https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=141.101.107.138&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-19T04:29:55ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2307:_Alive_Or_Not&diff=192065Talk:2307: Alive Or Not2020-05-15T22:01:22Z<p>141.101.107.138: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure high-pressure fire hoses belong on this scale[[User:60sRefugee|60sRefugee]] ([[User talk:60sRefugee|talk]]) 21:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Funny, for once viruses are said to be alive. That's new... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.138|141.101.107.138]] 22:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2307:_Alive_Or_Not&diff=192064Talk:2307: Alive Or Not2020-05-15T22:00:53Z<p>141.101.107.138: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure high-pressure fire hoses belong on this scale[[User:60sRefugee|60sRefugee]] ([[User talk:60sRefugee|talk]]) 21:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Funny, for once viruses are said to be alive. That's new...</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2037:_Supreme_Court_Bracket&diff=161842Talk:2037: Supreme Court Bracket2018-08-24T23:54:58Z<p>141.101.107.138: Add comment.</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
Came here for insight, only to discover this is tomorrow's comic, I'm viewing Friday's comic on Thursday after midnight. D'oh! Damn, seeing a comic early and I can't provide or contribute to the explanation, LOL! I realize the bracket and "Sweet 16" are sports things, I think football and/or basketball, and I spotted the famous name Roe vs. Wade, so seems like court cases, but that's it. Looking forward to people explaining the smaller jokes (I spotted "Loving" and "Virginia", and I feel like I recall their license plates say "Virginia Is For Lovers" I think, I expect something there). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Protip: Thursday after midnight is Friday! Nonetheless this comic was released at 0:00 EDT meaning it was still Thursday at time zones westwards. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 07:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I got here at like 9:10 Pacific time and the comic was already up; normally I have to wait until like 1 AM before Randall posts it/you guys auto-mirror it.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.235|172.68.189.235]] 08:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
::The pages here are created automatically less than two minutes after the original was published on xkcd. Today, like some others in the recent past, this happened at 4:01 UTC (or GMT - the server time) which corresponds to 0:01 EDT (Randall time) and 21:01 PDT (the day before at your time.) The weekday is defined by Randall's time zone - US citizens should know about the shift from east to west. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Errm. You can go back to the previous comic if you hit the [<Prev] button just above the current one. {{unsigned ip|141.101.107.36}}<br />
<br />
I agree that this is a sports reference, but can someone also include some sort of note about the title? I think that the "Supreme COURT" is referring to a basketball COURT, connected to how brackets like this are used in basketball like with March Madness. [[User:B. A. Beder|B. A. Beder]] ([[User talk:B. A. Beder|talk]]) 05:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:No, I'm pretty sure it's titled Supreme Court Bracket because the bracket consists of cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States made the rulings. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.6|162.158.90.6]] 10:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Why not both? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.82|108.162.219.82]] 18:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well, how would the tournament turn out? We know who won the cases, so who's the king of the US legal system? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.66|162.158.90.66]] 06:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
: Many participants fail to reappear for the round 2, so not much progress yet. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.86|141.101.77.86]] 13:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Moral of the story: If you are the respondent in a landmark case, you might as well give up. --[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 07:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I noticed that as well. Do most "landmark" cases go to the plaintiff or is this just an outlier sample?[[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.235|172.68.189.235]] 08:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
: But Marbury actually won the case, the court was unable to deliver the ruling [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.104|162.158.155.104]] 09:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
::"Marbury won"? Not according to the unanimous 4-0 ruling AGAINST Marbury.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.140|172.69.22.140]] 20:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
: As I see it (IANAL), the plaintiff goal in the Supreme Court usually is to change something (overrule a previous court decision, repeal a law), while the respondent typically fights to keep things the same. If the plaintiff loses, no changes are made. If nobody sees any changes in the country, why the case would be a landmark? Only when both outcomes change things for many people, like in the Dred Scott case, the respondent win makes a landmark. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.86|141.101.77.86]] 13:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this comic is unique because the comic references real life events without throwing in any fake events for comic effect. Usually the comic would have some imaginary events included. I guess just the idea that winners of Supreme Court cases are going to come back to the court and compete against each other is comical enough. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Adding an image<br />
I created an image showing the winners superimposed on the original comic so you can see who is due to "play" each other next. Is there any way to upload the file? the image is this: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:UploadStash/thumb/15zj3hymeul4.6wctza.13964.png/600px-15zj3hymeul4.6wctza.13964.png [[User:Mrdownes|Mrdownes]] ([[User talk:Mrdownes|talk]]) 11:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:In general we don't need such an image because it doesn't explain much and the winners are already highlighted at the explanation. This Wiki isn't a picture book. Nevertheless check the menu and you will find the entry "Upload file". --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I think that updated bracket image would be fun to see regardless. Please do post it. [[User:Wisnij|Wisnij]] ([[User talk:Wisnij|talk]]) 19:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Brown won the NLRB v Brown match in round 2. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/278/) -[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.244|172.69.69.244]] 15:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just wanted to thank all you folks for the explanation! I couldn't make head or tail of this comic… (Comes of being a non-USian, I guess. Even after reading this page, I only recognised two of those cases. xkcd is usually pretty universal — within the geek world, anyway — and US-specific ones like this are pretty puzzling to the rest of us.) Cheers! — [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.138|141.101.107.138]] 23:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2034:_Equations&diff=1613632034: Equations2018-08-17T11:37:02Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2034<br />
| date = August 17, 2018<br />
| title = Equations<br />
| image = equations.png<br />
| titletext = All electromagnetic equations: The same as all fluid dynamics equations, but with the 8 and 23 replaced with the permittivity and permeability of free space, respectively.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by an EQUATION - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
This comic gives a set of equations supposedly from different areas of mathematics and physics. To anyone not familiar with the field in question they look pretty similar to what you might find in research papers or on the relevant Wikipedia pages. To someone who knows even a little about the topic, they are clearly very wrong and only seem even worse the more you look at them.<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
!style="width:20%"|Equation<br />
!style="width:20%"|Field<br />
!style="width:60%"|Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|<math>E = K_0t + \frac{1}{2}\rho vt^2</math><br />
|All kinematics equations<br />
|This equation literally states: "Energy equals a constant <math>K_0</math> multiplied by time, plus half of density multiplied by speed multiplied by time squared". The first term here is hard to interpret: it could be correct if <math>K_0</math> is a constant power applied to the system, but this symbol would more normally be used to denote an initial energy, in which case so multiplying by <math>t</math> would be wrong. The second term looks similar to the traditional kinetic energy formula <math>\frac{1}{2}mv^2</math> but with a density instead of the mass. This is then wrong without some accompanying volume term (on either side of the equation).<br />
|-<br />
|<math>K_n = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\pi=0}^{\infty}(n-\pi)(i-e^{\pi-\infty})</math><br />
|All number theory equations<br />
|Taken literally the equation says: "The nth K-number is equal to: for all i in 0 to infinity, for all pi in 0 to infinity; subtract pi from n, and multiply it with i minus e to the power of pi minus infinity". A twofold misconception can be seen here. The first is the reassignment of pi as a variable instead of the constant (3.14...). This might be a jab at how in number theory letters and numbers are used interchangeably, but where some letters are all of a sudden fixed constants. The second misconception is the use of infinity in the latter part of the formula. Naively this would signify that (with the reassigned pi values) the part in the power would range from minus infinity to zero. However, infinity is not a number and cannot be used as one without using a limit construct.<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\nabla\cdot \rho = \frac{8}{23}<br />
<br />
\int\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\bigcirc\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\int<br />
\rho\,ds\,dt\cdot \rho\frac{\partial}{\partial\nabla}<br />
</math><br />
|All fluid dynamic equations<br />
|This equation has superficial resemblance to portions of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Maxwell's Equations], but just miscellaneous bits, some from the integral forms and some from the differential forms.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
|<math>|\psi_{x,y}\rangle = A(\psi) A(|x\rangle \otimes |y\rangle)</math><br />
|All quantum mechanic equations<br />
|This equation takes a state psi in the dimensions of x and y and equates it to an operator A performed on psi multiplied by the same operator performed on the tensor product of x and y. Seeing as the state psi is already the tensor product of the states x and y, this is equivalent to performing the same unknown operator twice on psi, and unless this operator is its own inverse such as a bit-flip or Hermitian operator, this equation is therefore incorrect.<br />
<br />
|-<br />
|<math>\mathrm{CH}_4 + \mathrm{OH} + \mathrm{HEAT} \rightarrow \mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O} + \mathrm{CH}_2 + \mathrm{H}_2 \mathrm{EAT}</math><br />
|All chemistry equations<br />
| A modification of the combustion of methane. The correct form is often taught and a good example problem but obviously there are more chemistry problems.<math>\mathrm{HEAT}</math> is normally shorthand for {{w|activation energy}}, but in Randall's version it's jokingly used as a chemical ingredient and becomes <math>\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{EAT}</math>, taking the hydrogen atom freed by the combustion equation shown. To deliver the punchline while maintaining proper stoichiometry, <math>\mathrm{OH}</math> (which should be <math>\mathrm{OH}^-</math>, since the oxygen keeps a free electron when it combines with a single hydrogen) is shown instead of <math>\mathrm{O}_2</math>. The proper methane combustion equation would be: <math>\mathrm{CH}_4 + 2 \mathrm{O}_2 \rightarrow 2 \mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O} + \mathrm{CO}_2</math><br />
|-<br />
|<math>\mathrm{SU}(2)\mathrm{U}(1) \times \mathrm{SU}(\mathrm{U}(2))</math><br />
|All quantum gravity equations<br />
|This is more similar to experessions which appear in {{w|Grand_Unified_Theory|Grand Unified Theory}} (GUT) than general quantum gravity. Unlike some of the other equations, this one has no interpretation which could make it mathematically correct. This is similar to the notations used to describe the symmetry group of a particular phenomena in terms of mathematical {{w|Lie_Group|Lie Groups}}. A real example would be the Standard Model of particle physics which has symmetry according to <math>\rm{SU(3)\times SU(2) \times U(1)}</math>. Here, <math>\rm{SU}</math> and <math>\rm{U}</math> denote the special unitary and unitary groups respectively with the numbers indicating the dimension of the group. Loosely, the three terms correspond to the symmetries of the strong force, weak force and electromagnetism although the exact correspondence is muddied by symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism.<br />
<br />
Of course, an expression missing an "=" sign, is difficult to interpret as an "equation", because equations normally express an "equality" of some kind. Nobody knows whether Randal refers to a horse here (equidae) <br />
<br />
Randall's version clearly involves some similar groups although without the <math>\times</math> symbol it is hard to work out what might be happening. A term like <math>\rm{SU(U(2))}</math> has no current interpretation in mathematics, if anyone thinks otherwise and possibly has a solution to the quantum gravity problem they should probably get in touch with someone about that.<br />
|-<br />
|[[File:All gauge theory equations.png]]<br />
|All gauge theory equations<br />
||This equation looks broadly similar to the sorts of things which appear in gauge theory such as the equations which define {{w|Yang–Mills_theory#Quantization|Yang-Mills Theory}}. By the time physics has got this far in, people have normally run out of regular symbols making a lot of the equations look very daunting. The actual equations in this field rarely go far beyond the Greek alphabet though and no-one has yet to try putting hats on brackets. The appearance of many sub- and superscripts is normal (this links to the group theory origins of these equations) and for the layperson it can be impossible to determine which additions are labels on the symbols and which are indices for an {{w|Einstein_notation|Einstein Sum}}.<br />
<br />
The left-hand side <math>S_g</math> is the symbol for some {{w|Action_(physics)|action}}, in Yang-Mills theory this is actually used for a so-called "ghost action". On the right-hand side we have a large number of terms, most of which are hard to interpret without knowing Randall's thought processes (this is why real research papers should all label their equations thoroughly). The <math>\frac{1}{2\bar{\varepsilon}}</math> looks like a constant of proportionality which often appears in gauge theories. The factor of <math>i = \sqrt{-1}</math> is not unusual as many of these equations use complex numbers. The <math>\eth</math> symbol looks similar to a <math>\partial</math> partial derivative symbol especially as the {{w|Dirac_equation#Covariant_form_and_relativistic_invariance|Dirac Equation}} uses a slashed version as a convenient shorthand. <br />
<br />
The rest of the equation cannot be mathematically correct as the choice of indices used does not match that on the left-hand side (which has none). In particle physics subscripts (or superscripts) of greek letters (usually <math>\mu</math> or <math>\nu</math>) indicate terms which transform nicely under Lorentz transformations (special relativity). Roman indices from the beginning of the alphabet relate to various gauge transformation propetries, the triple index seen on <math>p^{abc}_v</math> would likely come from some <math>\rm{SU(3)}</math> transformation (related to the strong nuclear force). Since <math>S_g</math> has none of these (and is thus a scalar which remains constant under these operations), we would need the right-hand side to behave in the same way. Most of the indices which appear are unpaired and so will not result in a scalar making the equation very wrong. For those not familiar with this type of equation, it is a similar mistake messing up units and setting a distance equal to a mass.<br />
|-<br />
|<math>H(t) + \Omega + G \cdot \Lambda \, \dots \begin{cases} \dots > 0 & \text{(HUBBLE MODEL)} \\ \dots = 0 & \text{(FLAT SPHERE MODEL)} \\ \dots < 0 & \text{(BRIGHT DARK MATTER MODEL)} \end{cases}<br />
</math><br />
|All cosmology equations<br />
|This is a parody of equations defining the {{w|Hubble's_law#Derivation_of_the_Hubble_parameter|Hubble Parameter}} <math>H(t)</math> although it looks like Randall has become bored and not bothered to finish his equation. Such equations usually have several <math>\Omega</math> terms representing the contributions of different substances to the energy-density of the Universe (matter, radiation, dark energy etc.). In this context <math>G</math> could be Newton's constant and <math>\Lambda</math> is something dark energy related although seeing them appear multiplied and on the same footing as <math>H</math> is unusual (the dot is entirely unnecessary). Choosing to make <math>H</math> a function of time <math>t</math> and not of redshit <math>z</math> is also unusual.<br />
<br />
The second section looks like the inequalities used to show how what shape the Universe, based on the value of the curvature parameter <math>\Omega_k</math>. A value of 0 indicates a flat Universe (this more or less what we observe) whilst a positive /negative value indicates an open /closed curved Universe. Randall's choice of labels further makes fun of the field as both a flat sphere and bright dark matter are oxymoronic terms which would involve some rather strange model universes.<br />
|-<br />
|[[File:All truly deep physics equations.png]]<br />
|All truly deep physics equations<br />
|<math>\hat H</math> is the Hamiltonian operator, which when applied to a system returns the total energy. In this context, U would usually be the potential energy. However, there is also a subscript 0 and a diacritic making indicating some other variable. Much of physics is based on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. The Lagrangian is defined as <math>\hat L = \hat K - \hat U </math> with K being the kinetic energy and U the potential. Hamiltonian mechanics uses the equation <math>\hat H = \hat K + \hat U </math>. The Hamiltonian must be conserved so taking the time derivative and setting it equal to zero is a powerful tool. The principle of least action says allows most modern physics to be derived by setting the time derivative of the Lagrangian to zero.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon. And a reminder: Do NOT use math markup in a transcript!}}<br />
:[Nine equations are listed and labeled as followed:]<br />
<br />
:E = K<sub>0</sub>t + 1/2 pvt<sup>2</sup><br />
:All kinematics equations<br />
<br />
:K<sub>n</sub> = &sum;<sub>i=0</sub><sup>&infin;</sup>&sum;<sub>&pi;=0</sub><sup>&infin;</sup>(n-&pi;)(i-e<sup>&pi;-&infin;</sup>)<br />
:All number theory equations<br />
<br />
:&#x2202;/&#x2202;t &nabla; &sdot; p = 8/23 (&#x222F; &rho; ds dt &sdot; &rho; &#x2202;/&#x2202;&nabla;)<br />
:All fluid dynamic equations<br />
<br />
:|&psi;<sub>x,y</sub>&#x232a; = A(&psi;) A(|x&#x232a;&#x2297; |y&#x232a;)<br />
:All quantum mechanic equations<br />
<br />
:CH<sub>4</sub> + OH + HEAT &rarr; H<sub>2</sub>O + CH<sub>2</sub> + H<sub>2</sub>EAT<br />
:All chemistry equations<br />
<br />
:SU(2)U(1) &times; SU(U(2))<br />
:All quantum gravity equations<br />
<br />
:S<sub>g</sub> = (-1)/(2&epsilon;&#x0304;) i &eth; (&#x302; &xi;<sub>0</sub> +&#x030a; p<sub>&epsilon;</sub> &rho;<sub>v</sub><sup>abc</sup> &eta;<sub>0</sub> )&#x302; f<sub>a</sub><sup>0</sup> &lambda;(3&#x0306;) &psi;(0<sub>a</sub>)<br />
:All gauge theory equations<br />
<br />
:H(t) + &Omega; + G&sdot;&Lambda; ... > 0 (Hubble model) ... = 0 (Flat sphere model) ... < 0 (Bright dark matter model)<br />
:All cosmology equations<br />
<br />
:&#x0124; - u&#x0327;<sub>0</sub> = 0<br />
:All truly deep physics equations<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Math]]</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2022:_Sports_Champions&diff=160505Talk:2022: Sports Champions2018-07-26T14:52:18Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Chosen spelling - Citation needed */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Since Kate Dopingscandal has a bike, it seems to me she's actually likely a direct reference to Lance Armstrong. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Yeah, that's why I included him as an example. Feel free to clarify if you want, of course.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.68|162.158.155.68]] 06:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Why is a bike directly a direct reference to Lance Armstrong? and why are additionally only "many russians" listed? It is clearly not a phenomena only seen with mr. Armstrong, and Russians, but with cylcing sports in general. The biggest Cycling event, the {{w|Tour_de_France}} is hit by a doping scandal every year. Also other events have many {{w|List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling|cases}}. Lately actually there have even be cases of [http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/542/motor-doping-is-happening-and-weve-tested-it Motor Doping]. So I think Lance Armstrong can stay as maybe the most famous example, but we should say that it is many others and not Lance Armstrong and Russians. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Because he's easily the most famous example. I realize there are plenty of others - the France native below portrays it as downright epidemic in the sport - but Lance was so highly unbelievably visible. My impression is that in North America (which is where both Randall and I live), cycling as a professional sport enjoys notably less popularity than most other sports, and less than it might elsewhere in the world. Yet virtually EVERYBODY has heard of Lance (I follow no sports whatsoever, and I can even discuss him here). Lance attained nearly a hero status, he beat cancer... He started and/or inspired The LiveStrong movement, its support bracelets spread far and wide, inspiring imitators. At which point the scandal hit. Now combine this heightened visibility with Randall's history of comics portraying him - as Cueball - as knowing nothing about sports. Lance is the only cycling doping scandal _I_ can name, or even cyclist I can name at all, chances are it's the same for Randall. This comic is certainly referencing Lance. I only commented because the description was only listing him as an example. (I said nothing about Russians, I don't know of any Russian doping scandal) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Having re-checked the description, I can answer the Russian portion: It says "many Russians" because those words link to a Wikipedia article about Russia in general, not one particular incident. The mere existence of the article tells me that enough Russians have been hit by doping scandals that they rate their own Wikipedia article. It's a great find for this ExplainXKCD article, no wonder somebody made sure to include it. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
::::I put both those in. In fact, I wrote almost the entire article. I'm English, but I try to "think American" when editing. I immediately thought of Armstrong,and totally agree with your reasoning; if you do searches for "doping scandal" you immediately see him, but also, the Russian thing. Centered on the 2012 Olympics, and state-sponsored doping, their subsequent exclusion from the 2016 Olympics is amongst the biggest ever sporting scandals of all time, worldwide. Perhaps more so outside America, but it's certainly of epic proportions.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.138|141.101.107.138]] 16:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I'm 46 and live in France. As far as I can remember (1980 ?) cycling has always been THE sport associated with doping. I can remember some famous cases in other sports (Ben Johnson in the 1988 olympics) but for cycling it was said to be quasi systematic. The Armstong case was a worldwide scandal, but Tour de France had a much severe problem in 1998 where entire teams were involved and excluded from the race. Five years later, after several trials and new analysis of the 1998 samples with more evolved techniques it was revealed that at least the 5 first finishers (and many more) were doped. If you consult the Wikipedia article “doping in sport”, you will note that cycling is by far the largest section, and almost 100 years old in Tour de France. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.34|108.162.229.34]] 12:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Ah, but in cases like this, where different cultures can have an effect, I always bring it back to this: Where does Randall live? In America. While people in France (and cycling fans) might be well aware of many, many, MANY cycling doping scandals, I'd say the average American is not. Plus, Randall has been quite vocal about not knowing sports. Chances are, Lance Armstrong is the only cyclist he can even name at all, never mind doping scandals. And now I cause myself to wonder, did Randall think of Armstrong because his last name is also one made of words, that Lance Armstrong would be on this list himself if he had excelled at arm wrestling? :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
He should have listed, in the sport of eXtreme Software Engineering, the dominance of Little Bobby Tables in the late 2020's. ---- {{unsigned ip|172.68.141.136}}<br />
:Damn, what a missed opportunity. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Would Jebediah be a reference to Kerbal Space Program? Things tend to go disaterously in it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.160|108.162.210.160]] 12:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's worth noting that the all-star right fielder for the Boston Red Sox, who are currently in first place in the MLB, is named Markus Lynn "Mookie" Betts, with the initials "MLB." Aside from the fact that he's already won several divisional titles with his team, there's a good chance he'll soon be on a world series winning team as well, perhaps to become the next high-profile example. (Full disclosure: I'm a huge Red Sox fan) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.22|172.68.54.22]] 13:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Art Ball (1890’s)<br />
Full name Arthur Ball<br />
Born April , 1872, Madison, Indiana<br />
Died December 26, 1915, Chicago, Illinois<br />
Buried at Mount Olivet Cemetery, Chicago, Illinois<br />
First MLB Game: August 1, 1894; Final MLB Game: October 15, 1898<br />
Bat: Unknown Throw: Right Weight: 168 {{unsigned ip|172.68.54.76}}<br />
<br />
What, no Cecil Fielder? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.46|162.158.63.46]] 19:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What, no [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Moneymaker Chris Moneymaker? (Poker, 2000's)] [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Moved from the main talk page: --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
Misspelling in today's comic<br />
<br />
Your article says: "Randall has chosen to spell his name as "Disasterous", rather than the more conventional "Disastrous"." Presumably he hasn't "chosen" to do this but merely made a spelling error. In that case, your comment is misleading. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.21|162.158.158.21]] 23:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Brandon Sponsorship may also be read as Brand On Sponsorship, having two terms related.<br />
:I know what you mean, and thought about it at the time, but the connection isn't completely obvious and I didn't want to bring in too much assumption on my part. I tried to reference it without making a judgement, by mentioning the word in the text, but not putting it in bold or directly saying that there was a connection. I think that's OK? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.214|141.101.98.214]] 16:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC) <br />
(Previous person didn't sign) About the misspelling, I feel like that's a perfectly acceptable version of the word. It's how I'd instinctually spell it, he just added "ous" to the word "disaster". That's where the word comes from! It's actually ridiculous that this ISN'T the correct spelling! I blame the English language on this one. I'd guess that centuries ago that WAS the correct spelling, and the E just got dropped at some point, to streamline the pronunciation of the word. I just Googled it, and MANY articles showed up defining it as a common misspelling of the word, that's how common this spelling is. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:There is no right or wrong spelling for a surname. You can be Mr. Tailor or Mr.Taylor, or a hundred other versions. That's why I deliberately wrote that Randall ''chose'' that spelling, and I think it's obvious from the way I phrased it that it's not the normal spelling of the word. I don't think we should pass judgement about his decision, even though there's a very high chance he just made a typo. I also concur with the opinion of NiceGuy1, so I have changed it back to the way it was. Best, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.214|141.101.98.214]] 16:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Given that the USA has a dominantly prescriptivist spelling culture for non-names (i.e. in academics and business correctness is defined by books before common usage, coompare to descriptivist which would be the other way around), the phrasing here misleads the leader into believing that both spellings are currently considered correct, as is actually true for other words. There are a lot of misleading statements in this wiki; maybe we should be up-front about that until somebody has the energy to work through everything and stay on top of it all. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.118|162.158.63.118]] 14:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::There I fixed it. [[User:Faultwire|I&#39;m me(citation needed)]] ([[User talk:Faultwire|talk]]) 23:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
From the transcript: "[Cueball with a golf club] Gary Player" and "[Cueball with a basketball] Lonzo Ball". I'm not familiar with all the conventions around here, but would it be NOT Cueball when it is very definitely someone else? Sure, the made-up names later on could be Cueball standing in for them, but for those, wouldn't it actually be the real person, just looking Cueball-ish due to the art style? (And as an aside, a slight pity that there wasn't a pool player named something like Randall Cueball in the comic... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.130|162.158.75.130]] 03:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Podium/Lectern ==<br />
<br />
When I first wrote this explanation, without thinking much, I said Jeb was standing at a {{w|podium}}. Someone corrected it to "lectern", which is absolutely correct of them - see that Wikipedia article. But the interesting thing is, there is an xkcd cartoon about this very subject!<br />
<br />
[[1661: Podium]]<br />
<br />
Should this somehow be mentioned in the explanation? I thought probably not, because Randall made no mention of it; it was purely my own error, and just an interesting connection to today's comic. Right? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.138|141.101.107.138]] 16:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Margaret Court ==<br />
She wasn't the best choice. Recently in Australia someone let her near a microphone & it turns out she's quite homophobic. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Jebediah's Sport ==<br />
<br />
It appears that, based on the person's name, their sport could be debating, public speaking, or giving live postgame press conferences.<br />
<br />
[[User:Milesman34|Milesman34]] ([[User talk:Milesman34|talk]]) 03:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)milesman34<br />
<br />
== Why Baseball is a Problem ==<br />
<br />
Did you ever notice that players named "White" are almost always black, and players named "Black" are usually white? Why is that? The last White major leaguer who was actually white was Mike White, who played for Houston in the early sixties. Since then we've had Bill White, Roy White, Frank White, and Jerry White, all of whom were black; Mike White probably would have been black except that his father played in the majors in the thirties and they didn't allow you to be black back then. The Royals also had a Black on their roster, Bud, who of course is white; in fact, the Royals had to set some sort of record by having four colored people on their team, White, Black, Blue, and Brown. Scott Brown is not any browner than anyone else, Vida is definitely not blue, nor for that matter is Darryl Motley. I suppose that is the nature of names, as with Peacekeeping Missiles and Security Police, to disguise the truth more often than they reveal it. Horace Speed stole only four bases in his career. Vic Power was a singles hitter, Bill Goodenough was not good enough, and Joe Blong did not belong for long.<br />
<br />
-- Bill James, 1983<br />
<br />
Me, I'm disappointed that Jim Gentile wasn't Jewish. [[User:WHPratt|WHPratt]] ([[User talk:WHPratt|talk]]) 12:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Chosen spelling - Citation needed ==<br />
<br />
Re. <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;">Randall has chosen to spell his name as "Disasterous", rather than the more conventional "Disastrous".</span><br />
<br />
Putting <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> on that is a bit silly. You can see he chose to spell it that way from the cartoon. What's the issue?<br />
<br />
A couple of people think it should say he misspelled it, but see the discussions; others agree with me that there is not correct spelling of surnames (e.g. Tailor/Taylor). It's a name, not the word.<br />
<br />
It's <i>probably</i> a typo, but isn't that just an assumption? Isn't it better to point out the spelling without declaring it a mistake, when there is unlikely to ever be evidence either way?<br />
<br />
It's very unlikely we'll ever know for sure, so the cite-needed is just clutter and confusing. IMHO. <br />
<br />
I feel that the wording was ideal, without a messy tag, but It's not really something I want to argue pointlessly and endlessly about. I won't remove it myself right now, I'll see what other people say. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.138|141.101.107.138]] 14:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2022:_Sports_Champions&diff=160385Talk:2022: Sports Champions2018-07-22T16:36:27Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Podium/Lectern */ That's weird, it put the wrong IP addy. Trying again.</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Since Kate Dopingscandal has a bike, it seems to me she's actually likely a direct reference to Lance Armstrong. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Yeah, that's why I included him as an example. Feel free to clarify if you want, of course.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.68|162.158.155.68]] 06:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Why is a bike directly a direct reference to Lance Armstrong? and why are additionally only "many russians" listed? It is clearly not a phenomena only seen with mr. Armstrong, and Russians, but with cylcing sports in general. The biggest Cycling event, the {{w|Tour_de_France}} is hit by a doping scandal every year. Also other events have many {{w|List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling|cases}}. Lately actually there have even be cases of [http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/542/motor-doping-is-happening-and-weve-tested-it Motor Doping]. So I think Lance Armstrong can stay as maybe the most famous example, but we should say that it is many others and not Lance Armstrong and Russians. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Because he's easily the most famous example. I realize there are plenty of others - the France native below portrays it as downright epidemic in the sport - but Lance was so highly unbelievably visible. My impression is that in North America (which is where both Randall and I live), cycling as a professional sport enjoys notably less popularity than most other sports, and less than it might elsewhere in the world. Yet virtually EVERYBODY has heard of Lance (I follow no sports whatsoever, and I can even discuss him here). Lance attained nearly a hero status, he beat cancer... He started and/or inspired The LiveStrong movement, its support bracelets spread far and wide, inspiring imitators. At which point the scandal hit. Now combine this heightened visibility with Randall's history of comics portraying him - as Cueball - as knowing nothing about sports. Lance is the only cycling doping scandal _I_ can name, or even cyclist I can name at all, chances are it's the same for Randall. This comic is certainly referencing Lance. I only commented because the description was only listing him as an example. (I said nothing about Russians, I don't know of any Russian doping scandal) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Having re-checked the description, I can answer the Russian portion: It says "many Russians" because those words link to a Wikipedia article about Russia in general, not one particular incident. The mere existence of the article tells me that enough Russians have been hit by doping scandals that they rate their own Wikipedia article. It's a great find for this ExplainXKCD article, no wonder somebody made sure to include it. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
::::I put both those in. In fact, I wrote almost the entire article. I'm English, but I try to "think American" when editing. I immediately thought of Armstrong,and totally agree with your reasoning; if you do searches for "doping scandal" you immediately see him, but also, the Russian thing. Centered on the 2012 Olympics, and state-sponsored doping, their subsequent exclusion from the 2016 Olympics is amongst the biggest ever sporting scandals of all time, worldwide. Perhaps more so outside America, but it's certainly of epic proportions. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.13|162.158.154.13]] 16:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I'm 46 and live in France. As far as I can remember (1980 ?) cycling has always been THE sport associated with doping. I can remember some famous cases in other sports (Ben Johnson in the 1988 olympics) but for cycling it was said to be quasi systematic. The Armstong case was a worldwide scandal, but Tour de France had a much severe problem in 1998 where entire teams were involved and excluded from the race. Five years later, after several trials and new analysis of the 1998 samples with more evolved techniques it was revealed that at least the 5 first finishers (and many more) were doped. If you consult the Wikipedia article “doping in sport”, you will note that cycling is by far the largest section, and almost 100 years old in Tour de France. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.34|108.162.229.34]] 12:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Ah, but in cases like this, where different cultures can have an effect, I always bring it back to this: Where does Randall live? In America. While people in France (and cycling fans) might be well aware of many, many, MANY cycling doping scandals, I'd say the average American is not. Plus, Randall has been quite vocal about not knowing sports. Chances are, Lance Armstrong is the only cyclist he can even name at all, never mind doping scandals. And now I cause myself to wonder, did Randall think of Armstrong because his last name is also one made of words, that Lance Armstrong would be on this list himself if he had excelled at arm wrestling? :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
He should have listed, in the sport of eXtreme Software Engineering, the dominance of Little Bobby Tables in the late 2020's. ---- {{unsigned ip|172.68.141.136}}<br />
:Damn, what a missed opportunity. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 13:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Would Jebediah be a reference to Kerbal Space Program? Things tend to go disaterously in it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.160|108.162.210.160]] 12:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's worth noting that the all-star right fielder for the Boston Red Sox, who are currently in first place in the MLB, is named Markus Lynn "Mookie" Betts, with the initials "MLB." Aside from the fact that he's already won several divisional titles with his team, there's a good chance he'll soon be on a world series winning team as well, perhaps to become the next high-profile example. (Full disclosure: I'm a huge Red Sox fan) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.22|172.68.54.22]] 13:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Art Ball (1890’s)<br />
Full name Arthur Ball<br />
Born April , 1872, Madison, Indiana<br />
Died December 26, 1915, Chicago, Illinois<br />
Buried at Mount Olivet Cemetery, Chicago, Illinois<br />
First MLB Game: August 1, 1894; Final MLB Game: October 15, 1898<br />
Bat: Unknown Throw: Right Weight: 168 {{unsigned ip|172.68.54.76}}<br />
<br />
What, no Cecil Fielder? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.46|162.158.63.46]] 19:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What, no [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Moneymaker Chris Moneymaker? (Poker, 2000's)] [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Moved from the main talk page: --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
Misspelling in today's comic<br />
<br />
Your article says: "Randall has chosen to spell his name as "Disasterous", rather than the more conventional "Disastrous"." Presumably he hasn't "chosen" to do this but merely made a spelling error. In that case, your comment is misleading. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.21|162.158.158.21]] 23:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Brandon Sponsorship may also be read as Brand On Sponsorship, having two terms related.<br />
:I know what you mean, and thought about it at the time, but the connection isn't completely obvious and I didn't want to bring in too much assumption on my part. I tried to reference it without making a judgement, by mentioning the word in the text, but not putting it in bold or directly saying that there was a connection. I think that's OK? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.214|141.101.98.214]] 16:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC) <br />
(Previous person didn't sign) About the misspelling, I feel like that's a perfectly acceptable version of the word. It's how I'd instinctually spell it, he just added "ous" to the word "disaster". That's where the word comes from! It's actually ridiculous that this ISN'T the correct spelling! I blame the English language on this one. I'd guess that centuries ago that WAS the correct spelling, and the E just got dropped at some point, to streamline the pronunciation of the word. I just Googled it, and MANY articles showed up defining it as a common misspelling of the word, that's how common this spelling is. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:There is no right or wrong spelling for a surname. You can be Mr. Tailor or Mr.Taylor, or a hundred other versions. That's why I deliberately wrote that Randall ''chose'' that spelling, and I think it's obvious from the way I phrased it that it's not the normal spelling of the word. I don't think we should pass judgement about his decision, even though there's a very high chance he just made a typo. I also concur with the opinion of NiceGuy1, so I have changed it back to the way it was. Best, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.214|141.101.98.214]] 16:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Podium/Lectern ==<br />
<br />
When I first wrote this explanation, without thinking much, I said Jeb was standing at a {{w|podium}}. Someone corrected it to "lectern", which is absolutely correct of them - see that Wikipedia article. But the interesting thing is, there is an xkcd cartoon about this very subject!<br />
<br />
[[1661: Podium]]<br />
<br />
Should this somehow be mentioned in the explanation? I thought probably not, because Randall made no mention of it; it was purely my own error, and just an interesting connection to today's comic. Right? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.138|141.101.107.138]] 16:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1558:_Vet&diff=1395711558: Vet2017-05-04T19:21:23Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1558<br />
| date = July 31, 2015<br />
| title = Vet<br />
| image = vet.png<br />
| titletext = It's probably for the best. Since Roombas are native to North America, it's illegal for Americans to keep them in their houses under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{w|Roomba}} is a brand of domestic cleaning robots manufactured by the company {{w|iRobot}}. The robots are designed to automatically vacuum floors. Although these robots are controlled by a quite simple software without any artificial intelligence, some owners tend to humanize them in the same way that others humanize their pets. There are [[:Category:Roomba|several other comics]] related to a Roomba.<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] presents a {{w|pet carrier}} to [[Cueball]] the {{w|veterinarian}} assistant. She says that her "dog" is “crawling around eating dirt”, which sounds like certain types of behavioral problems one encounters in dogs, but is precisely what Roombas are made for. What makes the comic even more hilarious is that when the vet comments that it is a Roomba, Megan responds that the device (which has nothing to do with an animal) is a cross-breed, and agrees that there probably is “some Roomba” in it. She thus acknowledges the existence of Roombas, but still treats them as if it were an animal. It's common to talk about domestic dogs this way, but cross-breeding dogs with machines is impossible{{Citation needed}}. The vet then goes on to say, with endless patience, that a Roomba is not a pet. This is taken by Megan as if the doctor said that her Roomba-like device is a non-domesticated animal (like a monkey, a fox, or the birds referred to in the title text) that can but should not be kept in captivity. In the last panel she consequently releases the vacuum cleaner and it whirs to its 'freedom'.<br />
<br />
The second customer, [[Hairy]], has his dog on a leash, but is also carrying a pet transporter for the dog. Most likely he has arrived with the dog in the transporter (perhaps using public transportation) but has now taken it out so it can walk for itself, making the carrier much lighter.<br />
<br />
The {{w|Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918|Migratory Bird Treaty act}} from the title text contains a list of over 800 bird species that are not allowed to be captured or killed. If the Roomba were to be classified as a native American bird and were added to the list, keeping them as pets would constitute capturing and would be considered illegal. This, of course, shows how confused Megan is. She previously stated the Roomba to be a dog and now apparently believes it is a bird, even though dogs are not birds{{Citation needed}} and the Roomba is neither{{Citation needed}}.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan arrives with a pet carrier, Cueball stands at a desk as a veterinarian, and Hairy is waiting behind a rope, standing next in line with a dog on a leash and a pet carrier.]<br />
:Megan: There's something wrong with my dog. He keeps crawling around eating dirt.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball holds the content of Megan's pet carrier, a flat disk. She is standing behind the desk with the carrier on the desk.]<br />
:Cueball: This is a Roomba.<br />
:Megan: Well, he's a mix. <br />
:Megan: Probably some Roomba in there.<br />
<br />
:[The Roomba now lies on the table next to the carrier between the two.]<br />
:Cueball: A Roomba is not a pet.<br />
:Megan: You're right. It's wrong to keep a beautiful creature like this in a house.<br />
<br />
:[Megan is outside left to a tree, encouraging the Roomba to drive away.]<br />
:Megan: Go! <br />
:Megan: Be free!<br />
:Roomba: ''Whirrr''<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Robots]]<br />
[[Category:Roomba]]<br />
[[Category:Animals]]</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1831:_Here_to_Help&diff=1394951831: Here to Help2017-05-02T18:31:20Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1831<br />
| date = May 1, 2017<br />
| title = Here to Help<br />
| image = here_to_help.png<br />
| titletext = "We TOLD you it was hard." "Yeah, but now that I'VE tried, we KNOW it's hard."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Is the hard problem explanation relevant? The main part of that explain has been moved into a trivia for easier reading to the conclusion at least.}}<br />
This comic is a satire of computer programmers, who sometimes forget that not everything can be solved with an {{w|algorithm}}. In the first panel, [[Megan]] talks about how the field that she and [[Hairy]] works in has a difficult problem that many people have been working on. [[Cueball]], believing that algorithms can solve their problem, tries to help. In the next panel, Megan and Hairy silently watch Cueball working on the problem on his laptop. Finally, six months later, Cueball concedes, and an exasperated Megan retorts sarcastically, pointing out that she had explained its difficulty six months ago with the timeline.<br />
<br />
The title text furthers Cueball's apparent arrogance by showing a dialogue. Megan or Hairy says, "We TOLD you it was hard," referring to the first panel, but Cueball, still confident in his own ability's superiority, says, "Yeah, but now that I'VE tried, we KNOW it's hard." The joke is that Cueball believes that, even though he has just failed, it was his attempt which proved the difficulty, and not Megan and Hairy's work for years. The dialog references an exchange from the recent film ''{{w|The Imitation Game}}'', in which {{w|Alan Turing|Alan Turing's}} superior claims, "The Americans, the Russians, the French, the Germans, everyone thinks Enigma is unbreakable." and Turing replies, "Good. Let me try and we'll know for sure, won't we?" <br />
<br />
The satire, however, applies far beyond computer programmers. It can be read as a political commentary, like in ''[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trump-nobody-knew-health-care-could-be-so-complicated.html Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.]'' It is what we'd all like to see when well-meaning advice givers provide the "simple" solution to all our problems, or management provides glib advice from ten thousand feet. It is a commentary on the universal tendency to see problems as simple because we don't know what makes them hard.<br />
<br />
In the first place, the satire apparently refers to the mathematical/informatical definition of a "hard problem" (see [[#Trivia|below]]) and its confusion with its trivial understanding as well as to a common misunderstanding about verification/falsification. The plot is that Cueball is an enthusiastic and optimistic programmer but obviously a bad informatics guy because he apparently does not know what a "hard problem" is and mixes up the lack of a successful falsification/disproof that a problem is "hard" with a verification/proof. Actually, the formal proof that a problem is "hard" would not be a fail, but an "epic win" (well, maybe not for the disappointed Cueball).<br />
<br />
This may also be referencing IT support call centres ([[806: Tech Support]]), who often act as though complex computer problems can be solved with clichèd solutions such as 'turn it off and back on again'.<br />
<br />
This comic may also be a subtle reference to [[793: Physicists]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan, standing next to Hairy, is addressing the reader holding her arms out. Cueball walks in from the right.]<br />
:Megan: Our field has been struggling with this problem for years.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball holds his laptop high up in one arm above Megan's head while holding his other arm out as well. Megan has turned to look at him.]<br />
:Cueball: Struggle no more! I'm here to solve it with ''algorithms!''<br />
<br />
:[In a frame-less panel Cueball sits on a chair at a desk with his laptop working on it, while Hairy and Megan looks on from behind.]<br />
<br />
:[Cueball, still sitting at his laptop, points at the screen. Megan raises her arms and four small lines above her head, on either side of her speech line, indicate her annoyance with Cueball.]<br />
:Six months later:<br />
:Cueball: Wow, this problem is really hard.<br />
:Megan: '''''You don't say.'''''<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*'''Hard problem''': <br />
**The trivial understanding of a "problem" is any random task like "make me a webpage" and a "hard problem" means "it takes much effort to solve it". However, the informatical definition of a "problem" is a formal description of a task like "find me the password to a given hash (with a length of N bits)" so it can be solved with an algorithm, i.e. a formal mathematical "how-to" or a piece of program code. A "hard problem" is a problem which can only be solved by "brute force", that means (in this example) you have to try every possible password (2^N possibilities) and check whether its hash matches the given one. A "simple problem" is a one where a "short-cut" algorithm to the "brute force" method exists. There are problems which can be formally proven to be "hard" but, unfortunately, most problems like breaking a certain encryption algorithm can only be hoped to be "hard" or at least not be proven "simple" by finding a "short-cut" too soon. You may prove that a problem is not "hard" by finding such a "short-cut" but you cannot prove it is "hard" by trying and failing (the fact that you didn't find a "short-cut" does not mean there is none).<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Programming]]</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1490:_Atoms&diff=1388601490: Atoms2017-04-17T17:37:51Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1490<br />
| date = February 23, 2015<br />
| title = Atoms<br />
| image = atoms.png<br />
| titletext = When I was little I had trouble telling my dad apart from the dog. I always recognized my mom because she had a bunch of extra plutoniums in her middle. I never did ask her why...<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic shows another quirky and fantastical ability of [[Beret Guy]].<br />
<br />
In this comic, [[Megan]] is preparing a sample of what appears to be some mineral for {{w|elemental analysis}}. It seems to be some kind of {{w|silicate}} containing a small amount of {{w|iron}} (a common example of this would be {{w|red sandstone}}), and she is running a test to see if it contains {{w|beryllium}} (a rarer element whose best-known natural form is as a component of {{w|emerald}}). Such analyses typically involve many instruments and steps to prepare the sample. However, Beret Guy seems to be able to identify all the elements the substance is composed of just by eyeballing it, making him perhaps the perfect elemental analysis instrument.<br />
<br />
To confirm this, Megan asks Beret Guy what he sees when he looks at her face, expecting that a normal person would describe the arrangement of colors and features that they see. Since Beret Guy only sees the atoms Megan is composed of (mostly {{w|Composition_of_the_human_body|oxygen, carbon and hydrogen}}) he only notices the unusual atoms. In this case he sees the metal atoms her {{w|Dental_restoration#Materials_used|dental fillings}} are composed of. This shows his "atomic vision" extends beyond the surface of the substances. Megan finds this bizarre and asks Beret Guy what is wrong with him. He states that he suspects people think he is weird because he contains too much {{w|zinc}}, missing Megan’s point: what is weird is not Beret Guy’s elemental content, but his ability to apparently see everything as atoms sorted by element{{Citation needed}}.<br />
<br />
High zinc intake ({{w|Zinc toxicity|zinc toxicity}}) can cause nausea, vomiting, pain, cramps and diarrhea. It also reduces copper absorption, which affects the immune system.<br />
<br />
The comic continues the theme of Beret Guy’s naive misunderstandings of scientific terminology turning to be literally true. In a previous [[1486: Vacuum|comic]] his misinterpretation of the notion of energy in the vacuum resulted in him gaining significant superpowers.<br />
<br />
In the title text, the concept is taken even further: Beret Guy found his dad indistinguishable from a dog. This is likely because all mammals are essentially made of the same basic elements. Absent a distinguishing element from either his dad or the dog, they would appear to be the same. He could, however, apparently distinguish his mother because she contained {{w|plutonium}}. This is a very unusual occurrence that cannot possibly occur naturally in humans{{Citation needed}}. Some possible explanations are:<br />
#She had an {{w|Radioisotope thermoelectric generator|RTG}}-powered pacemaker (a few hundred were made in the 1970s).<br />
#She lived near Los Alamos during the second world war and was a member of the [http://warisboring.com/articles/the-scientists-who-pee-plutonium/ UPPU club (translated as “You pee Pu!”)]. Alternatively, she could have been exposed to another source such as {{w|radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant}}.<br />
#She was one of {{w|The Stepford Wives}} robots.<br />
#She was the victim of some unidentified, unethical medical experimentation. <br />
It is also possible that the presence of plutonium in his mother may be the source of his own differences: radioactive exposure (in this case, potentially in utero) is a common source of super powers in comic books and other fiction.<br />
<br />
It's not clear whether his mother's plutonium is related to his "too many zincs". One explanation for Beret Guy having too much zinc could be that his mother's plutonium changed into zinc through the process of {{w|radioactive decay}}.<br />
<br />
The English physicist {{w|Henry Moseley}} discovered the law relating the {{w|atomic number}} of elements with their {{w|characteristic x-ray|characteristic x-rays}} when bombarded by free electrons, providing physical evidence for the {{w|periodic table}}, the {{w|Bohr Model}} of the atom and the concept of {{w|atomic number}}. In doing so he developed a method of identifying elements in a substance by bombarding them in a vacuum with electrons and using {{w|x-ray diffraction}} methods to measure the resulting X-rays. A famous French chemist brought him a complicated mixture of {{w|Rare Earth element|Rare Earth elements}}, many of which had only recently been discovered, to test his method. Within a short time, Mosley amazed the chemist by identifying all the elements by number using his method and referring to his chart to name them. This comic may therefore be subtly alluding to this method by suggesting that Beret Guy's eyes can fire electrons at anything he looks at and "read" the resulting X-ray radiation, giving him the ability to identify the composite elements in a similar manner.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan stands at a table and is preparing a sample for some kind of analysis in a device, when Beret Guy walks in.]<br />
:Beret guy: What’re you doing?<br />
:Megan: Testing a sample for beryllium.<br />
:Beret guy: That? Yeah, there’s a bunch of berylliums.<br />
:Megan: How do you know?<br />
<br />
:[Megan turns to Beret Guy who takes the sample and looks at it.]<br />
:Beret guy: Look at it! See? Tons of oxygens and silicons, a few irons but definitely some berylliums too! Can’t you see them?<br />
<br />
:[They continue to talk.]<br />
:Megan: No, I can’t see a list of the atoms in a thing by looking.<br />
:Beret guy: How do you tell what things are?<br />
<br />
:[Zoom in on Megan.]<br />
:Megan: This is ridiculous. Look at me. What do you see?<br />
:Beret guy (off-panel): You have tons of metal in your face. Lots of fillings, I guess?<br />
<br />
:[Megan stares at Beret Guy who takes a looks at his own arm.]<br />
:Megan: What’s '''''wrong''''' with you?<br />
:Beret guy: Too many zincs? I’ve always worried I had too much zinc and everyone thought I was weird.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*In the original version of the comic there was a typo in the title text, ''form'' instead of ''from'':<br />
**I had trouble telling my dad apart '''form''' the dog.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1801:_Decision_Paralysis&diff=1357291801: Decision Paralysis2017-02-20T09:35:29Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1801<br />
| date = February 20, 2017<br />
| title = Decision Paralysis<br />
| image = decision_paralysis.png<br />
| titletext = Good point--making no decision is itself a decision. So that's a THIRD option I have to research!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic illustrates a common problem in the internet era, where, with the wealth of knowledge available to us at all times, one puts undue weight on otherwise arbitrary decisions. This is taken to a comedic extreme by showing how cueball is unable to make a critical, time sensitive choice without putting hours of research in to justify it, at which point any benefit to researching his imminent decision of "which car will get me to my destination fastest" will both be offset by the time it takes to make that decision, and wholly worthless, as the bomb mentioned by Megan will likely have detonated. The title text continues this absurdity by bringing a third option to the table, the choice of inaction, a choice here that seems unacceptable, but the time spent mentioning (and researching it) simply adds to that already spent researching the two cars.<br />
<br />
See also [[1445: Efficiency]], which describes this exact situation.<br />
<br />
Although presented as joke, this is a very real problem in electronics design. ''[[wikipedia:Buridan’s principle|Buridan’s principle]]'' by none other than Leslie Lamport states<ref>[http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/pubs/buridan.pdf Leslie Lamport. Buridan’s Principle]</ref>:<br />
<blockquote><br />
A discrete decision based upon an input<br />
having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a<br />
bounded length of time.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
[Megan and Cueball are standing next to two similar cars. Cueball holds his smartphone in his hand. Megan points excitedly at the cars.]<br />
<br />
Megan: There! If we steal one of those cars, we can get to the base and defuse the bomb!<br />
<br />
Cueball: Hmm, the one on the left accelerates faster but has a lower top speed. <br />
<br />
[Obviously still checking his research results] <br />
<br />
Ooh, the right one has good traction control. Are the roads wet?<br />
<br />
[Caption below the frame]<br />
<br />
Protip: If you ever need to defeat me, just give me two very similar options and unlimited internet access.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1445:_Efficiency&diff=1357281445: Efficiency2017-02-20T09:34:01Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1445<br />
| date = November 10, 2014<br />
| title = Efficiency<br />
| image = efficiency.png<br />
| titletext = I need an extension for my research project because I spent all month trying to figure out whether learning Dvorak would help me type it faster.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
There are often multiple ways in which to deal with a problem or task. There may be a ''most efficient'' method, though sometimes the differences in efficiency between methods is only slight. People often try to save unnecessary work by first determining which is the "best" method - either the easiest or the most efficient. This can be a good approach, particularly where the savings prove to be significant. But it can also prove to be more time-consuming than just doing the task using one of the most obvious methods. The comic humorously exaggerates this.<br />
<br />
One method of trying to determine the best way of performing a task is to perform {{w|A/B testing}} where a trial is performed where the two strategies, A and B, are implemented and compared. Often the two strategies are simple to implement (for instance, two versions of a web page with different text and colours to determine which provides the better rate of click through) and therefore the amount of time required to implement the strategies (the "time cost") could easily be considerably less than the time to determine if the results are statistically significant.<br />
<br />
The title text references a supposed incident in which [[Randall]] did not commence writing a research paper because he spent the entire assignment period deciding whether to learn an entirely different keyboard layout just to potentially be slightly more efficient in his typing speed. It refers to the {{w|Dvorak Simplified Keyboard|Dvorak}} keyboard layout, an alternative to the most commonly accepted {{w|QWERTY}} layout. Some believe the Dvorak keyboard offers greater typing efficiency. Efficiency of the Dvorak keyboard layout was mentioned in the title text of [[561: Well]], where it was stated that it was not more effective, and by now it has become a [[:Category:Dvorak|recurrent theme]] on xkcd.<br />
<br />
Other comis about spending too many resources on decisions that ultimately might not matter include [[309: Shopping Teams]] and [[1801: Decision Paralysis]]. Several other comics address similarly wasted time due to bad time management; see for instance [[1205: Is It Worth the Time?]] or the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Time_management Time management category].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A bar chart is shown below its title:]<br />
:<big>'''Time Cost'''</big><br />
<br />
:[The chart consist of a dividing line, with three labels to the left, and the three black bars to the right. The first two bars are short, the second slightly longer than the first. The last bar is much longer, about 13 time as long as the first shortest bar.]<br />
:Strategy A<br />
:Strategy B<br />
:Analyzing whether strategy A or B is more efficient<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:The reason I am so inefficient<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bar chart}}<br />
[[Category:Time management]]<br />
[[Category:Dvorak]]</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1445:_Efficiency&diff=1357271445: Efficiency2017-02-20T09:32:51Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1445<br />
| date = November 10, 2014<br />
| title = Efficiency<br />
| image = efficiency.png<br />
| titletext = I need an extension for my research project because I spent all month trying to figure out whether learning Dvorak would help me type it faster.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
There are often multiple ways in which to deal with a problem or task. There may be a ''most efficient'' method, though sometimes the differences in efficiency between methods is only slight. People often try to save unnecessary work by first determining which is the "best" method - either the easiest or the most efficient. This can be a good approach, particularly where the savings prove to be significant. But it can also prove to be more time-consuming than just doing the task using one of the most obvious methods. The comic humorously exaggerates this.<br />
<br />
One method of trying to determine the best way of performing a task is to perform {{w|A/B testing}} where a trial is performed where the two strategies, A and B, are implemented and compared. Often the two strategies are simple to implement (for instance, two versions of a web page with different text and colours to determine which provides the better rate of click through) and therefore the amount of time required to implement the strategies (the "time cost") could easily be considerably less than the time to determine if the results are statistically significant.<br />
<br />
The title text references a supposed incident in which [[Randall]] did not commence writing a research paper because he spent the entire assignment period deciding whether to learn an entirely different keyboard layout just to potentially be slightly more efficient in his typing speed. It refers to the {{w|Dvorak Simplified Keyboard|Dvorak}} keyboard layout, an alternative to the most commonly accepted {{w|QWERTY}} layout. Some believe the Dvorak keyboard offers greater typing efficiency. Efficiency of the Dvorak keyboard layout was mentioned in the title text of [[561: Well]], where it was stated that it was not more effective, and by now it has become a [[:Category:Dvorak|recurrent theme]] on xkcd.<br />
<br />
Another comic about spending too many resources on decisions that ultimately might not matter is [[309: Shopping Teams]]. Several other comics address similarly wasted time due to bad time management; see for instance [[1205: Is It Worth the Time?]], [[1801: Decision Paralysis]] or the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Time_management Time management category].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A bar chart is shown below its title:]<br />
:<big>'''Time Cost'''</big><br />
<br />
:[The chart consist of a dividing line, with three labels to the left, and the three black bars to the right. The first two bars are short, the second slightly longer than the first. The last bar is much longer, about 13 time as long as the first shortest bar.]<br />
:Strategy A<br />
:Strategy B<br />
:Analyzing whether strategy A or B is more efficient<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:The reason I am so inefficient<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bar chart}}<br />
[[Category:Time management]]<br />
[[Category:Dvorak]]</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1801:_Decision_Paralysis&diff=1357261801: Decision Paralysis2017-02-20T09:31:42Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1801<br />
| date = February 20, 2017<br />
| title = Decision Paralysis<br />
| image = decision_paralysis.png<br />
| titletext = Good point--making no decision is itself a decision. So that's a THIRD option I have to research!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic illustrates a common problem in the internet era, where, with the wealth of knowledge available to us at all times, one puts undue weight on otherwise arbitrary decisions. This is taken to a comedic extreme by showing how cueball is unable to make a critical, time sensitive choice without putting hours of research in to justify it, at which point any benefit to researching his imminent decision of "which car will get me to my destination fastest" will both be offset by the time it takes to make that decision, and wholly worthless, as the bomb mentioned by Megan will likely have detonated. The title text continues this absurdity by bringing a third option to the table, the choice of inaction, a choice here that seems unacceptable, but the time spent mentioning (and researching it) simply adds to that already spent researching the two cars.<br />
<br />
See also [[1445: Efficiency]], in which this situation is described further.<br />
<br />
Although presented as joke, this is a very real problem in electronics design. ''[[wikipedia:Buridan’s principle|Buridan’s principle]]'' by none other than Leslie Lamport states<ref>[http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/pubs/buridan.pdf Leslie Lamport. Buridan’s Principle]</ref>:<br />
<blockquote><br />
A discrete decision based upon an input<br />
having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a<br />
bounded length of time.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
[Megan and Cueball are standing next to two similar cars. Cueball holds his smartphone in his hand. Megan points excitedly at the cars.]<br />
<br />
Megan: There! If we steal one of those cars, we can get to the base and defuse the bomb!<br />
<br />
Cueball: Hmm, the one on the left accelerates faster but has a lower top speed. <br />
<br />
[Obviously still checking his research results] <br />
<br />
Ooh, the right one has good traction control. Are the roads wet?<br />
<br />
[Caption below the frame]<br />
<br />
Protip: If you ever need to defeat me, just give me two very similar options and unlimited internet access.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1801:_Decision_Paralysis&diff=1357251801: Decision Paralysis2017-02-20T09:31:19Z<p>141.101.107.138: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1801<br />
| date = February 20, 2017<br />
| title = Decision Paralysis<br />
| image = decision_paralysis.png<br />
| titletext = Good point--making no decision is itself a decision. So that's a THIRD option I have to research!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic illustrates a common problem in the internet era, where, with the wealth of knowledge available to us at all times, one puts undue weight on otherwise arbitrary decisions. This is taken to a comedic extreme by showing how cueball is unable to make a critical, time sensitive choice without putting hours of research in to justify it, at which point any benefit to researching his imminent decision of "which car will get me to my destination fastest" will both be offset by the time it takes to make that decision, and wholly worthless, as the bomb mentioned by Megan will likely have detonated. The title text continues this absurdity by bringing a third option to the table, the choice of inaction, a choice here that seems unacceptable, but the time spent mentioning (and researching it) simply adds to that already spent researching the two cars.<br />
<br />
See also [[1445: Efficiency]], in whicis situation is described further.<br />
<br />
Although presented as joke, this is a very real problem in electronics design. ''[[wikipedia:Buridan’s principle|Buridan’s principle]]'' by none other than Leslie Lamport states<ref>[http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/pubs/buridan.pdf Leslie Lamport. Buridan’s Principle]</ref>:<br />
<blockquote><br />
A discrete decision based upon an input<br />
having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a<br />
bounded length of time.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
[Megan and Cueball are standing next to two similar cars. Cueball holds his smartphone in his hand. Megan points excitedly at the cars.]<br />
<br />
Megan: There! If we steal one of those cars, we can get to the base and defuse the bomb!<br />
<br />
Cueball: Hmm, the one on the left accelerates faster but has a lower top speed. <br />
<br />
[Obviously still checking his research results] <br />
<br />
Ooh, the right one has good traction control. Are the roads wet?<br />
<br />
[Caption below the frame]<br />
<br />
Protip: If you ever need to defeat me, just give me two very similar options and unlimited internet access.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=824:_Guest_Week:_Bill_Amend_(FoxTrot)&diff=133390824: Guest Week: Bill Amend (FoxTrot)2017-01-06T14:32:05Z<p>141.101.107.138: Added links to other comics by physicists</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 824<br />
| date = November 24, 2010<br />
| title = Guest Week: Bill Amend (FoxTrot)<br />
| image = guest_week_bill_amend_foxtrot.png<br />
| titletext = Guest comic by Bill Amend of FoxTrot, an inspiration to all us nerdy-physics-majors-turned-cartoonists, of which there are an oddly large number.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{w|Bill Amend}}, author of the newspaper comic {{w|FoxTrot}}, draws for [[Randall]] in this special '[[:Category:Guest Week|Guest Week]]' edition of [[xkcd]]. In the first two panels, we see {{w|List_of_FoxTrot_characters#Jason_Fox|Jason Fox}}, a geeky 10-year-old from Amend's strip. Jason asks to draw comics for Randall. When Randall refuses, he uses the sudo command, used in {{w|POSIX}} systems to perform an action as an administrator/super user. This forces Randall to agree. This is a reference to the very popular comic [[149: Sandwich]], which has now become a geek culture catch-phrase.<br />
<br />
In the first comic, [[Cueball]] is making a pun on the word {{Wiktionary|attractive}}. In the first context it means a person is "good looking" or "beautiful" which the (presumably) female character attributes to her hair. In Cueball's context, it means that he is feeling an increased gravitational pull from the woman, due to her increase in mass (see {{w|Gravitation}}). This setup is also very typical of the Jason Fox character, who, ostensibly ten, is supposed to be too young to like girls.<br />
<br />
{{w|Werner Heisenberg}} postulated in 1927, his eponymous {{w|Uncertainty principle|Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle}}, which roughly states that in {{w|quantum mechanics}} one cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle. The joke is that (presumably) Elisabeth Heisenberg does not know the position of her keys, because she knows too much about their (the keys') momentum. (This is also the subject of [[1473: Location Sharing]].)<br />
<br />
In many {{w|parliament}}ary and {{w|congress}}ional halls it is customary, when calling an issue to vote to have the people who want the issue at hand to be passed to say out loud that they agree. The customary response to this is to say "aye." The dissenters are then asked. Their response would be "nay" or "no". Then the volume (by rough {{w|decibel}}s) of the assenters and dissenters are weighed. If it is close, a more formal vote may be called. "Aye" is pronounced as "I" and "''i''" is the mathematical value of the square root of negative one, which can be used to represent an {{w|imaginary number}}.<br />
<br />
The title text of this comic draws attention to the fact that there are a number of notable people who have become famous as cartoonists, but also hold degrees in physics or have a strong interest in physics. This might seem unusual, because the average person might see physics and art as incompatible, and this is why Randall writes "an oddly large number." These people include:<br />
* Randall Munroe, the writer of xkcd, has a degree in physics from Christopher Newport University.<br />
* Bill Amend, the creator of [http://www.foxtrot.com/ Foxtrot], majored in physics at Amherst College. <br />
* Zach Weiner, who writes the webcomic [http://www.smbc-comics.com/ Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal], majored in physics at San Jose State University.<br />
* Henry Reich is the creator of the web video series [http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics MinutePhysics], and studied physics and mathematics at Grinnell College.<br />
* Paul G. Hewitt is a physicist and [http://www.conceptualphysics.com/ author of physics textbooks]. His textbooks contain a number of cartoons, drawn by Hewitt himself, to help illustrate physics concepts.<br />
* Aaron Diaz writes the webcomic [http://dresdencodak.com/ Dresden Codak], and majored in physics (among several other things) before dropping out. His comics frequently reference ideas and experiments in physics.<br />
* Larry Gonick is a cartoonist who has published [http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/search-results?contributor=larry-gonick a number of educational comic books], including The Cartoon Guide to Physics.<br />
* Bud Grace, the creator of the comic [http://piranhaclubcomics.com/ Piranha Club] (previously known as Ernie) holds a PhD in nuclear physics. He has been making the comic since 1988.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Guest Week'' was a series of five comics written by five other comic authors. They were released over five consecutive days (Monday-Friday); not over the usual Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule.<br><br />
The five comics are:<br />
*[[822: Guest Week: Jeph Jacques (Questionable Content)]]<br />
*[[823: Guest Week: David Troupes (Buttercup Festival)]]<br />
*[[824: Guest Week: Bill Amend (FoxTrot)]]<br />
*[[825: Guest Week: Jeffrey Rowland (Overcompensating)]]<br />
*[[826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)]]<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Jason from FoxTrot is sitting at an artist's desk with a pencil, holding a phone.]<br />
:Jason: Hi, Mr. Munroe? I have a great idea! Let me draw some strips for you!<br />
:Mr. Munroe, through the telephone: Fat chance, kid.<br />
<br />
:[Zoom in to Jason.]<br />
:Jason: Sudo let me draw some strips for you.<br />
<br />
:[There follow three strips. These will be separated by double new lines.]<br />
<br />
:[Cueball and Ponytail are looking at each other.]<br />
:Cueball: I find you more attractive than usual.<br />
:Ponytail: You do? Is it my new haircut?<br />
<br />
:[Zoom in to Cueball.]<br />
:Cueball: Actually, I think it's all the weight you've been putting on. Your gravitational pull is pretty severe.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball is now alone in the panel.]<br />
:Cueball: Just sayin'.<br />
<br />
<br />
:[Two people are in a living room. The woman is looking through a chest of drawers.]<br />
:At home with the Heisenbergs<br />
:Mrs. Heisenberg: I can't find my car keys.<br />
:Mr. Heisenberg: You probably know too much about their momentum.<br />
<br />
<br />
:[Cueball is standing on a stage, holding up a hammer. A crowd is in front of the stage.]<br />
:Why mathematicians should run for Congress<br />
:Cueball: All those in favor of the bill say "aye."<br />
:Congressman #1: Aye.<br />
:Congresswoman #2: Aye.<br />
:Congress–Mathematician: √-1<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Guest Week]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Linux]]<br />
[[Category:Puns]]</div>141.101.107.138https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1308:_Christmas_Lights&diff=1333881308: Christmas Lights2017-01-06T14:02:55Z<p>141.101.107.138: Change 'similar strange' to 'similarly strange', which flows better. Tree are also not very similar, but both strange in a similar way</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1308<br />
| date = December 25, 2013<br />
| title = Christmas Lights<br />
| image = christmas_lights.png<br />
| titletext = Merry Christmas from xkcd!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Each light in this Christmas scene is represented by its {{w|electromagnetic spectrum}}, which shows in a graphical form how much energy is radiated by each wavelength of light.<br />
<br />
These graphs plot the intensity of all visible radiation. Infrared and ultraviolet are partially plotted also, represented by black. It starts with longer wavelengths on the left ({{w|infrared}}), continues with {{w|visible light}} in the middle from red to blue, and ends with {{w|ultraviolet}} at the right. There are 4 distinct spectra in this comic:<br />
<br />
In the center of the image, between [[Beret Guy]] and the couple, [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]], appears to be a light spectrum of a fire, notable because it emits a lot of energy in the infrared band (The left zone of the spectrum), emitted typically from hot sources, and in the red and orange zone. The spike toward the left hand side of the spectrum is likely the 4.3&nbsp;µm resonance wavelength of hot CO<sub>2</sub> characteristic of burning hydrocarbons; see {{w|Flame detection#Emission of radiation|Emission of radiation}}. Given the size of the spectrum and its positioning, this represents a fireplace at which the characters are warming themselves against the winter chill.<br />
<br />
In the right of the comic appear some spectra arranged in the form of a Christmas tree. There are 3 different spectra in this "Christmas tree":<br />
<br />
At the top appears a complicated spectrum, possibly that of a [http://led-brdf.wikispaces.com/Introduction+to+LEDs white LED], representing the tradition in some cultures of putting a star (or an angel, but still usually lit) at the top of the Christmas tree.<br />
<br />
In the branches there are two simpler spectra repeated at various places, one with a peak in the green zone, representing a green light source, and other with a peak in the red zone, representing a red light source. Both of these represent the tradition of putting colorful decoration in the tree, in this case apparently red and green colored Christmas lights.<br />
<br />
In [[835: Tree]] a similarly strange Christmas tree has been constructed using binary trees.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%"<br />
! The solution to the light spectrum plots can be found here:<br />
|-<br />
|[[File:christmas lights real.png]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan, Cueball, and Beret Guy sitting on the floor and a big spectrum with one peak is shown between them. On the right many smaller spectra are shown in a shape of a Christmas tree.]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Christmas]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]</div>141.101.107.138