explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2767: Recipe Relativity

2023-04-28T08:27:24Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2767
| date = April 24, 2023
| title = Recipe Relativity
| image = recipe_relativity_2x.png
| imagesize = 303x332px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It says to cut the onions into 1/4" slices, but I'd better correct for length contraction.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EDITOR MOVING AT 94% OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Randall]] is cooking a recipe found online. It took him much longer than the recipe said it would, and he concludes that this was due to {{w|time dilation}} as described in the theory of {{w|special relativity}}; that is, the recipe author was moving at 94% of the speed of light, causing relativistic effects, so that only 35 minutes passed for the author while 105 minutes passed for Randall. To calculate the 94% figure, he takes the recipe’s official duration (t’) and his actual duration (t), and then calculates what speed of light fraction would account for the cooking time difference.

This is absurd{{citation needed}} and therefore humorous primarily because the most likely cause of the difference in time is that Randall is less skilled in making the recipe than its author, rather than relativistic effects. The recipe author would report the time in their own {{w|frame of reference}}, not Randall's, no matter what the difference in motion between the two.

Randall is poking fun at online recipes that state an optimistic cooking time. The recipe author may assume an ideally equipped kitchen, a skilled chef, and the availability of prepared ingredients, such as canned or frozen cooked black beans instead of dried beans which take over an hour to soak and cook.[https://i.ibb.co/sWJR8Vq/Screenshot-2023-04-25-6-28-35-AM.png]

The title text takes the relativistic theory even further, saying that because of {{w|Length contraction|Lorentz contraction}} caused by the recipe author moving close to the speed of light, Randall should use different sizes of ingredients. If the recipe author calling for 1/4" onion slices is indeed traveling at 94% of the speed of light relative to Randall, he wonders whether his onions should be cut to 3/4" slices to match their size in his frame of reference. This is similarly absurd and therefore humorous.

==Transcript==
:[In a small square panel the top part is written in black. It looks like a search from the internet and most of the top part of the browser is too small to be read. There are three small squares and a long rectangular address bar. To the right of the first small square which has a triangle inside it pointing down, there are two lines with unreadable text. Then followed by the second square, which is empty, and the address bar with a long line of unreadable text. Finally there are two lines of unreadable text before the last square which has a plus-shaped symbol inside it. Beneath this is a large header which can easily be read:]
:<big>Black bean burrito bowl</big>

:[Beneath this header there is a line with unreadable text, and below that line a thin empty rectangle. Beneath this is the second line of readable text. The last part indicating a time is circled in red. The readable black words are written in normal letters, as opposed to the standard of xkcd with all small caps.]
:Total time: 35 minutes

:[Beneath this there are three more lines of text, but this has all been written in red. Also it uses the standard xkcd all caps text format. The first line is normal text. And the last indication of time is also circled in red as the one above it, and a small double arrow goes between those two red lines around the time.]
:My actual time: 1h 45m
:[Below this there are two lines with equations written in math version, but here given here in text. The second equation is split over two lines. The last result is also circled in red.]
:t=t'/√(1-v2/c2)
:v=c*√(1-(t'/t)2) = c*√(1-(35/105)2) = 0.94c

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I think this recipe author is moving past me at 94% of the speed of light.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Food]]

2767: Recipe Relativity

2023-04-28T08:24:19Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */ Elephant in the room was not mentioned

{{comic
| number = 2767
| date = April 24, 2023
| title = Recipe Relativity
| image = recipe_relativity_2x.png
| imagesize = 303x332px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It says to cut the onions into 1/4" slices, but I'd better correct for length contraction.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EDITOR MOVING AT 94% OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Randall]] is cooking a recipe found online. It took him much longer than the recipe said it would, and he concludes that this was due to {{w|time dilation}} as described in the theory of {{w|special relativity}}; that is, the recipe author was moving at 94% of the speed of light, causing relativistic effects, so that only 35 minutes passed for the author while 105 minutes passed for Randall. To calculate the 94% figure, he takes the recipe’s official duration (t’) and his actual duration (t), and then calculates what speed of light fraction would account for the cooking time difference.

This is absurd{{citation needed}} and therefore humorous primarily because the most likely cause of the difference in time is because Randall is less skilled in making the recipe than its author, rather than relativistic effects. The recipe author would report the time in their own {{w|frame of reference}}, not Randall's, no matter what the difference in motion between the two.

Randall is poking fun at online recipes that state an optimistic cooking time. The recipe author may assume an ideally equipped kitchen, a skilled chef, and the availability of prepared ingredients, such as canned or frozen cooked black beans instead of dried beans which take over an hour to soak and cook.[https://i.ibb.co/sWJR8Vq/Screenshot-2023-04-25-6-28-35-AM.png]

The title text takes the relativistic theory even further, saying that because of {{w|Length contraction|Lorentz contraction}} caused by the recipe author moving close to the speed of light, Randall should use different sizes of ingredients. If the recipe author calling for 1/4" onion slices is indeed traveling at 94% of the speed of light relative to Randall, he wonders whether his onions should be cut to 3/4" slices to match their size in his frame of reference. This is similarly absurd and therefore humorous.

==Transcript==
:[In a small square panel the top part is written in black. It looks like a search from the internet and most of the top part of the browser is too small to be read. There are three small squares and a long rectangular address bar. To the right of the first small square which has a triangle inside it pointing down, there are two lines with unreadable text. Then followed by the second square, which is empty, and the address bar with a long line of unreadable text. Finally there are two lines of unreadable text before the last square which has a plus-shaped symbol inside it. Beneath this is a large header which can easily be read:]
:<big>Black bean burrito bowl</big>

:[Beneath this header there is a line with unreadable text, and below that line a thin empty rectangle. Beneath this is the second line of readable text. The last part indicating a time is circled in red. The readable black words are written in normal letters, as opposed to the standard of xkcd with all small caps.]
:Total time: 35 minutes

:[Beneath this there are three more lines of text, but this has all been written in red. Also it uses the standard xkcd all caps text format. The first line is normal text. And the last indication of time is also circled in red as the one above it, and a small double arrow goes between those two red lines around the time.]
:My actual time: 1h 45m
:[Below this there are two lines with equations written in math version, but here given here in text. The second equation is split over two lines. The last result is also circled in red.]
:t=t'/√(1-v2/c2)
:v=c*√(1-(t'/t)2) = c*√(1-(35/105)2) = 0.94c

:[Caption below the panel:]
:I think this recipe author is moving past me at 94% of the speed of light.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Food]]

2743: Hand Dryers

2023-03-01T08:45:17Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2743
| date = February 27, 2023
| title = Hand Dryers
| image = hand_dryers_2x.png
| imagesize = 618x309px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I know hand dryers have their problems, but I think for fun we should keep egging Dyson on and see if we can get them to make one where the airflow breaks the speed of sound.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DYSON ENGINEER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A {{w|hand dryer}} is an electrical device which uses air flow, typically of hot air, to dry the user's hands after they have just washed them. In the 30 or so seconds it takes to dry the hands, the user may feel as though the air coming from the hand dryer isn't actually warm,{{citation needed}} hence seeming like they "take forever to heat up," while in reality the water evaporating from the user's wet hands absorbs heat from them, as well as the possibly heated air, as {{w|evaporation}} is an endothermic process. Thus the user does not ''feel'' that the air from the dryer is warm, even though it is, and will only start to do so once their hands have been significantly dried. Interestingly, this absorption of heat through evaporation is how human {{w|sweat}} has its cooling effect, which means that even warm ambient air can be made to feel colder by being wafted across a person's dampened skin.

Randall has procured a small airplane, accompanied by a banner with a message explaining this phenomenon. He elaborates in the caption that he's spent dozens of years angry at the engineers of these hand dryers, as he was under the comic's erroneous impression that the air from the dryers was not actually warm. In an act of justice for hand dryer engineers everywhere, he now considers it his personal mission to explain to the public why this is actually a misconception. And indeed, it seems to be working - a person on the ground has already been [[1053: Ten Thousand|enlightened]] by Randall.

In the title text, the {{w|speed of sound}} is the speed of a sound wave{{citation needed}} in a given medium, usually air. Breaking the {{w|sound barrier}} is often touted as a significant achievement for powered aircraft (this was first safely achieved in the 1940s, and became significantly 'easier' with the development of the jet engine). Here, Randall thinks it would be a good idea to try and get the {{w|Dyson (company)|Dyson company}} (a technology company known for making high-tech, fancy and expensive air-moving devices such as vacuum-cleaners, fans and hand dryers) to design a hand dryer whose airflow would exceed the sound barrier. This would be technically difficult to achieve with such a relatively small device as a typical wall-mounted hand dryer. Nor would such a hand dryer really be practically useful, given that air currents faster than the speed of sound could injure the hands of the dryer's users,{{Citation needed}} amongst other unintended effects.

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

:[An airplane tows a banner. In the distance, there are three small clouds and three birds]

:[On the banner is written:] It seems like hand dryers take forever to heat up, but that's because the evaporation cools your skin, so the hot air feels cold until the water is gone.

:Voice coming from the bottom of the panel: Ohhh!

:[Caption below the panel:] I spent decades mistakenly annoyed at hand dryer engineers, so now I'm on a mission to save others from the same fate.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Engineering]]
[[Category:Aviation]]
[[Category:Airplane banner]]

2706: Bendy

2022-12-03T16:13:57Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2706
| date = December 2, 2022
| title = Bendy
| image = bendy_2x.png
| imagesize = 291x209px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Squaring the circle is really easy with some good clamps.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created while BENDING OVER PULLBACKWARDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Geometry usually represents 2D polygons with simple straight lines. In the comic, the lines are compared to a physical object, and are shown to have the property of bendiness. These lines cannot have Euclidean properties, but other non-Euclidean systems have been invented in the past with non-standard properties.<ref>{{w|Non-Euclidean_geometry}}</ref>

This comic may be a reference to axis breaks in graphs, which shrink large segments and enhance readability and are denoted by a wiggly line on the y-axis.

The title-text talks about "{{w|Squaring the circle}}", a famous geometry problem based around finding a square with the same area as a given circle. (Not to be confused with {{w|Tarski's circle-squaring problem|circle-squaring}}.) However, it then goes on to describe a way to literally turn one of these bendy shapes from a circle into a square, namely using clamps.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[There are two right triangles. One triangle has side lengths of 3, 4, and 5, and is scribbled out in red. The other triangle has the same general shape but with the catheti appearing like longer but bent lines, so that all the side lengths equal 5 if straightened.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Huge geometry breakthrough: Turns out those lines we make triangles out of are bendy!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

2706: Bendy

2022-12-03T16:13:12Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2706
| date = December 2, 2022
| title = Bendy
| image = bendy_2x.png
| imagesize = 291x209px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Squaring the circle is really easy with some good clamps.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created while BENDING OVER PULLBACKWARDS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Geometry usually represents 2D polygons with simple straight lines. In the comic, the lines are compared to a physical object, and are shown to have the property of bendiness. These lines cannot have Euclidean properties, but other non-Euclidean systems have been invented in the past with non-standard properties.{{w|Non-Euclidean_geometry}}

This comic may be a reference to axis breaks in graphs, which shrink large segments and enhance readability and are denoted by a wiggly line on the y-axis.

The title-text talks about "{{w|Squaring the circle}}", a famous geometry problem based around finding a square with the same area as a given circle. (Not to be confused with {{w|Tarski's circle-squaring problem|circle-squaring}}.) However, it then goes on to describe a way to literally turn one of these bendy shapes from a circle into a square, namely using clamps.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[There are two right triangles. One triangle has side lengths of 3, 4, and 5, and is scribbled out in red. The other triangle has the same general shape but with the catheti appearing like longer but bent lines, so that all the side lengths equal 5 if straightened.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Huge geometry breakthrough: Turns out those lines we make triangles out of are bendy!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

2697: Y2K and 2038

2022-11-14T07:35:27Z

TuringTest: I've never heard of anyone actually recompiling to a 33-bit integer format

{{comic
| number = 2697
| date = November 11, 2022
| title = Y2K and 2038
| image = y2k_and_2038_2x.png
| imagesize = 527x190px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's taken me 20 years, but I've finally finished rebuilding all my software to use 33-bit signed ints.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Y2K-BRICKED BOT (MADE JAN 1, 1970). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Year 2038 problem.gif|thumb|An animation of the 2038 bug in action. The {{w|integer overflow}} error occurs at 03:14:08 UTC on 19 January 2038.]]

The Y2K bug, or more formally, the {{w|year 2000 problem}}, was the computer errors caused by two digit software representations of calendar years incorrectly handling the year 2000, such as by treating it as 1900 or 19100. The {{w|year 2038 problem}} is a similar issue with timestamps in {{w|Unix time}} format, which will overflow their {{w|Signed number representations|signed}} 32-bit binary representation on January 19, 2038.

While initial estimates were that the Y2K problem would require about half a trillion dollars to address, there was widespread recognition of its potential severity several years in advance. Concerted efforts among organizations including computer and software manufacturers and their corporate and government users reflected unprecedented cooperation, testing, and enhancement of affected systems costing substantially less than the early estimates. On New Year's Day 2000, few major errors actually occurred. Those that did usually did not disrupt essential processes or cause serious problems, and the few of them that did were usually addressed in days to weeks. The software code reviews involved allowed correcting other errors and providing various enhancements which often made up at least in part for the the cost of correcting the date bug.

It is unclear whether the 2038 problem will be addressed as effectively in time, but documented experience with the Y2K bug and increased software modularity and access to source code has allowed many otherwise vulnerable systems to already upgrade to wider timestamp and date formats, so there is reason to believe that it may be even less consequential and expensive. The 2038 problem has been previously mentioned in [[607: 2038]] and [[887: Future Timeline]].

This comic assumes that the 38 years between Y2K and Y2038 should (or must) be split evenly between recovering from Y2K and preparing for Y2038. That would put the split point in 2019 (specifically, January 10, 2019). The caption points out that it's now (2022) well past that demarcation line, so everyone should have completed their "Y2K recovery" and begun preparing for Y2038. It is highly unlikely that there are more than a very few consequential older systems that still suffer from this bug, while systems built to operate only since the millennium can already handle years after 1999 correctly, though not ''necessarily'' those after 2099, 2255 or some other notable problematic date. There's also no reason any developer should have waited until 2019 to start preparing for 2038.

The title text refers to replacing the 32-bit signed Unix time format with a hypothetical new 33-bit signed {{w|Integer (computer science)|integer}} time and date format. Doing this may seem complicated to new software developers, but recompiling with a larger size of integers was a normal solution for the Y3K bug to engineers of Randall's generation, who learned to code when computer memory space was still at a premium. Taking 20 years to develop and implement such a format is not entirely counterproductive, as it would add another 68 years of capability, but it is a far less efficient use of resources than upgrading to the widely available and supported 64-bit Unix time replacement format (which much better fits 64- and even 32-bit hardware than a 33-bit format does) and software compatibility libraries.

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

[A timeline rectangle with 37 short dividing lines between the two ends, defining it into 38 minor sections, with the label "2000" above, associated with the leftmost edge, "2038" associated with the rightmost edge and "2019" directly over the centermost division that starts the section which covers that year, which is also extended to form a dotted line divided the whole height of the timeline into two equal 19-section halves. The left half has the label "Recovering from the Y2K bug" and the right half is labeled "Preparing for the 2038 bug". A triangular arrowhead labeled "Now" is also above indicating a rough position most of the way through the section that would represent the year 2022.]

[Caption:] Reminder: By now you should have finished your Y2K recovery and be several years into 2038 preparation.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Calendar]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Timelines]]

2693: Wirecutter Recommendation

2022-11-04T20:48:37Z

TuringTest: Considering alternate possibility

{{comic
| number = 2693
| date = November 2, 2022
| title = Wirecutter Recommendation
| image = wirecutter_recommendation_2x.png
| imagesize = 430x333px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Their 'best philosophy of epistemology' picks are great, but you can tell they're struggling a little in the 'why you should trust us' section.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a WIRECUTTER DREAM — Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

''[https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter Wirecutter]'' is a product review website, owned by ''The New York Times''. As such, ''Wirecutter'' is best used for comparing brands and models of consumer products. The comic, however, lists things that ''Wirecutter'' should ''not'' recommend, or that one should not choose based on ''Wirecutter'' reviews.

The first panel shows [[Cueball]] telling [[Ponytail]] that he decided to go with ''Wirecutter'''s recommendation when buying something unspecified. The second panel shows a list of different contexts for this conversation, ranking them from "Fine" to "Very Bad".

{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Thing Being Chosen!!Judgment!!Explanation
|-
|Vacuum cleaner||Fine||Vacuum cleaners are an everyday household item. Many brands and models are available offering a range of functionality at different prices. This is exactly the kind of thing where ''Wirecutter'''s reviews are helpful when deciding which kind to buy.
|-
|Headphones||Fine|||Headphones are also fairly ubiquitous, and ''Wirecutter'' would likewise be useful in such a scenario.
|-
|Electric scooter||Fine||While less common than the two above, electric scooters are still a popular electrical product, so ''Wirecutter'' is a decent choice for advice.
|-
|Favorite movie||Weird||Most people would say that your choice of favorite movie should be based on your own experiences, rather than someone else's opinions. Reviewing movies is a very different endeavor to reviewing products, and one would not expect ''Wirecutter'' to be particularly proficient with it. While a movie review website may be a reasonable source of recommendations on whether to see a particular movie at all, it would be strange to choose one's own favorite movie based on a website's recommendation.
|-
|Personal style||Weird||Not only does the term "personal style" encompass a vast range of topics, it is also (predictably) a deeply personal thing. These two factors mean that not only will ''Wirecutter'''s recommended likely not fully discuss every factor of your personal style, it also isn't the kind of service you'd use to choose something as nebulous and personal as your "personal style."
|-
|Neighborhood||Weird||It can be assumed this means "the neighborhood one lives in." In this case, it is odd to rely on ''Wirecutter'' for recommendations on where to live, as it is a product review website and since a respectable portion of that decision is up to personal circumstances, preferences, and local conditions that a national newspaper (even one with the resources of the ''New York Times'') will not be able to see. In a best case scenario, ''Wirecutter'' is recommending neighborhoods based on empirical data, such as local economic growth. There are [https://www.businessinsider.com/us-news-best-places-to-live-in-america-2016-3 publications] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2022/07/28/the-best-and-most-affordable-places-to-live-in-america-in-2022/?sh=566a26ca6bbf that] [https://money.com/best-places-to-live/ rank] the "best cities to live in", which could relate to this topic.
|-
|Pet||Weird||While the ''type'' of pet may be more easy to rank on a website (especially with a pro/con system), picking an ''individual pet'' is an extremely personal decision that probably can't be considered covered by a product review website like ''Wirecutter''.
|-
|College major||Bad||Your college major will influence the rest of your life significantly, and your choice should depend on your prior personal experiences. Basing your choice on ''Wirecutter'', something completely unrelated to college, is likely a bad idea. As with "Neighborhood", any recommendations can only be based on empirical data like employment availability, tuition cost vs. expected salary, etc. [https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/top-ten-college-majors Rankings] [https://www.mydegreeguide.com/best-college-majors/ like] [https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/save-money/best-college-majors/ this] do exist, however, and are possibly used by prospective students.
|-
|Career||Bad||One's optimal career choice is subject to a wide range of highly personal factors, including your talents, ambitions, and capabilities. It is highly unlikely that a hardware review site like ''Wirecutter'' would be capable of accounting for every one of these factors for every conceivable viewer. Could be related to [https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings/the-100-best-jobs rankings] [https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-best-jobs-in-america-in-2022-ranked/ like] [https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/12/these-are-10-best-us-jobs-of-2022-according-to-new-research.html this].
|-
|Religion||Bad||Do ''not'' base your religious worldview on the electronic device equivalent to Yelp. The idea of ''Wirecutter'' reviewing religion has appeared in a previous comic, [[2536: Wirecutter]].
|-
|Spouse||Very Bad|| In general, people pair off when choosing spouses. This would mean that ''Wirecutter'' would be required to either find one potential spouse for every reader (cumbersome, to say the least) or would recommend ''one'' spouse for multiple (possibly millions of) partners. Even assuming an accelerated divorce rate, it would be impossible for the choice spouse to actually accomplish the role.
Perhaps [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/24/wirecutter-recommends-the-best-partner this parody] by ''The New Yorker'' inspired this comic.
|-
|Dreams||Very Bad|| There are two possible definitions of "dream" that may be referred to here.
* When it comes to "the series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep," most people cannot consciously control what they dream about, so recommending this sort of dream is somewhat pointless. Further, as this information is largely inaccessible outside of the mind of the dreamer, ''Wirecutter'' has limited ability to make meaningful suggestions.
* On the other hand, if Cueball is relying upon ''Wirecutter'' to recommend "a cherished aspiration, ambition, or ideal," he is allowing one of the most personal and individual aspects of his life — something which may give life itself a sense of meaning — to be dictated by a consumer product review site. As with many entries here, this is something that most people have to come up with or discover for themselves; relying on a third party to recommend one FOR him is deeply unlikely to bring about long-term satisfaction.
|-
|Favorite child||Very Bad|| Assuming this is a reference to the reader's own children, it can be difficult and furthermore bad practice for a parent to choose their "favorite" child, and using ''Wirecutter'' to do this analysis is near impossible. And a website that purports to know more about how to judge the relative merits of your own family than you would be... interesting.
The alternative interpretation of assuming that this is from "all children, everywhere" is more difficult. There are approximately 1.3 billion persons under the age of 18, most of whom have at least one good quality,{{citation needed}} and defining a useful ranking in such a situation is functionally impossible.
|-
|Site for product recommendations||Very Bad|| This is a topic of which the authors, editors, and publishers of ''Wirecutter'' have a vested interest and clear bias. This implies that the people at ''Wirecutter'' would be self-serving when it comes to recommending recommendations, specifically.

Alternatively, they could be recommending ''another'' review site, which could call into question their judgment and make you wonder why you should trust them at all.
|-
|}

The title text references {{w|epistemology}}, a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge and truth, for which [[Randall]] says ''Wirecutter'''s recommendations are great. Broadly speaking, epistemology attempts to answer the question "how do I know that what I know is true?" He seems skeptical, however, of their reasons that their reviews should be trusted. Perhaps the great epistemological theories don't favor the accuracy of crowdsourced product reviews when manufacturers are eager to leverage such reviews to cast their products in the best possible light, including through unethical means such as {{w|astroturfing}}.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Ponytail standing next to each other. Cueball has his palm raised.]
:Cueball: I just went with the one Wirecutter recommended.

:[A panel of four categories with topics next to them]

:[Fine category]
:Vacuum cleaner
:Headphones
:Electric scooter

:[Weird category]
:Favorite movie
:Personal style
:Neighborhood
:Pet

:[Bad category]
:College major
:Career
:Religion

:[Very bad category]
:Spouse
:Dreams
:Favorite child
:Site for product recommendations

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T07:26:03Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2687
| date = October 19, 2022
| title = Division Notation
| image = division_notation_new_2x.png
| imagesize = 235x310px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Science tip: Scientists hardly ever use the two-dot division sign, and when they do it often doesn't even mean division, but they still get REALLY mad when you repurpose it to write stuff like SALE! ALL SHOES 30÷ OFF!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GROUP OF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at some of the ways to write the {{w|Division (mathematics)|division}} operation in math. In this comic, Randall has used A as the dividend (the number being divided) and B as the divisor (the number that A is divided by).

The first two are respectively the {{w|division sign}} (÷) and {{w|long division}} symbol. (Note: the long division symbol is only used in some countries, and there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries different notations in the non-English speaking world]). These methods of division are often used by school children as the first ÷ is what people learn when first learning division, and the second long division symbol is usually the first type of long division learned (it's easier to do it visually on paper that way).

The third line is the way the division is often written in software code. The 4 standard operations in programming usually are +, -, *, /. This one was missing in the first version of the comic. This is most commonly seen in regular mathematics as it somewhat saves space, and is easy to type with the slash key. Additionally, it uses standard {{w|ASCII}} characters instead of extended charsets, which would have helped to establish its traditional usage.

The fourth line is how the division is often hand-written: the A smaller and somewhat higher, the B smaller and somewhat lower, in order to suggest fraction notation (as on the fifth line) without either taking up more vertical space or writing so small as to be illegible. This is hard to achieve on a computer, particularly in situations where formatting is not available; Unicode provides a few specific fractions such as ⅓ as well as some superscript and subscript characters, so someone familiar with it might use it to write fractions such as ²²⁄₇. But this is tedious and can't be used on more complex expressions, so it is rarely used in everyday life (the fraction A/B cannot be written this way; there is a superscript A, but no subscript B).

The fifth notation is the way division is written in science: dividend on top line and divided on bottom line. This is the closest format to how a {{w|Fraction|fraction}} would be written. It has the advantage of clearly separating the numerator and denominator when they are longer expressions, such as polynomials, without needing to add parentheses. This format is mostly used in written math, as it can't be typed without something like {{w|MathML}} or {{w|LaTeX}}.

The sixth notation uses a negative exponent. The exponent -1 has the same effect as dividing by the base. It can be used to keep the entire expression on one line.

The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can, because both the function itself and the math environment as a whole are going to get ''very'' tedious.

This situation is likely to occur in abstract algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Division notation
:A÷B
:B⟌A Schoolchild.
:A/B Software engineer.
:A⁄B Normal person or Unicode enthusiast.
:A over B Scientist.
:AB-1 Fancy scientist.
:F(A, B) such that F(G)= (text getting smaller) Oh no, run

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Science tip]]

2687: Division Notation

2022-10-20T07:24:11Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2687
| date = October 19, 2022
| title = Division Notation
| image = division_notation_new_2x.png
| imagesize = 235x310px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Science tip: Scientists hardly ever use the two-dot division sign, and when they do it often doesn't even mean division, but they still get REALLY mad when you repurpose it to write stuff like SALE! ALL SHOES 30÷ OFF!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GROUP OF SCHOOLCHILDREN DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at some of the ways to write the {{w|Division (mathematics)|division}} operation in math. In this comic, Randall has used A as the dividend (the number being divided) and B as the divisor (the number that A is divided by).

The first two are respectively the {{w|division sign}} (÷) and {{w|long division}} symbol. (Note: the long division symbol is only used in some countries, and there are different notations in the non-English speaking world). These methods of division are often used by school children as the first ÷ is what people learn when first learning division, and the second long division symbol is usually the first type of long division learned (it's easier to do it visually on paper that way).

The third line is the way the division is often written in software code. The 4 standard operations in programming usually are +, -, *, /. This one was missing in the first version of the comic. This is most commonly seen in regular mathematics as it somewhat saves space, and is easy to type with the slash key. Additionally, it uses standard {{w|ASCII}} characters instead of extended charsets, which would have helped to establish its traditional usage.

The fourth line is how the division is often hand-written: the A smaller and somewhat higher, the B smaller and somewhat lower, in order to suggest fraction notation (as on the fifth line) without either taking up more vertical space or writing so small as to be illegible. This is hard to achieve on a computer, particularly in situations where formatting is not available; Unicode provides a few specific fractions such as ⅓ as well as some superscript and subscript characters, so someone familiar with it might use it to write fractions such as ²²⁄₇. But this is tedious and can't be used on more complex expressions, so it is rarely used in everyday life (the fraction A/B cannot be written this way; there is a superscript A, but no subscript B).

The fifth notation is the way division is written in science: dividend on top line and divided on bottom line. This is the closest format to how a {{w|Fraction|fraction}} would be written. It has the advantage of clearly separating the numerator and denominator when they are longer expressions, such as polynomials, without needing to add parentheses. This format is mostly used in written math, as it can't be typed without something like {{w|MathML}} or {{w|LaTeX}}.

The sixth notation uses a negative exponent. The exponent -1 has the same effect as dividing by the base. It can be used to keep the entire expression on one line.

The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can, because both the function itself and the math environment as a whole are going to get ''very'' tedious.

This situation is likely to occur in abstract algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Division notation
:A÷B
:B⟌A Schoolchild.
:A/B Software engineer.
:A⁄B Normal person or Unicode enthusiast.
:A over B Scientist.
:AB-1 Fancy scientist.
:F(A, B) such that F(G)= (text getting smaller) Oh no, run

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Science tip]]

2648: Chemicals

2022-07-20T21:50:11Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2648
| date = July 20, 2022
| title = Chemicals
| image = chemicals.png
| titletext = It's hard to believe, but lots of kids these days ONLY know how to buy prepackaged molecules.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by BIG MOLECULE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, Megan mentions that you can find the chemical formulas for chemicals online, and that they spend a lot on fancy chemicals. Bizarrely, she suggests that "they can assemble" their chemicals themselves. When Megan says this she is holding a sheet that contains the chemical formula for nitrobenzene. This would be difficult without some fancy chemistry equipment.{{citation needed}} This formula also adds to the humor because the synthesis of nitrobenzene is highly exothermic{{citation needed}} and thus extremely dangerous, and gives a reasonable response to Cueball's comment as to why more people don't "manufacture" their own chemicals.

Today's comic premise may have been prompted by recent news that [https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2022-07-15/for-the-first-time-in-history-we-can-modify-atomic-bonds-in-a-single-molecule.html scientists have found a way to assemble and change atoms in a single molecule] by modifying its bonds. Or it may also be completely unrelated.

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

:[Megan and Cueball standing next to each other. Megan has her palms raised.]
:Megan: You know how our company spends a lot on expensive chemicals?
:Cueball: Yeah?

:[Megan holding up a piece of paper with a chemical formula on it, as well as some computation for the number of atoms needed]
:Megan: Well, I just learned you can look up all of the formulas online!
:Megan: We can just buy the atoms in bulk and assemble them here!

:[Cueball still standing. Megan walking off-panel to the right]
:Cueball: I wonder why more places don't do that.
:Megan: People have no idea they're getting ripped off by Big Molecule!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

2648: Chemicals

2022-07-20T21:49:10Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1488
| date = September 11, 2001
| title = JEWS DID 9/11, ARAB SOYJAK WAS INNOCENT
| image = [[File:De Eeuwige Jood.jpg|500px]]
| titletext = ALSO RANDALL MUNROE HATES NIGGERS
}}

==Explanation==
le reddit webcomic
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣀⣀⠀⢠⣿⣿⠟⠛⠛⠿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⠇⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠿⢿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣤⣤⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣀⣀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣶⣿⠿⠿⠿⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠛⠻⠿⠿⣿⣷⣦⣄⣀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣄⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⠿⠟⠛⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠿⣿⣿⣾⣿⡿⠛⠛⠻⢿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⡿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠻⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣧⢀⣶⣿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣶⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⢿⣷⡄⠀⣾⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⣿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢻⣿⣾⡿⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠛⠛⠛⠋⠙⠛⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣇⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠚⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣠⣠⣤⣤⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⡢⡀⢍⡁⠠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⠁⢀⡤⠞⠉⢻⠀⠈⡏⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠉⠙⡟⠛⡷⢦⣄⠈⢳⠀⠀⠀⠐⠄⡀⠈⠀⠈⣲⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢻⣿⣶⢸⠊⡥⠀⠓⠉⠁⠆⡇⠀⣷⣧⣠⣴⣾⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣷⣶⣧⣀⢠⠀⡎⠀⢀⠉⠡⠄⢡⣂⢀⣾⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⢿⣷⣮⣈⡉⢘⠀⠠⢂⠁⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠉⡜⠁⠀⠈⠐⠦⠂⢸⣷⣿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣶⣧⡄⣶⡉⠄⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠠⢐⠀⣇⣵⣾⡿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠻⣿⣷⣧⡡⠠⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠀⠀⠀⣁⠆⣠⣾⣿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢻⣿⣁⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⣿⠀⠀⢘⣈⢴⣰⣿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⡈⡵⡀⠀⠻⣿⣧⡈⡿⠛⣻⠋⣉⣠⣿⠃⠀⢄⠰⢀⣿⡿⢩⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⢿⣇⠇⠀⣀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣶⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⠆⠀⢨⣿⡿⡁⠇⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣜⢤⣄⣡⢰⣦⣦⣤⣤⠄⢀⠀⣿⣴⡟⠁⡈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠈⠻⣷⣵⣤⣃⣄⣄⣤⣿⣷⠿⠿⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠉⠙⠋⠉⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣀⣀⠀⢠⣿⣿⠟⠛⠛⠿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⠇⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠿⢿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣤⣤⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣀⣀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣶⣿⠿⠿⠿⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠛⠻⠿⠿⣿⣷⣦⣄⣀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣄⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⠿⠟⠛⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠿⣿⣿⣾⣿⡿⠛⠛⠻⢿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⡿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠻⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣧⢀⣶⣿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣶⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⢿⣷⡄⠀⣾⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⣿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢻⣿⣾⡿⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠛⠛⠛⠋⠙⠛⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣇⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠚⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣠⣠⣤⣤⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⡢⡀⢍⡁⠠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⠁⢀⡤⠞⠉⢻⠀⠈⡏⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠉⠙⡟⠛⡷⢦⣄⠈⢳⠀⠀⠀⠐⠄⡀⠈⠀⠈⣲⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢻⣿⣶⢸⠊⡥⠀⠓⠉⠁⠆⡇⠀⣷⣧⣠⣴⣾⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣷⣶⣧⣀⢠⠀⡎⠀⢀⠉⠡⠄⢡⣂⢀⣾⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⢿⣷⣮⣈⡉⢘⠀⠠⢂⠁⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠉⡜⠁⠀⠈⠐⠦⠂⢸⣷⣿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣶⣧⡄⣶⡉⠄⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠠⢐⠀⣇⣵⣾⡿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠻⣿⣷⣧⡡⠠⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠀⠀⠀⣁⠆⣠⣾⣿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢻⣿⣁⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⣿⠀⠀⢘⣈⢴⣰⣿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⡈⡵⡀⠀⠻⣿⣧⡈⡿⠛⣻⠋⣉⣠⣿⠃⠀⢄⠰⢀⣿⡿⢩⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⢿⣇⠇⠀⣀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣶⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⠆⠀⢨⣿⡿⡁⠇⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣜⢤⣄⣡⢰⣦⣦⣤⣤⠄⢀⠀⣿⣴⡟⠁⡈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠈⠻⣷⣵⣤⣃⣄⣄⣤⣿⣷⠿⠿⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠉⠙⠋⠉⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣀⣀⠀⢠⣿⣿⠟⠛⠛⠿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⠇⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠿⢿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣤⣤⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣀⣀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣶⣿⠿⠿⠿⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠛⠻⠿⠿⣿⣷⣦⣄⣀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣄⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⠿⠟⠛⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠿⣿⣿⣾⣿⡿⠛⠛⠻⢿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⡿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠻⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣧⢀⣶⣿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣶⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⢿⣷⡄⠀⣾⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⣿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢻⣿⣾⡿⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠛⠛⠛⠋⠙⠛⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠛⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣇⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠚⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣠⣠⣤⣤⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⡢⡀⢍⡁⠠⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⠁⢀⡤⠞⠉⢻⠀⠈⡏⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠉⠙⡟⠛⡷⢦⣄⠈⢳⠀⠀⠀⠐⠄⡀⠈⠀⠈⣲⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢻⣿⣶⢸⠊⡥⠀⠓⠉⠁⠆⡇⠀⣷⣧⣠⣴⣾⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣷⣶⣧⣀⢠⠀⡎⠀⢀⠉⠡⠄⢡⣂⢀⣾⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⢿⣷⣮⣈⡉⢘⠀⠠⢂⠁⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠉⡜⠁⠀⠈⠐⠦⠂⢸⣷⣿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣶⣧⡄⣶⡉⠄⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠠⢐⠀⣇⣵⣾⡿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠻⣿⣷⣧⡡⠠⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠀⠀⠀⣁⠆⣠⣾⣿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢻⣿⣁⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⣿⠀⠀⢘⣈⢴⣰⣿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⡈⡵⡀⠀⠻⣿⣧⡈⡿⠛⣻⠋⣉⣠⣿⠃⠀⢄⠰⢀⣿⡿⢩⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⢿⣇⠇⠀⣀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣶⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⠆⠀⢨⣿⡿⡁⠇⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣜⢤⣄⣡⢰⣦⣦⣤⣤⠄⢀⠀⣿⣴⡟⠁⡈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠈⠻⣷⣵⣤⣃⣄⣄⣤⣿⣷⠿⠿⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠉⠙⠋⠉⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ 
{{incomplete|Created by BIG MOLECULE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, Megan mentions that you can find the chemical formulas for chemicals online, and that they spend a lot on fancy chemicals. Bizarrely, she suggests that "they can assemble" their chemicals themselves. When Megan says this she is holding a sheet that contains the chemical formula for nitrobenzene. This would be difficult without some fancy chemistry equipment.{{citation needed}} This formula also adds to the humor because the synthesis of nitrobenzene is highly exothermic{{citation needed}} and thus extremely dangerous, and gives a reasonable response to Cueball's comment as to why more people don't "manufacture" their own chemicals.

Today's comic premise may have been prompted by recent news that [https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2022-07-15/for-the-first-time-in-history-we-can-modify-atomic-bonds-in-a-single-molecule.html scientists have found a way to assemble and change atoms in a single molecule] by modifying its bonds. Or it may also be completely unrelated.

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

:[Megan and Cueball standing next to each other. Megan has her palms raised.]
:Megan: You know how our company spends a lot on expensive chemicals?
:Cueball: Yeah?

:[Megan holding up a piece of paper with a chemical formula on it, as well as some computation for the number of atoms needed]
:Megan: Well, I just learned you can look up all of the formulas online!
:Megan: We can just buy the atoms in bulk and assemble them here!

:[Cueball still standing. Megan walking off-panel to the right]
:Cueball: I wonder why more places don't do that.
:Megan: People have no idea they're getting ripped off by Big Molecule!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

2640: The Universe by Scientific Field

2022-07-02T11:14:06Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2640
| date = July 1, 2022
| title = The Universe by Scientific Field
| image = the_universe_by_scientific_field.png
| titletext = The math and philosophy people also claim everything, but the astronomers argue that the stuff they study really only comprises a small number of paper surfaces.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A TINY PROPORTION OF THE UNIVERSE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Astronomy}} is the study of outer space and celestial phenomena. This comic makes a joke that most of the "universe" falls under the study of astronomy, which makes sense because it is so vast and large and is not studied directly by other fields of science.

The volume of the {{w|observable universe}} is 3.566×1080 cubic meters. The volume of Earth is 1.08321×1021 cubic meters.

1.08321×1021 m3 ÷ 3.566×1080 m3 × 100% ≈ 3×10-58%, which is scientific notation for the second of the two percentages, the first being its difference from 100%.

The title text says that mathematicians and philosophers claim that what they study also represents everything. But astronomers counter this by saying that they just study things that are written down, and this comprises just tiny amounts of "paper" on the Earth. This claim by mathematicians also appears in [[435: Purity]]. A counterargument by philosophers would involve the fact that all the information gathered by astronomers is necessarily processed by the functioning of gray cells in human brains, which is ultimately the subject of study of philosophy.

The information provided by {{w|Observational astronomy|astronomical observations}} of light, subatomic particles, and gravity's effects represents only a tiny fraction of the scientific properties of the extraterrestrial substances in the volume of space that astronomers study. Moreover, the adjacent fields of optics, physics, chemistry, mathematics, and geometry underpin almost all aspects of astronomy other than {{w|Astronomical naming conventions|nomenclature}}, so proponents of those disciplines may see the comic as biased. Other objections could conceivably include the fact that most matter in the universe is described just as well by the laws of chemistry or physics as by astronomy, or the fact that almost everyone's subjective life experiences are overwhelmingly more involved with matters best described by fields other than astronomy, even in the case of professional astronomers (who often complain about how little time they can allocate to making actual astronomical observations) although this is to be expected as all but typically a handful of people are terrestrial. Finally, astronomy and astrophysics publications comprise only about 0.5% of science and engineering output worldwide, making them the smallest of fourteen such categories.[https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20214/table/SPBS-34]

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

:The Universe by Scientific Field

:[A pie chart is shown.]
:Astronomy
:99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999997%
:Other
:0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003%

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Pie charts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

2640: The Universe by Scientific Field

2022-07-02T11:12:20Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2640
| date = July 1, 2022
| title = The Universe by Scientific Field
| image = the_universe_by_scientific_field.png
| titletext = The math and philosophy people also claim everything, but the astronomers argue that the stuff they study really only comprises a small number of paper surfaces.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A TINY PROPORTION OF THE UNIVERSE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Astronomy}} is the study of outer space and celestial phenomena. This comic makes a joke that most of the "universe" falls under the study of astronomy, which makes sense because it is so vast and large and is not studied directly by other fields of science.

The volume of the {{w|observable universe}} is 3.566×1080 cubic meters. The volume of Earth is 1.08321×1021 cubic meters.

1.08321×1021 m3 ÷ 3.566×1080 m3 × 100% ≈ 3×10-58%, which is scientific notation for the second of the two percentages, the first being its difference from 100%.

The title text says that mathematicians and philosophers claim that what they study also represents everything. But astronomers counter this by saying that they just study things that are written down, and this comprises just tiny amounts of "paper" on the Earth. This claim by mathematicians also appears in [[435: Purity]]. A counterclaim by philosophers would involve the fact that all the information gathered by astronomers is necessarily processed by the functioning of gray cells in human brains, which is ultimately the subject of study of philosophy.

The information provided by {{w|Observational astronomy|astronomical observations}} of light, subatomic particles, and gravity's effects represents only a tiny fraction of the scientific properties of the extraterrestrial substances in the volume of space that astronomers study. Moreover, the adjacent fields of optics, physics, chemistry, mathematics, and geometry underpin almost all aspects of astronomy other than {{w|Astronomical naming conventions|nomenclature}}, so proponents of those disciplines may see the comic as biased. Other objections could conceivably include the fact that most matter in the universe is described just as well by the laws of chemistry or physics as by astronomy, or the fact that almost everyone's subjective life experiences are overwhelmingly more involved with matters best described by fields other than astronomy, even in the case of professional astronomers (who often complain about how little time they can allocate to making actual astronomical observations) although this is to be expected as all but typically a handful of people are terrestrial. Finally, astronomy and astrophysics publications comprise only about 0.5% of science and engineering output worldwide, making them the smallest of fourteen such categories.[https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20214/table/SPBS-34]

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

:The Universe by Scientific Field

:[A pie chart is shown.]
:Astronomy
:99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999997%
:Other
:0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003%

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Pie charts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

2640: The Universe by Scientific Field

2022-07-02T11:10:34Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2640
| date = July 1, 2022
| title = The Universe by Scientific Field
| image = the_universe_by_scientific_field.png
| titletext = The math and philosophy people also claim everything, but the astronomers argue that the stuff they study really only comprises a small number of paper surfaces.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A TINY PROPORTION OF THE UNIVERSE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Astronomy}} is the study of outer space and celestial phenomena. This comic makes a joke that most of the "universe" falls under the study of astronomy, which makes sense because it is so vast and large and is not studied directly by other fields of science.

The volume of the {{w|observable universe}} is 3.566×1080 cubic meters. The volume of Earth is 1.08321×1021 cubic meters.

1.08321×1021 m3 ÷ 3.566×1080 m3 × 100% ≈ 3×10-58%, which is scientific notation for the second of the two percentages, the first being its difference from 100%.

The title text says that mathematicians and philosophers claim that what they study also represents everything. But astronomers counter this by saying that they just study things that are written down, and this comprises just tiny amounts of "paper" on the Earth. This claim by mathematicians also appears in [[435: Purity]]. A counterclaim by philosophers would involve the fact that all the information gathered by astronomers is necessarily processed by the functioning of gray cells in human brains, which is dealt which is the subject of study of philosophy.

The information provided by {{w|Observational astronomy|astronomical observations}} of light, subatomic particles, and gravity's effects represents only a tiny fraction of the scientific properties of the extraterrestrial substances in the volume of space that astronomers study. Moreover, the adjacent fields of optics, physics, chemistry, mathematics, and geometry underpin almost all aspects of astronomy other than {{w|Astronomical naming conventions|nomenclature}}, so proponents of those disciplines may see the comic as biased. Other objections could conceivably include the fact that most matter in the universe is described just as well by the laws of chemistry or physics as by astronomy, or the fact that almost everyone's subjective life experiences are overwhelmingly more involved with matters best described by fields other than astronomy, even in the case of professional astronomers (who often complain about how little time they can allocate to making actual astronomical observations) although this is to be expected as all but typically a handful of people are terrestrial. Finally, astronomy and astrophysics publications comprise only about 0.5% of science and engineering output worldwide, making them the smallest of fourteen such categories.[https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20214/table/SPBS-34]

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

:The Universe by Scientific Field

:[A pie chart is shown.]
:Astronomy
:99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999997%
:Other
:0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003%

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Pie charts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

2625: Field Topology

2022-05-28T17:10:38Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */ Explain the nature of the change

{{comic
| number = 2625
| date = May 27, 2022
| title = Field Topology
| image = field_topology.png
| titletext = The combination croquet set/10-lane pool can also be used for some varieties of foosball and Skee-Ball.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by SOMEBODY TOPOLOGICALLY EQUIVALENT TO YOU - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic strip depicts a logical extreme of multi-use athletic facilities, in which sports are grouped by the {{w|topology|topological}} equivalence of their fields (not to be confused with {{w|Field (mathematics)|mathematical fields}}, or the {{w|Fields Medal}} prize -- although successfully {{w|Straightedge and compass construction|constructing}} these fields might lead to medals of one kind or another being granted).

In topology, shapes which can be smoothly deformed into one another, without making or closing cuts or holes, are equivalent. {{w|Baseball}}, {{w|soccer}}, and {{w|tetherball}} are played on fields without any holes the ball or players can completely pass through, so they are grouped ({{w|Group (mathematics)|heh!}}) into one continuous field without holes. The goals on a soccer field do not create holes; because the goalposts are connected to the field with a net, the goals and field are topologically equivalent to a plane. The same is true of ice hockey, as well.

{{w|Volleyball}} and {{w|badminton}} are played on a field split in two by a net, and the {{w|high jump}} has a bar that contestants jump over. The space bounded by the bottom of the net (or bar), the supporting poles, and the ground can be considered to be a hole, so their fields all have one "hole".

A basketball court has two holes, the nets. Parallel bars can be thought of as two rectangles and thus as two topographical "holes". A football field is a special case. Commonly, an American football field uses a "Y" shaped upright, making the field topologically equivalent to a plane. However, at lower levels of play (primary and secondary schools), sometimes an "H" shaped upright is used, which creates a topological hole under the crossbar at both ends of the field. The comic might instead refer to Gaelic football or Rugby, both of which use "H" shaped goals and are called "football" in certain contexts.

The lane dividers in swimming create bounded holes on the 'playing surface' equivalent to the number of lanes minus one. Randall's construction would be used as a pool with nine completely separate troughs for lanes. And each hoop in croquet is a hole with one edge bounded by the playing surface. Similarly, as mentioned in the title text, this configuration is also {{w|homeomorphism|homeomorphic}} to a {{w|foosball}} table (with each rod sustaining the player figures above the table defining a hole) or a {{w|Skee-Ball}} lane (which is even more straightforward, as it is just a plane with several holes in which to throw balls).

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

Four indistinct shapes with various numbers of holes in, with signs next to them

zero holes: "Baseball. Soccer. Tetherball."

one hole: "Volleyball. Badminton. High jump."

two holes: Basketball. Football. Parallel bars."

nine holes: "Olympic swimming. Croquet."

Image caption: "No one ever wants to use the topology department's athletic fields."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Sport]]

2602: Linguistics Degree

2022-05-23T16:48:29Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */ True example

{{comic
| number = 2602
| date = April 4, 2022
| title = Linguistics Degree
| image = linguistics_degree.png
| titletext = You'd think 'linguistics' would go to someone important in the field, but it's actually assigned to a random student in Ohio who barely graduated and then went into automotive marketing.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Hairbun]] hands [[Megan]] a linguistics degree, and informs her she is now "in charge of" the word '{{wiktionary|bassoon}}.' Watching this, [[Ponytail]] and [[Cueball]] compare the words they were assigned when ''they'' got their linguistics degrees, '{{wiktionary|jackalope}}' and '{{wiktionary|slurp}}' respectively. Ponytail thinks bassoon is a cool word but thinks her own is better, whereas Cueball is not satisfied with his word. A bassoon is a woodwind musical instrument with a double reed, while a jackalope is a mythical creature, a ''jackrabbit'' crossed with an ''antelope''.

It is never clarified what being "in charge of" a word entails. It could mean being in charge of keeping track of the word, or having actual authority over the use of the word, which is unlikely as normally [[1726|language use cannot be dictated by a single person]]. Also, no specific university has control over all of linguistics as far as we know, so it would require every university capable of giving people linguistics degrees to co-operate, so nobody is assigned the same word. Any well-educated member of the linguistic community will know what is being suggested is impossible hence why they are the only ones aware of how important it is.

The title text merely furthers how seemingly random the entire situation is. The word "linguistics" was assigned to a "random student in Ohio who barely graduated and then went into automotive marketing", who we can assume isn't very important to the field of linguistics.{{Citation needed}} But this means that no one is actually taking care of this important word, since it must be assumed that the student is no longer interested in linguistics.

The idea of individuals having a guardianship of an idea or concept has appeared in science fiction. For example, in ''{{w|Fahrenheit 451}}'' characters have memorised books to save them from book-burning and... spoiler-stuff.

It also exists in reality. Members of the {{w|Royal Spanish Academy}}, the institution that defines the official dictionary of the Spanish language, are symbolically put in charge of one letter of the dictionary each to take care of it.

==Transcript==
:[Megan, who is wearing a graduation cap, receives a degree which is handed to her by Hairbun. They are standing on a podium with Ponytail and Cueball standing below as onlookers.]
:Hairbun: Congratulations on the degree! Your word is "Bassoon."
:Ponytail: Oh nice! Not as cool as my "Jackalope," but still not bad.
:Cueball: You all are lucky. I'm stuck with "Slurp."

:[Caption below panel:]
:Every linguistics degree comes with one word that you're put in charge of.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Characters with hats]]

2609: Entwives

2022-05-22T13:24:15Z

TuringTest: Expand explanation of the joke

{{comic
| number = 2609
| date = April 20, 2022
| title = Entwives
| image = entwives.png
| titletext = No, we actually do have a woman who's basically part of our fellowship. She lives in Rivendell, you wouldn't know her.
}}
*The comic is a link to a YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt2qCjL6-n4 video].

==Explanation==
In {{w|The Lord of the Rings}}, the {{w|Ent|Ents}} are a species of tree-like humanoids, such as the one depicted in this comic. The comic shows an Ent, presumably {{w|Treebeard}}, meeting with some of the nine from the {{w|Fellowship_of_the_Ring_(characters)|Fellowship of the Ring}}. The image is inaccurate inasmuch as it shows three {{w|hobbits}}: during the Ents' interactions with the Fellowship, two of the four hobbits ({{w|Frodo Baggins|Frodo}} and {{w|Samwise Gamgee|Sam}}) were elsewhere in {{w|Middle Earth}}, so it was only {{w|Merry Brandybuck|Merry}} and {{w|Pippin Took|Pippin}} who met the ents. The other three in the image are the human {{w|Aragorn}}, the Dwarf {{w|Gimli (Middle-earth)|Gimli}} and the Elf {{w|Legolas}}. The last two of the nine, not depicted, were the wizard {{w|Gandalf}} and the human {{w|Boromir}}.

Part of the backstory of the Ents is that all the females of their species (the Entwives that this comic is named for) had disappeared thousands of years before during {{w|Sauron}}'s war of the {{w|History_of_Arda#Second_Age|second age}}. The Ents and the Entwives lived in separate locations, and eventually, when the Ents went to visit the Entwives, the latter were seemingly nowhere to be found. The Ents have been searching for their lost mates ever since. The loneliness of the Ents' all-male society is considered a great tragedy in their culture. It is several thousands years ago in the time of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the Ents have all but forgotten how the Entwives even looked. They live for many thousands of years.

This comic uses that backstory to satirically comment on the extreme gender imbalance of the protagonists of Lord of the Rings; when presented with the all-male Fellowship, the Ent assumes that they must come from a race afflicted by a similar tragedy. In a broader sense, this can be read as a commentary on how few female characters there are in the trilogy overall. In reality, the general lore presents, or at least mentions, the existence of at least multiple (if not numerous) female characters of almost all races that make up the fellowship (dwarf, man, elf, hobbit), and does not suggest that what happened with the Ents and their Entwives happened to any other race.

The clickable link on the image leads to the satirical video ''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt2qCjL6-n4 Lord of the Rings Trilogy but it's EVERY scene where two female characters interact]''. The creator claims that this shows all the scenes from the trilogy where two female characters interact (but later admits in the Youtube comments that there are indeed a few more). There is only one 3 second long scene, which only emphasizes how few female characters there are in the trilogy. The inclusion of this clip may be a reference to the {{w|Bechdel test}}, a baseline indicator of the representation of women in a piece of media that requires two women to have a conversation about something other than a man. Whether this three-and-a-half-word exchange is sufficient to pass the test is debatable. Later versions of the test suggest that the two women should be named (i.e. not just two incidental characters that have very few lines), whereas this scene is between {{w|Éowyn}} and an unnamed girl. There is debate as to if there are other scenes with women speaking with women, and if we are only talking about human women, or if other races females would also count. There are at least three important female characters, but they do not meet/speak much if at all. But they have several scenes where they talk, even a long monologue... But if they speak to someone it is male characters.

The title text most likely refers to the character of {{w|Arwen}}, an elf woman and, later, wife of Aragorn; while somewhat important to the story, she is nowhere near as significant as the males of the Fellowship, despite being used more prominently in the movies than in the books. Even if she were part of the Fellowship, a single important woman wouldn't counterbalance the heavily male-centric storytelling.

The way that the title text is phrased is a reference to the proverbial (and implicitly imaginary) "{{tvtropes|GirlfriendInCanada|Girlfriend in Canada}}," a trope in which a single American character claims to have a girlfriend that their friends wouldn't know "because she lives in Canada" (or some other sufficient separation such as "goes to another school"), when in reality the reason that nobody else has met her is because she doesn't exist (with an implication that the character is either a {{w|closeted}} gay or an {{w|incel}}). {{w|Canada}} is one of only two countries with which the United States has land borders, making it a potentially plausible place for some American's long-distance girlfriend to live, and presumably the Fellowship consider the Elf kingdom of {{w|Rivendell}} to be sufficiently distant to allow the Ent to accept the plausibility of the statement without any further delving into potentially awkward details.

==Transcript==
:[A large treelike person (an Ent, maybe Treebeard) is holding one of his arms out towards six characters that are all looking at him. A man (Aragorn) with beard stubble and long hair, a dwarf (Gimli) with a helmet and a very large beard, an elf (Legolas) with long blonde hair (holding a bow down), and three short persons, hobbits, two with dark hair, and the middle one with blonde hair.]
:Ent: Alas, there are no Ent women. The Entwives all vanished in the second age, during Sauron's war.
:Aragorn: I'm so sorry.
:Ent: And what about you all? Same story, I assume?
:Aragorn: Huh? No, what do you mean?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:LOTR]]

2552: The Last Molecule

2021-12-09T16:41:20Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2552
| date = December 8, 2021
| title = The Last Molecule
| image = the_last_molecule.png
| titletext = Biology is really struggling; they're barely at 93% and they keep finding more ants.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CONFUSED PARTIAL BIOCHEMIST - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic jokingly proposes a situation in which chemists have discovered and catalogued every single possible molecule. Thus they declare they have "completed chemistry."

In real life the number of ways to arrange atoms into molecules is growing combinatorial with the number of atoms in a molecule. Hence the number of possible combinations approaches rather quickly the number of particles in the observable universe making the full cataloging of all molecules impossible. Thus, a "final molecule" cannot be reached. In addition, chemistry is the study of the interaction and changing states of atoms and molecules, not simply the cataloging of all specimens of molecule. Even if we had a list of every molecule, there are a far greater number of ways to continue studying them, so the field would still be nowhere near completed. To quote the famous chemistry researcher, educator, businessman and philanthropist {{w|Walter White (Breaking Bad)|Walter White}}, "Chemistry is the study of change".

This is reminiscent of biology's focus in previous centuries on simply cataloging the species on Earth.

Further, the goal of science is not to "complete" a field, but to understand it better and better. No scientific field is considered fully understood. As readers are aware of this, part of the humor comes from the relative percentages given to the different fields. The title text in particular makes fun of Biology lagging behind due to the inherent difficulty of cataloging all species, when there's no way to know if there are some new ones more to be found.

Putting Biology at 93% and Physics at 98% is patently absurd. As mentioned in the comic, we don't even know how many kinds of ants there are yet. When J.B.S Haldane, founder of the field of population genetics, was asked what could be inferred about the creator from the creation, he reportedly said, "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles". Insects aside, fundamental and important problems such as what genes promote which traits, the nature of cognition, and the mechanism behind several diseases remain complete mysteries. We know less about our own ocean floor than we do about the surface of Mars. Needless to say, Biology is nowhere close to 93% solved. As for Physics, questions such as "what the actual hell is dark matter?" and "how do we unify the four fundamental forces?" and "how do we make nuclear fusion possible on earth?" and "how fast does light travel in one direction?" make it clear that the field still has a long, long way to go.

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

:[Ponytail is presenting on a stage. To the top-center of the slide which Ponytail is pointing to, there is a circled "100% complete" under "Chemistry", then to the left is "Biology" which is at "93% complete" and to the right is "Physics" which is at "98% complete". The bottom of the slide shows the [[wikipedia:structural formula|structural formula]] of a molecule which is captioned "The Last One", along with a few smaller captions around it drawn as squiggles.]

:Ponytail: With the discovery of the last molecule, I'm pleased to announce that chemistry is finally complete.
:Ponytail: Best of luck to our competitors in their race for second place.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

2486: Board Game Party Schedule

2021-07-12T22:04:53Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */ description doesn't look very boardish

{{comic
| number = 2486
| date = July 7, 2021
| title = Board Game Party Schedule
| image = board_game_party_schedule.png
| titletext = Several of the guests are secretly playing Meta Board Game Party. Every minute of parallel debate in the breakaway faction earns double victory points!
}}

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

This comic shows a timeline of a gathering to play some sort of fairly complex board game. These games often have many pages of rules, and a long setup time. Often the very complex rules must be explained in detail, which can be extremely dull in a group environment.

Conversely, just beginning like at the time entry point "it will make sense once you play" without explanation often leads to new player frustration that, had they had a complete understanding, they would have made different choices and had a more reasonable chance at victory, or even worse, avoided constantly being informed of "illegal moves".

In addition, since it's a {{w|party|party}}, there are other activities that take place in addition to playing the game, notably ordering and eating food.

By the time you eat, prepare the game, and teach the new players, little time is left to actually play the game. This comic exaggerates this dynamic, for in the timeline, no one gets to play the game at all. Often during these gatherings the frustration with the factors above cause people to suggest settling on a simpler or more well known game.

The title text observes some of the guests supposedly playing a fictional{{Citation needed}} board game, Meta Board Game Party – a game about board game parties. Because the quoted rule states that arguing in the “breakaway faction” is worth more victory points, it would be optimal strategy for them to do just that, for as long as possible. This seems to be a sarcastic explanation as to why they tried to get the whole group to play some other game and turned the ensuing debate into 45 minutes of bickering.

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

:[Caption above:]
:Board Game Party Schedule

:[A timeline is shown, from about 6PM at the top to about 11PM at the bottom. Events are displayed as white rectangles, labeled as follows:]

:before 6PM: people filter in
:6:00–6:25: small talk
:6:25–6:55: debate which game to play
:6:55: remember that you need to order food
:6:55–7:15: debate where to order from
:7:15: pick a place, order
:7:15–7:40: pick a game and start setting up
:7:40–8:20: explain rules to new people
:8:20: food arrives
:8:20–9:00: eat food
:9:00–9:27: resume setting up
:9:27–9:52: more explanation
:9:52–10:13: restless faction tries to start simpler game
:10:13–10:38: general debate
:10:38–10:57: “It will make sense once you play”
:10:57–11:10: finish setting up
:after 11:10 PM: people head home

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Board games]]

2468: Inheritance

2021-05-29T18:41:28Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2468
| date = May 26, 2021
| title = Inheritance
| image = inheritance.png
| titletext = People ask me whether I feel any moral qualms about the source of the points, but if he hadn't introduced factory farming to Agricola, someone else would have.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GRANDMOTHER WRITING HER VICTORY POINT WILL. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is in reference to {{w|Strategy game|strategy board games}}, which often score players on some type of point system based on a variety of possible achievements. The joke in this comic is that Cueball has a massive sum of points that were not scored in the current game but rather handed down from his grandfather. Board games do not normally include an inheritance from previous sessions{{Citation needed}}, in contrast to real life where some people become wealthy by inheriting vast sums of money from ancestors. Such inheritances tend to lead to 'successes' in life for those who have done little, if anything, to earn their wealth. Cueball offers to distribute a trifling fraction of his points to the other players, teasing them, but he will still have an insurmountable advantage. Despite his 'generosity', no one wants to play a game that they have no chance of winning. The value of his score, 10,019, seems to indicate that he "earned" 19 points during the course of the game (less than his competitors) and then added 10,000 from his 'inheritance'. However, since he's adding "another" 20, it's also possible his competitors scored 11, 8, and 15 respectively, meaning Cueball did properly earn more than them, but this is probably because he was able to play the game in a more laid-back way, comfortable in his inability to lose (also an argument raised at people who have sizeable inheritances).

Some board games do include a "legacy" mechanic where players who have played the game previously (and thus benefit from meta knowledge) can be granted additional items or challenges to keep the game interesting for them, but not usually to the point of breaking the game's balance. As well, gifting these achievements to anyone else is seen as absurd.

The comic may be a reference to {{w|Category:Economic simulation board games
|economic simulation board games}} like {{w|Monopoly (game)}}, which was created as a critique to capitalism; in this case, no one can win the game against people who start out with a large amount of accumulated wealth. See also the '[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/a-small-loan-of-a-million-dollars Small Loan of a Million Dollars]' trope of a profile in which the author or subject discusses the simple tricks they used to retire early or buy a house, often involving a hurried admission of financial assistance from a family member.

The title text asks Cueball if he has any moral qualms over the source of these points, then indicates his grandfather's fortune was made through {{w|factory farming}} in the farm-themed board game {{w|Agricola_(board_game)|''Agricola''}}. Factory farming is a broad term for applying mass-production techniques to agriculture, treating both plants and animals as commodities to be processed as efficiently as possible. These techniques are condemned, at least in some circles, as being cruel to livestock, in addition to having serious environmental and land-use implications, among other criticisms. The implication is that Cueball's grandfather somehow managed to introduce an immoral and/or socially harmful mechanic into a board game, greatly enriching himself and his heirs. This echoes another concern about inherited wealth: that the source of the money may have been unethical, but the heirs still get to enjoy the advantages, without considering themselves accountable for the harm. Cueball brushes off this criticism with the claim that the change was inevitable, which is a common response to analogous real-life concerns.

It could also be a reference to inheritance in programming, where a class truly inherits everything from its 'ancestors'. The game Agricola was previously mentioned in [[778: Scheduling]].

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail, White Hat, Megan, and Cueball are playing a board game. There are drinks on the table. Ponytail is writing something]

:Ponytail: Let's see...I got 31, you have 28, 35 for you, and-
:Cueball: -I've got 10,019.
:Ponytail: *Sigh*
:Cueball: Hey, add another 20 to everyone, on me!
:White Hat: ''I hate this''.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:No one wants to play board games with me ever since I inherited 4,000,000 victory points from my grandfather.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Board games]]

2468: Inheritance

2021-05-29T18:41:12Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2468
| date = May 26, 2021
| title = Inheritance
| image = inheritance.png
| titletext = People ask me whether I feel any moral qualms about the source of the points, but if he hadn't introduced factory farming to Agricola, someone else would have.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GRANDMOTHER WRITING HER VICTORY POINT WILL. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is in reference to {{w|Strategy game|strategy board games}}, which often score players on some type of point system based on a variety of possible achievements. The joke in this comic is that Cueball has a massive sum of points that were not scored in the current game but rather handed down from his grandfather. Board games do not normally include an inheritance from previous sessions{{Citation needed}}, in contrast to real life where some people become wealthy by inheriting vast sums of money from ancestors. Such inheritances tend to lead to 'successes' in life for those who have done little, if anything, to earn their wealth. Cueball offers to distribute a trifling fraction of his points to the other players, teasing them, but he will still have an insurmountable advantage. Despite his 'generosity', no one wants to play a game that they have no chance of winning. The value of his score, 10,019, seems to indicate that he "earned" 19 points during the course of the game (less than his competitors) and then added 10,000 from his 'inheritance'. However, since he's adding "another" 20, it's also possible his competitors scored 11, 8, and 15 respectively, meaning Cueball did properly earn more than them, but this is probably because he was able to play the game in a more laid-back way, comfortable in his inability to lose (also an argument raised at people who have sizeable inheritances).

Some board games do include a "legacy" mechanic where players who have played the game previously (and thus benefit from meta knowledge) can be granted additional items or challenges to keep the game interesting for them, but not usually to the point of breaking the game's balance. As well, gifting these achievements to anyone else is seen as absurd.

The comic may be a reference to {{w|Category:Economic simulation board games
|Economic simulation board games}} like {{w|Monopoly (game)}}, which was created as a critique to capitalism; in this case, no one can win the game against people who start out with a large amount of accumulated wealth. See also the '[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/a-small-loan-of-a-million-dollars Small Loan of a Million Dollars]' trope of a profile in which the author or subject discusses the simple tricks they used to retire early or buy a house, often involving a hurried admission of financial assistance from a family member.

The title text asks Cueball if he has any moral qualms over the source of these points, then indicates his grandfather's fortune was made through {{w|factory farming}} in the farm-themed board game {{w|Agricola_(board_game)|''Agricola''}}. Factory farming is a broad term for applying mass-production techniques to agriculture, treating both plants and animals as commodities to be processed as efficiently as possible. These techniques are condemned, at least in some circles, as being cruel to livestock, in addition to having serious environmental and land-use implications, among other criticisms. The implication is that Cueball's grandfather somehow managed to introduce an immoral and/or socially harmful mechanic into a board game, greatly enriching himself and his heirs. This echoes another concern about inherited wealth: that the source of the money may have been unethical, but the heirs still get to enjoy the advantages, without considering themselves accountable for the harm. Cueball brushes off this criticism with the claim that the change was inevitable, which is a common response to analogous real-life concerns.

It could also be a reference to inheritance in programming, where a class truly inherits everything from its 'ancestors'. The game Agricola was previously mentioned in [[778: Scheduling]].

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail, White Hat, Megan, and Cueball are playing a board game. There are drinks on the table. Ponytail is writing something]

:Ponytail: Let's see...I got 31, you have 28, 35 for you, and-
:Cueball: -I've got 10,019.
:Ponytail: *Sigh*
:Cueball: Hey, add another 20 to everyone, on me!
:White Hat: ''I hate this''.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:No one wants to play board games with me ever since I inherited 4,000,000 victory points from my grandfather.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Board games]]

2466: In Your Classroom

2021-05-22T14:13:40Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2466
| date = May 21, 2021
| title = In Your Classroom
| image = in_your_classroom.png
| titletext = Ontology is way off to the left and geography is way off to the right.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a QUASAR IN YOUR CLASSROOM. The table is still a work in progress. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Randall has created a thought experiment and corresponding chart about school courses. The idea is, "the subject of the class appears in the classroom" and the chart compares how dangerous and how unusual that would be.

{| class="wikitable"
|+Breakdown of Subjects
|-
!Course Topic
!Weirdness
!Danger
!Explanation
|-

!scope=row|Atmospheric Physics
|0%
|0%
|The presence of atmosphere in the classroom is quite common, as humans require the presence of an atmosphere to remain alive, and cannot learn while dead.{{Citation needed}}
|-

!scope=row|Ethics
|25%
|0%
|Ethical thinking and behavior are widely considered good and should normally be present in education, but are sadly not universal.
|-

!scope=row|Education
|0%
|10%
|Learning usually goes on in classrooms, so education as a concept is both being learned about and present in the form of learning itself.
|-

!scope=row|Bibliography
|25%
|7%
|Bibliography is the study of books, and books are normally present in classrooms, particularly bibliography classrooms.
|-

!scope=row|Human Physiology
|0%
|20%
|This comic assumes that there are humans learning in the classroom, which was true at the time this comic was published, although in many places at the time the comic was published, many classrooms were closed due to COVID-19 restrictions.
|-

!scope=row|Public Speaking
|25%
|15%
|Some classes require students to present things in front of the class, which is likely a requirement in a public speaking class. Thus, public speaking itself would be present in the class.
Some classes also have a teacher talking or presenting to the students from the front of the class, another form of public speaking.
|-

!scope=row|Architecture
|0%
|30%
|All buildings can be considered architecture, and most classes take place in buildings. This comic also refers to a class''room'', which is a room, and therefore considered architecture.
|-

!scope=row|Library Science
|25%
|25%
|Library science is concerned with the organization of knowledge, and is useful for finding information. Many classes require research papers that require the use of books and other sources of information to complete them.
|-

!scope=row|Furniture Design
|0%
|40%
|Most rooms have furniture,{{Citation needed}} so this would probably be present in a classroom
|-

!scope=row|Culinary Arts
|40%
|30%
|Most studies of culinary arts include the teacher and/or students preparing food using the tools and/or techniques that have been taught, so it would be fairly normal for food to be a result of classroom activities. How ''good'' it is, however, can be a mixed bag, especially for student cooking attempts.
|-

!scope=row|Ergonomics
|5%
|45%
|Ergonomic equipment and workspaces promote comfort and efficiency, while non-ergonomic ones may be unpleasant, unhealthy, or even immediately dangerous.
|-

!scope=row|Botany
|40%
|40%
|The near-neutral position of Botany (aka Plant Biology) obscures a wide range of possible outcomes, from the banal to the malignant. A teacher might have brought in a potted plant for decoration or show-n-tell, which would have zero weirdness and (if a non-allergenic species) zero danger. Or, a tree might have fallen through the roof, highly dangerous and weird, especially if it occurred during calm weather (weather likely to result in trees falling would probably have closed the school prior to treefall). This assumes that the event involves a vegetable and not an element of consumerism or purchasing.
|-

!scope=row|20th Century Authors
|65%
|10%
|A literature class would, normally, benefit greatly from an open discussion or interview with the author himself. Sadly such things are rare. Authors who were published in the 20th century would mostly be in retirement age in 2021, so securing an interview with them could be somewhat difficult.
|-

!scope=row|Exobiology
|100%
|0%
|Exobiology is the study of extraterrestrial life. This would mean that an alien life-form was in the classroom.
|-

!scope=row|21st Century Authors
|60%
|20%
|21st century authors have the advantage (over 19th and 20th century authors) of being alive and active at the time this comic was published. However, few of those born during the century have had time to achieve professional success, while those who have published in the 21st century mostly await final literary judgement on their work. Those authors with sufficient notoriety to be welcome in a classroom might charge appearance fees that schools cannot afford, and might, regardless of money, only agree to appear via virtual conference - hence, an elevated weirdness score. Dangers of an actual physical appearance include COVID risk and possible clashes between an author's activist stance and school policies.
|-

!scope=row|19th Century Authors
|100%
|15%
|Like other authors, the class would benefit from having an actual author show up, but this would be extremely weird since no 19th century author is still alive.{{Citation needed}}
|-

!scope=row|Paleontology
|100%
|25%
|Paleontology is the study of fossils. It would be normal to have some fossils in the classroom, so Randall is probably implying the weirdness of finding a live dinosaur.
|-

!scope=row|Robotics
|55%
|30%
|A course on robotics would often be expected to have some form of working models of the robots being discussed.
|-

!scope=row|Martian Soil Chemistry
|100%
|35%
|Martian soil only reaches Earth in small amounts, so it would be unusual to find a meaningful amount anywhere.
|-

!scope=row|Tourism
|75%
|40%
|Tourists coming into an active classroom would be quite unusual. It could refer to the students leaving to become tourists in another location.
|-

!scope=row|Child Psychology
|60%
|45%
|Child study is the study of the psychological processes of children and how they differ from those of adults. It could mean one group of children in the class analyzing the behaviour of the other group and vice versa, which could mean each student has their own interpretation of the other group's behaviour, or it could mean that the teacher analyses the behaviour of the children and explaining it, which could mean a psychologist has to be involved.
|-

!scope=row|Entomology
|15%
|55%
|Insects in the classroom.
|-

!scope=row|Occupational Therapy
|10%
|62%
|Injury, illness or mental health problem that hinder your participation in life/school. Many students who have significant physical injuries and conditions that require occupational therapy would generally not engage in those activities during a class, although volunteers may be brought in as a demonstration of a particular health problem or method of treatment.
|-

!scope=row|Hydraulic Engineering
|40%
|62%
|Likely in the form of flooding or plumbing problems.
|-

!scope=row|Pest Control
|25%
|70%
|Pests may be naturally present in the building, depending on age and level of maintenance done, so students may get the opportunity to partake in some informal pest-control methods during class (such as killing via blunt-force impact). Professional pest control, however, usually involves using harmful chemicals as a method of mass extermination, limiting the ability of students to observe the process, besides causing unhealthy exposure to large amounts of pesticides. (Although, watching a professional pest controller at work would be an immense boon to students studying the topic).
|-

!scope=row|Foodborne Illness
|15%
|80%
|Sometimes students in a culinary arts class do not properly observe hygiene standards and the food they present would lead to illness in those that consume the food. Thankfully, this is rare if the teacher is paying enough attention to proceedings. Students could also be ill from food eaten outside of class.
|-

!scope=row|Criminal Law
|45%
|85%
|This might happen if a crime occurs in the class.
|-

!scope=row|Physiology of Stress
|0%
|90%
|This would be a sign of stress severe enough to affect bodily functions, likely to an unhealthy extent.
|-

!scope=row|Oncology
|25%
|100%
|Someone in the room likely has cancer.
|-

!scope=row|Ornithology
|60%
|55%
|Birds in the classroom?
|-

!scope=row|Animation
|100%
|56%
|Examples of animated works might be displayed to the students in an animation class. It would be weird for animated characters to appear physically in the classroom instead of being projected on screens.
|-

!scope=row|Petroleum Geology
|65%
|60%
|Crude oil coming up through the floor of the classroom would be ''very'' weird.
|-

!scope=row|Highway Engineering
|75%
|65%
|A highway being built through an active classroom would be very unusual and not that safe.
|-

!scope=row|Toxicology
|55%
|75%
|Most likely, a toxic substance is present in the room. This is not very weird if the room is in a building that has asbestos-containing insulation (typically associated with buildings constructed before the 1990s, although it has not been specifically outlawed) or lead paint (which was fully outlawed in 1978, so any paint must have been applied prior to that date). However, toxic substances are, by definition, unsafe for humans (even students).
|-

!scope=row|Hematology
|75%
|70%
|Hematology is the study of blood. Given that there should be blood in each of the students present{{Citation needed}}, we should probably assume Randall means "large quantities of blood outside of one's body", which would indeed be both bad and weird.
|-

!scope=row|Hostage Negotiation
|70%
|85%
|Reasons as to why there would be hostage negotiations taking place at a school have horrifying implications for the students and teacher.
|-

!scope=row|History of Siege Warfare
|100%
|80%
|This would mean that the students would be trapped in the building until they ran out of resources, possibly dying of thirst and starvation (depending on whether or not the opposing army destroyed the school's water lines).
|-

!scope=row|Trauma Surgery
|55%
|95%
|Trauma surgery is an incredibly painful procedure, and difficult to look at for many. It would undoubtedly be disturbing to the class, especially if the patient was one of them.
|-

!scope=row|Volcanology
|75%
|95%
|Having a live volcano in one's classroom is both very dangerous and very weird, as volcanoes take very long times to form. Note this also applies to [[1611: Baking Soda and Vinegar | baking soda and vinegar volcanoes that are offshoots of much larger vinegar hotspots]].
|-

!scope=row|Quasar Astronomy
|75%
|100%
|Quasars are distant astronomical objects that release large amounts of energy. Not only would the power of a quasar destroy the classroom (as well as the building the classroom is in, the town the school is in, and the entire planet Earth,) quasars are too large to fit inside any known classroom. For example, [ULAS J1342+0928](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULAS_J1342%2B0928) has a mass of 8*10^8 solar masses. This means the event horizon of the black hole is almost 16 AU in radius, and this size does not include the accretion disk.
|-

!scope=row|Ontology (Title Text)
|<0%
|?
|Ontology is the philosophical study of existence and being. Since there must be ''something'' learning in the classroom, it is unsurprising that ontology is a normal subject to appear in the classroom.
|-

!scope=row|Geography (Title Text)
|>100%
|?
|Logistics aside, having a planet's terrain newly appear in one's classroom would almost certainly be a distraction to the learning environment.

|}

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

:[Caption above scatter plot with labeled axes]
:Caption: The thing you study just showed up in your classroom! That's...
:Upper y-axis label: Good
:Lower y-axis label: Bad
:Upper x-axis label: Normal
:Lower x-axis label: Weird

:[First quadrant (left to right, top to bottom):]
:20th century authors
:Exobiology
:21st century authors
:19th century authors
:Robotics
:Paleontology
:Martian soil chemistry
:Child psychology
:Tourism
:[Second quadrant]
:Atmospheric physics
:Ethics
:Education
:Bibliography
:Human physiology
:Public speaking
:Architecture
:Library science
:Furniture design
:Culinary arts
:Ergonomics
:Botany
:[Third quadrant]
:Entomology
:Occupational therapy
:Hydraulic engineering
:Pest control
:Foodborne illness
:Criminal law
:Physiology of stress
:Oncology
:[Fourth quadrant]
:Ornithology
:Animation
:Petroleum geology
:Highway engineering
:Toxicology
:Hematology
:Hostage negotiation
:History of siege warfare
:Trauma surgery
:Volcanology
:Quasar astronomy

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

2466: In Your Classroom

2021-05-22T14:10:57Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2466
| date = May 21, 2021
| title = In Your Classroom
| image = in_your_classroom.png
| titletext = Ontology is way off to the left and geography is way off to the right.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a QUASAR IN YOUR CLASSROOM. The table is still a work in progress. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Randall has created a thought experiment and corresponding chart about school courses. The idea is, "the subject of the class appears in the classroom" and the chart compares how dangerous and how unusual that would be.

{| class="wikitable"
|+Breakdown of Subjects
|-
!Course Topic
!Weirdness
!Danger
!Explanation
|-

!scope=row|Atmospheric Physics
|0%
|0%
|The presence of atmosphere in the classroom is quite common, as humans require the presence of an atmosphere to remain alive, and cannot learn while dead.{{Citation needed}}
|-

!scope=row|Ethics
|25%
|0%
|Ethical thinking and behavior are widely considered good and should normally be present in education, but are sadly not universal.
|-

!scope=row|Education
|0%
|10%
|Learning usually goes on in classrooms, so education as a concept is both being learned about and present in the form of learning itself.
|-

!scope=row|Bibliography
|25%
|7%
|Bibliography is the study of books, and books are normally present in classrooms, particularly bibliography classrooms.
|-

!scope=row|Human Physiology
|0%
|20%
|This comic assumes that there are humans learning in the classroom, which was true at the time this comic was published, although in many places at the time the comic was published, many classrooms were closed due to COVID-19 restrictions.
|-

!scope=row|Public Speaking
|25%
|15%
|Some classes require students to present things in front of the class, which is likely a requirement in a public speaking class. Thus, public speaking itself would be present in the class.
Some classes also have a teacher talking or presenting to the students from the front of the class, another form of public speaking.
|-

!scope=row|Architecture
|0%
|30%
|All buildings can be considered architecture, and most classes take place in buildings. This comic also refers to a class''room'', which is a room, and therefore considered architecture.
|-

!scope=row|Library Science
|25%
|25%
|Library science is concerned with the organization of knowledge, and is useful for finding information. Many classes require research papers that require the use of books and other sources of information to complete them.
|-

!scope=row|Furniture Design
|0%
|40%
|Most rooms have furniture,{{Citation needed}} so this would probably be present in a classroom
|-

!scope=row|Culinary Arts
|40%
|30%
|Most studies of culinary arts include the teacher and/or students preparing food using the tools and/or techniques that have been taught, so it would be fairly normal for food to be a result of classroom activities. How ''good'' it is, however, can be a mixed bag, especially for student cooking attempts.
|-

!scope=row|Ergonomics
|5%
|45%
|Ergonomic equipment and workspaces promote comfort and efficiency, while non-ergonomic ones may be unpleasant, unhealthy, or even immediately dangerous.
|-

!scope=row|Botany
|40%
|40%
|The near-neutral position of Botany (aka Plant Biology) obscures a wide range of possible outcomes, from the banal to the malignant. A teacher might have brought in a potted plant for decoration or show-n-tell, which would have zero weirdness and (if a non-allergenic species) zero danger. Or, a tree might have fallen through the roof, highly dangerous and weird, especially if it occurred during calm weather (weather likely to result in trees falling would probably have closed the school prior to treefall). This assumes that the event involves a vegetable and not an element of consumerism or purchasing.
|-

!scope=row|20th Century Authors
|65%
|10%
|A literature class would, normally, benefit greatly from an open discussion or interview with the author himself. Sadly such things are rare. Authors who were published in the 20th century would mostly be in retirement age in 2021, so securing an interview with them could be somewhat difficult.
|-

!scope=row|Exobiology
|100%
|0%
|Exobiology is the study of extraterrestrial life. This would mean that an alien life-form was in the classroom.
|-

!scope=row|21st Century Authors
|60%
|20%
|21st century authors have the advantage (over 19th and 20th century authors) of being alive and active at the time this comic was published. However, few of those born during the century have had time to achieve professional success, while those who have published in the 21st century mostly await final literary judgement on their work. Those authors with sufficient notoriety to be welcome in a classroom might charge appearance fees that schools cannot afford, and might, regardless of money, only agree to appear via virtual conference - hence, an elevated weirdness score. Dangers of an actual physical appearance include COVID risk and possible clashes between an author's activist stance and school policies.
|-

!scope=row|19th Century Authors
|100%
|15%
|Like other authors, the class would benefit from having an actual author show up, but this would be extremely weird since no 19th century author is still alive.{{Citation needed}}
|-

!scope=row|Paleontology
|100%
|25%
|Paleontology is the study of fossils. It would be normal to have some fossils in the classroom, so Randall is probably implying the weirdness of finding a live dinosaur.
|-

!scope=row|Robotics
|55%
|30%
|A course on robotics would often be expected to have some form of working models of the robots being discussed.
|-

!scope=row|Martian Soil Chemistry
|100%
|35%
|Martian soil only reaches Earth in small amounts, so it would be unusual to find a meaningful amount anywhere.
|-

!scope=row|Tourism
|75%
|40%
|Tourists coming into an active classroom would be quite unusual. It could refer to the students leaving to become tourists in another location.
|-

!scope=row|Child Psychology
|60%
|45%
|Child study is the study of the psychological processes of children and how they differ from those of adults. It could mean one group of children in the class analyzing the behaviour of the other group and vice versa, which could mean each student has their own interpretation of the other group's behaviour, or it could mean that the teacher analyses the behaviour of the children and explaining it, which could mean a psychologist has to be involved.
|-

!scope=row|Entomology
|15%
|55%
|Insects in the classroom.
|-

!scope=row|Occupational Therapy
|10%
|62%
|Injury, illness or mental health problem that hinder your participation in life/school. Many students who have significant physical injuries and conditions that require occupational therapy would generally not engage in those activities during a class, although volunteers may be brought in as a demonstration of a particular health problem or method of treatment.
|-

!scope=row|Hydraulic Engineering
|40%
|62%
|Likely in the form of flooding or plumbing problems.
|-

!scope=row|Pest Control
|25%
|70%
|Pests may be naturally present in the building, depending on age and level of maintenance done, so students may get the opportunity to partake in some informal pest-control methods during class (such as killing via blunt-force impact). Professional pest control, however, usually involves using harmful chemicals as a method of mass extermination, limiting the ability of students to observe the process, besides causing unhealthy exposure to large amounts of pesticides. (Although, watching a professional pest controller at work would be an immense boon to students studying the topic).
|-

!scope=row|Foodborne Illness
|15%
|80%
|Sometimes students in a culinary arts class do not properly observe hygiene standards and the food they present would lead to illness in those that consume the food. Thankfully, this is rare if the teacher is paying enough attention to proceedings. Students could also be ill from food eaten outside of class.
|-

!scope=row|Criminal Law
|45%
|85%
|This might happen if a crime occurs in the class.
|-

!scope=row|Physiology of Stress
|0%
|90%
|This would be a sign of stress severe enough to affect bodily functions, likely to an unhealthy extent.
|-

!scope=row|Oncology
|25%
|100%
|Someone in the room likely has cancer.
|-

!scope=row|Ornithology
|60%
|55%
|Birds in the classroom?
|-

!scope=row|Animation
|100%
|56%
|Examples of animated works might be displayed to the students in an animation class.
|-

!scope=row|Petroleum Geology
|65%
|60%
|Crude oil coming up through the floor of the classroom would be ''very'' weird.
|-

!scope=row|Highway Engineering
|75%
|65%
|A highway being built through an active classroom would be very unusual and not that safe.
|-

!scope=row|Toxicology
|55%
|75%
|Most likely, a toxic substance is present in the room. This is not very weird if the room is in a building that has asbestos-containing insulation (typically associated with buildings constructed before the 1990s, although it has not been specifically outlawed) or lead paint (which was fully outlawed in 1978, so any paint must have been applied prior to that date). However, toxic substances are, by definition, unsafe for humans (even students).
|-

!scope=row|Hematology
|75%
|70%
|Hematology is the study of blood. Given that there should be blood in each of the students present{{Citation needed}}, we should probably assume Randall means "large quantities of blood outside of one's body", which would indeed be both bad and weird.
|-

!scope=row|Hostage Negotiation
|70%
|85%
|Reasons as to why there would be hostage negotiations taking place at a school have horrifying implications for the students and teacher.
|-

!scope=row|History of Siege Warfare
|100%
|80%
|This would mean that the students would be trapped in the building until they ran out of resources, possibly dying of thirst and starvation (depending on whether or not the opposing army destroyed the school's water lines).
|-

!scope=row|Trauma Surgery
|55%
|95%
|Trauma surgery is an incredibly painful procedure, and difficult to look at for many. It would undoubtedly be disturbing to the class, especially if the patient was one of them.
|-

!scope=row|Volcanology
|75%
|95%
|Having a live volcano in one's classroom is both very dangerous and very weird, as volcanoes take very long times to form. Note this also applies to [[1611: Baking Soda and Vinegar | baking soda and vinegar volcanoes that are offshoots of much larger vinegar hotspots]].
|-

!scope=row|Quasar Astronomy
|75%
|100%
|Quasars are distant astronomical objects that release large amounts of energy. Not only would the power of a quasar destroy the classroom (as well as the building the classroom is in, the town the school is in, and the entire planet Earth,) quasars are too large to fit inside any known classroom. For example, [ULAS J1342+0928](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULAS_J1342%2B0928) has a mass of 8*10^8 solar masses. This means the event horizon of the black hole is almost 16 AU in radius, and this size does not include the accretion disk.
|-

!scope=row|Ontology (Title Text)
|<0%
|?
|Ontology is the philosophical study of existence and being. Since there must be ''something'' learning in the classroom, it is unsurprising that ontology is a normal subject to appear in the classroom.
|-

!scope=row|Geography (Title Text)
|>100%
|?
|Logistics aside, having a planet's terrain newly appear in one's classroom would almost certainly be a distraction to the learning environment.

|}

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

:[Caption above scatter plot with labeled axes]
:Caption: The thing you study just showed up in your classroom! That's...
:Upper y-axis label: Good
:Lower y-axis label: Bad
:Upper x-axis label: Normal
:Lower x-axis label: Weird

:[First quadrant (left to right, top to bottom):]
:20th century authors
:Exobiology
:21st century authors
:19th century authors
:Robotics
:Paleontology
:Martian soil chemistry
:Child psychology
:Tourism
:[Second quadrant]
:Atmospheric physics
:Ethics
:Education
:Bibliography
:Human physiology
:Public speaking
:Architecture
:Library science
:Furniture design
:Culinary arts
:Ergonomics
:Botany
:[Third quadrant]
:Entomology
:Occupational therapy
:Hydraulic engineering
:Pest control
:Foodborne illness
:Criminal law
:Physiology of stress
:Oncology
:[Fourth quadrant]
:Ornithology
:Animation
:Petroleum geology
:Highway engineering
:Toxicology
:Hematology
:Hostage negotiation
:History of siege warfare
:Trauma surgery
:Volcanology
:Quasar astronomy

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

2465: Dimensional Chess

2021-05-19T18:45:50Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2465
| date = May 19, 2021
| title = Dimensional Chess
| image = dimensional_chess.png
| titletext = In Dimensional Chess, every move is annotated '?!'.
}}

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

Being good at chess is often regarded as a sign of high intelligence. As such, someone who is able to competently play 3-dimensional chess is often regarded as even more intelligent than someone who can only play 2-dimensional chess. Making chess into an N-dimensional game thus makes it arbitrarily more difficult, even before Randall's addition of non-uniform dimensionality of the board.

Regarding Randall's rule that "every row has one more dimension than the one behind it," it is easiest to see how this is applied with the first two rows on each end. The first row on each end is simply a one dimensional line: you can go from left to right. The second row then becomes a square: you can go left to right and top to bottom. Note that there are seven spaces from top to bottom, as opposed to the typical 8 from left to right. This is likely to make sure there is symmetry between how many additional spaces are on top vs on the bottom (three, in this case). Moving another row would presumably add movement in some other direction to make it more complicated/interesting. This escalates until somehow the middle two rows require moving pieces in 4-dimensions, despite our typical world being 3-dimensional. This could potentially be accomplished via playing on a computer.

The title text refers to the practice among many chess players of writing down what happens throughout the game so that they can review how the game went later. There are several common forms of this {{w|Chess notation}}. According to Randall, in "dimensional chess," every annotation is followed by '?!'. According to the Wikipedia article on {{w|chess annotation symbols}}, this refers to a dubious move (either of doubtful legality or unclear merit, both of which would make sense in this level of confusion). It's worth noting that the ''literal'' meaning of the symbols also mark something as {{w|question mark|questionable}} and {{w|Exclamation mark|eliciting strong feelings}}.

Note that "in dimensional chess" may be a pun on "N-dimensional chess."

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

{{comic discussion}}

2453: Excel Lambda

2021-04-25T10:32:31Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2453
| date = April 21, 2021
| title = Excel Lambda
| image = excel_lambda_new.png
| titletext = Extremely rude how Turing's later formulations of the halting problem called me out by name specifically.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPREADSHEET. Why is Ponytail pleased, what will she use it for, that she could not before? Another reference to a law/hypothesis about computing? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is computing and [[Ponytail]] criticizes him in a way that is reminiscent of the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality series]], although not as harsh. Cueball has lots of strange [[:Category:Cueball Computer Problems|computer problems]], and this will most likely result in another one.

The comic begins with Ponytail finding out that {{w|Microsoft Excel}} is adding a {{w|Anonymous_function|lambda function}} to their function library. This was [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546 announced by Microsoft] for Beta users in December of 2020, but perhaps Ponytail has only discovered this recently. A lambda function is a fundamental mathematical structure that can be used to completely define all possible computations from the ground up, in what is known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus Lambda calculus], similar to how [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Maxwell's equations] define classical electromagnetism. They are commonly found in programming languages such as {{w|Lisp}}, {{w|Python}}, and many others. A lambda function is also called an {{w|anonymous function}} because in most languages it can be passed to other functions (including another lambda function) without needing to be given any formal name during coding, or given {{w|Closure_(computer_programming)|'closure'}} under whatever name(s) its calling procedures desire.

Finding that Excel is adding a lambda function pleases Ponytail. Cueball claims that the lambda function is unnecessary, as when he needs arbitrary computation he just adds a block of columns to the side of his sheet and has a {{w|Turing machine}} process it. This would technically work as lambda calculus is formally equivalent to Turing machines. People have created [https://www.felienne.com/archives/2974 turing machines in excel], although not for practical purposes.

Ponytail finds his solution absurd and is convinced Cueball is "doing computing wrong". But he claims that all computing is equally wrong, citing the {{w|Church-Turing thesis}}, a hypothesis which says that a function can be computed by executing a series of instructions if and only if that function is computable by a Turing machine. A classical Turing machine uses an infinitely long strip of tape as its memory; for Cueball, the large Excel column acts as the "tape". All ways of computing are "equally wrong" since, according to this thesis, they can all be translated to or from a Turing machine.

Ponytail and Cueball appear to have different ideas of 'computing'. Ponytail, like most programmers, probably includes efficiency and readability as important characteristics of 'doing computing right'. Cueball appears interested only in {{w|computability}}, a more theoretical point of view than Ponytail's.

Ponytail then says that Turing would change his mind if he saw Cueball's spreadsheet, presumably because of the extreme complexity of Cueball's code in the spreadsheet. Cueball's final statement is that Turing could ask him to stop, but would not be able to prove if he actually will stop.

Cueball's final statement is a reference to the {{w|halting problem}} mentioned in the title text. It is the problem of determining whether a given Turing machine will halt. The problem has been shown to be undecidable, i.e., it is impossible to build an algorithm that computes whether any arbitrary Turing machine will halt or not. Because of the way Cueball has behaved, he has been specifically mentioned in Turing's later formulations of the halting problem. Cueball finds this very rude. This is of course a joke, since Turing has been dead since 1954, presumably long before Cueball was born. But it would be crazy indeed if a scientist became so mad at a person that he would mention this person by name in his formulation of a serious problem.

Over-complicated spreadsheets were also mentioned in [[2180|2180:Spreadsheets]].

An example of a lambda function:

list(map(lambda a: a + 1, [1, 2, 3])) # -> returns [2, 3, 4]

Here, each element of the array with values 1,2,3 is treated in succession as a variable 'a' that is incremented by one, to produce values of 2,3,4 which are then reconstructed as a list for output.

A recursive lambda might be:

def pointless_recursion(v):
# If current value (x) is evenly divisible by 4, return the source (v) * current (x)
# Otherwise, print current, and then try the process again with the current value of x + 3
r = lambda x: x * v if x % 4 == 0 else print(x) or r(x + 3)
return r(v)

pointless_recursion(12) # returns 144 (i.e., 12*12)
pointless_recursion(11) # prints 11, 14, 17 then returns 220 (i.e., 20*11)

In this instance, the function is given the name 'r', and features a (conditional) call back to this self-same 'r' within it. The 'x' is whatever value is the latest passed to 'r', while 'v' is that which was first passed to the container function.

Ideally, such techniques should be used to ''reduce'' {{w|Spaghetti code}}, not increase it. But this isn't a foregone conclusion, especially in Cueball's hands.

==Transcript==
:[In a narrow panel, Ponytail is walking in from the left, looking down at her phone]
:Ponytail: Oh cool, Excel is adding a lambda function, so you can recursively define functions.

:[Ponytail, holding her phone to her side stands behind Cueball, who is sitting in an office chair with a hand on a laptop standing on his desk. He has turned around to face her, leaning with the other arm on the back of the chair.]
:Cueball: Seems unnecessary.
:Cueball: When I need to do arbitrary computation, I just add a giant block of columns to the side of my sheet and have a Turing machine traverse down it.

:[In a frame-less panel Ponytail is standing in he same position behind Cueball, who has resumed working on his laptop with both hands on the keyboard.]
:Ponytail: I think you're doing computing wrong.
:Cueball: The Church-Turing thesis says that all ways of computing are '''''equally''''' wrong.

:[Ponytail is still behind Cueball, who has a finger raised in the air, and the other hand is on the desk. Cueball's head has a visible sketch layer which has not been erased.]
:Ponytail: I think if Turing saw '''''your''''' spreadsheets, he'd change his mind.
:Cueball: He can ask me to stop making them, but not prove whether I will!

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/3/3b/excel_lambda.png original version] of the comic, in the final panel, there was a gray pencil outline, slightly different to Cueball's head that had not been removed.
**This was later fixed in a re-upload.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Spreadsheets]]
[[Category:Programming]]

2453: Excel Lambda

2021-04-25T10:30:10Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */ More precise

{{comic
| number = 2453
| date = April 21, 2021
| title = Excel Lambda
| image = excel_lambda_new.png
| titletext = Extremely rude how Turing's later formulations of the halting problem called me out by name specifically.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPREADSHEET. Why is Ponytail pleased, what will she use it for, that she could not before? Another reference to a law/hypothesis about computing? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is computing and [[Ponytail]] criticizes him in a way that is reminiscent of the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality series]], although not as harsh. Cueball has lots of strange [[:Category:Cueball Computer Problems|computer problems]], and this will most likely result in another one.

The comic begins with Ponytail finding out that {{w|Microsoft Excel}} is adding a {{w|Anonymous_function|lambda function}} to their function library. This was [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546 announced by Microsoft] for Beta users in December of 2020, but perhaps Ponytail has only discovered this recently. A lambda function is a fundamental mathematical structure that can be used to completely define all possible computations from the ground up, similar ot how [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Maxwell's equations] define classical electromagnetism. They are commonly found in programming languages such as {{w|Lisp}}, {{w|Python}}, and many others. A lambda function is also called an {{w|anonymous function}} because in most languages it can be passed to other functions (including another lambda function) without needing to be given any formal name during coding, or given {{w|Closure_(computer_programming)|'closure'}} under whatever name(s) its calling procedures desire.

Finding that Excel is adding a lambda function pleases Ponytail. Cueball claims that the lambda function is unnecessary, as when he needs arbitrary computation he just adds a block of columns to the side of his sheet and has a {{w|Turing machine}} process it. This would technically work as lambda calculus is formally equivalent to Turing machines. People have created [https://www.felienne.com/archives/2974 turing machines in excel], although not for practical purposes.

Ponytail finds his solution absurd and is convinced Cueball is "doing computing wrong". But he claims that all computing is equally wrong, citing the {{w|Church-Turing thesis}}, a hypothesis which says that a function can be computed by executing a series of instructions if and only if that function is computable by a Turing machine. A classical Turing machine uses an infinitely long strip of tape as its memory; for Cueball, the large Excel column acts as the "tape". All ways of computing are "equally wrong" since, according to this thesis, they can all be translated to or from a Turing machine.

Ponytail and Cueball appear to have different ideas of 'computing'. Ponytail, like most programmers, probably includes efficiency and readability as important characteristics of 'doing computing right'. Cueball appears interested only in {{w|computability}}, a more theoretical point of view than Ponytail's.

Ponytail then says that Turing would change his mind if he saw Cueball's spreadsheet, presumably because of the extreme complexity of Cueball's code in the spreadsheet. Cueball's final statement is that Turing could ask him to stop, but would not be able to prove if he actually will stop.

Cueball's final statement is a reference to the {{w|halting problem}} mentioned in the title text. It is the problem of determining whether a given Turing machine will halt. The problem has been shown to be undecidable, i.e., it is impossible to build an algorithm that computes whether any arbitrary Turing machine will halt or not. Because of the way Cueball has behaved, he has been specifically mentioned in Turing's later formulations of the halting problem. Cueball finds this very rude. This is of course a joke, since Turing has been dead since 1954, presumably long before Cueball was born. But it would be crazy indeed if a scientist became so mad at a person that he would mention this person by name in his formulation of a serious problem.

Over-complicated spreadsheets were also mentioned in [[2180|2180:Spreadsheets]].

An example of a lambda function:

list(map(lambda a: a + 1, [1, 2, 3])) # -> returns [2, 3, 4]

Here, each element of the array with values 1,2,3 is treated in succession as a variable 'a' that is incremented by one, to produce values of 2,3,4 which are then reconstructed as a list for output.

A recursive lambda might be:

def pointless_recursion(v):
# If current value (x) is evenly divisible by 4, return the source (v) * current (x)
# Otherwise, print current, and then try the process again with the current value of x + 3
r = lambda x: x * v if x % 4 == 0 else print(x) or r(x + 3)
return r(v)

pointless_recursion(12) # returns 144 (i.e., 12*12)
pointless_recursion(11) # prints 11, 14, 17 then returns 220 (i.e., 20*11)

In this instance, the function is given the name 'r', and features a (conditional) call back to this self-same 'r' within it. The 'x' is whatever value is the latest passed to 'r', while 'v' is that which was first passed to the container function.

Ideally, such techniques should be used to ''reduce'' {{w|Spaghetti code}}, not increase it. But this isn't a foregone conclusion, especially in Cueball's hands.

==Transcript==
:[In a narrow panel, Ponytail is walking in from the left, looking down at her phone]
:Ponytail: Oh cool, Excel is adding a lambda function, so you can recursively define functions.

:[Ponytail, holding her phone to her side stands behind Cueball, who is sitting in an office chair with a hand on a laptop standing on his desk. He has turned around to face her, leaning with the other arm on the back of the chair.]
:Cueball: Seems unnecessary.
:Cueball: When I need to do arbitrary computation, I just add a giant block of columns to the side of my sheet and have a Turing machine traverse down it.

:[In a frame-less panel Ponytail is standing in he same position behind Cueball, who has resumed working on his laptop with both hands on the keyboard.]
:Ponytail: I think you're doing computing wrong.
:Cueball: The Church-Turing thesis says that all ways of computing are '''''equally''''' wrong.

:[Ponytail is still behind Cueball, who has a finger raised in the air, and the other hand is on the desk. Cueball's head has a visible sketch layer which has not been erased.]
:Ponytail: I think if Turing saw '''''your''''' spreadsheets, he'd change his mind.
:Cueball: He can ask me to stop making them, but not prove whether I will!

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/3/3b/excel_lambda.png original version] of the comic, in the final panel, there was a gray pencil outline, slightly different to Cueball's head that had not been removed.
**This was later fixed in a re-upload.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Spreadsheets]]
[[Category:Programming]]

2453: Excel Lambda

2021-04-25T10:28:24Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2453
| date = April 21, 2021
| title = Excel Lambda
| image = excel_lambda_new.png
| titletext = Extremely rude how Turing's later formulations of the halting problem called me out by name specifically.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPREADSHEET. Why is Ponytail pleased, what will she use it for, that she could not before? Another reference to a law/hypothesis about computing? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is computing and [[Ponytail]] criticizes him in a way that is reminiscent of the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality series]], although not as harsh. Cueball has lots of strange [[:Category:Cueball Computer Problems|computer problems]], and this will most likely result in another one.

The comic begins with Ponytail finding out that {{w|Microsoft Excel}} is adding a {{w|Anonymous_function|lambda function}} to their function library. This was [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546 announced by Microsoft] for Beta users in December of 2020, but perhaps Ponytail has only discovered this recently. A lambda function is a fundamental mathematical structure that can be used to completely define all possible computations from the ground up, similar ot how [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Maxwell's equations] define classical electromagnetism. They are commonly found in programming languages such as {{w|Lisp}}, {{w|Python}}, and many others. A lambda function is also called an {{w|anonymous function}} because in most languages it can be passed to other functions (including another lambda function) without needing to be given any formal name during coding, or given {{w|Closure_(computer_programming)|'closure'}} under whatever name(s) its calling procedures desire.

Finding that Excel is adding a lambda function pleases Ponytail. Cueball claims that the lambda function is unnecessary, as when he needs arbitrary computation he just adds a block of columns to the side of his sheet and has a {{w|Turing machine}} process it. This would technically work as lambda calculus is formally equivalent to Turing machines. People have created [https://www.felienne.com/archives/2974 turing machines in excel], although not for practical purposes.

Ponytail finds his solution absurd and is convinced Cueball is "doing computing wrong". But he claims that all computing is equally wrong, citing the {{w|Church-Turing thesis}}, a hypothesis which says that a function can be computed by executing a series of instructions if and only if that function is computable by a Turing machine. A classical Turing machine uses an infinitely long strip of tape as its memory; for Cueball, the large Excel column acts as the "tape". All ways of computing are "equally wrong" since, according to this thesis, they can all be translated to or from a Turing machine.

Ponytail and Cueball appear to have different ideas of 'computing'. Ponytail, like most programmers, probably includes efficiency and readability as important characteristics of 'doing computing right'. Cueball appears interested only in {{w|computability}}, a more theoretical point of view than Ponytail's.

Ponytail then says that Turing would change his mind if he saw Cueball's spreadsheet, presumably because of the extreme complexity of Cueball's code in the spreadsheet. Cueball's final statement is that Turing could ask him to stop, but would not be able to prove if he actually will stop.

Cueball's final statement is a reference to the {{w|halting problem}} mentioned in the title text. It is the problem of determining whether a given Turing machine will halt. The problem has been shown to be undecidable, i.e., there exists no algorithm that computes whether an arbitrary Turing machine will halt or not. Because of the way Cueball has behaved, he has been specifically mentioned in Turing's later formulations of the halting problem. Cueball finds this very rude. This is of course a joke, since Turing has been dead since 1954, presumably long before Cueball was born. But it would be crazy indeed if a scientist became so mad at a person that he would mention this person by name in his formulation of a serious problem.

Over-complicated spreadsheets were also mentioned in [[2180|2180:Spreadsheets]].

An example of a lambda function:

list(map(lambda a: a + 1, [1, 2, 3])) # -> returns [2, 3, 4]

Here, each element of the array with values 1,2,3 is treated in succession as a variable 'a' that is incremented by one, to produce values of 2,3,4 which are then reconstructed as a list for output.

A recursive lambda might be:

def pointless_recursion(v):
# If current value (x) is evenly divisible by 4, return the source (v) * current (x)
# Otherwise, print current, and then try the process again with the current value of x + 3
r = lambda x: x * v if x % 4 == 0 else print(x) or r(x + 3)
return r(v)

pointless_recursion(12) # returns 144 (i.e., 12*12)
pointless_recursion(11) # prints 11, 14, 17 then returns 220 (i.e., 20*11)

In this instance, the function is given the name 'r', and features a (conditional) call back to this self-same 'r' within it. The 'x' is whatever value is the latest passed to 'r', while 'v' is that which was first passed to the container function.

Ideally, such techniques should be used to ''reduce'' {{w|Spaghetti code}}, not increase it. But this isn't a foregone conclusion, especially in Cueball's hands.

==Transcript==
:[In a narrow panel, Ponytail is walking in from the left, looking down at her phone]
:Ponytail: Oh cool, Excel is adding a lambda function, so you can recursively define functions.

:[Ponytail, holding her phone to her side stands behind Cueball, who is sitting in an office chair with a hand on a laptop standing on his desk. He has turned around to face her, leaning with the other arm on the back of the chair.]
:Cueball: Seems unnecessary.
:Cueball: When I need to do arbitrary computation, I just add a giant block of columns to the side of my sheet and have a Turing machine traverse down it.

:[In a frame-less panel Ponytail is standing in he same position behind Cueball, who has resumed working on his laptop with both hands on the keyboard.]
:Ponytail: I think you're doing computing wrong.
:Cueball: The Church-Turing thesis says that all ways of computing are '''''equally''''' wrong.

:[Ponytail is still behind Cueball, who has a finger raised in the air, and the other hand is on the desk. Cueball's head has a visible sketch layer which has not been erased.]
:Ponytail: I think if Turing saw '''''your''''' spreadsheets, he'd change his mind.
:Cueball: He can ask me to stop making them, but not prove whether I will!

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/3/3b/excel_lambda.png original version] of the comic, in the final panel, there was a gray pencil outline, slightly different to Cueball's head that had not been removed.
**This was later fixed in a re-upload.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Spreadsheets]]
[[Category:Programming]]

2453: Excel Lambda

2021-04-25T10:23:01Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2453
| date = April 21, 2021
| title = Excel Lambda
| image = excel_lambda_new.png
| titletext = Extremely rude how Turing's later formulations of the halting problem called me out by name specifically.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPREADSHEET. Why is Ponytail pleased, what will she use it for, that she could not before? Another reference to a law/hypothesis about computing? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is computing and [[Ponytail]] criticizes him in a way that is reminiscent of the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality series]], although not as harsh. Cueball has lots of strange [[:Category:Cueball Computer Problems|computer problems]], and this will most likely result in another one.

The comic begins with Ponytail finding out that {{w|Microsoft Excel}} is adding a {{w|Anonymous_function|lambda function}} to their function library. This was [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546 announced by Microsoft] for Beta users in December of 2020, but perhaps Ponytail has only discovered this recently. A lambda function is a fundamental mathematical structure that can be used to completely define all possible computations from the ground up, similar ot how [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Maxwell's equations] define classical electromagnetism. They are commonly found in programming languages such as {{w|Lisp}}, {{w|Python}}, and many others. A lambda function is also called an {{w|anonymous function}} because in most languages it can be passed to other functions (including another lambda function) without needing to be given any formal name during coding, or given {{w|Closure_(computer_programming)|'closure'}} under whatever name(s) its calling procedures desire.

Finding that Excel is adding a lambda function pleases Ponytail. Cueball claims that the lambda function is unnecessary, as when he needs arbitrary computation he just adds a block of columns to the side of his sheet and has a {{w|Turing machine}} process it. This would technically work as a lambda function but would be rather difficult to construct and maintain.{{Citation needed}} People have created [https://www.felienne.com/archives/2974 turing machines in excel], although not for practical purposes.

Ponytail finds his solution absurd and is convinced Cueball is "doing computing wrong". But he claims that all computing is equally wrong, citing the {{w|Church-Turing thesis}}, a hypothesis which says that a function can be computed by executing a series of instructions if and only if that function is computable by a Turing machine. A classical Turing machine uses an infinitely long strip of tape as its memory; for Cueball, the large Excel column acts as the "tape". All ways of computing are "equally wrong" since, according to this thesis, they can all be translated to or from a Turing machine.

Ponytail and Cueball appear to have different ideas of 'computing'. Ponytail, like most programmers, probably includes efficiency and readability as important characteristics of 'doing computing right'. Cueball appears interested only in {{w|computability}}, a more theoretical point of view than Ponytail's.

Ponytail then says that Turing would change his mind if he saw Cueball's spreadsheet, presumably because of the extreme complexity of Cueball's code in the spreadsheet. Cueball's final statement is that Turing could ask him to stop, but would not be able to prove if he actually will stop.

Cueball's final statement is a reference to the {{w|halting problem}} mentioned in the title text. It is the problem of determining whether a given Turing machine will halt. The problem has been shown to be undecidable, i.e., there exists no algorithm that computes whether an arbitrary Turing machine will halt or not. Because of the way Cueball has behaved, he has been specifically mentioned in Turing's later formulations of the halting problem. Cueball finds this very rude. This is of course a joke, since Turing has been dead since 1954, presumably long before Cueball was born. But it would be crazy indeed if a scientist became so mad at a person that he would mention this person by name in his formulation of a serious problem.

Over-complicated spreadsheets were also mentioned in [[2180|2180:Spreadsheets]].

An example of a lambda function:

list(map(lambda a: a + 1, [1, 2, 3])) # -> returns [2, 3, 4]

Here, each element of the array with values 1,2,3 is treated in succession as a variable 'a' that is incremented by one, to produce values of 2,3,4 which are then reconstructed as a list for output.

A recursive lambda might be:

def pointless_recursion(v):
# If current value (x) is evenly divisible by 4, return the source (v) * current (x)
# Otherwise, print current, and then try the process again with the current value of x + 3
r = lambda x: x * v if x % 4 == 0 else print(x) or r(x + 3)
return r(v)

pointless_recursion(12) # returns 144 (i.e., 12*12)
pointless_recursion(11) # prints 11, 14, 17 then returns 220 (i.e., 20*11)

In this instance, the function is given the name 'r', and features a (conditional) call back to this self-same 'r' within it. The 'x' is whatever value is the latest passed to 'r', while 'v' is that which was first passed to the container function.

Ideally, such techniques should be used to ''reduce'' {{w|Spaghetti code}}, not increase it. But this isn't a foregone conclusion, especially in Cueball's hands.

==Transcript==
:[In a narrow panel, Ponytail is walking in from the left, looking down at her phone]
:Ponytail: Oh cool, Excel is adding a lambda function, so you can recursively define functions.

:[Ponytail, holding her phone to her side stands behind Cueball, who is sitting in an office chair with a hand on a laptop standing on his desk. He has turned around to face her, leaning with the other arm on the back of the chair.]
:Cueball: Seems unnecessary.
:Cueball: When I need to do arbitrary computation, I just add a giant block of columns to the side of my sheet and have a Turing machine traverse down it.

:[In a frame-less panel Ponytail is standing in he same position behind Cueball, who has resumed working on his laptop with both hands on the keyboard.]
:Ponytail: I think you're doing computing wrong.
:Cueball: The Church-Turing thesis says that all ways of computing are '''''equally''''' wrong.

:[Ponytail is still behind Cueball, who has a finger raised in the air, and the other hand is on the desk. Cueball's head has a visible sketch layer which has not been erased.]
:Ponytail: I think if Turing saw '''''your''''' spreadsheets, he'd change his mind.
:Cueball: He can ask me to stop making them, but not prove whether I will!

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/3/3b/excel_lambda.png original version] of the comic, in the final panel, there was a gray pencil outline, slightly different to Cueball's head that had not been removed.
**This was later fixed in a re-upload.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Spreadsheets]]
[[Category:Programming]]

2453: Excel Lambda

2021-04-25T10:22:29Z

TuringTest: Also this

{{comic
| number = 2453
| date = April 21, 2021
| title = Excel Lambda
| image = excel_lambda_new.png
| titletext = Extremely rude how Turing's later formulations of the halting problem called me out by name specifically.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPREADSHEET. Why is Ponytail pleased, what will she use it for, that she could not before? Another reference to a law/hypothesis about computing? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is computing and [[Ponytail]] criticizes him in a way that is reminiscent of the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality series]], although not as harsh. Cueball has lots of strange [[:Category:Cueball Computer Problems|computer problems]], and this will most likely result in another one.

The comic begins with Ponytail finding out that {{w|Microsoft Excel}} is adding a {{w|Anonymous_function|lambda function}} to their function library. This was [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546 announced by Microsoft] for Beta users in December of 2020, but perhaps Ponytail has only discovered this recently. A lambda function is a fundamental structure that can be used to completely define all possible computations from the ground up, similar ot how [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Maxwell's equations] define classical electromagnetism. They are commonly found in programming languages such as {{w|Lisp}}, {{w|Python}}, and many others. A lambda function is also called an {{w|anonymous function}} because in most languages it can be passed to other functions (including another lambda function) without needing to be given any formal name during coding, or given {{w|Closure_(computer_programming)|'closure'}} under whatever name(s) its calling procedures desire.

Finding that Excel is adding a lambda function pleases Ponytail. Cueball claims that the lambda function is unnecessary, as when he needs arbitrary computation he just adds a block of columns to the side of his sheet and has a {{w|Turing machine}} process it. This would technically work as a lambda function but would be rather difficult to construct and maintain.{{Citation needed}} People have created [https://www.felienne.com/archives/2974 turing machines in excel], although not for practical purposes.

Ponytail finds his solution absurd and is convinced Cueball is "doing computing wrong". But he claims that all computing is equally wrong, citing the {{w|Church-Turing thesis}}, a hypothesis which says that a function can be computed by executing a series of instructions if and only if that function is computable by a Turing machine. A classical Turing machine uses an infinitely long strip of tape as its memory; for Cueball, the large Excel column acts as the "tape". All ways of computing are "equally wrong" since, according to this thesis, they can all be translated to or from a Turing machine.

Ponytail and Cueball appear to have different ideas of 'computing'. Ponytail, like most programmers, probably includes efficiency and readability as important characteristics of 'doing computing right'. Cueball appears interested only in {{w|computability}}, a more theoretical point of view than Ponytail's.

Ponytail then says that Turing would change his mind if he saw Cueball's spreadsheet, presumably because of the extreme complexity of Cueball's code in the spreadsheet. Cueball's final statement is that Turing could ask him to stop, but would not be able to prove if he actually will stop.

Cueball's final statement is a reference to the {{w|halting problem}} mentioned in the title text. It is the problem of determining whether a given Turing machine will halt. The problem has been shown to be undecidable, i.e., there exists no algorithm that computes whether an arbitrary Turing machine will halt or not. Because of the way Cueball has behaved, he has been specifically mentioned in Turing's later formulations of the halting problem. Cueball finds this very rude. This is of course a joke, since Turing has been dead since 1954, presumably long before Cueball was born. But it would be crazy indeed if a scientist became so mad at a person that he would mention this person by name in his formulation of a serious problem.

Over-complicated spreadsheets were also mentioned in [[2180|2180:Spreadsheets]].

An example of a lambda function:

list(map(lambda a: a + 1, [1, 2, 3])) # -> returns [2, 3, 4]

Here, each element of the array with values 1,2,3 is treated in succession as a variable 'a' that is incremented by one, to produce values of 2,3,4 which are then reconstructed as a list for output.

A recursive lambda might be:

def pointless_recursion(v):
# If current value (x) is evenly divisible by 4, return the source (v) * current (x)
# Otherwise, print current, and then try the process again with the current value of x + 3
r = lambda x: x * v if x % 4 == 0 else print(x) or r(x + 3)
return r(v)

pointless_recursion(12) # returns 144 (i.e., 12*12)
pointless_recursion(11) # prints 11, 14, 17 then returns 220 (i.e., 20*11)

In this instance, the function is given the name 'r', and features a (conditional) call back to this self-same 'r' within it. The 'x' is whatever value is the latest passed to 'r', while 'v' is that which was first passed to the container function.

Ideally, such techniques should be used to ''reduce'' {{w|Spaghetti code}}, not increase it. But this isn't a foregone conclusion, especially in Cueball's hands.

==Transcript==
:[In a narrow panel, Ponytail is walking in from the left, looking down at her phone]
:Ponytail: Oh cool, Excel is adding a lambda function, so you can recursively define functions.

:[Ponytail, holding her phone to her side stands behind Cueball, who is sitting in an office chair with a hand on a laptop standing on his desk. He has turned around to face her, leaning with the other arm on the back of the chair.]
:Cueball: Seems unnecessary.
:Cueball: When I need to do arbitrary computation, I just add a giant block of columns to the side of my sheet and have a Turing machine traverse down it.

:[In a frame-less panel Ponytail is standing in he same position behind Cueball, who has resumed working on his laptop with both hands on the keyboard.]
:Ponytail: I think you're doing computing wrong.
:Cueball: The Church-Turing thesis says that all ways of computing are '''''equally''''' wrong.

:[Ponytail is still behind Cueball, who has a finger raised in the air, and the other hand is on the desk. Cueball's head has a visible sketch layer which has not been erased.]
:Ponytail: I think if Turing saw '''''your''''' spreadsheets, he'd change his mind.
:Cueball: He can ask me to stop making them, but not prove whether I will!

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/3/3b/excel_lambda.png original version] of the comic, in the final panel, there was a gray pencil outline, slightly different to Cueball's head that had not been removed.
**This was later fixed in a re-upload.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Spreadsheets]]
[[Category:Programming]]

2453: Excel Lambda

2021-04-25T10:19:22Z

TuringTest: No, it hasn't

{{comic
| number = 2453
| date = April 21, 2021
| title = Excel Lambda
| image = excel_lambda_new.png
| titletext = Extremely rude how Turing's later formulations of the halting problem called me out by name specifically.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPREADSHEET. Why is Ponytail pleased, what will she use it for, that she could not before? Another reference to a law/hypothesis about computing? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Cueball]] is computing and [[Ponytail]] criticizes him in a way that is reminiscent of the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality series]], although not as harsh. Cueball has lots of strange [[:Category:Cueball Computer Problems|computer problems]], and this will most likely result in another one.

The comic begins with Ponytail finding out that {{w|Microsoft Excel}} is adding a {{w|Anonymous_function|lambda function}} to their function library. This was [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546 announced by Microsoft] for Beta users in December of 2020, but perhaps Ponytail has only discovered this recently. A lambda function is a temporary function created inside another function that completes a repetitive task that is too unimportant to code a named function for. They are commonly found in programming languages such as {{w|Lisp}}, {{w|Python}}, and many others. A lambda function is also called an {{w|anonymous function}} because in most languages it can be passed to other functions (including another lambda function) without needing to be given any formal name during coding, or given {{w|Closure_(computer_programming)|'closure'}} under whatever name(s) its calling procedures desire.

Finding that Excel is adding a lambda function pleases Ponytail. Cueball claims that the lambda function is unnecessary, as when he needs arbitrary computation he just adds a block of columns to the side of his sheet and has a {{w|Turing machine}} process it. This would technically work as a lambda function but would be rather difficult to construct and maintain.{{Citation needed}} People have created [https://www.felienne.com/archives/2974 turing machines in excel], although not for practical purposes.

Ponytail finds his solution absurd and is convinced Cueball is "doing computing wrong". But he claims that all computing is equally wrong, citing the {{w|Church-Turing thesis}}, a hypothesis which says that a function can be computed by executing a series of instructions if and only if that function is computable by a Turing machine. A classical Turing machine uses an infinitely long strip of tape as its memory; for Cueball, the large Excel column acts as the "tape". All ways of computing are "equally wrong" since, according to this thesis, they can all be translated to or from a Turing machine.

Ponytail and Cueball appear to have different ideas of 'computing'. Ponytail, like most programmers, probably includes efficiency and readability as important characteristics of 'doing computing right'. Cueball appears interested only in {{w|computability}}, a more theoretical point of view than Ponytail's.

Ponytail then says that Turing would change his mind if he saw Cueball's spreadsheet, presumably because of the extreme complexity of Cueball's code in the spreadsheet. Cueball's final statement is that Turing could ask him to stop, but would not be able to prove if he actually will stop.

Cueball's final statement is a reference to the {{w|halting problem}} mentioned in the title text. It is the problem of determining whether a given Turing machine will halt. The problem has been shown to be undecidable, i.e., there exists no algorithm that computes whether an arbitrary Turing machine will halt or not. Because of the way Cueball has behaved, he has been specifically mentioned in Turing's later formulations of the halting problem. Cueball finds this very rude. This is of course a joke, since Turing has been dead since 1954, presumably long before Cueball was born. But it would be crazy indeed if a scientist became so mad at a person that he would mention this person by name in his formulation of a serious problem.

Over-complicated spreadsheets were also mentioned in [[2180|2180:Spreadsheets]].

An example of a lambda function:

list(map(lambda a: a + 1, [1, 2, 3])) # -> returns [2, 3, 4]

Here, each element of the array with values 1,2,3 is treated in succession as a variable 'a' that is incremented by one, to produce values of 2,3,4 which are then reconstructed as a list for output.

A recursive lambda might be:

def pointless_recursion(v):
# If current value (x) is evenly divisible by 4, return the source (v) * current (x)
# Otherwise, print current, and then try the process again with the current value of x + 3
r = lambda x: x * v if x % 4 == 0 else print(x) or r(x + 3)
return r(v)

pointless_recursion(12) # returns 144 (i.e., 12*12)
pointless_recursion(11) # prints 11, 14, 17 then returns 220 (i.e., 20*11)

In this instance, the function is given the name 'r', and features a (conditional) call back to this self-same 'r' within it. The 'x' is whatever value is the latest passed to 'r', while 'v' is that which was first passed to the container function.

Ideally, such techniques should be used to ''reduce'' {{w|Spaghetti code}}, not increase it. But this isn't a foregone conclusion, especially in Cueball's hands.

==Transcript==
:[In a narrow panel, Ponytail is walking in from the left, looking down at her phone]
:Ponytail: Oh cool, Excel is adding a lambda function, so you can recursively define functions.

:[Ponytail, holding her phone to her side stands behind Cueball, who is sitting in an office chair with a hand on a laptop standing on his desk. He has turned around to face her, leaning with the other arm on the back of the chair.]
:Cueball: Seems unnecessary.
:Cueball: When I need to do arbitrary computation, I just add a giant block of columns to the side of my sheet and have a Turing machine traverse down it.

:[In a frame-less panel Ponytail is standing in he same position behind Cueball, who has resumed working on his laptop with both hands on the keyboard.]
:Ponytail: I think you're doing computing wrong.
:Cueball: The Church-Turing thesis says that all ways of computing are '''''equally''''' wrong.

:[Ponytail is still behind Cueball, who has a finger raised in the air, and the other hand is on the desk. Cueball's head has a visible sketch layer which has not been erased.]
:Ponytail: I think if Turing saw '''''your''''' spreadsheets, he'd change his mind.
:Cueball: He can ask me to stop making them, but not prove whether I will!

==Trivia==
*In the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/3/3b/excel_lambda.png original version] of the comic, in the final panel, there was a gray pencil outline, slightly different to Cueball's head that had not been removed.
**This was later fixed in a re-upload.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Spreadsheets]]
[[Category:Programming]]

2440: Epistemic Uncertainty

2021-03-23T20:28:48Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */ Definition

{{comic
| number = 2440
| date = March 22, 2021
| title = Epistemic Uncertainty
| image = epistemic_uncertainty.png
| titletext = Luckily, unlike in our previous study, we have no reason to believe Evangeline the Adulterator gained access to our stored doses.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by GEORGE THE DATA TAMPERER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT tamper this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a comparison of two different "research studies," one which shows "regular uncertainty" and one which shows "epistemic uncertainty." In both panels, the core data is the same - the drug in question is 74% effective - but the uncertainty qualities are different. The first is straightforward; the confidence interval (the error bars on the chart) is from 63 to 81%. The second panel includes the additional wrinkle of "George the Data Tamperer, whose whims are unpredictable."

George the Tamperer and Evangeline the Adulterator (from the title text) are analogous to the characters from {{w|Alice and Bob}} cryptography thought experiments. In the most basic examples, Alice and Bob are communicating and a third party, Eve the Eavesdropper, is spying on them.

In statistics, a {{w|confidence interval}} is an estimate which provides a range of values, based on the statistical probability that the data collected represents a certain result. It is a reflection on the uncertainty imposed by the limits of study sample sizes. Since no study will ever have an infinite data set{{Citation needed}}, it is possible for a small sample to give a skewed result, but the small skews are more probable than large ones. For example, if a drug was 80% effective it would be possible for a study with a sample size of 100 to randomly end up with 74 positive and 26 negative results. If the drug was 99% effective it would still be possible to randomly end up with the same data, but it would be highly unlikely. This gives us a spread of "likely" results, with results outside a certain interval being considered too unlikely to be realistic.

{{w|Epistemology}} – unlike {{w|epidemiology}} – is the branch of philosophy related to knowledge; thus epistemic uncertainty is the ultimate impossibility to be sure that what we know is accurate, not by failures in measurement but for the intrinsic limits of knowledge. It seems that the "epistemic uncertainty" data has a 25% chance of data {{w|tampering}}, by an individual called "George the Data Tamperer". In contrast to the previous study, where the data is known but its reflection of the general case is uncertain to an extent, in this study even the knowledge of "whether any single data point is correct" is uncertain. Thus, their data has a 25% chance of being incorrect with no possible statement about how incorrect it may be.

The title text mentions an individual called "Evangeline the Adulterator", who [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/adulterate adulterates] their drug doses. If this happened, the researchers would not even be sure the patients received the dosages (or exacting medicines/placebos) as prescribed, and the study methodology itself would be in doubt.

==Transcript==
:[Two panels are shown with labels above them.]
:Regular Uncertainty
:Epistemic Uncertainty

:[In both panels Megan stands in front of a data presentation on a slide behind her. She is pointing at the slide with a stick.]

:[In the left panel titled 'Regular Uncertainty'. Megan standing in front of a presentation of a graph with data and error bars. The percentage 74% can be seen above the dot at the center between the error bars]
:Megan: Our study found the drug was 74% effective, with a confidence interval from 63% to 81%.
:74%

:[In the right panel titled 'Epistemic Uncertainty'. Megan stands in front of a presentation of data with a silhouette of a man with a hat labelled with a white question mark. Above this are three 3 confidence intervals.]
:Megan: Our study found the drug to be 74% effective.
:Megan: However, there is a 1 in 4 chance that our study was modified by George the Data Tamperer, whose whims are unpredictable.
:73 -> 74%??
:47 -> 74%??
:0 -> 74%?
:?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Research Papers]]
[[Category:Biology]]

2439: Solar System Cartogram

2021-03-21T09:49:07Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2439
| date = March 19, 2021
| title = Solar System Cartogram
| image = solar_system_cartogram.png
| titletext = For sentimental reasons, every active Mars rover is counted as one person, although that's not enough to make Mars more than a dot.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BELOVED MARS ROVER. Show an example of an electoral cartogram for illustration. Please mention here why else this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, [[Randall]] has made a {{w|cartogram}} showing the planets in the {{w|solar system}}. Cartograms are a type of map in which geographic area is displayed proportionately to some secondary characteristic - in this case, population. From the title text it is clear that the population in question is human (persons) (but even if all life forms where counted it it wouldn't matter, since the only confirmed life in the Solar System is on Earth). Thus the other planets have a population of 0 and are shown as nothing more than dots.

This comic is a joke about electoral cartograms. A standard {{w|United States Electoral College|American electoral map}} is very misleading. Though the split between Democrats and Republicans is about 50-50, most of the area of the U.S. map is shown in red (the color currently associated with the Republican Party). That’s because many Democrats live in densely packed districts, while many Republicans live in rural ones. This has led to the rise of electoral cartograms, where districts are proportionally adjusted in direct relation to population, correcting the misimpression that most of America is conservative.

Solar system diagrams are often misleading. Illustrators are overwhelmingly forced to use a far more scaled-down spacing between planets, compared to their scaled sizes; even if they can (or care to) maintain consistency in the relative distances and/or radii on linear scales. (The huge factors of difference involved instead may lend themselves to being {{w|Solar_System_model#Scale_models_in_various_locations|physically modeled}} to better give some sense of the spacing and sizing differences.) Here, Randall has intentionally applied the wrong solution to the problem.

The title text states that, even though Randall counts every active [[:Category:Mars rovers|Mars rover]] as a person (for sentimental reasons), they are almost nothing compared to Earth's roughly 7,800,000,000 persons. Mars therefore is still nothing more than a dot compared to the Earth. There are a total of five rovers at the moment; in chronological order, they are Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity, Curiosity, and Perseverance. Only the latter two were functional at the time of the comic's publication, giving Mars a rover population of two. (This is a tie for all-time high. Spirit and Opportunity were active together from 2004 to 2010, when Spirit shut down. Opportunity was still active when Curiosity arrived in 2012, and remained so until 2018. With the arrival of Perseverance in 2021, there are again two active rovers. A third rover, China's {{w|Tianwen-1}}, is currently in orbit around Mars and expected to land in May 2021.)

Mars rovers are a [[:Category:Mars rovers|recurring theme]] on xkcd and only a few weeks earlier, a comic named [[2433: Mars Rovers]] was released. This is the fourth comic this year to reference Mars Rovers.

==Transcript==
:Most solar system diagrams are misleading.
:This chart offers a more accurate view by showing the planets sized by population.
:[The eight planets are shown in order with labels. All but Earth show up as tiny indistinguishable dots. Earth is large and clearly drawn, with a view approximately centered on southeast Asia, the region of highest population density.]
:[The spacing between the surfaces of each planet is equal. Earth's label floats below it, while the other planets' labels connect to their respective dots with lines. Mercury, Mars, and Uranus's labels float above them, while Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune's labels float below them.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Mars rovers]]

2413: Pulsar Analogy

2021-01-19T08:40:08Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2413
| date = January 18, 2021
| title = Pulsar Analogy
| image = pulsar_analogy.png
| titletext = The #2 cause of astronomer hand injuries is trying to do vector math when the second axis points off to the right.
}}

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

{{w|Pulsar}}s are dead stellar cores that produce fast-spinning beams of radiation. Ponytail, an astronomer in this comic, explains a pulsar's fast rotation with an analogy about a tape measure retracting. This analogy could be seen as useless or misleading, considering that the tape measure starts to rotate because the retracting tape is not moving only in a radial (in/out) direction. As a star collapses into a pulsar, its natural rotation rate is greatly amplified by its shrinking moment of inertia.

While the analogy is misleading, so is the idea of a laser measure being "exactly" like the emissions of a pulsar, which, although both pulse (and for the same reason), are produced in entirely different ways and are simply helping the mind hold the concept.

When a tape measure retracts, the part of the tape outside the tape measure is not going directly towards the tape measure's center but rather towards a hole in the side. This means the tape possesses some angular momentum relative to the tape measure. In addition, when the tape measure retracts, the part of the tape inside the tape measure rotates around a spool (which pulls the part of the tape outside the tape measure inside), so it also has angular momentum relative to the tape measure. When the tape is completely retracted, the tape can no longer rotate relative to the tape measure, so the entire tape measure rotates due to the conservation of angular momentum. While pulsars also rotate quickly due to the conservation of angular momentum, the exact mechanism is different. Pulsars are formed when stars collapse due to no longer performing enough fusion to produce enough heat and energy to cancel out gravity. This causes the star to contract, which causes its mass, on average, to be closer to its access of rotation, which causes the rotational inertia (also called the moment of inertia) to decrease. If the star's angular velocity stayed constant, this would cause the angular momentum to decrease, so the star's angular velocity must increase in order to offset the decrease in rotational inertia, i.e. the star (which is now a pulsar) spins faster.

Letting the tape snap into the fully retracted position will shorten the measure's lifespan, however: If the rivets that hold the bracket at the end of the tape shear off, the tape will retract entirely inside the measured body, and will be useless until repaired - which will entail opening up the body itself in order to re-extend the slackened tape against the spring (without anything bursting out sideways, with further reassembly issues) and somehow affix the end bracket without notably altering the measuring length.

Some tape measures have a built-in {{w|laser line level}}. Pulsars emit electromagnetic radiation out of their magnetic poles, which is similar to a laser, but unlike the laser of a tape measure, the pulsar beam is emitted through the axis of rotation (i.e. at a right angle to the "tape"). The pulsing nature of a pulsar does not come from its rotation, as in Ponytail's analogy, but rather its precession, which swings the axial beam towards and away from Earth.

The title text mentions the {{w|right-hand rule}} in three-dimensional space. In a typical 3D coordinate system the Y-axis will point counterclockwise to the X-axis when looking down from the positive Z-axis. In a left-handed coordinate system, the Y-axis instead points clockwise. Attempting to use the right hand here to calculate a {{w|cross product}} will require a 90° backward bend of the middle finger or thumb, which hurts.{{Citation needed}}

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Ponytail are standing next to each other.]
:Cueball: Why do pulsars spin so ''fast?''
:Ponytail: Hmm, let me think of an analogy...

:[A tape measure is retracting above Ponytail's head. To the right of her head, a tape measure is spinning rapidly.]
:Retracting tape measure: ''zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz''
:Spinning tape measure: SNAP
:Ponytail: You know how when you retract a tape measure and let go, it leaves it spinning?
:Ponytail: It's like that.
:Cueball (off-panel): Oh, I see.

:[A tape measure with a laser instead of a measuring tape is spinning slowly.]
:Cueball (off-panel): And if the tape measure is the kind with a laser level, that's the beam of radiation?
:Ponytail (off-panel): Exactly!

:[Cueball and Ponytail are walking next to each other in silhouette.]
:Ponytail: And when the tape whips around and smacks your hand, that's the neutron degeneracy shockwave.
:Cueball: Sounds painful!
:Ponytail: Top cause of astronomer hand injuries.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

2407: Depth and Breadth

2021-01-05T08:22:12Z

TuringTest: /* Explanation */ Explaining how to implement such algorithm

{{comic
| number = 2407
| date = January 4, 2021
| title = Depth and Breadth
| image = depth_and_breadth2.png
| titletext = A death-first search is when you lose your keys and travel to the depths of hell to find them, and then if they're not there you start checking your coat pockets.
}}

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

{{w|Tree (data structure)|Tree structure}}s are one of the most common data structures used in computer science. The common ways of enumerating items arranged in a tree is either {{w|Depth-first search|depth-first}}, or {{w|Breadth-first search|breadth-first}}, which are depicted accurately in the comic. Randall humorously combines the words, to produce "brepth-first", "deadth-first", "bread-first", and "death-first" search algorithms.

Depth-first search explores down the full branches of the tree before exploring the higher levels of the tree. The "opposite" of this is breadth-first search, which explores each level of the tree at a time. This type of tree structure was already discussed as inefficient for human needs in [[761: DFS]].

In the "brepth-first" algorithm, a depth-first and a breadth-first search are hybridized where the left-most node is visited more frequently than the right node, but the right node is still visited. This might be good for exploring data that is loosely but not strictly weighted to the left, or where data in deeper nodes needs some time to be loaded before it can be used. As implied by [[761: DFS]], this might be the best algorithm for a human to employ, where one can be just as knowledgeable as needs be in just enough topics to hold conversation or be quick to act in case of danger during a date. Informed search algorithms like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm A* search], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_search Beam search] and other [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-first_search Best-first search] algorithms show this type of behavior by expanding the most ''promising'' node in the current set (under some appropriate metrics).

The nature of the "deadth-first" algorithm is unclear and inefficient, since it searches the same nodes multiple times before moving to an entirely different region of the tree. It might be useful in a context where examining nodes has some probability of returning a noisy or incorrect result, such as searching for small objects that may be overlooked.

The bread-first search is taken literally. Bread is searched for first. Since the computer user now has already met their want to find bread, the computer has no reason to explore the tree at all.

The title text introduces a "death-first" search, in which the user explores what it is like to be dead, before considering anything else. Specifically, the title text refers to hell, which calls to mind the adventures of Dante Alighieri in {{w|Inferno (Dante)| his ''Inferno''}}, and is a less likely place for keys to be left than one's coat pockets {{Citation needed}}. A much more pleasant death-first algorithm might be to skip hell and purgatory and search heaven first, perhaps multiple times (which in itself would be a use of the deadth-first approach).

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

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Food]]

2295: Garbage Math

2020-04-18T12:56:27Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2295
| date = April 17, 2020
| title = Garbage Math
| image = garbage_math.png
| titletext = 'Garbage In, Garbage Out' should not be taken to imply any sort of conservation law limiting the amount of garbage produced.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ZILOG Z80. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic explains the "{{w|garbage in, garbage out}}" concept using arithmetical expressions. Just like the comic says, if you get garbage in any part of your workflow, you get garbage as a result. Except when you multiply by zero. That one always fixes everything.

Some of these rules correspond to the rules of {{w|floating point arithmetic}}, while others may be inspired by the rules of {{w|Propagation_of_uncertainty#Example_formulae| propagation of uncertainty}} where a "garbage" number would correspond to an estimate with a high degree of uncertainty, and the uncertainty of the result of arithmetic operations will tend to be dominated by the term with the highest uncertainty. The rule about N pieces of independent garbage reflects the {{w|central limit theorem}} and how it predicts that the uncertainty (or {{w|standard error}}) of an estimate will be reduced when independent estimates are averaged. The comic oddly omits raising garbage to the 0th power, which transforms even NaN, the platonic ideal of garbage, to exactly 1.

This comic is not related to the {{w|2019–20 coronavirus outbreak|2020 pandemic}} of the {{w|coronavirus}} {{w|SARS-CoV-2}}, which causes {{w|COVID-19}}, breaking the streak of comics preceding this on [[:Category:COVID-19|topics relating to COVID-19]], after (rather appropriately) 19 comics (not counting the [[2288: Collector's Edition|April Fools' comic]]).

This comic is about the propagation of errors in numerical analysis and statistics, but described in much more colloquial terms. Numbers with low precision are termed "garbage" and numbers with high precision are labeled "precise".

{| class="wikitable"
!Formula
!Statistical Expression
!Explanation
|-
|Precise number + Precise number = Slightly less precise number
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X+Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X))^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y))^2}</math>
|If we know absolute error bars, then adding two precise numbers will at worst add the sizes of the two error bars. For example, if our precise numbers are 1 (±10-6) and 1 (±10-6), then our sum is 2 (±2·10-6). It is possible to lose a lot of relative precision, if the resultant sum is close to zero as a result of adding a number and then close to its inverse. This phenomenon is known as catastrophic cancellation. Therefore, it is likely that all numbers referred here are positive numbers, which does not exhibit this phenomenon.
|-
|Precise number × Precise number = Slightly less precise number
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X\times Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X)\times Y)^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y)\times X)^2}</math>
|Here, instead of absolute error, relative error will be added. For example, if our precise numbers are 1 (±10-6) and 1 (±10-6), then our product is 1 (±2·10-6).
|-
|Precise number + Garbage = Garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X+Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X))^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y))^2}</math>
|If one of the numbers has a high absolute error, and the numbers being added are of comparable size, then this error will be propagated to the sum.
|-
|Precise number × Garbage = Garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X\times Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X)\times Y)^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y)\times X)^2}</math>
|Likewise, if one of the numbers has a high relative error, then this error will be propagated to the product. Here, this is independent of the sizes of the numbers.
|-
|<math>\sqrt{\text{Garbage}} = \text{Less bad garbage}</math>
|<math>\mathop\sigma(\sqrt X)=\frac{\mathop\sigma(X)}{2\times\sqrt X} </math>
| When the square root of a number is computed, its relative error will be halved. Depending on the application, this might not be all that much ''better'', but it's at least ''less bad''.
|-
|Garbage2 = Worse garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X^2)=2\times X\times\mathop\sigma(X)</math>
|Likewise, when a number is squared, its relative error will be doubled. This is a corollary to multiplication adding relative errors.
|-
|<math>\frac{1}{N}\sum(\text{N pieces of statistically independent garbage}) = \text{Better garbage}</math>
|
|By aggregating many pieces of statistically independent observations (for instance, surveying many individuals), it is possible to reduce relative error. This is the basis of statistical sampling.
|-
|Precise numberGarbage = Much worse garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(b^X)=b^{2\times X}\times\mathop{\mathrm{ln}}b\times\sigma(X)</math>
|The exponent is very sensitive to changes, which may also magnify the effect based on the magnitude of the precise number.
|-
|Garbage – Garbage = Much worse garbage
|<math>\mathop\sigma(X-Y)=\sqrt{(\mathop\sigma(X))^2+(\mathop\sigma(Y))^2}</math>
|This line involves catastrophic cancellation. If both pieces of garbage are about the same (e.g. if their error bars overlap), then it is possible that the answer is positive, zero, or negative.
|-
|<math>\frac{\text{Precise number}}{\text{Garbage}-\text{Garbage}}</math> = Much worse garbage, possible division by zero
|<math>\mathop\sigma(\frac{X}{Y})=\sqrt{\frac{|(\mathop\sigma(X)\times Y)^2-(\mathop\sigma(Y)\times X)^2|}{\mathop\sigma(Y)}}</math>
|Indeed, as with above, if error bars overlap then we might end up dividing by zero.
|-
|Garbage × 0 = Precise number
|<math>\mathop\sigma(0)=0</math>
|Multiplying anything by 0 results in 0, an extremely precise number in the sense that it has no error whatsoever since we supply the 0 ourselves. This is equivalent to discarding garbage data from a statistical analysis.
|}

The title text refers to the computer science maxim of "garbage in, garbage out," which states that when it comes to computer code, supplying incorrect initial data will produce incorrect results, even if the code itself accurately does what it is supposed to do. As we can see above, however, when plugging data into mathematical formulas, this can possibly magnify the error of our input data, though there are ways to reduce this error (such as aggregating data). Therefore, the quantity of garbage is not necessarily conserved.

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

[A series of mathematical equations are written from top to bottom]

Precise number + Precise number = Slightly less precise number

Precise number × Precise number = Slightly less precise number

Precise number + Garbage = Garbage

Precise number × Garbage = Garbage

√Garbage = Less bad garbage

1/N Σ (N pieces of statistically independent garbage) = Better garbage

(Precise number)Garbage = Much worse garbage

Garbage – Garbage = Much worse garbage

Precise number / ( Garbage – Garbage ) = Much worse garbage, possible division by zero

Garbage × 0 = Precise number

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

2251: Alignment Chart Alignment Chart

2020-01-10T08:26:03Z

TuringTest:

{{comic
| number = 2251
| date = January 6, 2020
| title = Alignment Chart Alignment Chart
| image = alignment_chart_alignment_chart.png
| titletext = I would describe my personal alignment as "lawful heterozygous silty liquid."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a [[User:DgbrtBOT|TRUE NEUTRAL BOT template]]. Needs explanations of each alignment chart, and probably some editing for clarity.}}

"Alignment" and "alignment charts" come from tabletop roleplaying games, most prominently ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}''. Every character has an {{w|Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|alignment}}, which very roughly identifies their tendencies. The most widely used alignment system was introduced in the ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set}}'' in 1977 and has been reused in many (but not all) subsequent editions of the game. This system uses two perpendicular axes, each divided into three levels (for a total of nine categories). The two axes are:
* Lawful/neutral/chaotic: this axis says whether a character is strongly devoted to, indifferent about, or categorically opposed to following established rules.
* Good/neutral/evil: this axis says whether a character is generally inclined to commit good deeds or evil deeds.

In this system, the "lawful" attribute is independent from the "good" attribute. Lawful alignment means that a character is committed to a set of rules, which can refer to actual established laws, or to something like a rigid personal code, a set of traditions, or a chain of command, while a chaotic alignment means that a character has no interest in those, and may actively oppose them. The good vs evil scale is generally based on a character's concern for the lives and well-being of others, a good character will actively seek to help others and prevent harm, while an evil character will have no such concern and may actively harm others. Being 'good' is assumed to be independent of being 'lawful'. For example, a character who actively breaks laws to help those who are unjustly imprisoned or oppressed would be be considered to be "chaotic good". In both cases, a neutral alignment can indicate a character's indifference to a concept, or that their commitment is conditional, or that they consciously seek to balance both sides. A character with the "neutral neutral" alignment is called a true neutral.

An alignment chart is a grid that divides the alignments, usually for the purpose of putting descriptions or particular characters on it. Alignment charts are frequently used as a [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mcdonalds-alignment-chart meme template], where humorous or absurdist things are organized into different alignments. In addition to the "classic" Dungeons and Dragons alignment chart, there are a number of variant alignment charts in use as meme templates. Many keep the three-by-three grid structure but replace the lawful-neutral-chaotic and good-neutral-evil axes with descriptions.

This comic claims to be a meta-alignment chart, where nine "alignment charts" are themselves sorted into the nine Dungeons and Dragons alignments, following the use of alignment charts to humorously classify abstract concepts. However, these "alignment charts" are mostly diagrams used in academic classifications, which are being treated as if they were blank meme templates. There are two levels of absurdity here: first, the idea of using these diagrams to classify things they were never intended for, and second, the conflation of chaos as a physics concept and an assigned moral weights as it applies to each of these classification systems.

The title text describes Randall's alignment as "lawful heterozygous silty liquid" which references the true neutral, neutral good, lawful good, and lawful neutral charts in the Alignment Chart Alignment Chart. Lawful is the left side of an alignment chart, heterozygous is the top right or bottom left of a Punnet Square, silty is the bottom right of a soil chart, and liquid is the top right of a phase diagram. As such, the title test describes Randall's alignment as between Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good on this chart.

{| class="wikitable"
!Alignment
!Chart
!Explanation
|-
|Lawful Good
|{{w|Soil texture|Soil chart}}
|This chart shows the USDA classification of soil types by their relative proportions of sand, clay and silt. The chart is a ternary diagram (very common in geology), so soils with more clay plot towards the upper corner, soils with more sand to the bottom left, and soils with more silt to the bottom right. This chart has been used humorously as an alignment chart ([https://www.reddit.com/r/PrequelMemes/comments/8wakd4/anakin_soil_reference_chart/ for example]) and may have been the inspiration for Randall to use scientific diagrams as alignment charts. In addition to being Lawful Good, this grid cell is also the upper left cell of the chart and will be read first, making it a good place to put this chart as a "jumping off point". [https://what-if.xkcd.com/83/ What If 83 "Star Sand"] cites Randall as "...very satisfied with this chart, it's like the erosion geology edition of the electromagnetic spectrum chart..."
|-
|Neutral Good
|{{w|Punnett square}}
| Punnet squares are a visual method of determining what traits an organism might have based on the traits of the organism's parents. It relies on the principle that a trait is either dominant (indicated with capital letters) or recessive (indicated with lowercase letters). The exact combination of dominant or recessive genes that a child organism receives from their parents determines their traits. Heterozygous and homozygous refers to the pairs of alleles in an organism’s genotype, indicating mixed or same alleles, respectively. Randall later uses "heterozygous" in the title text. Note that it is possible for a phenotype to be expressed the same between some heterozygotes and homozygotes, e.g., persons with genotypes heterozygous "Aa" and homozygous "AA" will both express blood type A.
Therefore, the Punnett Square is a good chart because it is both a simple and true geometric predictor of inheritance, but it tends to be neutral because of complicating factors such as polygenic inheritance; these and other factors will cause genotypic frequency to deviate from expected 1:2:1 patterns.
|
|-
|Chaotic Good
|{{w|IPA vowel chart with audio|IPA vowel chart }}
|This chart shows the relationship between different vowels according to the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}}. The position of the vowel on the chart serves roughly as an indicator of the position of the tongue in the mouth of the speaker. As different vowel sounds are created by changes in different parts of the mouth, including lip roundness which is expressed in the chart implicitly as an invisible third dimension, vowel identification is qualitative and often up to interpretation, and vowel expression can change dramatically from region to region or even person to person within the same language, the categories described by the chart might be considered chaotic. The chart is missing the near-open central vowel [ɐ].
|-
|Lawful Neutral
|{{w|Phase diagram}}
|A phase diagram shows the equilibrium phases of matter present for a particular temperature, pressure, and composition. The diagram included is a unary phase diagram of a typical material that has a solid, liquid, and gas phase depending on the temperature and pressure for a fixed composition. Phase diagrams are useful for understanding how a material may change as its conditions change. For example, the air pressure of Mars is such that there is no temperature at which liquid water can exist in equilibrium on its surface. Water exists as ice until the temperature reaches a point where it sublimates directly into steam.

This phase diagram does not specify what material is depicted, but it is certainly ''not'' the phase diagram of water. On this diagram, compressing the liquid phase will transform the material into a solid, which is how most materials behave, but the solid/liquid phase line for water tilts the opposite direction. This is why water ice floats on liquid water, for example.

Phase diagrams follow the laws of thermodynamics and concern themselves with the order in which things ''should'' be, so they are inherently lawful.
|-
|True Neutral
|Alignment chart
|All alignment charts are neutral unless humans contaminate them. The chart in this cell has the shame overall shape as the Alignment Chart Alignment Chart in the comic.
|-
|Chaotic Neutral
|CIE chromaticity diagram
|The {{w|chromaticity}} diagram is a chart of colors. Visible colors form a shape like a triangle with two bulging sides in the diagram. The curved line within the diagram shows the chromaticities of {{w|Black body|black bodies}} over a range of color temperatures. The chromaticity diagram shows colors independent of luminance.
The chart is not a simple geometric shape, so it is labeled as chaotic. Points on the diagram can be specified as combinations of three underlying iluminants (the colors of which may not all be visible). It can also be described in polar form with angle and radial distance from some central point, where the maximum radial distance depends on the angle.
The fact that the colors may not show properly on a screen, making the diagram incorrect, may also contribute to its chaotic aspect.
|
|-
|Lawful Evil
|Political compass
|[https://www.politicalcompass.org/ Political Compass] separates ideas about governance into economic and social political thought. For example, Gandhi and Stalin supposedly both had similar economic perspectives (collectivist) but radically different social perspectives (libertarian vs authoritarian).

As politics is how laws are made, this is inherently lawful. Representing all politics in terms of two very general axes is not only a gross oversimplification, it is often used to put one's favored ideology as far away from Hitler or Stalin. This common use of a fallacy similar to the straw man makes this chart evil.

Like the USDA soil chart, the political compass has actually been [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/political-compass used as an alignment chart], largely to mock the original political compass chart.
|-
|Neutral Evil
|{{w|QAPF diagram|QAPF rock diagram}}
|This diagram is used to classify coarse-grained felsic (low magnesium and iron) igneous rocks by the relative volumes of the minerals quartz, alkali feldspars, plagioclase feldspars, and feldspathoids in the rock. It consists of two ternary diagrams - quartz and feldspathoid minerals cannot coexist (they will react to form feldspars) so only three of these components will be in any given rock. Rocks in the upper triangle of the diagram contain quartz, with rocks with more quartz plotting closer to the top, while rocks in the lower triangle contain feldspathoids, with rocks with more feldspathoids plotting lower. Rocks closer to the left corner of the diagram contain more alkali feldspar and rocks closer to the right corner contain more plagioclase feldspar. The field on the diagram for granite is labeled in the comic, but each area outlined on the diagram has its own rock name (monzonite, syenite, granodiorite, etc.). All the rocks that the QAPF diagram is used to classify look superficially like granite, but their chemistry, mineralogy, and origin differ.
The QAPF diagram and the names of the more obscure rock types on it can be somewhat arcane, which may be why it is considered evil here.
|-
|Chaotic Evil
|Omnispace classifier
|The other eight diagrams shown in this comic, squished together into one, with the shapes of the diagrams corresponding to those of the originals. The diagram is labeled chaotic, since it does not have a simple geometrical shape. Probably self-referential humour, in that the diagram created for this comic is considered to be chaotically evil.
|}

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

{{comic discussion}}



[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Politics]]