explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3123: Canon

2025-08-01T16:48:19Z

Whoa: /* Transcript */ Added caption

{{comic
| number = 3123
| date = August 1, 2025
| title = Canon
| image = canon_2x.png
| imagesize = 299x408px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Achilles was a mighty warrior, but his Achilles' heel was his heel.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[Cueball talks to White Hat while reading a book. Both are standing.]

:Cueball: It's so weird reading these 18th century scholars argue about minor biblical details. It's like they're an online fandom or something - they've developed this whole elaborate canon.

:[Caption below]

:It's fun when a word's usage goes full circle and, by analogy, lands back on its original meaning.

{{comic discussion}}

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

Talk:3073: Tariffs

2025-04-09T21:01:34Z

Whoa:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a way to lock comment sections? I feel like it would be especially helpful in comics like these. And while Reddit is usually not a good example for anything them locking the comments for contentious content (hehe) is actually a really good idea. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.75|172.68.12.75]] 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:The talk page ''could'' be semi-protected (to various degrees: admin-only editing, autoconfirmed-only editing) by an admin (your best bet would be to ask [[User:Kynde]]). I would recommend against such drastic moves for the moment, as the vandalism and trolling isn’t that bad (''yet''). If it does get worse, I’ll make sure to send a message to Kynde. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Fair enough, haste never gets anyone anywhere and it'd appear unjustified to do something that severe if it isn't that bad enough. But if it gets to the level of the I'm With Her comment section and nobody has asked for it to be locked, I'll ask Kynde like you asked. In any case, I'll wait. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.147|172.71.223.147]] 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, explainxkcd has gone off the cliff, and not just on this particular article, but repeatedly, and it’s getting worse and worse. I'm not going to edit it myself, but might I suggest a rule of thumb? If it isn’t necessary to help some understand the COMIC, then don’t put it in there in the first place! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.176|172.69.23.176]] 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::"Repeatedly"? By what criteria? Obviously in your opinion, anyway, and I'm not going to tell you what to think (or try to guess what you're thinking), but I believe you're being subjective. Nice to hear from you, though. Please do come by again some time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.226|141.101.98.226]] 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:Seconded. This really should be the policy. I have strong political opinions like just about everyone (and like everyone, I certainly think that my views are logically derived from cold hard objective facts), but I have refrained from editing this page because I am VERY aware that it would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, and detract from the purpose of this website. "Explain xkcd" is for explaining xkcd, it's not a a platform to persuade the internet to adopt your political opinions. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 20:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

2589: Outlet Denier

2025-03-12T23:11:05Z

Whoa: Removed the repeated first sentence which was the full second paragraph.

{{comic
| number = 2589
| date = March 4, 2022
| title = Outlet Denier
| image = outlet_denier.png
| titletext = There are regularly placed bumps on the underside just the right size to press the rocker switch on the power strip.
}}

==Explanation==
This is the fifth installment in the series of [[:Category:Cursed Connectors|Cursed Connectors]] and presents Cursed Connectors #78: The Outlet Denier. It follows [[2507: USV-C]] (#280) after about half a year and was followed about 4 months later by [[2642: Meta-Alternating Current]] (#120).

The outlet denier connector in this comic is the large connector to the right. It has a plug on the downward side that is supposed to go into a {{w|power strip}} or other type of outlet. It has two long bars extending up and down off the plug, as well as a D shape on one side with another, slightly less long bar on the other side of the D, that has the cord connected to it. The purpose of the outlet denier is to block access to as many other ports on a power strip as possible, hence the name. It is designed to work with many different types of power strips, such as the standard one displayed in the comic, as well as ones with the sockets rotated 90 degrees (the long bar extending to the cord) and other types of outlets like the triple outlet on the end of many extension cords and two dimensional power strips that extend a couple of outlets left and right as well as up and down (the D shape on the side). The extreme bars to each side may also prevent plugging the Denier into an outlet close to the floor, forcing the user to use a power strip or similar item for it.

There is an example power strip displayed to the left of the outlet denier, used to help explain that the outlet denier is designed to block as many other sockets on a power strip as possible. The power strip is presumably of the type with a {{w|Light_switch#Rocker|rocker switch}} that can turn the entire power bar off. This power bar has five outlets.

Many appliances require transformers or other large components on their power cord. Sometimes these "power bricks" are built around the plug. The comic is making fun of these types of power bricks, as they often block access to other sockets on a power strip or wall outlet. This can be really annoying when you want to plug in many different appliances into a power strip.

Other plugs are deliberately designed to block the other half of a duplex outlet, preventing users from plugging anything else in that could overload the circuit.{{actual citation needed}} The comic could be depicting an extreme case of a cumbersome connector shape designed to block an entire power strip, as the appliance connected to it uses so much power that a single extra item plugged into the power strip would cause problems.

The title text says that the outlet denier has bumps on the underside of the long bar that would match up with the location of the rocker switch no matter which outlet of the strip it is plugged into. It's not clear whether this will turn the power switch off or force it always on. But either way, it gets in the way of the user being able to control the power themselves.

If it forces it off, then the Outlet Denier cannot even be used. So to at least assume someone might actually use it, it must force it on. Since there is nothing else that can go into the power strip, it is not that important whether it is possible to switch it off though.

==Transcript==
:[To the left is a power strip with a rocker switch at the top and five outlets, and a connected wire goes from the top off to the left. To the right is the plug that should go into one of the outlets. A curved wire comes from the right and connects to the end of the connector, which is longer than a normal plug. The prongs are visible underneath where the box ends. But instead of ending there, there is a bar horizontal to the first part, which is longer than the power strip itself. There is a D shaped bar attached to this long bar, centered on the middle of the bar. If it was plugged in, the long bar would cover all the other outlets of the power strip.]

:[Text above the image:] Cursed Connectors #78
:[Text below the image:] The outlet denier

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Cursed Connectors]]