records. So her record was mixed." {{unsigned ip|172.68.3.2|15:23, 26 July 2024}}
::: Right. That's an odd definition of a cop. You could almost call a fireman a cop (or a cop a fireman), or a donut-store owner.
::: And opinions about the efficacy of the Death Penalty varies (it stops reoffending, as well as any possible full exoneration in the event of a miscarriage of justice; the jury (figuratively and otherwise) is out whether it prevents further crimes by other people, especially those who are already subject to the pressures of 'street justice' with nonjudicial killing a constant threat anyway). Rehabilitation of ''receptive and truly repentent'' criminals is also surely better than letting everyone rot, regardless; or, if/when released, giving them no hope but to be more prolific criminals; and perhaps even relying upon being housed and fed by the penal system again as the only option, so caused more upset to force the courts' hands.
::: It's not really a mixed record, but a mixable interpretation. And "hang 'em all" people will have different perspectives from the "always be forgiving of mistakes" crowd, with the ideal 'truth' likely being somewhere between, and reality always going to err in both directions. So you can disagree about specific judgements and decisions, but be careful of either lauding or lambasting a wider policy shift. Hard cases make bad laws, and bad laws make individual cases hard to deal with.
::: Imagine that you're Glynn Simmons, or Sandra Hemme, or one of those eventually exonerated only ''after'' their exocutions (not necessarily all nice people, but doubts or actual disprooving facts about their parts in any particular Capital crime, or the social goalposts shifted away from discriminatory and heavy-handed policies, is a not an unusual event).
::: All I'm saying is that there's going to be nuance. And every person will have "mixed" approval ratings, even per a given individual's own personal assessment if they know enough to get at least a 2D viewpoint, and ideally at least 3D. And I don't know how anyone without an extreme view on the world would equate a general policy of enhanced rehabilitation with corruptness (when corruption can equally involve framing and improperly prosecuting innocent people, whilst letting the truly irredeemable go free). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2953: Alien Theories

2024-07-02T23:30:22Z

Terdragontra: Accidentally sliced comment in half

I understood this differently. I think the UFOs have come to Earth to investigate our conspiracy theories about UFOs with capabilities far beyond what the "real" UFOs posses. [[User:Baruch|Baruch]] ([[User talk:Baruch|talk]]) 07:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ==
A skeptical human would '''not''' confront UFO believers with evidence that aliens do not exist. They would confront them with the fact that none of the supposed evidence so far has held water, making (extraterrestrial) UFO's not more likely to be real than any other random fantasy. Quite a different matter, since there's rarely verifiable evidence of things '''not''' existing. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.90.9|172.71.90.9]] 08:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
: +1 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.213|172.70.243.213]] 10:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::How far do you take it though? If I look in the cupboard and it's empty, I can say there are no cans of soup in the cupboard. But you could say "There's a chance they are in there...but you've been hypnotised so you can't find them!" or some other thoroughly improbable but technically possible story. Everyone would think that pretty far fetched. There comes a point where people accept that - functionally - a vanishingly small likelihood is the same as a negative. So, where's the point at which you say "Be reasonable. It's not a thing."?

::Because without it, you become the man in the shack, refusing to accept the veracity of anything.
[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

::: There's a simple answer to this: whenever it feels reasonable to do so. This doesn't feel very nice to a certain type of mind that loves thinking (like mine), but my life experience has taught me relatively recently that there are things you should do without thinking about it. (In this particular case, well, the solar system is much bigger than a cupboard! If we learned there have been aliens watching us, not wanting to be detected, my sense of reality would not be shattered, its not stupidly implausible. I can believe this while still believing any conspiracy theories telling you specifics about what they are doing are just making it up/mistaken/mentally ill/etc etc)[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

==The 5 Observables==
Nowadays, the believers' gold standard for <s>UFOs</s> UAPs is this:
{{quote|There are five, consistent observations we continue to see that are uniquely associated with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAPs. Understanding these characteristics and their application requires us to have a very good understanding of advanced physics at the quantum level.

''The five observables can be categorized as follows:

# Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
# Hypersonic velocities without signatures
# Low observability
# Trans-medium travel
# Positive lift
|TTSA|https://tothestars.media/de-de/blogs/press-and-news/five-characteristics-unique-to-uaps}}
Basically, if it seems to break physics, it's a UFO. Aliens who got here using established physics would naturally be curious about that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.214|172.70.243.214]] 10:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:It must be said that a given 'observation' could convey all the above by: 1) Camera wobble, 2) Camera panning, 3) Optical artefacts, 4) Scale/distance misunderstanding, w.r.t the background/foreground features, 5) Subsequent unfounded assumptions about trajectory.
:Which is not to say that it's all bad camera use/interpretation of playback. Radar might be involved (with the possibility of radio-mirages) or even a combination of Mk1 Eyeball and electronic recordings which rule out some 'trivial' counter-explanations. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and it would be silly to let something perhaps as simple as camera-shake from a moving vehicle suggest that we need to probe quantum physics for operational loopholes.
:It is at least as bad to "want to believe" as it is to want to ''disbelieve''. And while many such cases may share the same basic anomolies, that make it look like some things are consistently anomolous, this doesn't mean that each case is ''identically'' anomolous. If a bright light disappears, in one case it might be because it's no longer reflecting off the background, in another that the (mundane) source is now shaded by a cloud, in a other it's because the camera lens is no longer subjected to flare, or the video compression artefact is no longer generated, or the observer who verbally reported it no longer has it in the corner of their eye/mentally extrapolated as part of their central blind-spot.
:There's undoubtedly a lot of interesting unknown (so far!) stuff out there, to be witnessed. But lumping in ball lightning, in one instance, with the Sun momentsrily gleaming off the crest of a wave in another, with a perfectly legitimate isolated doorbell-/windshield-cam shot of a meteor in another should not result in an assumption of "bright flash == alien spaceship" as explanation all round.
:If aliens are as super-advanced, technically, as many believe, is there any reason to assume that they even need to leave such teasing evidence of their existence? If you can already twist quantum physics around your little-pseudopod, at will, isn't it more likely that you're already getting past mere human/earthtech monitoring of the skies entirely unseen and ''none'' of the UFO-'sightings' are of you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 12:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, there's no hard evidence for any of it. But the claims are there. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.174|198.41.242.174]] 14:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

==Cueball is an alien?==
A previous edit suggested that Cueball is an alien. Is this canon or a conspiracy theory? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.213|172.70.243.213]] 10:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:I did not see this prior form of edit, but I did nearly add my own (conspiracy-)theory that:
:*The aliens are seeing the traces of (vastly more superior) other-aliens around Earth,
:*Said other-aliens are ''only'' leaving significant traces here, not on the original aliens' world/other places they visit,
:*The other-aliens are therefore keen to stay out of observation from the non-other aliens,
:*Or at least generate enough deniability (similar to these aliens being sufficiently deniable to any regular human) so that those who ''are'' convinced get described as 'quack-UFOlogists',
:*Obviously,{{Actual citation needed}} a useful tool in this disinformation war would be to have a human(-looking) representative trying to out-argue the (actually correct, but logically tenuous) alien speculations with diversionary tactics and misdirection.
:Thus Cueball is trying to get the visible aliens to abandon their beliefs in the non-visible aliens by making them think that "anything alien" is ''them'' (those present), and ignore the signs of any subsequent 'visitation'.
:(Note though, that given the prior prediliction for the saucer-people to irrationally believe in Bigfoot, beyond even their own level of ubiquitous monitoring, what we probably have here is Cueball being 'the only sane being in the room'. Unusually, for Cueball. Or at least the san''est'', versus a particularly non-sane other. And standing under an open sky, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.74|141.101.99.74]] 11:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Quotes ==

{{quote|They are people like me who see this as an incredible mystery and enigma that that needs to be resolved.|Chris Mellon|https://www.history.com/news/chris-mellon-ufo-investigations}} [[Special:Contributions/172.68.194.201|172.68.194.201]] 10:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2953: Alien Theories

2024-07-02T23:29:16Z

Terdragontra:

I understood this differently. I think the UFOs have come to Earth to investigate our conspiracy theories about UFOs with capabilities far beyond what the "real" UFOs posses. [[User:Baruch|Baruch]] ([[User talk:Baruch|talk]]) 07:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ==
A skeptical human would '''not''' confront UFO believers with evidence that aliens do not exist. They would confront them with the fact that none of the supposed evidence so far has held water, making (extraterrestrial) UFO's not more likely to be real than any other random fantasy. Quite a different matter, since there's rarely verifiable evidence of things '''not''' existing. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.90.9|172.71.90.9]] 08:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
: +1 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.213|172.70.243.213]] 10:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::How far do you take it though? If I look in the cupboard and it's empty, I can say there are no cans of soup in the cupboard. But you could say "There's a chance they are in there...but you've been hypnotised so you can't find them!" or some other thoroughly improbable but technically possible story. Everyone would think that pretty far fetched. There comes a point where people accept that - functionally - a vanishingly small likelihood is the same as a negative. So, where's the point at which you say "Be reasonable. It's not a thing."?
::: There's a simple answer to this: whenever it feels reasonable to do so. This doesn't feel very nice to a certain type of mind that loves thinking (like mine), but my life experience has taught me relatively recently that there are things you should do without thinking about it. (In this particular case, well, the solar system is much bigger than a cupboard! If we learned there have been aliens watching us, not wanting to be detected, my sense of reality would not be shattered, its not stupidly implausible. I can believe this while still believing any conspiracy theories telling you specifics about what they are doing are just making it up/mistaken/mentally ill/etc etc)[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

::Because without it, you become the man in the shack, refusing to accept the veracity of anything.
[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

==The 5 Observables==
Nowadays, the believers' gold standard for <s>UFOs</s> UAPs is this:
{{quote|There are five, consistent observations we continue to see that are uniquely associated with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAPs. Understanding these characteristics and their application requires us to have a very good understanding of advanced physics at the quantum level.

''The five observables can be categorized as follows:

# Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
# Hypersonic velocities without signatures
# Low observability
# Trans-medium travel
# Positive lift
|TTSA|https://tothestars.media/de-de/blogs/press-and-news/five-characteristics-unique-to-uaps}}
Basically, if it seems to break physics, it's a UFO. Aliens who got here using established physics would naturally be curious about that. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.214|172.70.243.214]] 10:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:It must be said that a given 'observation' could convey all the above by: 1) Camera wobble, 2) Camera panning, 3) Optical artefacts, 4) Scale/distance misunderstanding, w.r.t the background/foreground features, 5) Subsequent unfounded assumptions about trajectory.
:Which is not to say that it's all bad camera use/interpretation of playback. Radar might be involved (with the possibility of radio-mirages) or even a combination of Mk1 Eyeball and electronic recordings which rule out some 'trivial' counter-explanations. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and it would be silly to let something perhaps as simple as camera-shake from a moving vehicle suggest that we need to probe quantum physics for operational loopholes.
:It is at least as bad to "want to believe" as it is to want to ''disbelieve''. And while many such cases may share the same basic anomolies, that make it look like some things are consistently anomolous, this doesn't mean that each case is ''identically'' anomolous. If a bright light disappears, in one case it might be because it's no longer reflecting off the background, in another that the (mundane) source is now shaded by a cloud, in a other it's because the camera lens is no longer subjected to flare, or the video compression artefact is no longer generated, or the observer who verbally reported it no longer has it in the corner of their eye/mentally extrapolated as part of their central blind-spot.
:There's undoubtedly a lot of interesting unknown (so far!) stuff out there, to be witnessed. But lumping in ball lightning, in one instance, with the Sun momentsrily gleaming off the crest of a wave in another, with a perfectly legitimate isolated doorbell-/windshield-cam shot of a meteor in another should not result in an assumption of "bright flash == alien spaceship" as explanation all round.
:If aliens are as super-advanced, technically, as many believe, is there any reason to assume that they even need to leave such teasing evidence of their existence? If you can already twist quantum physics around your little-pseudopod, at will, isn't it more likely that you're already getting past mere human/earthtech monitoring of the skies entirely unseen and ''none'' of the UFO-'sightings' are of you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 12:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, there's no hard evidence for any of it. But the claims are there. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.174|198.41.242.174]] 14:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

==Cueball is an alien?==
A previous edit suggested that Cueball is an alien. Is this canon or a conspiracy theory? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.213|172.70.243.213]] 10:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:I did not see this prior form of edit, but I did nearly add my own (conspiracy-)theory that:
:*The aliens are seeing the traces of (vastly more superior) other-aliens around Earth,
:*Said other-aliens are ''only'' leaving significant traces here, not on the original aliens' world/other places they visit,
:*The other-aliens are therefore keen to stay out of observation from the non-other aliens,
:*Or at least generate enough deniability (similar to these aliens being sufficiently deniable to any regular human) so that those who ''are'' convinced get described as 'quack-UFOlogists',
:*Obviously,{{Actual citation needed}} a useful tool in this disinformation war would be to have a human(-looking) representative trying to out-argue the (actually correct, but logically tenuous) alien speculations with diversionary tactics and misdirection.
:Thus Cueball is trying to get the visible aliens to abandon their beliefs in the non-visible aliens by making them think that "anything alien" is ''them'' (those present), and ignore the signs of any subsequent 'visitation'.
:(Note though, that given the prior prediliction for the saucer-people to irrationally believe in Bigfoot, beyond even their own level of ubiquitous monitoring, what we probably have here is Cueball being 'the only sane being in the room'. Unusually, for Cueball. Or at least the san''est'', versus a particularly non-sane other. And standing under an open sky, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.74|141.101.99.74]] 11:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Quotes ==

{{quote|They are people like me who see this as an incredible mystery and enigma that that needs to be resolved.|Chris Mellon|https://www.history.com/news/chris-mellon-ufo-investigations}} [[Special:Contributions/172.68.194.201|172.68.194.201]] 10:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2882: Net Rotations

2024-07-02T02:01:37Z

Terdragontra:

Wait, so I'm not the only one who thinks about this? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.177|172.71.167.177]] 23:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
:No, I also do it, just I do it right after I do the turns so I don't have to remember them all. [[User:B_for_brain|B for brain]] ([[User_talk:B_for_brain|talk]]) ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg4bo-hj-mDyOOUp_Yp0pug youtube channel] [https://bforbrain.weebly.com/ wobsite (supposed to be a blag)] 17:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:I used to do something similar in the schoolyard. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.131.75|172.71.131.75]] 07:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Second! Still, I'm surprised that there are no edits yet. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.160|172.70.210.160]] 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like the premise of the 1966 sci-fi story The Revolving Boy by Gertrude Friedberg. I recall reading it sometime in the 1960s or ’70s. I wonder whether Randall has read the book too — https://solarbridge.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/the-revolving-boy-gertrude-friedberg/
I'm drawing a blank. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.68|162.158.158.68]] 01:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I had precisely the same thought! But I couldn't remember the title of the book - thanks! ([[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.191|172.70.90.191]])
Likewise; I read it long ago and would have had to do some net searching to uncover the name. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.189.166|172.69.189.166]] 17:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the "worldline torsion" line needs to be explained moreso than the OCD thing, since "worldline" is a word people might not know and it's the crux of the joke. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.50|162.158.62.50]] 02:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

:A worldline is a relativistic concept, the track of a particle (or anything, by extension) through 4D spacetime. Randall is imagining it as a physical object (not a mathematical abstraction) and thus whenever the actual object rotates, its worldline is twisted. Presumably these physical worldlines would build up torsional potential energy as they twisted, and could eventually be damaged if too many twists/year were present.[[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 02:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
:: Yeah - something like that needs to go in the explanation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.47|172.70.85.47]] 09:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would love to know what my net rotations is. Not enough to actually keep track, mind you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.126|172.70.178.126]] 02:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
:I had a season pass to an amusement park a few years ago, and the time I spent on the Scrambler would probably make mine quite difficult to calculate, even if I knew how many times I rode it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.57|172.69.247.57]] 04:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
: Probably depends a lot on whether you suffer from Zoolander's Syndrome. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 09:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

isn't this a refernce to spacetime torsion and the einstien-cartan theory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory

When I used to do plasma donations (they draw blood, centrifuge it, extract the plasma/platelet fraction and return the red and white cells) I would, when telling someone about it, jokingly say that the only side effect was, then I would jump and spin. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 08:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This comic makes sense in 2D because the space of rotations has fundamental group ℤ, but in 3D wouldn't you have at most ℤ/2ℤ corrections to make, since SU(2) double-covers SO(3)? cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_trick [[User:Ncf|Ncf]] ([[User talk:Ncf|talk]]) 09:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

:Considering the plane in which you are doing your rotation changes during the day due to Earth rotation, I think that it doesn't make sense in 3D at all. But thanks for {{w|Plate trick|link}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the real medical conditions of torsion, e. . a torsion fracture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_fracture)? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 12:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
:I immediately thought of medical conditions, too, in my case a torsion of the spine https://www.osmosis.org/answers/sacral-torsion . But the exercises that are supposed to alleviate back pain & torsions caused by one-sided movements (like always twisting/bending left when carrying a load, and twisting/bending right without a load) usually don't involve full rotations. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Remember that, to do it properly, any turns made in your car also have to be reversed in your car, to account for the rotation of the car's atoms. Go do a full loop through a counterclockwise cloverleaf! (Finding one is left as an exercise to the reader.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.82|108.162.238.82]] 13:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't think it’s worth adding to the article but thought I would mention it here, anyone who has experience spending a long time in a VR headset will almost certainly have had to do this at some point to untwist the tether. To the point that there are apps you can run that show you how much your rotation has changed from the set 0 orientation. [[User:TomW1605|TomW1605]] ([[User talk:TomW1605|talk]]) 13:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
:Actually I think it's worth mentioning that the line to your virtual world (not quite a worldline, but close enough to make a pun?) will indeed suffer torsions unless you cancel out your net rotations. :-D [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The CPSC recommends merry-go-rounds be limited to 13 ft/sec. https://www.sportsplayinc.com/images/cpsc.pdf For a 10 ft radius, that would be one rotation every 4.8 sec. Over "one long afternoon" (which I'll take as 6 hours) that would amount to 4,469 rotations. If you compensated for this with a mere one rotation per day, the excess rotation would be completely offset in 12 years and 3 months, so "decades" is quite an exageration. [[User:Loeb]]
: If your merry-go-round had a 20 inch diameter, though (the minimum at which those recommendations apply), at one a day it would take you nearly 147 years.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.60|172.69.195.60]] 09:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It makes me think a lot about [[162: Angular Momentum]] [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.34|141.101.98.34]] 19:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

2883 is out, bot's down... [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 03:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's always nice to unwind at the end of the day (sorry)[[Special:Contributions/172.69.214.5|172.69.214.5]] 14:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I might be a little OCD, but not to the degree of this comic. When the internet began and I first started using a browser, I would make sure that I always used the back button to return to the home page because I didn't want to use up computer memory space by accumulating too many links on the "back button" stack. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Who removed the incomplete tag? It's still incomplete, the mouseover text is still unexplained.[[User:Danger Kitty|Danger Kitty]] ([[User talk:Danger Kitty|talk]])
:[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2882:_Net_Rotations&diff=333760&oldid=333335 The answer to that]. I must admit, I usually rereview it when our "tidy-uppers" (all honest fellows/fellowesses, I hesitate to add!) think they're right to tidy this aspect up, a number of times the removal of the Incomplete tag has actually gotten me to tweak things (not that it should happen like that), but I seem to have missed this instance, or not spotted any remaining incompleteness if I scanned its post-tag state..
:I also think that the importance of the Incomplete tag is now less linked to the actual incomplete state (although obviously it still is, at first), and that it doesn't hurt to leave it up longer, but obviously opinions on that vary. Community opinion may be a bit blurred on this issue. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33|141.101.99.33]] 19:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, if you consider rotations along other axes (which you must on any day roll out of bed or get out of it weirdly), then its only coherent to speak of the PARITY of your total torsion, since SO(3) = Z/2Z. Unlike SO(2) which is Z. So good news guys, you only have to turn around at least once!
[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 01:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
: Shoot, I don't read close enough, someone already noticed! [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 02:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2882: Net Rotations

2024-07-02T01:59:13Z

Terdragontra:

Talk:2903: Earth/Venus Venn Diagram

2024-03-07T19:53:54Z

Terdragontra:

See also [[2721: Euler Diagrams]] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.49|108.162.245.49]] 07:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this also a sexual innuendo? I mean... shock waves producing ejecta? Venus? anyone? {{unsigned ip|162.158.189.33}}
:Sure, as always it is only mentioned, whenever there is not a sexual innuendo by scientists, as collisions and planets and diagrams turn them on. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.65|172.68.110.65]] 11:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::That is really funny. But no there is no sexual reference in a collision between planets. What is in the middle is what would happen in the collision zone. Venus is the name of a planet here... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:::All a matter of perspective - depends how Earthy your interpretation is.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.176|172.71.242.176]] 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Rename the "Venus" circle to "Theia" and you get [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis The Giant-impact hypothesis] for the creation of the Moon. [[User:Meteo|Meteo]] ([[User talk:Meteo|talk]]) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't get this at first, but I broke down laughing once I did, I can't quite pinpoint why but this is top tier xkcd right here. [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2891: Log Cabin

2024-02-07T22:09:32Z

Terdragontra:

:: "''The odd part about it is the bottom right corner, which appears to be infinitely recursive copies..''"
The whole right side is the left side, shrunk and recursed. Each iteration rotated 90 degrees. The 'shrink' is about 1.616 by my squint, a lot like a "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio Golden Ratio]" LOGarithmic spiral, as NickM says. [[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 19:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

::This is a LOGarithmic spiral [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.103|172.70.210.103]] 19:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)NickM

:: It is precisely the golden ratio, assuming the left side is a square [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 22:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Assuming a standard 36" wide front door, then the next "front" door would be 22.27 inches, then 13.78 inches, then 8.53 inches, at which point I doubt the inspector could squeeze through it, though I guess they could still take a peek inside the next recursion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.58|172.68.34.58]] 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Infinite bedrooms, infinite baths, close to schools and shopping. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.48|172.69.247.48]] 21:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
::Government: Your property tax comes up to infinite dollars. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.160|172.71.26.160]] 21:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting comparison with the archetypal "labyrinth". It's actually a fractal version that only avoids being unicursal-with-no-dead-ends due to the off-living-room private spaces being quite trivial offshoots. Which arguably makes it ''fairly'' classical in nature. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.114|172.70.90.114]] 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2859: Oceanography Gift

2024-01-13T20:23:14Z

Terdragontra:

The explanation for inland seas is incorrect. What Randall refers to is that with some (or many) of them, the surface currents work against letting any water flow in, because those currents flow outward. Thus, water poured into the Atlantic won't enter the Mediterranean, but water poured into the Med will move outward and then join the general ocean exchange.
What the explanation says does apply to (for instance) the Dead Sea. Of course, water molecules added to that have a high chance of evaporation, which would then get them into the global circulation anyway. {{unsigned ip|172.71.98.97|07:04, 25 November 2023}}

:This is incorrect anyway, since the Mediterranean has a net inflow of water from the Atlantic (inflow from its rivers can't make up for evaporation). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.34|172.70.38.34]] 08:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

::I would not have called the Med an "inland sea", either.
::Though I haven't read the main article/its history, since I put the very first paragraph there and invited others to add more. I presume someone took that literally (like Dead, Aral, Caspian or Salton, each with their own characteristics) rather than with the perhaps rather over-broad definition of having a single relatively narrow 'neck' connection.
::But the caveat in the Title Text of undeliverable by ''surface'' waters does apply, depending upon where you're sampling, as the Levantine sink of water takes inflowing water (that hasn't reversed around Corsica and gone straight back out) and feeds it round to the depths (and out again into the Atlantic) to a large degree. If you're relying on the 2D circulation, you lose such connectivity through the depths as well as it attaining atmospheric height...
::i.e. complex, and I think Randall's wording is not perfect. And yet to see if I can go back and improve/correct/support the Explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.134|172.71.178.134]] 18:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
::...and, re: the later edit about the Suez, yes. That too. Meant to consider it, in my re-edit, but forgot to finish checking which way the flow was (or tended to be). Good catch, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.193|172.71.94.193]] 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

::: I am not inclined to call the Mediterranean an "inland sea" either, at first thought... but upon inspection, perhaps only because Europe and Africa are separate continents, which makes it feel less "enclosed" and more of a "border", which is not a very good reason. [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

: Randall says that molecules intended for the Med ''may'' be returned as undeliverable - not that they ''will''. I would read that to mean that they're more likely to end up back where they started than they are to make it to a destination in the Med, in which case the current explanation is a bit off base.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.37|172.71.242.37]] 09:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

: I'm not sure the overall premise is accurate; the paper is dependent on very low probability pathways, using the ability of algae to reproduce in those regions to give billions of chances of hitting those difficult pathways. The water in the bottle doesn't reproduce. {{unsigned ip|172.69.194.70|09:51, 27 November 2023}}
:: <mumble mumble>...homeopathy...</mumble mumble> [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.32|172.71.178.32]] 12:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2879: Like This One

2024-01-13T20:03:51Z

Terdragontra:

i'm very confused what "this gas molecule" or "this skin microbe" is meant to be; it doesn't seem like there would contextually be an obvious specific instance of either of those classes? looking forward to seeing the conjecture given in the explanation when it settles down - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:I believe it's referring to her holding her hand out to signify a (large number of) gas molecules. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.49|172.69.34.49]] 02:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
::ahh, what she meant was "like these ones"--ok, I understand what both would mean now. - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 03:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:::She's pointing at one molecule. Just because you can't pick it out of the mass doesn't change that. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:::: Indeed. And one wouldn't want to get the wrong idea about ''which'' molecule she might study. Obviously, there are a lot of N2 ones, and a few O2s, but they're not necessarily of interest. The odd noble gas atom (if that counts as a molecule-of-one) or CO2 would probably be the more useful, along with SO2 / O3 / other trace ones as what she might be indicating. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.79|141.101.99.79]] 05:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::In my head-canon, she's using her stick-figure hand to point out an exceedingly long nitrogen nanotube that she's manufactured. Could be interpreted as a threatening gesture, I suppose?
:::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
: I think that's the whole joke - such statements are inevitably true, but at the same time essentially meaningless. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.140|172.70.86.140]] 16:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Other possible instances would include "Hominids" and "False vacuums". I was sure it was going to end with, "Cartoons like this one." [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
: Also, neutrinos would go on the list [[Special:Contributions/172.68.144.217|172.68.144.217]] 10:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm a researcher studying potential apocalyptic events..." [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.115|172.70.90.115]] 09:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I’m a criminologist studying the behavior patterns of psychopaths.
::But wait, is the 'this one' referring to you, or me...? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.50|172.71.178.50]] 16:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm a researcher studying computer simulations…" (sadly, not actually the kind we are (maybe) living in but close enough) [[User:Brycemw|Brycemw]] ([[User talk:Brycemw|talk]]) 14:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm a researcher studying research topics..." [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I study logical paradoxes..." (¿"...like this one"?) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.180|172.69.43.180]] 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:"I study self-referential statements..." [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm a biologist studying key turning points in human evolution... like this one!" "Man - that is the worst pick-up line..."[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.71|172.70.90.71]] 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"I study mathematical integers... like this 1." [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
: I am not the judge of this contest, but if I were, you win! [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"I study human comments..." --Anonymous

"I study traditional pub signs, like The Swan" [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.55|172.71.178.55]] 09:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
:Is ‘The Swan’ perhaps owned by [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Gnome_Ann Gnome Ann] (at least in this hypothetical)? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.1.131|172.68.1.131]] 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"Skin microbes" seems a bit (intentionally?) obscure, especially since, it seems to me, the closest a modern microbiologist gets to an actual bacterium is its Illumina lane. "Skin lesions", however (warts, moles, calluses, liver spots, eczema/psoriasis, melanoma, yada) ... Of course, this might only occur to audiences of [ahem] a certain age (cue Rod Stewart's/Bob Dylan's "Forever Young" ...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.186|172.70.207.186]] 21:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

”I’m a linguist studying languages”, and “I’m a student studying fictional works” also are kinda funny. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.1.130|172.68.1.130]] 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== Do we really want to break down each bullet point? ==

We could probably do well to simplify it to just something saying the list contains things immediately surrounding the characters, part of their bodies, or intangible ideas commonly employed during normal conversation. It probably doesn't need to explain what sound waves are, for instance --[[User:Raviolio|Raviolio]] ([[User talk:Raviolio|talk]]) 15:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:If breaking them all down, perhaps better a simple table rather than each 'hanging off' a bullet-point. But then we're more committed to breaking them ''all'' down (including Title Text) with potentially several paragraphs per 'explanation column cell'. (My preference, this moment, would be to restore the simple bullet-list then follow with the "air molecules" expansion below in regular prose, perhaps briefly zoom through the others in a single para to follow that, if not just wikilink those and leave to be checked at will. But that's just based upon what the current text might best be formatted as.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.180|172.69.43.180]] 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
::The long exploration of exactly what interpretation of 'like' should be placed on Ponytail's remark that's currently attached to the bullet point seems rather peripheral to the joke. If anything ought to be explained, it's why each thing would (a) always be present (or at least, with rare exceptions like being in a spacecraft in deep space), but also (b) not be usefully identified by the remark.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.36|172.69.194.36]] 16:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

== Dreams like this one ==

I don’t think “I study dreams like this one” necessarily implies that the conversation itself is a dream.
It probably shall mean that the neurologist ''thinks'' they are in a dream, which would irritate other participants who don’t feel like they are part of a dream.

It could also imply that the neurologist is able to “show” a dream.
They could point towards an optical hallucination, being aware that it is not real, but not respecting the inability of the other participants to see it.

If I was the neurologist, it would just mean that I am currently dreaming while having this conversation in reality.
“This one” would mean “the current one”.
BTW how is it called if you dream while awake, separate/parallel to the reality? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.246.181|172.70.246.181]] 08:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2868: Label the States

2023-12-18T15:15:19Z

Terdragontra:

I have not counted the states, but I deeply hope reaching the 64-state count involves splitting Michigan's mitten and peninsula in separate states. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.130|108.162.241.130]] 16:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:I have now counted them. Sadly, with a Unified Michigan, there are 64 states, plus DC, plus those 3 enclave-looking bits in California, Utah and Florida that have the darker outlines. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.214.73|172.69.214.73]] 16:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
::Those "enclave" parts are large bodies of water that actually exist. [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
::I am not at all sure that the areas in California, Utah, and Florida are intended to be additional states. They look like Okeechobee (Lake in Florida), Salt Lake (Utah) and the Salton Sea (California), approximately. There does seem to be an additional band of states starting between Oregon and California though- as a supporter of the Great State of Jefferson, I appove![[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:::They didn't really seem to be; they do have the coastline outlines, instead of the lighter state boundaries. The 64-count did work out without these lakes (though a part of me wishes one of them had been one, because it would have been funny to imply a state formed fully landlocked inside another, and even funnier if that state is just an entire body of water) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.38|108.162.242.38]] 16:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:::: Should have been Salt Lake, if any of them, mostly because its closer to being "salt flats" than a "lake." And also nearly completely valueless as real estate (I've driven through, I forgot to fill my gas tank before leaving the city and in order to reach the nearest gas station I had to drive 10 miles to the next exit in order to turn around, because the tiny village the exit was for didn't have a gas station). [[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] ([[User talk:Draco18s|talk]]) 21:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have identified (but not named) all the new states:
# South of Oregon
# South of Idaho
# South of Wyoming
# East of Montana
# East of Wyoming
# South of the previous new state
# East of Arizona
# North of Tennessee
# North of North Carolina
# East of New Hampshire
Additionally, the following states have been stretch and/or split:
# Colorado
# Nebraska
# Arkansa
# Ohio
The distinction between a split state and a new state is purely arbitrary based on what preserves distinctive state corners. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.214.108|172.69.214.108]] 16:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
: Personally, would describe the new state as being south of North Carolina. The one to the north better matches the general outline of North Carolina (particularly the Outer Banks and that long, straight northern border). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.65|172.69.247.65]] 16:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I added locations for the new states in the explanation. If you think my interpretation is wrong, feel free to change it! [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|Trogdor147]] ([[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|talk]]) 16:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Could this be considered in a "series" with other maps like the mixed up states and left out states ones? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.233|162.158.158.233]] 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it's relevant but the number of 64 (as a power of 2) doesn't seem completely random. Could be a hint towards states in the computer science sense. You could use 6 bit to represent any number of states up to 64 - and you'd already need 6 bit for the actual number of US states.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.129|172.69.22.129]] 17:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

someone with better photoshop skills than me should overlay the normal map and point out the inconsistencies! [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:Overlaying the maps goes beyond my skills with Paint, but I hope showing the real map and xkcd's one with extra states highlighted is clear enough.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Labeled all… INCLUDING Central Dakota, Central Carolina, North Arkansas, West Mexico, Kansorado, Ohindiana, Kentussee, Eyoming, East Hampshire, North Wyoming, West Dakota, South Oregon, Udaho, and Montanyoming. [[User:TenGolf MathHacker|TenGolf MathHacker]] ([[User talk:TenGolf MathHacker|talk]]) 18:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:I propose instead that the state north of Colorado be Wyoming, the one to the west become Wyamping, and the one to the north become Wyvolting. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.132|172.71.22.132]] 19:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

My proposal (hope the image is fine):

[[File:Labelledstates.png|400x400px]]
[[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 20:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

: You've labeled Nebraska as a "new" state for some reason, and it looks like it's been added to the actual description. Someone really ought to fix that. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.118|172.71.154.118]] 08:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:: I, too, object to Nebraska having been marked as one of the added states (and I don't even live there). [[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] ([[User talk:Draco18s|talk]]) 08:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
::: Sorry, european moment. I just took the highlighted map at its word! [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 09:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:::: No worries. I even screwed up the copy *I* did because I had to fix the in-color so it didn't look like ass and missed two of the new states (I love that no one can agree on which Wyoming is the right one, though). [[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] ([[User talk:Draco18s|talk]]) 21:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's my take. [https://imgur.com/a/Cjvybx1] [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 20:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
: This is absolutely delightful, Hyperbolic Kansas is my favorite [[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Loving the state name proposals. [https://imgur.com/a/DgWvox5 Here's mine.] [[User:Chasingballoons|Chasingballoons]] ([[User talk:Chasingballoons|talk]]) 21:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

: I liked N-eh's names better, except for "Occupied South Oregon and New Worchestershire". Those are truly inspired names.
:: New Worcestershire Sauce would be loaded with maple syrup as a major flavouring. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 10:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but what you have labelled as Kansbraska is actually just Nebraska. Just south of Nebraska is the new state, which I'd tentatively name Nebrahoma or perhaps Oklaska.

The image with the added states highlighted in the explanation has Nebraska highlighted. The correct state highlighted should be the one above Nebraska. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you want to]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 22:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:The image history just flips between South Dacota (with notch in NE) and Nebraska (with inward corner in SW), without ever marking the new state between them. One half each of Arkansas and Ohio disappeared too. There will probably be some more iterations with similar edit collisions... :D Anyways, the maps are aesthetically pleasing. Good job! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.205|162.158.87.205]] 14:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Very proud of everyone here for somehow managing to edit war over which states to highlight and getting it wrong Four Times In A Row [[User:IloLisipo|IloLisipo]] ([[User talk:IloLisipo|talk]]) 17:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:It's really bothering me that Colorado is currently marked in blue as a new state, when it seems rather obvious by the distorted outlines that "East Utah" (the one entirely West of Texas) is the "new" one... (Also, is ''no one'' going to make a Garfield joke about Wyoming being a made-up state?)
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 02:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
:Clearly, the state next to New Mexico is Newer Mexico.

Based on historical precedent, should the state south of Oregon and north of California be called Jefferson?

I think currently the real Tennessee and Arkansas are highlighted. It's hard to tell, but given that the new states tend to be aligned, the real Colorado might also be highlighted. This comment is about the fifth version of the highlighted map image. [[User:DL Draco Rex|DL Draco Rex]] ([[User talk:DL Draco Rex|talk]]) 18:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
:I agree, & it looks like the only thing delaying the corrections already called for, is that no one has wanted to do the image editing, to update the blue tiles in the explanation.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Any comment on the use of the word "even" in the title text? That phrasing suggests that it's easier to name the states with a blank map. But that obviously makes it harder, not easier. And also, if the map weren't blank there would be no need to name them in the first place. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 02:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:It's easier to name the States with a blank map as opposed to no map at all. [[User:DL Draco Rex|DL Draco Rex]] ([[User talk:DL Draco Rex|talk]]) 04:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:Yup, if asked to "name all the states", unless you particularly have an order in mind (that you can remember, through some mnemonic progression or other) you're prone to stabbibg away at the unordered list, not knowing if you've missed an 'obvious' one, perhaps not even knowing how many you've named, etc. Put an (unlabeled) map in front of you and a pen and you can general see which gaps you've filled (hopefully correctly, but when you realise that you wqnt to fill a neighbour with the same name then you can at least rewrite it/accept that you might have North Dakota/South Dakota the wrong way round but at least you have them both) and zero in on likely bits of memory you need to trawl through ("...another 'southern' state; I've got Arkansas, I've got Tennessee, I've got...").
:Depends upon your own mind (maybe you're a whiz at reciting all states alphabetically/by abbreviation/by area/by population/by support for a given party or politician), but definitely can't hurt. (Unless you miss Rhode Island's small footprint, or get confused about the discontinuity of that one state up in the Great Lakes, or have managed to shuffle the mid-west flyover 'square states' up or down one to leave the gap in ''totally'' the wrong place, or ...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.211|172.71.242.211]] 13:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course I can name all the states. Naming them ''correctly'' is a completely different matter, of course. (And as for naming the "new" states, it's obvious to me that the one beside Maine should be called Secondary.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.214.5|172.69.214.5]] 13:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
: "Fred", "Bob", "Dan", "Gregory", "Janine", "Hans", "Merryweather", "Caroline", "Jo", "Joe", "Joey", "Jock", "Jack", "George", "Geraldine", "Jerry", "Gerry", "Gary", "Gru", "Gerald", "Gerald Ford", "Henry Ford", "Henry Kissinger", "Henry Hoover", "Henry Dyson", "Henry Electrolux" "Electra", "Oedipus", "Œdipus", "Wikipædia", "FriendsReunited", "anon.penet.fi", "capitals" "LOWERCASE", "Mississippibutwithdoubledvowelsandsingleconsonants", "Fifty-first state", "Old Hampshire", ",", "Z00000L", "xxTattered Pig-Tail Vestxx", "Fred's cousin", "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. [...] It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.", "sic[sic]", "🤮", "ibid", "Ra Ra Rasputin", "Russian Queen", "Rush Limbaugh", "Rishi Sunak", "[[Randall]]"
: ...and, though it isn't a state, "Washington A.C."! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.178|172.71.242.178]] 14:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

==Friends reference==
Should the episode of Friends be referenced in explanation in which Ross tries to name all states or he doesn't get Thanksgiving Turkey and eventually comes in the middle of the night to eat with list of 50 states while aware Nevada is there twice? Meanwhile Joey's list way more than 50 states and accuses Ross of making stuff up as he listed 'Utah'?
Script of episode: https://www.livesinabox.com/friends/season7/708cdld.htm
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.162|162.158.103.162]] 09:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)