https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=141.101.76.16&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T08:49:07ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2243:_Star_Wars_Spoiler_Generator&diff=184920Talk:2243: Star Wars Spoiler Generator2019-12-19T18:58:02Z<p>141.101.76.16: </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 made this JavaScript implementation of the generator: https://codepen.io/qgustavor/full/gObgBxo [[Special:Contributions/172.68.24.70|172.68.24.70]] 22:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
:there are some words that should be capitalized: First Order, Sith, Force, Jawa... Also ochre is misspelt and colors should NOT be capitalized. Thanks![[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.196|141.101.98.196]] 10:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
who said that the rise of skywalker would be released two days before the publishing date after stating that it's going to be released on the twentieth?<br />
<br />
Re: Malloc, there was also a Darth Malak, the antagonist of Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic and a recurring character in the Old Republic comics [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.244|172.69.69.244]] 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)47.221.57.204<br />
<br />
Should something be linked to about diectric breakdown, or is that considered obvious in the context of, er, Force lightning? Also, am I remembering right that Dark Helmet, in Spaceballs, wears a smaller helmet with a really big helmet over it? Maybe not! Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.250|141.101.98.250]] 02:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There are a couple of posts to be found online that refer to "Darth Sebelius" in the context of Obamacare, but they're all on pretty niche forums. --[[User:NotaBene|NotaBene]] ([[User talk:NotaBene|talk]]) 03:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Perchance generator: https://perchance.org/q3wi2jqf0j [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.59|173.245.54.59]] 03:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
For a less US-centric view, the movie was released officially in France and Norway (and probably also other countries) already on the 18.12. (that is December 18). So "On December 20, 2019 [...], the final movie [...] will be released." should say "[...] will be released in the US."[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.220|162.158.134.220]] 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Another generator: http://xkcd-2243.surge.sh/<br />
<br />
I don't know enough to add to the actual page, but the Sith car wash reminded me of this. Perhaps it was also part of the inspiration for it? https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-laser-windshield-wiper-patent/ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.35|141.101.69.35]] 15:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"A New Hope" should just be called "Star Wars". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 18:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1862:_Particle_Properties&diff=1847591862: Particle Properties2019-12-17T12:59:03Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */ Typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1862<br />
| date = July 12, 2017<br />
| title = Particle Properties<br />
| image = particle_properties.png<br />
| titletext = Each particle also has a password which allows its properties to be changed, but the cosmic censorship hypothesis suggests we can never observe the password itself—only its secure hash.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
A table is presented comparing the range (maximum and minimum value) and scale (how big number increments are) of several measures. The table begins by listing properties pertinent to {{w|particle physics}} as the title suggests, but quickly devolves to other domains such as role-playing games (such as D&D) and sports after failing to provide a good definition of {{w|Flavour (particle physics)|flavor}}.<br />
<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
! Property<br />
! Scale<br />
! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| Electric charge<br />
| [-1,1]<br />
| The {{w|electric charge}} is shown in increments of a third from -1 to +1 which are the only known charges of fundamental particles (leptons, quarks and gauge bosons); however there are some exotic composite particles with twice integer charge, e.g. the recently discovered {{w|Ξcc++|double charmed Xi baryon}} with a charge of +2.<br />
<br />
Quarks are the only particles with charges of ± ⅓ or ± ⅔, but cannot exist individually; below the {{w|Hagedorn temperature}}, they are only found within hadrons. To date, all hadrons (particles composed of quarks), leptons, and bosons have integer charge, and current models indicate that this must be the case.<br />
|-<br />
| Mass<br />
| [0,∞) in kg<br />
| Mass (specifically {{w|rest mass}}) is the measure of an object or particle's resistance to force, as well as its ability to distort {{w|spacetime}} (its gravitational attraction).<br />
Theoretically, any object's mass could approach infinity, but mass cannot be below 0. The mass units shown (kilograms) are, however, far too large for particles. Some particles, such as photons, have zero rest mass and are therefore massless.<br />
<br />
All particles with rest mass obtain it through confinement, either by the {{w|Higgs field}} (the quarks; leptons; and W, Z, and Higgs bosons) or the strong nuclear force (hadrons).<br />
Particles with no rest mass (photons and gluons) can only move at lightspeed.<br />
|-<br />
| Spin number<br />
| (-∞,∞) (Intervals of ½)<br />
| {{w|Spin (physics)|Spin}} is an intrinsic property of particles, a relativistic form of angular momentum. The spin of a particle determines what statistics the particle follows, half odd integer spin particles are classified as fermions and integer spin particles are bosons.<br />
<br />
Two fermions cannot have exactly the same state, an observation known as the Pauli exclusion principle. Thus, for fermions to exist in the same position, they must have opposite spins, of + ½ and - ½. It follows that a maximum of two fermions of the same flavor (e.g. two electrons) may exist in the same position.<br />
|-<br />
| Flavor<br />
| Misc. quantum numbers<br />
| Flavor is a series of {{w|quantum numbers}} that do not fit neatly onto a set of dimensional axes. <br />
<br />
The most general theory breaks flavor down into four distinct conserved values, the electric charge, the weak isospin, the baryon number and the lepton number, but more specific models increase the number of distinct values. Quarks, for example, add five more flavor numbers: isospin (upness vs. downness), strangeness, charm, topness and bottomness (the last four are literally just the number of strange, charmed, top and bottom quarks, minus the corresponding anti-quarks). <br />
|-<br />
| Color charge<br />
| Coordinate system with R, G and B axes<br />
| The primary {{w|strong nuclear force}} has six mutually attractive charges, arranged in three perpendicular axes each analogous to electric charge. These charges are commonly referred to as "{{w|Color charge|color}}" and the three axes are given the names of the three primary colors of light: Red, Green and Blue. The black dots in the diagram represent the actual colors while the white dots are the anti-color charges: anti-Red (colored cyan in diagrams), anti-Green (magenta) and anti-Blue (yellow). To complete the analogy, a color charge of zero is referred to as "White". The names of these charges are purely allegorical, but they do make it convenient to refer to them, especially in diagrams.<br />
<br />
The color of a particle not confined by the strong force must be White, either as the sum of a color and its anti-color (as in a meson), as the sum of RGB or anti-RGB (as in a baryon), or as a sum of those sums (As in tetra-, penta- or hexaquarks). The attraction of the strong nuclear force is so strong that attempting to separate two quarks from each other creates enough energy to create two new quarks, which then bind to the original quarks. This property is known as "confinement" and means that color charge can never be observed directly.<br />
<br />
Randall is incorrect in stating "Quarks only", since {{w|gluon}}s (the particle that carries the color force) are themselves colored. However, the colors of gluons are much more complicated, with a total of eight distinct superpositions of every possible color-anticolor pair. The fact that gluons are subject to the force they mediate also means that the strong force has a defined radius of effect, unlike the electromagnetic force, whose gauge bosons (the photon) are uncharged.<br />
<br />
This is the last entry currently used to describe particles by particle physicists.<br />
|-<br />
| Mood<br />
| 5 emojis on a number line ranging from angry to joyful<br />
| Particles are not considered to have mood, even in the allegorical way they have color or flavor, but Randall implies that there is a quantized 5 point scale (from "angry" to "ecstatic") which would have some effect on the properties of the particle. This would be more appropriate for measuring customer satisfaction. Charts such as this are also sometimes used in medicine to indicate levels of pain, and in some psychiatric treatments as a quick way to track changes in the patient's condition.<br />
<br />
In grammar, {{w|Grammatical particles|particles}} are a nebulous class of words, usually defined by a lack of declension or conjugation (such as prepositions in English). Some languages use particles instead of or in addition to "standard" declension/conjugation, much like auxiliary verbs are used in English. These particles may well carry "{{w|Grammatical mood|mood}}" as an attribute, as well as tense and aspect.<br />
|-<br />
| Alignment<br />
| 3x3 grid with varying shades (columns Good-Evil, rows Lawful-Chaotic)<br />
| A reference to the tabletop RPG ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}'', where characters have an {{w|Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|alignment}} that is either Good, Neutral, or Evil (describing whether they have a propensity to help or harm others) and either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic (describing how much they care about organizations, social norms, and the status quo). Common examples of these alignments include Darth Vader (Lawful Evil), Superman (Lawful Good), Robin Hood (Chaotic Good), and the Joker (Chaotic Evil). This may be a reference to the now defunct names of the two heaviest known quarks ("truth" and "beauty").<br />
|-<br />
| Hit points<br />
| [0,∞)<br />
| Games (videogames, board games, CCGs, RPGs, etc.) often have values for players and other entities that represent {{w|Health (video game)|health}} (also called hit points or HP). Generally there is not necessarily a limit on this value, but it does not often go below 0 as the zero value is considered "dead" (or some equivalent).<br />
|-<br />
| Rating<br />
| 5-star scale<br />
| The five-star rating system is often used to rate films, TV shows, restaurants, and hotels. Randall has previously criticized this system in [[937: TornadoGuard]] and [[1098: Star Ratings]].<br />
<br />
Interestingly, unlike the "Heat" rating with the chili peppers below, this scale doesn't have a creatively labeled number line, merely a rating (3.5, in this case). Considering [[1098]], could Randall be subtly self-deprecating here?<br />
|-<br />
| String type<br />
| Bytestring-Charstring<br />
| In computer science, this denotes what type of data is stored subsequent set of elements or a {{w|String_(computing)|string}}. This is likely a pun on {{w|String_(physics)|string}} types that appear in {{w|string theory}} and particle physics, and may also be a reference to {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, in which the difference between a byte string and a (Unicode) character string is a cause of difficulties for some programmers.<br />
|-<br />
| Batting average<br />
| [0,100] in %<br />
| In {{w|baseball}}, a player's {{w|batting average}} is calculated by dividing their hits by their at-bats. Instead of using the percent sign (%), it is usually presented as a number between 0 and 1 (inclusive) expressed as three decimal places with no leading zero: [.000, 1.000]. It is pronounced as though it is multiplied by 1,000: A batter with a batting average of .342 (which is very good) is said to be "batting three forty-two." A perfect batting average (unattainable except in very small samples) gives rise to the expression "batting a thousand." The 0-100 scale would be a better match for the batting average statistic in {{w|cricket}}, although percents would still not be used.<br />
|-<br />
| Proof<br />
| [0,200]<br />
| This refers to {{w|alcohol proof}}, which is the measure of the amount of ethanol in a beverage by volume. In the United States, 100&deg; proof correspond to 50% alcohol, so the proof of a beverage is two times the percentage of ethanol, so the maximum value is 200.<br />
|-<br />
| Heat<br />
| No jalapeño icons - 3 jalapeño icons, increasing<br />
| Spicy dishes are sometimes measured by the intensity of the spicy flavor, usually ranging from values like "mild" to "hot". The gray jalapeño likely represents negligible or no spicy taste in the food. However, as an objective scale it is largely meaningless, since there is no reliable consistency in how these ratings are applied - what may be considered a 3-chilli dish in one establishment may only be a 1-chilli dish in another (as restaurants rarely if ever intend their dishes to be rated on the {{w|Scoville scale}}). The scale being unlimited may be a reference to the practice of some restaurants where a fourth or fifth chilli may be added to exaggerate the heat of their dishes.<br />
|-<br />
| Street value<br />
| [0,∞) in $<br />
| The value of an illegal good or a legal/controlled good when bought or sold by illegal means usually by or to the end user.<br />
|-<br />
| Entropy<br />
| ''This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.''<br />
| The term "entropy", which {{w|History of entropy|began}} as a {{w|Entropy (classical thermodynamics)|thermodynamic measure}}, has since been adopted {{w|Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory|by analogy}} into {{w|Entropy (disambiguation)|multiple seemingly unrelated domains}}. The table doesn't seem to know what domain it is in, but (possibly in a desperate attempt to hide this) deems it safe to assume the unknown domain uses the term "entropy" for ''something''! Entropy is often described as a measure of disorder or chaos so this may be another reference to the D&D alignment axis above.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The title text says that in addition each particle has a password, but only hash of the password can be observed. This is a computer science reference. In computer science, properties (e.g. of an object or program) often can be changed with a single command. In physics as we observe it, properties can locally change with the environment. There are several {{w|Time-variation_of_fundamental_constants|experiments}}, whether physical constants are really time-const. Password hashing is the practice of hiding the password itself by storing only an irreversible representation of the password. Since the password itself is not stored, the password cannot ever be viewed by the user or a hacker (outside of the login page). This method is considered to be safest way of storing passwords. Password hashing using some {{w|key derivation function}} makes it impossible to steal passwords even if the server that stores hashes is cracked, unless the hash function is also broken, which should be a task which cannot be completed in any feasible time for sufficiently strong passwords. The title-text claims this is predicted by the {{w|cosmic censorship hypothesis}}, which in reality claims that a {{w|gravitational singularity}} must always be obscured by an event horizon (i.e.: there can't be a {{w|naked singularity}}). There is also a hint of quantum mechanics in the statement, as observation is one of the central concepts of the field, and {{w|Heisenberg's uncertainty principle}} actually states that it is impossible to observe (measure) some property of a particle with arbitrary precision when another one is known (e.g.: you can't determine the momentum and position of a particle). This makes the title text a mix of several domains, as was the above table.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon. Is table alone the best solution? Layout is still not standard.}}<br />
:<big>Particle Properties in Physics</big><br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
! Property<br />
! Type/scale<br />
|-<br />
| Electric charge<br />
| [Scale with -1, 0 and +1 labeled and markings dividing the units in thirds. The endpoints are both dots.]<br />
|-<br />
| Mass <br />
| [Scale with 0, 1kg and 2kg labeled and markings dividing the units into thirds. The endpoints are a dot on the zero end and an arrow on the other end.]<br />
|-<br />
| Spin number<br />
| [Scale with -1, -½, 0, ½ and 1 labeled and no additional markings. The endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]<br />
|-<br />
| Flavor <br />
| (Misc. quantum numbers)<br />
|-<br />
| Color charge<br />
| [Coordinate system of three axes labeled R, G and B clockwise from the 10 o'clock position. Endpoints are arrow-dots on all ends, with black dots for the labeled ends and white dots for the unlabeled ends.] (Quarks only)<br />
|-<br />
| Mood<br />
| [Scale labeled with 5 emoticons, from angry to happy, and markings dividing the units in thirds. Endpoints are both arrows, pointing out.]<br />
|-<br />
| Alignment<br />
| [3x3 grid with varying shades] Good-Evil, Lawful-Chaotic<br />
|-<br />
| Hit points<br />
| [Scale starting from 0, markings but no labels other than zero. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]<br />
|-<br />
| Rating<br />
| [Star rating of 3.5/5 stars]<br />
|-<br />
| String type<br />
| Bytestring-Charstring<br />
|-<br />
| Batting average<br />
| [Scale from 0% to 100%. Endpoints are dot at 0% end and arrow-dot at 100% end.]<br />
|-<br />
| Proof<br />
| [Scale from 0 to 200. Endpoints are dot at 0 end and arrow-dot at 200 end.]<br />
|-<br />
| Heat<br />
| [Scale labeled with pepper icons, from 0 (a grayed-out pepper) to 3. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]<br />
|-<br />
| Street value<br />
| [Scale with $0, $100 and $200 labeled. Endpoints are a dot at zero end and an arrow at the other end.]<br />
|-<br />
| Entropy<br />
| (This already has like 20 different confusing meanings, so it probably means something here, too.)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Baseball]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2241:_Brussels_Sprouts_Mandela_Effect&diff=184639Talk:2241: Brussels Sprouts Mandela Effect2019-12-14T19:51:31Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
Brussels Sprouts Mandella Effect dot Tumblr dot com--[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 00:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is liquorice ''really'' so disliked as suggested? For me it's "Meh" ({{w|Liquorice allsorts}} are all the better for being partnered with sweetness in various ways), but pallatable enough in its plain form. Although I admit the versions salted with ammonium chloride are a more acquired taste to my (apparently) non-European tastebuds. I won't eat those in handfulls, just the odd occasionally grabbed morsel from the bag that gets rapidly emptied by the continental person who brought them... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.250|141.101.98.250]] 00:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Black licorice jelly beans are good (the Twizzler fake stuff not so much), but I mostly don't like the allsorts. Tried the Finnish/European stuff, and that's just plain nasty. However, of my peers and co-workers, I'm apparently the only one that likes black licorice. Still, however, there's always plenty of the bags of black licorice jelly beans in the store around Easter, so the cohort of folk that like them is large enough that it's still profitable to stock.<br />
<br />
:Most people like liquorice in The Netherlands (which comes in various forms: sweet/salty, hard/soft etc.), it is available at most supermarkets. As for the title text, when I saw today's comic title, the first thing I thought was: is that your new password, Randall? --[[User:IByte|IByte]] ([[User talk:IByte|talk]]) 09:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC) <br />
<br />
Silica packets are harmless to eat:<br />
<br />
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/19775/what-would-happen-if-you-ate-one-those-silica-gel-packets<br />
<br />
The joke (a supposedly false statement) about silica gel may be actually a true, keen observation: people are “misled” to believe that it is absolutely NOT edible (i.e. poisonous) because of the strong warning DO NOT EAT they read again and again (see e.g. [https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/21181/what-would-happen-if-one-eats-silica-gel]). Maybe this ''is'' intended; maybe it's just a joke (lie) that turned out to be true. What do you think?<br />
[[User:Yosei|Yosei]] ([[User talk:Yosei|talk]]) 04:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I remember eating Brusseles Sprouts as a kid and those were tasty (and expencive). I wonder if modern sprouts won't be tasty for me. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.244.150|172.68.244.150]]<br />
<br />
Perhaps they were expensive because they were well prepared? I too, recall eating Brussels Sprouts and thinking they were tasty...they had been steamed by a gourmet chief, in a light wine vinaigrette with white pepper, and I decided I must have been mistaken about them; later I found I still hated them, normally, and I had just had them uncommonly well prepared that one time. Normally they are not expensive, you might have been paying for the skill, not the subject. On the other hand, there is currently a widespread discussion concerning the vast difference in the currently wide-spread and almost ubiquitous “Cavendish” banana cultivar from its predecessor, almost untasted by living tongues, so it is not unheard of for a change in the produced monoculture causing consumers to suddenly, unexpectedly, finding their tastes apparently changing, despite common parlance using one generic term for all varieties of a foodstuff. [[User:Eclair Egglayer|Eclair Egglayer]] ([[User talk:Eclair Egglayer|talk]]) 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I realize this is an uphill battle, but I can’t help reminiscing about how Wikipedia, about a decade ago, seemingly implied that “U.F.O.” referred to “a pseudoscientific belief in ‘flying saucers’ piloted by little green men from the planet Mars” rather than being a military and aeronautical term referring to a wide range of common phenomena, some of which are claimed, by some, to be evidence for a widely known pseudoscientific theory. I will refrain from mentioning more recent questionable editing of Wikipedia, as I don’t want to bring any more hotheaded contention to what is already a hopeless struggle, but many of you are familiar with the sort of thing I am referring to. I am aware that Randal’s characters referring to a “real Mandela Effect” already has the implication that “the Mandela Effect is not real”, but do we really want to contribute to the growing conflation of observed and documented phenomena with the pseudoscience explanations for them, simply because the pseudoscience occupies more of the popular consciousness? The redirect currently points to a subsection of a Wikipedia article on False Memories; surely we don’t want to add to any further confusion in common parlance between False Memories and esoteric explanations for them involving alternate realities? Before you dismiss my concerns, think about how often you encounter a firm conviction that “anyone who believes in UFOs is crazy or stupid”, or even more bizarre claims like “Flat Earthers aren’t real” (rather than “Flat Earthers are real people who believe in a particular pseudoscientific theory”). Just because the popular discussion of the Mandela Effect is dominated by discussions that conflate the phenomenon of commonalities in miss-remembered history, with a particular pseudoscientific explanation, must we accept that sociologists and psychologists can no longer discuss the former, because it is firmly settled, in the non-scientific discussions of the day, that any such conversation must be about that latter? [[User:Eclair Egglayer|Eclair Egglayer]] ([[User talk:Eclair Egglayer|talk]]) 09:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The title text referenced the password strength comic, and I had to go back and check that the comic's example password was really "correcthorsebatterystaple".<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I found out that the new sprouts actually came out in 1999. See: [https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/nieuw-zoete-spruitjes~b6803ee03/ nieuwe zoete spruitjes]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1145:_Sky_Color&diff=1843341145: Sky Color2019-12-09T00:07:32Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1145<br />
| date = December 10, 2012<br />
| title = Sky Color<br />
| image = sky_color.png<br />
| titletext = Feynman recounted another good one upperclassmen would use on freshmen physics students: When you look at words in a mirror, how come they're reversed left to right but not top to bottom? What's special about the horizontal axis?<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The point of this comic is that often, curious children ask their parents simple questions about understanding how the world works. Often, although the question is simple, the answer is not. "Why is the sky blue?" is a common example, since most parents are not familiar with {{w|Rayleigh scattering}}, and thus are unable to answer the question.<br />
<br />
[[Randall]]'s hobby is to make those questions even harder, so that the parents who ''are'' familiar with the subject (scientists, for example) will be stumped.<br />
<br />
Another point of this comic is that we often think that we understand a scientific phenomenon (e.g. why is the sky blue?); however, a certain simple question (e.g. why isn't the sky violet?) can often uncover large gaps in our actual understanding.<br />
<br />
{{W|Rayleigh scattering}} is the phenomenon that explains the color of the sky, where light of every wavelength gets scattered in the air by the inverse quartic (fourth power) of its wavelength as given in the comic. In the {{w|visible spectrum}}, blue light has a wavelength of 450–495&nbsp;nm while violet has a shorter wavelength of 380–450&nbsp;nm. Violet light does indeed get scattered more than blue light, however the lower portion of the spectrum for sunlight consists of blue light and eyes are much more sensitive to blue light than violet light. Furthermore, the sunlight contains more blue than violet to begin with as a result of the surface temperature of the sun. This leaves the impression of a blue sky. A good explanation, including why blue and not violet, can be found in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html Usenet Physics FAQ :: Why is the sky blue?], but note that human color perception [http://blog.asmartbear.com/color-wheels.html is more complicated] than described there.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to a {{w|mirror image}}, and is discussed by the famous American theoretical physicist {{w|Richard Feynman}} in a famous BBC documentary [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tuxLY94LXw], as one of the problems which he used to have fun with first years (British English for first year student or freshman).<br />
<br />
A mirror image is a virtual image produced by the reflection of light on a mirror. In the mirror image, only front and back are switched around — like a printing press or a rubber stamp. Left and right are still left and right in an absolute reference frame — wave your left arm in front of the mirror and the "mirror person" also waves the arm on the left side. It is only when using "personal" reference frame —tied to the individual— that we can say that the "mirror person" is moving their right arm. The apparent inversion comes from the fact that the mind projects itself onto the person in the mirror.<br />
<br />
To help understand why this effect happens, imagine that you are holding a sign which says "MIX" and facing a mirror. Initially, you face the sign towards you. The M is on the left and the X on the right. Now, you turn the sign around so that the sign faces the mirror. Now, even without paying any attention to the mirror, simply because you have turned it around, now the M is on the right and the X is on the left and if you could see through the back of the sign, it would say "XIM" from your perspective. When you look at it in the mirror, you are now able to see that orientation and it appears to read "XIM". If instead of turning the sign around horizontally to look at it in the mirror, you flipped it vertically and looked at it in the mirror, it would appear to say "WIX" in the mirror. Thus the mirror is only revealing how the text is oriented relative to your eyes. Or, to put it more succinctly: mirrors ''don't'' reverse left to right, ''turning around'' does. Mirrors reverse along whatever direction is perpendicular to the plane of the mirror. You can induce a mirror to reverse left and right only --- by standing next to it instead of in front of it, facing along the plane of the mirror itself. If you lift your right arm, you can clearly see your image's left arm raising, without having to adjust for frame of reference. Similarly, you can induce a mirror to reverse top and bottom only by holding it flat above your head or laying it flat on the ground and standing on it (or perhaps standing under a suitably equipped bedroom ceiling).<br />
<br />
Another way of thinking about it is to treat the mirror image as showing what an observer would see if they were standing in that position. For an observer, your left arm would appear to be on the right and vice versa.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Science Girl and her mother, Megan. Megan is at a desk and facing the girl.]<br />
:Science Girl: Mommy, why is the sky blue?<br />
:Megan: Rayleigh scattering! Short wavelengths get scattered ''way'' more (proportional to 1/''<span title="lambda">&#955;</span>''<sup>4</sup>). Blue light dominates because it's so short.<br />
:Science Girl: Oh.<br />
:Science Girl: So why ''isn't'' the sky violet?<br />
:Megan: Well, because, uh... ...hmm.<br />
:[Caption Below the panel:]<br />
:My hobby: Teaching tricky questions to the children of my scientist friends.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Science Girl]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:My Hobby]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2217:_53_Cards&diff=1822982217: 53 Cards2019-11-05T17:02:25Z<p>141.101.76.16: add something about Banach-Tarski; by all means have a go at tidying it up</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2217<br />
| date = October 18, 2019<br />
| title = 53 Cards<br />
| image = 53_cards.png<br />
| titletext = Well, there's one right here at the bottom, where it says "53."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a 53-CARD DECK. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
In this comic [[Cueball]] claims that he has found a way to manipulate a {{w|Standard 52-card deck|52-card deck}} into a 53-card deck with ''only'' shuffling and rearranging. This is absurd, since neither of those actions are capable of adding new cards to the deck.{{Citation needed}} Cueball backs up his claim with a flowchart style diagram containing images of card decks along with unreadable text, with the number 52 next to the deck at top and the number 53 next to the deck at the bottom.<br />
<br />
[[Ponytail]] states that he has not done such a thing, but Cueball then challenges Ponytail to find an error in his math as given in the complicated flow chart. This is an aggressive defense that some people employ when challenged that, intentionally or not, has the effect of discouraging argument because making false claims often takes less effort than refuting them.<br />
<br />
The caption below the comic states this is also how every conversation runs between a physicist and a {{w|perpetual motion}} enthusiast, i.e. one who likes the notion that it could be possible for a mechanical system to work indefinitely without any external input of energy. The {{w|laws of thermodynamics}} - which are some of the most foundational and well-tested physical laws that we have - say that this is impossible as it would involve creating energy out of nowhere - similarly to how Cueball's process somehow creates an entire extra card out of nowhere, despite this making no physical or logical sense.<br />
<br />
With this comic [[Randall]] makes it clear that he sees the creation of extra matter (and extra card) is as far fetched as creating the energy out of nothing that would be required for perpetual motion. But he makes it more clear how far out this is with this card trick.<br />
<br />
The comic is referencing the {{w|Banach-Tarski paradox}}, which is a mathematical theorem providing a way to "dismantle" a solid sphere, rearrange the component pieces, and reassemble them into two solid spheres identical to the original. This is only possible in a mathematical ideal case, because the component pieces are collections of infinitely many disjoint points; it can not be performed in real life. Cueball's operations of shuffling and rearranging are analogous to the operations used in the Banach-Tarski operation, which "involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them without changing their shape". What is possible in mathematics is frequently not possible in physical reality, which is why Ponytail is so confident Cueball's perpetual motion plan is flawed. The Banach-Tarski paradox was also referenced in [[804: Pumpkin Carving]].<br />
<br />
In the title text, Ponytail responds to Cueball's challenge with snark, claiming that the most obvious error is the fact that the formula's result is "53". The implication is that his math results in the wrong ''answer'', which is proof that the calculations must contain errors. This, of course, starts with the assumption that Cueball's claimed result is impossible, rather than attempting to find the flaws in his specific method. Because most people would conclude, by basic physical reasoning, that merely shuffling and rearranging a deck of cards cannot increase the number of cards in the deck, that feels like a safe assumption. By analogy, increasing the amount of energy in a system only by moving and transferring energy should be equally impossible, on its face.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball and Ponytail are standing next to a flowchart, with Cueball gesturing to it.]:<br />
:Cueball: I've found a way to turn a 52-card deck into 53 cards by shuffling and rearranging them.<br />
:Ponytail: No, you haven't.<br />
:Cueball: How do you know?! I challenge you to find an error in my math!<br />
<br />
:[The flow chart consist of 15 boxes of different sizes, connected with arrows. In four of them (top, bottom and two in the middle) a deck of card is shown. Next to the top and bottom a number is written, near the other two, which are the only round boxes, numbers are shown in one of the nearby boxes instead. Beneath the top box there are two boxes with readable text. The other 7 boxes, without numbers or card decks have unreadable text. From top to bottom are the readable content:]<br />
:52<br />
:Shuffle<br />
:Cut<br />
:21<br />
:38<br />
:53<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel]:<br />
:Every conversation between a physicist and a perpetual motion enthusiast.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Flowcharts]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2220:_Imagine_Going_Back_in_Time&diff=1822842220: Imagine Going Back in Time2019-11-05T11:24:31Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */ Ash is the only 10 year old character</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2220<br />
| date = October 25, 2019<br />
| title = Imagine Going Back in Time<br />
| image = imagine_going_back_in_time.png<br />
| titletext = I wonder what the trendy adults in 2019 who are too cool for Pokemon will be into. Probably Digimon!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a DIGIMON. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] is checking his ''{{w|Pokemon Go}}'' app to check on the status of a Pokémon he had previously left in a gym (to defend it against the other two teams in the game). In the gym he sees that another player named "Reelect Trump 2020" has left a frog Pokémon, which is now standing next to his. Cueball, evidently not a fan of President Trump or his supporters, finds it distasteful to be indirectly associated with someone whose political views he finds unpleasant.<br />
<br />
When he remarks on this to [[Megan]], she observes out how strange that remark would sound if he said it to his younger self from 20 years ago. Normally when people say "imagine going back in time", they are merely constructing a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how rapidly society has changed over the years. Megan is likely pointing out that the idea of Donald Trump becoming the President of the United States (let alone coming up for re-election) would have seemed very farfetched just 20 years ago.<br />
<br />
However, it turns out that Cueball somehow actually does ''have'' the time-travel technology required to pull this off, and so he takes Megan's suggestion literally and goes back in time 20 years to do exactly what she suggested: he repeats the statement to his younger self to see what his reaction will be.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, past Cueball (in the year 1999) chooses to focus on a completely different aspect of the statement: the fact that ''Pokémon'' - a children's game - will still somehow be popular in 20 years, and that his adult self is still playing it. These observations make Cueball feel uncomfortable, as they highlight the fact that he is spending time on frivolous, childish pursuits. He gets defensive and starts to argue with his younger self.<br />
<br />
{{w|Pokemon}} is a media franchise that debuted in 1996 in Japan as both a video game and a trading card game. It was originally designed for and marketed to younger children (the tie-in cartoon series constantly emphasizes its main character is ten years old), with a design, aesthetic and gameplay that were optimized for a younger audience. Since then, and up to 2019, there have been a total of eight generations of video games on consoles. As the franchise continued to thrive and evolve, it's gone through multiple generations, including ''Pokemon Go'', an augmented reality game for smartphones. These latest versions, in particular, have become popular with adults, some of whom grew up playing the earlier generations. <br />
<br />
In 1999 in North America, only the first generation of Pokemon video games had been released, consisting of {{w|Pokémon Red and Blue|Pokemon Blue and Pokemon Red}} for the Nintendo Gameboy. The second generation of Pokemon video games would not even be announced in Japan until {{w|Pokémon Gold and Silver#Release|November 1999}}, and advertising for the North American release would begin in December of 1999. A person living in 1999, who has only seen the first generation, with no official confirmation that a second generation was even being considered, and unable to predict the nostalgia market that would appear later, would quite plausibly wonder about its popularity 20 years later.<br />
<br />
{{w|Donald J. Trump}} is the president of the United States at the time of publishing, elected in 2016. Even during his campaign, the idea of his election was considered absurd in many circles, as he had never held any kind of public office, and had no background that would lend itself to expertise in government or public policy. Prior to his election, he was primarily known as a New York real estate mogul and host of the 2003 reality television show ''The Apprentice''. While he'd been teasing the idea of a presidential run since the 1980s, and indeed {{w|Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign|was currently seeking the Reform Party candidacy in 1999}}, most people saw the idea as unserious, and the concept of him actually being President of the United States would have been hugely unexpected to most Americans in an earlier era.<br />
<br />
Cueball/[[Randall]] is not a fan of the current U.S. President {{w|Donald Trump}} (as became clear in [[1756: I'm With Her]] and [[Sad comics|many comics]] that followed it, now including this), and this prompts Cueball to speak the following line to [[Megan]]: "A player named "Reelect Trump 2020" put a frog Pokemon in the gym next to mine." (Note that since the offending player is in the same gym as Cueball, they are "on the same team" and Cueball will not be able to remove either his, or his own Pokémon from the gym. Only players from the other two teams could do that.)<br />
<br />
Randall released a comic about Pokémon Go less than a week after its release back in July 2016: [[1705: Pokémon Go]]. But Pokémon in general has been a [[:Category:Pokémon|recurring theme]] in xkcd long before Pokémon Go was released.<br />
<br />
[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog Pepe the Frog] is an internet meme that has become associated with Donald Trump after his use of it during his presidential campaign. The use of a frog Pokémon, therefore, is a callback to this internet phenomenon. <br />
<br />
The Pokémon left in the gym is most likely [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Politoed_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Politoed], the only official frog Pokémon released in the game at the time of publication. It comes from the tadpole series with [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Poliwag_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Poliwag] that evolves into [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Poliwhirl_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Poliwhirl] which by using a [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/King%27s_Rock kings rock] can be evolved to Politoed (instead of to [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Poliwrath_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Poliwrath]). There are other frog like Pokémon in the game which are scheduled to be added to Pokémon Go, but where people who dislike Trump might have chosen [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Toxicroak_(Pok%C3%A9mon) Toxicroak], it seems an unlikely choice by a fan that hopes Trump is reelected!<br />
<br />
This comic's joke is similar to one used in the 1985 science-fiction film ''{{w|Back to the Future}}'', in which Doc Brown (of 1955) is shocked to learn that {{w|Ronald Reagan}} would be the President of the United States in thirty years' time, when in 1955 Reagan was a TV actor.<br />
<br />
{{w|Digimon}}, as mentioned in the title text, is another media franchise which is similar to Pokemon in some ways, though it is sometmes perceived as more "cool" and "adult" oriented. Its popularity in North America rose around 1999 with the airing of its anime series, but [https://www.geekinsider.com/digimon-vs-pokemon-retrospective-monster-marketing/ never became as popular as Pokemon].<br />
<br />
This was the first of two time travel comics in less than a week, as the one two comics after this one, [[2222: Terminator: Dark Fate]], also had future Cueballs travel back to visit their past self.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
* The idea of people extending their childhood hobbies into adulthood was explored in a more positive light in [[219: Blanket Fort]] and [[150: Grownups]]. The blurred line between childhood and adulthood is a recurring theme on xkcd. <br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball talks to Megan while looking at his smart phone.]<br />
:Cueball: Ugh. A player named "Reelect Trump 2020" put a frog Pokemon in the gym next to mine.<br />
<br />
:[Megan puts her hand to her face. Cueball is holding a device in his hand with an antenna. He uses the other hand to move a stick on the device.]<br />
:Megan: Imagine going back in time and saying that to yourself 20 years ago.<br />
:Cueball: Oh, I have a time machine! I'll try that.<br />
<br />
:[A sound effect between panels, likely the sound of Cueball's time machine.]<br />
:Bzzzzt<br />
<br />
:[Two Cueballs standing, facing each other. The one on the right is holding the handheld device, and is thus Cueball from 2019. He is apparently repeating his statement to the other Cueball from 1999, with only the last 3 words shown. He gestures towards the left Cueball. Above the left Cueball there is a frame with a caption:]<br />
:1999<br />
:Cueball from 2019: ...next to mine.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball from 1999 is shown, with Cueball from 2019 speaking off panel.]<br />
:Cueball from 1999: I see. <br />
:Cueball from 1999: Pokemon is still popular in 2019?<br />
:Cueball from 2019: Yeah.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball from 2019 is holding a finger up in front of Cueball from 1999.]<br />
:Cueball from 1999: And it's cool for people your age to play it?<br />
:Cueball from 2019: OK, I did not come here to be mocked.<br />
:Cueball from 1999: This is a sobering cautionary tale.<br />
:Cueball from 2019: '''''Listen, self...'''''<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]<br />
<!-- NOT a [[Category:Multiple Cueballs]] since it is actually just a younger version of Cueball when they are two --><br />
[[Category:Video games]]<br />
[[Category:Pokémon]]<br />
[[Category:Time travel]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:762:_Analogies&diff=181807Talk:762: Analogies2019-10-27T14:45:54Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>Surprised he said synecdoche instead of metonymy, which to me seems slightly more appropriate. What a terrible mess such devices are. I'm content memorizing 114 chemical symbols and the names and capitals of 196 generally recognized sovereign nations, but not the ~200 items on this {{w|Figure_of_speech#Categories_of_figures_of_speech|list of tropes and schemes}}. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 01:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
Unfortunately, nobody was any the wiser after hearing this. <br />
The analogy from Einstein would have been well understood as cats whiskers were familiar radio sets in before valves became cheap enough for anyone to afford a modern radio. They were difficult to tune and quickly lost contact. It is a very good analogy.<br />
<br />
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 22:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It seems highly likely that the opening lines of whether sandwich was a metaphor had to do with threesomes - i.e. a "sandwich" of a woman between two men. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.67|108.162.216.67]] 07:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Agreed --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ahh, meta! [[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Neither of the examples of synecdoche is very good. When I use the web I am literally using the internet, since the web is a layer residing on top of the internet. A person who thinks of the web as just an interface to the internet, and the internet as the more important layer, might say they were using the internet without having any synecdochal or metonymic intent. And a band-aid is not part of a bandage, it's an example of a bandage. Wikipedia has lots of better examples. {{unsigned ip|162.158.118.184}}<br />
<br />
I think synecdoche should be the official linguistic phenomenon of Schenectady, New York. Two words I may never learn to pronounce correctly as a native Californian... --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.58|172.68.141.58]] 15:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Couldn't sandwich also refer to the "sandwich" from the series How I met your mother: https://how-i-met-your-mother.fandom.com/wiki/Eating_a_Sandwich</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2094:_Short_Selling&diff=1677342094: Short Selling2019-01-04T20:46:33Z<p>141.101.76.16: Explain the loss case</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2094<br />
| date = January 4, 2019<br />
| title = Short Selling<br />
| image = short_selling.png<br />
| titletext = "I'm selling all my analogies at auction tomorrow, and that witch over there will give you 20 beans if you promise on pain of death to win them for her." "What if SEVERAL people promised witches they'd win, creating some kind of a ... squeeze? Gosh, you could make a lot of–" "Don't be silly! That probably never happens."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a SHORT WITCH. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{w|Short (finance)|Shorting stocks}} (short selling stocks) is a stock market practice where someone takes a risk because they believe that a certain stock's price is going to drop. The risk-taker borrows stock to sell, believing that they will be able to buy the stock back later at a lower price and return it. If everything goes according to plan, the risk-taker will walk away with a profit. Of course, if things don't go according to plan, the risk-taker winds up losing money, because he has to buy back the stock for more than he sold it.<br />
<br />
Cueball asks Ponytail to explain shorting stocks. Ponytail starts out with a fairy tale story that falls apart almost before she even starts.<br />
<br />
Her story appears to begin by mixing up the story of {{w|Rapunzel|Rapunzel}} with {{w|Jack and the Beanstalk|Jack and the Beanstalk}}.<br />
<br />
In one version of {{w|Rapunzel|Rapunzel}} a Father breaks into a witches garden to steal the Rapunzel plant for his pregnant wife. The Witch catches him and agrees to let him go and not punishing him in exchange for the child. <br />
<br />
In one version of the "{{w|Jack and the Beanstalk|Jack and the Beanstalk}}" fairy tale story, Jack sells a cow for magic beans. His mother, thinking the beans are fake, is angry with Jack. Jack plants the beans and a magic beanstalk grows up into the clouds. Jack climbs the beanstalk and explores the land above the clouds. He finds the home of a cruel giant and proceeds to steal from the giant. The giant discovers the theft and chases Jack back down the beanstalk. Jack reaches the bottom of the beanstalk first and cuts the beanstalk down. The giant falls to his death, and Jack uses his stolen wealth to take care of himself and his mother.<br />
<br />
The combination of the two stories is similar to the story from the musical "{{w|Into the Woods|Into the Woods}}," in which a Father sneaks into the Witch's garden to steal vegetables, then trades his soon to be born child for the vegetables, but also steals beans in the process.<br />
<br />
Ponytail's version starts with a father (not Jack) selling a child he hasn't had yet to a witch. Like short selling, the father is selling something he doesn't own. But unlike short selling, the father is selling something that doesn't exist yet. The child is sold for five magic beans, and the father thinks he will make a profit as he believes the child will only be worth two beans/love once born. The debt comes due, but the value of the child is now 200 beans/love.<br />
<br />
The somewhat broken analogy breaks further when Ponytail says the father now is going to fight the witch instead of paying the witch with the child. There is no "fighting" if a short selling stock strategy fails. You simply lose money.<br />
<br />
Our now definitely broken analogy breaks down even further (if possible) by sending the kid up the beanstalk to fight the giant - a giant that Ponytail says represents high interest rates. Interest rates have nothing to do with shorting stocks. (Technically they can, but the short seller would have / should have calculated that when determining if their investment strategy would work.)<br />
<br />
Cueball comments that the analogy is rapidly losing its value to him. Ponytail fires back with the comment that he should have shorted her advice before asking for it, thus making a profit. The decreased helpfulness of her wisdom is analogous to the decreased value of a shorted stock price.<br />
<br />
The title text is actually the most useful part of this comic when it comes to investment advice. The witch (the broker) is offering the father (short seller) 20 magic beans now if the father/short seller buys all of the analogies (stocks) later. However, the witch/stock broker tricks several people into this strategy. Since every father/seller now needs the same analogies/stocks, a bidding war erupts. The "winner" pays a much higher price than expected (limiting how much of a win it really is). And the losers wind up either dead or enslaved (bankrupt).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[Cueball and Ponytail are walking together, talking.]<br />
:Cueball: I don't understand shorting stocks.<br />
:Ponytail: It's like when you promise your firstborn to a witch for five magic beans.<br />
<br />
:[Ponytail close up]<br />
:Cueball (off-panel): Is that a common–<br />
:Ponytail: She's a sucker, right? You know your awful kid will be worth one or two beans at ''best''.<br />
<br />
:[Ponytail and Cueball stopped, facing each other]<br />
:Ponytail: But then it turns out you ''love'' your kid, a love worth 200 beans! You can't afford that loss!<br />
:Ponytail: There's only one way out: <br />
:Ponytail: You gotta fight the witch.<br />
<br />
:[Ponytail and Cueball stopped, facing each other]<br />
:Ponytail: So you send your kid up the beanstalk to battle the giant, who represents interest rates.<br />
:Cueball: This analogy is getting less helpful by the minute.<br />
:Ponytail: If only you'd somehow shorted my wisdom before you asked.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1945:_Scientific_Paper_Graph_Quality&diff=1514611945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality2018-01-23T10:04:04Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1945<br />
| date = January 22, 2018<br />
| title = Scientific Paper Graph Quality<br />
| image = scientific_paper_graph_quality.png<br />
| titletext = The worst are graphs with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created in PowerPoint. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990. As easy-to-use tools, these allowed for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic implies that these are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers.<br />
<br />
{{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays explicitly forbid the use of PowerPoint in their [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml instructions for authors.]<br />
<br />
The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones "with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data" are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with PowerPoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point across (qualitative as in "you get the idea") over accuracy (little actual data), this is more than a little self-deprecating, as the comic itself features exactly that sort of lambasted graph. The axis labeled "good" and "bad" is entirely qualitative, the definition of what constitutes the 'PowerPoint / MSPaint era' is entirely unclear, and it is doubtful that any actual data was used to make the graph - certainly there are no actual data points indicated. Its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:'''General quality of charts and'''<br />
:'''graphs in scientific papers'''<br />
<br />
:[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origo labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.]<br />
<br />
:[The pre-1993 and post-2015 parts are white, with increasing quality before 1990 and after 2015. The 1993-2015 part indicates bad quality and is highlighted in grey, labeled "PowerPoint/MSPaint era".]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Timelines]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1945:_Scientific_Paper_Graph_Quality&diff=1514601945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality2018-01-23T10:02:43Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1945<br />
| date = January 22, 2018<br />
| title = Scientific Paper Graph Quality<br />
| image = scientific_paper_graph_quality.png<br />
| titletext = The worst are graphs with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created in PowerPoint. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990. As easy-to-use tools, these allowed for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic suggests that these are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers.<br />
<br />
{{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays explicitly forbid the use of PowerPoint in their [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml instructions for authors.]<br />
<br />
The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones "with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data" are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with PowerPoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point across (qualitative as in "you get the idea") over accuracy (little actual data), this is more than a little self-deprecating, as the comic itself features exactly that sort of lambasted graph. The axis labeled "good" and "bad" is entirely qualitative, the definition of what constitutes the 'PowerPoint / MSPaint era' is entirely unclear, and it is doubtful that any actual data was used to make the graph - certainly there are no actual data points indicated. Its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:'''General quality of charts and'''<br />
:'''graphs in scientific papers'''<br />
<br />
:[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origo labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.]<br />
<br />
:[The pre-1993 and post-2015 parts are white, with increasing quality before 1990 and after 2015. The 1993-2015 part indicates bad quality and is highlighted in grey, labeled "PowerPoint/MSPaint era".]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Timelines]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:642:_Creepy&diff=151459Talk:642: Creepy2018-01-23T09:58:48Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>Is the real-life example unwarranted? [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Admirably done. I like the link. In future, though, the wiki-engine doesn't know what single returns means, so if you want a paragraph break hit enter twice. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A hint for girls, we all have the SAME fears, don't be afraid to find out who we are on the inside :) - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 04:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Uh...men typically don't have to worry about getting harassed, assaulted, or killed like women do. At least not to the same degree. Your nervousness about being turned down is not the same as the woman's fear of being attacked. [[Special:Contributions/15.211.201.83|15.211.201.83]] 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for making this comment. It perfectly outlines the exact type of conceited, one sided views that are being used by tumblr feminists in their crusade for "safety" and "equality". The idea that men are all some sort of all powerful being, incapable of being abused or raped is not only factually wrong, but actually perpetuates the abuses against them as more and more men stop coming forward for fear of looking weak. You speak as if you have knowledge in this field, but that just can't be the case. If you did, you would be much better educated as to the real breakdowns of sexual violence per gender, and know just how ridiculous your claims are. [[Special:Contributions/205.211.113.69|205.211.113.69]] 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::[citation needed] {{unsigned|Comment police}}<br />
<br />
::::Men are more likely to be murdered than women. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/386:_Duty_Calls You are wrong on the internet.] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.123|108.162.216.123]] 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Quite frankly, the rates of violence against men are much lower, and almost all of it is committed by men (as you can tell by googling "literally anything about crime statistics"). Men are less harmed and less affected by these issues (see, eg, Moradi and Huang 2008); further, what you just posted is a strawman, because what was posted above does not claim that men cannot be harmed or raped, only that one fear is greater than the other.<br />
<br />
:::Given that feminism is the entire reason the legal definition of rape in america includes men - see the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. Magazines Rape Is Rape campaign, I think you maybe want to inform yourself more. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.12|141.101.99.12]] 19:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:What girl wants to be with a guy who is so introspective and nervous that he can't talk to girls? A hint for guys, grow a pair. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It seems pretty obvious to me that the comic intends to point out the paralyzing paranoia men can have about interacting with women, and the description as it is seems to refuse to explain the comic out of sheer disagreement. {{unsigned ip|207.98.247.127}}<br />
<br />
The comments here, with the call for men to "grow a pair" combined with the (false) claim that women are at greater danger of being attacked than men (seemingly offered as justification for unreasonable female caution or hostility toward men), are a perfect illustration of why this anomie exists.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.71|173.245.50.71]] 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think that there are younger girls who don't get a lot of male attention and are too inexperienced to be familiar with the neckbeard/fedora types. They think a "nice guy" sitting by himself is like them and just needs someone to be with. They haven't learned that all the guys who complain about lack of girls despite being surrounded are just sex hounds who claim they want a relationship. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.123|108.162.216.123]] 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:...What? The claim that women are in greater danger of being attacked than men is NOT false. In 2010, Women were 21 times more likely to be the victim of sexual crimes than men, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (0.1 cases per 1000 males, and 2.1 cases per 1000 females per year). Not only that, but the vast majority of cases of male sexual assault victims were assaulted by another male. Debate on the subject is fine, but let's at least get our facts straight. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 03:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Greg<br />
::You are right, but this comic is more about women using this fact to cover their own capabilities to talk to a "interesting" man. And because your facts are correct it must be mentioned at this explain. But this comic is also about the "strange" behave done by women to men; hard to understand by a man. And because this comic is still even more complicated this gets an incomplete tag with your mentions. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I agree with Greg. Let us indeed 'get our facts straight'. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html| More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: As a point of departure, The Daily Mail isn't exactly known for its sterling reporting record, and the article cited above is no exception. It cherry picks from two different sources (prison and non-prison populations) as well as two different definitions (sexual abuse and rape) in order to concoct a sensational and ultimately inaccurate headline. We are comparing two entirely different sets of populations: incarcerated vs. non-incarcerated (even ignoring the fact that it's also men in US prisons who are the bad actors). I'm surprised I even need to point out the difference. One should hope that the daily atmosphere in US society writ large is not marked by the same hyper-aggression and mental illness that exists in federal prisons. Further, according to BJS, in 2010 approximately 270,000 women experienced and reported sexual assault, compared to 17,400 men, and, yes, the 218,000 inmates in 2008 (not specified whether male or female in the Daily Mail article). I appreciate honest attempts to move a conversation forward, but please let's try to be consistent and intellectually rigorous in our arguments and rebuttals. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 07:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: I hope that the Daily Mail reference was a joke. That publication certainly is. Is this continuing debate the only reason the explanation is incomplete? I'm not sure it applies. What is the definition of incomplete anyway? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.218|141.101.99.218]] 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::2.1 in a 1000? That still leaves 997.9 in a 1000. If those odds are enough to make you shun an entire half of the human population, then you might be paranoid. And those 2.1 probably tend to occur in certain situations and certain places, although I'm loathe to actually make any claims without the data to back me up. Yes, there is still misogyny in our society, Tumblr feminists, but the majority of us would never knowingly hurt anybody, females included. So while carrying mace in your purse is understandable, not speaking to a cute non-psychotic guy because you think that the moment you show any interest in him, he won't let you go until he has had your way with you, that's a bit too much. And ironically, it still ends up placing the blame on the victims of such encounters. "Oh, but you talked to him first, you shouldn't have recognized his existence. Everybody knows you don't recognize a male's existence or else you're asking for it."[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.56|141.101.104.56]] 14:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Here's a fun statistic. Somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 200 men has raped somebody, based on a simple calculation of the number of american rapes versus the number of american men. It's 1 in 20 if you assume that the average American rapist accounts for ten victims; in truth, the average american rapist accounts for only six, meaning that 1 in 20 is a lower bound. 1 in 200 is roughly the figure you get for a lower bound if you pretend that every rape is reported.<br />
<br />
:::How's that for risk? {{unsigned|Comment police}}<br />
<br />
::::Thank you so much for not citing any sources whatsoever. That is completely, striaght-up, flat-out false. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: I feel like you also might be missing that the figure of 2.1 in 1000 is IN A WORLD WHERE WOMEN ARE HYPERCAUTIOUS ABOUT THIS. it does not work as an argument for them being less vigilant. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.12|141.101.99.12]] 19:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: According to the UN, its more like 333 out of 1000: [http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/pdf/VAW.pdf "On average, at least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her lifetime."] --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.216|141.101.93.216]] 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: PS: There is not a single excuse for rape and also no way to "ask for it". Except to actually ''ask'' for it (consensual non-consent); but then its not called rape anymore. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.216|141.101.93.216]] 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this cartoon elegantly captures the age-old challenge of dating: how to make contact with someone you find attractive, without contravening the social mores of your time - be it not talking to someone you have not been introduced to in the Victorian times, not making eye-contact in a bar unless you are "available" late last century, as well as the practice using any number of props such as witty opening lines, proclaiming a shared interest in poetry, accidentally running into each other at second hand book fairs or the joining the local skydiving club. The specific example here flags out the fears of "cyber social rejection" as another component to how we arbitrarily constrain the dynamic of "boy wants to meet girl, girl wants to meet boy" {{unsigned|ZenDad}}<br />
<br />
I don't think this should be tagged as incomplete. The explanation looks pretty complete to me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.199|108.162.208.199]] 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1945:_Scientific_Paper_Graph_Quality&diff=1514581945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality2018-01-23T09:45:32Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1945<br />
| date = January 22, 2018<br />
| title = Scientific Paper Graph Quality<br />
| image = scientific_paper_graph_quality.png<br />
| titletext = The worst are graphs with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created in PowerPoint. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990. As easy-to-use tools, these allowed for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic suggests that these are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers.<br />
<br />
{{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml explicitly forbid the use of PowerPoint in their instructions for authors.]<br />
<br />
The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones "with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data" are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with PowerPoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point across (qualitative as in "you get the idea") over accuracy (little actual data), this is more than a little self-deprecating, as the comic itself features exactly that sort of lambasted graph. The axis labeled "good" and "bad" is entirely qualitative, the definition of what constitutes the 'PowerPoint / MSPaint era' is entirely unclear, and it is doubtful that any actual data was used to make the graph - certainly there are no actual data points indicated. Its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:'''General quality of charts and'''<br />
:'''graphs in scientific papers'''<br />
<br />
:[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origo labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.]<br />
<br />
:[The pre-1993 and post-2015 parts are white, with increasing quality before 1990 and after 2015. The 1993-2015 part indicates bad quality and is highlighted in grey, labeled "PowerPoint/MSPaint era".]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Timelines]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1945:_Scientific_Paper_Graph_Quality&diff=151457Talk:1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality2018-01-23T09:43:19Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
What happened circa 2015 that marks the *end* of the PowerPoint/MSPaint era? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.59|108.162.238.59]] 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: More and more journals explicitly forbade the use of powerpoint. Also, more scientists are familiar with software better suited for creating scientific graphs. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 16:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: The problem was never that it was impossible to good quality graphs with those tools. The problem was that people ''didn't actually'' do so, in part because the tools made it really easy to produce something superficially good but actually so information-free as to be utterly bad, as well as making it rather more difficult than one would hope for to make camera-ready graphs (journals having higher-resolution print reproduction than most computer screens of the time). But before anyone gets fancy about this, you could commit very similar sins with other tools; merely using a specialist plotting program doesn't automatically make the output truly comprehensible (or relevant). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.107|141.101.104.107]] 22:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::If, however, creating graph is harder, you are likely to focus on what to put into them and make them only if it makes sense. One reason for decreased quality of graph might be that there was more of them for same amount of data. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: With enough effort, it is possible to make a good graph with any tool. However, the point is that with Powerpoint it is much easier to make a superficial graph than a good graph. With other tools such as R, Matlab, Origin etc. it is equally easy to make a good or a bad graph. Therefore, the average quality of graphs created with Powerpoint is much lower than with other tools. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
An interesting thing to note is that you can see from this chart that even slightly before the paint/powerpoint era the quality started going down. But it could be because this graph is meant to be just like the point it is making and therefore is not 100% accurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76|108.162.219.76]] 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I came down here to make exactly this point - Randall appears to be deliberately trying to misleadingly imply a conclusion that isn't actually supported by the data. ;o) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: actually, the peak of the graph is somewhere around 1990 which is 5 years after the release of paint and close to the release of powerpoint. Assuming that the tools gradually went into widespread use, this is perfectly consistent. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Well either they quickly came into common use, in which case the labelling of the 'era' is wrong, or they didn't, in which case it doesn't explain why the decline started so early.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You might find http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ amusing. It is the Gettysburg Address done as a PowerPoint presentation.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net<br />
<br />
Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166|172.68.211.166]]<br />
<br />
Also amusing is how low quality the image of this comic is. It is only 360*240 pixels, which is fitting for a graph describing low quality graphs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.28|172.68.34.28]] 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something of which I find at least somewhat noteworthy: early xkcd was notorius for these vague, informationless graphs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1945:_Scientific_Paper_Graph_Quality&diff=1514561945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality2018-01-23T09:39:28Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1945<br />
| date = January 22, 2018<br />
| title = Scientific Paper Graph Quality<br />
| image = scientific_paper_graph_quality.png<br />
| titletext = The worst are graphs with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created in PowerPoint. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990. As easy-to-use tools, these allowed for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic suggests that these are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers.<br />
<br />
{{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml explicitly forbid the use of PowerPoint in their instructions for authors.]<br />
<br />
The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones "with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data" are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with PowerPoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point across (qualitative as in "you get the idea") over accuracy (little actual data), this is more than a little self-deprecating, as the comic itself features exactly that sort of lambasted graph. The axis labeled "good" and "bad" is entirely qualitative, and it is doubtful that any actual data was used to make the graph - certainly there are no actual data points indicated. Its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:'''General quality of charts and'''<br />
:'''graphs in scientific papers'''<br />
<br />
:[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origo labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.]<br />
<br />
:[The pre-1993 and post-2015 parts are white, with increasing quality before 1990 and after 2015. The 1993-2015 part indicates bad quality and is highlighted in grey, labeled "PowerPoint/MSPaint era".]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Timelines]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1945:_Scientific_Paper_Graph_Quality&diff=151451Talk:1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality2018-01-23T09:36:01Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
What happened circa 2015 that marks the *end* of the PowerPoint/MSPaint era? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.59|108.162.238.59]] 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--> More and more journals explicitly forbade the use of powerpoint. Also, more scientists are familiar with software better suited for creating scientific graphs. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 16:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The problem was never that it was impossible to good quality graphs with those tools. The problem was that people ''didn't actually'' do so, in part because the tools made it really easy to produce something superficially good but actually so information-free as to be utterly bad, as well as making it rather more difficult than one would hope for to make camera-ready graphs (journals having higher-resolution print reproduction than most computer screens of the time). But before anyone gets fancy about this, you could commit very similar sins with other tools; merely using a specialist plotting program doesn't automatically make the output truly comprehensible (or relevant). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.107|141.101.104.107]] 22:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::If, however, creating graph is harder, you are likely to focus on what to put into them and make them only if it makes sense. One reason for decreased quality of graph might be that there was more of them for same amount of data. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
An interesting thing to note is that you can see from this chart that even slightly before the paint/powerpoint era the quality started going down. But it could be because this graph is meant to be just like the point it is making and therefore is not 100% accurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76|108.162.219.76]] 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I came down here to make exactly this point - Randall appears to be deliberately trying to misleadingly imply a conclusion that isn't actually supported by the data. ;o) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You might find http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ amusing. It is the Gettysburg Address done as a PowerPoint presentation.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net<br />
<br />
Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166|172.68.211.166]]<br />
<br />
Also amusing is how low quality the image of this comic is. It is only 360*240 pixels, which is fitting for a graph describing low quality graphs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.28|172.68.34.28]] 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1945:_Scientific_Paper_Graph_Quality&diff=151450Talk:1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality2018-01-23T09:34:53Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
What happened circa 2015 that marks the *end* of the PowerPoint/MSPaint era? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.59|108.162.238.59]] 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--> More and more journals explicitly forbade the use of powerpoint. Also, more scientists are familiar with software better suited for creating scientific graphs. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 16:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The problem was never that it was impossible to good quality graphs with those tools. The problem was that people ''didn't actually'' do so, in part because the tools made it really easy to produce something superficially good but actually so information-free as to be utterly bad, as well as making it rather more difficult than one would hope for to make camera-ready graphs (journals having higher-resolution print reproduction than most computer screens of the time). But before anyone gets fancy about this, you could commit very similar sins with other tools; merely using a specialist plotting program doesn't automatically make the output truly comprehensible (or relevant). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.107|141.101.104.107]] 22:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::If, however, creating graph is harder, you are likely to focus on what to put into them and make them only if it makes sense. One reason for decreased quality of graph might be that there was more of them for same amount of data. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
An interesting thing to note is that you can see from this chart that even slightly before the paint/powerpoint era the quality started going down. But it could be because this graph is meant to be just like the point it is making and therefore is not 100% accurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76|108.162.219.76]] 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I came down here to make exactly this point - Randall appears to be deliberately trying to imply a misleading conclusion that isn't actually supported by the data. ;o) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You might find http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ amusing. It is the Gettysburg Address done as a PowerPoint presentation.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net<br />
<br />
Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166|172.68.211.166]]<br />
<br />
Also amusing is how low quality the image of this comic is. It is only 360*240 pixels, which is fitting for a graph describing low quality graphs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.28|172.68.34.28]] 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1944:_The_End_of_the_Rainbow&diff=1514491944: The End of the Rainbow2018-01-23T09:30:29Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1944<br />
| date = January 19, 2018<br />
| title = The End of the Rainbow<br />
| image = the_end_of_the_rainbow.png<br />
| titletext = The retina is the exposed surface of the brain, so if you think about a pot of gold while looking at a rainbow, then there's one at BOTH ends.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
{{incomplete|Needs the dispute about amount of gold in the sun sorted out}}<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] appears to reference the myth that at the end of every {{w|rainbow}} lies a {{w|leprechaun}}'s pot of gold. Instead of claiming that leprechauns and their gold don't exist, [[Cueball]] offers the refutation that, technically, {{w|File:Circular_rainbow.jpg|rainbows are circles}}, so they do not have an end. This is true for an idealised rainbow, and for some actual rainbows: if the viewer has an unobstructed view of the light-reflecting substance creating the effect for the whole of the circle's circumference, they could see a full circle. In practice, the circle is often broken by the horizon or, for example, discontinuity in cloud cover.<br />
<br />
However, Megan counters that if one considers the path that light takes to form a rainbow, then it forms a two-cone structure, where the Sun (the vertex of the outer cone) emits light rays that move towards the Earth (forming the faces of the outer cone), then reflect off water droplets located at just the right angle (the circular base) to reach our eyes (the vertex of the inner cone). Thus, such a rainbow structure ''can'' be said to have "ends", represented by the vertices of the two cones: one at the eye of the viewer, and another at the light source (usually the sun).<br />
A common rainbow (which base is formed by a water droplets in the Earth's atmosphere) can not be viewed as that. The Sun's diameter is orders of magnitude greater than Earth's one (even including the outer layers of the atmosphere), and we would expect the apex of a cone to be much smaller than its base. Thus a two-cone rainbow which starts in Sun shall have its base formed in the outer space.<br />
<br />
Megan then says that the Sun is indeed a pot of gold. The Sun is approximately 1.989 × 10<sup>30</sup> (1 nonillion 989 octillion) kilograms[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html], and its abundance of gold is approximately 0.3 parts per trillion[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1968PASAu...1..133A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&filetype=.pdf&type=PRINTER&whole_paper=YES] (ed: this value is incorrect - values in the paper are not in ppt - see comments below). Based on these numbers, the sun contains 5.967 × 10<sup>17</sup> (596 quadrillion 700 trillion) kilograms of gold. This equates to 5.967 × 10<sup>14</sup> (596 trillion 700 billion) metric tons of gold. As such, Megan's statement that the sun contains "quintillions of tons of gold" is off by a factor of roughly 4000, but the amount of gold within the sun is, nonetheless, far more than a pot's worth.<br />
<br />
The amount of water in the oceans is about 1.35 × 10<sup>18</sup> (1 quintillion 350 quadrillion) metric tons[https://phys.org/news/2014-12-percent-earth.html]. If we assume that Megan is still talking in terms of mass rather than volume or molecule count, then her next statement (that there is more gold in the sun than water in the oceans) would have been true had she been correct in her previous claim, but in fact there is more sea-water than sun-gold by a factor of roughly 2300.<br />
<br />
Cueball then asks about leprechauns (perhaps ironically, since Megan's theory at this point appears to involve astronomy/physics, not mythical creatures/beings). Megan replies that the leprechauns all died when the Sun formed, building on the irony of Cueball's question (& opening questions about the role of leprechauns in the early formation of our solar system).<br />
<br />
The title text suggest that, since the pot of gold exists as an idea in the brains of people thinking about it, and the retina is the foremost part of the brain for light perception, it can be argued that, in addition to existing in the sun as the comic explains, the gold (and leprechauns) also exist at the perceiver's end of the cone, as long as they are thinking about a pot of gold at the time (and then it's gone as soon as they stop thinking about it). Many neurologists would agree with the concept that ideas in your mind can be said to be physically located in your brain. However, this seems to go further, and suggest an {{w|Idealism|Idealist}} ontological position, that things, in this case a pot of gold, exist by virtue of our having an idea of them.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are walking.]<br />
:Megan: There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.<br />
:Cueball: Rainbows are circles. They have no end.<br />
:Megan: Not quite!<br />
<br />
:[In a borderless panel, a multi-part graphic is shown depicting what Megan is describing off-panel: a short cone inside a longer cone, with the longer cone having its point starting at the Sun, the shorter cone having its point at a miniature Cueball's head, and both cones sharing the same circular base. The diagram is repeated from 3 different perspectives to make the structure easier to grasp.]<br />
:Megan (off-panel): A '''rainbow''' is light leaving the Sun, bouncing off the clouds, and converging on your eye. It's an inside-out two-ended cone.<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are still walking.]<br />
:Megan: One end of that cone is your retina.<br />
<br />
:[A wider view of the same scene, with Megan and Cueball walking on a dark ground.]<br />
:Megan: The other end is the Sun—which contains quintillions of tons of gold. There's more gold in the Sun than water in the oceans.<br />
:Cueball: So there ''is'' a pot of gold!<br />
:Cueball: What about leprechauns?<br />
:Megan: All incinerated as the sun formed. Very sad.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
As of January 19, 2017, the value of gold is 42,692.98 USD per kilogram. Based on this, all of the gold in the sun is worth 2.5474901 × 10^22 (25 sextillion 474 quintillion 901 quadrillion) USD. Of course, if you tried to sell the gold in the sun, the market would be saturated and the value of gold would plummet astronomically. You would never be able to cash out.<br />
<br />
The idea that the Sun is valuable in monetary terms is also present in [[1622: Henge]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Cueball]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1944:_The_End_of_the_Rainbow&diff=1514471944: The End of the Rainbow2018-01-23T09:23:10Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1944<br />
| date = January 19, 2018<br />
| title = The End of the Rainbow<br />
| image = the_end_of_the_rainbow.png<br />
| titletext = The retina is the exposed surface of the brain, so if you think about a pot of gold while looking at a rainbow, then there's one at BOTH ends.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] appears to reference the myth that at the end of every {{w|rainbow}} lies a {{w|leprechaun}}'s pot of gold. Instead of claiming that leprechauns and their gold don't exist, [[Cueball]] offers the refutation that, technically, {{w|File:Circular_rainbow.jpg|rainbows are circles}}, so they do not have an end. This is true for an idealised rainbow, and for some actual rainbows: if the viewer has an unobstructed view of the light-reflecting substance creating the effect for the whole of the circle's circumference, they could see a full circle. In practice, the circle is often broken by the horizon or, for example, discontinuity in cloud cover.<br />
<br />
However, Megan counters that if one considers the path that light takes to form a rainbow, then it forms a two-cone structure, where the Sun (the vertex of the outer cone) emits light rays that move towards the Earth (forming the faces of the outer cone), then reflect off water droplets located at just the right angle (the circular base) to reach our eyes (the vertex of the inner cone). Thus, such a rainbow structure ''can'' be said to have "ends", represented by the vertices of the two cones: one at the eye of the viewer, and another at the light source (usually the sun).<br />
A common rainbow (which base is formed by a water droplets in the Earth's atmosphere) can not be viewed as that. The Sun's diameter is orders of magnitude greater than Earth's one (even including the outer layers of the atmosphere), and we would expect the apex of a cone to be much smaller than its base. Thus a two-cone rainbow which starts in Sun shall have its base formed in the outer space.<br />
<br />
Megan then says that the Sun is indeed a pot of gold. The Sun is approximately 1.989 × 10<sup>30</sup> (1 nonillion 989 octillion) kilograms[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html], and its abundance of gold is approximately 0.3 parts per trillion[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1968PASAu...1..133A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&filetype=.pdf&type=PRINTER&whole_paper=YES] (ed: this value is incorrect - values in the paper are not in ppt - see comments below). Based on these numbers, the sun contains 5.967 × 10<sup>17</sup> (596 quadrillion 700 trillion) kilograms of gold. This equates to 5.967 × 10<sup>14</sup> (596 trillion 700 billion) metric tons of gold. As such, Megan's statement that the sun contains "quintillions of tons of gold" is off by a factor of roughly 4000, but the amount of gold within the sun is, nonetheless, far more than a pot's worth.<br />
<br />
The amount of water in the oceans is about 1.35 × 10<sup>18</sup> (1 quintillion 350 quadrillion) metric tons[https://phys.org/news/2014-12-percent-earth.html]. If we assume that Megan is still talking in terms of mass rather than volume or molecule count, then her next statement (that there is more gold in the sun than water in the oceans) would have been true had she been correct in her previous claim, but in fact there is more sea-water than sun-gold by a factor of roughly 2300.<br />
<br />
Cueball then asks about leprechauns (perhaps ironically, since Megan's theory at this point appears to involve astronomy/physics, not mythical creatures/beings). Megan replies that the leprechauns all died when the Sun formed, building on the irony of Cueball's question (& opening questions about the role of leprechauns in the early formation of our solar system).<br />
<br />
The title text suggest that, since the pot of gold exists as an idea in the brains of people thinking about it, and the retina is the foremost part of the brain for light perception, it can be argued that, in addition to existing in the sun as the comic explains, the gold (and leprechauns) also exist at the perceiver's end of the cone, as long as they are thinking about a pot of gold at the time (and then it's gone as soon as they stop thinking about it). Many neurologists would agree with the concept that ideas in your mind can be said to be physically located in your brain. However, this seems to go further, and suggest an {{w|Idealism|Idealist}} ontological position, that things, in this case a pot of gold, exist by virtue of our having an idea of them.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are walking.]<br />
:Megan: There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.<br />
:Cueball: Rainbows are circles. They have no end.<br />
:Megan: Not quite!<br />
<br />
:[In a borderless panel, a multi-part graphic is shown depicting what Megan is describing off-panel: a short cone inside a longer cone, with the longer cone having its point starting at the Sun, the shorter cone having its point at a miniature Cueball's head, and both cones sharing the same circular base. The diagram is repeated from 3 different perspectives to make the structure easier to grasp.]<br />
:Megan (off-panel): A '''rainbow''' is light leaving the Sun, bouncing off the clouds, and converging on your eye. It's an inside-out two-ended cone.<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are still walking.]<br />
:Megan: One end of that cone is your retina.<br />
<br />
:[A wider view of the same scene, with Megan and Cueball walking on a dark ground.]<br />
:Megan: The other end is the Sun—which contains quintillions of tons of gold. There's more gold in the Sun than water in the oceans.<br />
:Cueball: So there ''is'' a pot of gold!<br />
:Cueball: What about leprechauns?<br />
:Megan: All incinerated as the sun formed. Very sad.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
As of January 19, 2017, the value of gold is 42,692.98 USD per kilogram. Based on this, all of the gold in the sun is worth 2.5474901 × 10^22 (25 sextillion 474 quintillion 901 quadrillion) USD. Of course, if you tried to sell the gold in the sun, the market would be saturated and the value of gold would plummet astronomically. You would never be able to cash out.<br />
<br />
The idea that the Sun is valuable in monetary terms is also present in [[1622: Henge]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Cueball]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=696:_Strip_Games&diff=151446696: Strip Games2018-01-23T09:03:40Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 696<br />
| date = February 1, 2010<br />
| title = Strip Games<br />
| image = strip_games.png<br />
| titletext = HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF STRIP GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR?<br />
}}<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The frequency of strip versions of various games is measured by means of Google search results. Strip versions of popular games are a common activity at parties, especially when alcohol is involved. The obligation to remove pieces of clothing is supposed to add an extra zest to the game. A very widespread variant is {{w|Strip Poker}}, followed by strip versions of regular party games like {{w|Truth or Dare}} or {{w|Spin the Bottle}}.<br />
<br />
However, the comic also suggests playing other games in a way that involves stripping. In reality, playing such games as "Strip {{w|Tennis}}" or "Strip {{w|Agricola (board game)|Agricola}}" is rather unusual. ''{{w|Jumanji}}'' is a Robin Williams movie about a magical board game that manifests dangerous creatures and traps from the jungle and lost civilization therein; a theoretical Strip Jumanji would probably not remain very titillating during the chaos. <br />
<br />
The last column features games of which strip versions are (according to Google) nonexistent. While the other columns named sports or board games where a strip variant would be at least conceivable, the last one includes the {{w|zero-player game|zero-player}} {{w|Conway's Game of Life|Game of Life}} and the {{w|Prisoner's Dilemma|Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma}}, which is a theoretical example in {{w|game theory}}. It is therefore left to the reader to imagine how a strip version of these pseudo-games would appear.<br />
<br />
{{w|Poohsticks}} is a children's sport mentioned in the {{w|Winnie-the-Pooh|Winnie-the-Pooh books}} played by dropping sticks into a river and watching them reappear on the other side of a bridge. Despite the kid-friendly origins, and unlike the other games below it, a "strip" version of Poohsticks is actually viable.<br />
<br />
[http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Podracing Podracing] appears in the {{w|Star Wars}} films as a racing competition held with hovering vehicles. How a "strip" version would work between two racers is unclear, but a determined set of spectators "wagering" their clothes on the races could probably hammer out a system.<br />
<br />
{{w|Chess by mail}} could conceivably work if the players include increasingly-nude photographs of themselves in their correspondences. The problem is, a game by e-mail can take days to finish, and a game by snail-mail can take upwards of ''several months''. The titillation factor is far too spread out to satisfy the desires of anyone who would elect to play a game of strip chess in the first place. It could be an interesting idea for a long-distance relationship, however.<br />
<br />
"Global Thermonuclear War" in the title text is a reference to the film "{{w|WarGames}}", where a young hacker accesses a US military supercomputer and starts a nuclear war simulation, believing it to be only a computer game. The film ends with showing the computer that nuclear war is "a strange game" in which "the only winning move is not to play", and proposes "a nice game of chess".<br />
<br />
Strip global thermonuclear war is a patently absurd idea; while it is a common trope for people to engage in one last moment of intimate pleasure before certain doom, foreplay (including strip games of any type) is a time-consuming practice, and time is something you don't have much of considering that the bomb could drop on your place of residence at any moment. Besides all that, the act of betting on which city is going to go up next in a nuclear inferno tends not to be an effective aphrodisiac for most people.{{Citation needed}}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:Frequency of Strip Versions of Various Games<br />
<br />
:n = google hits for "strip <game name>" / google hits for "<game name>"<br />
:(at the time of this writing)<br />
<br />
:Frequent<br />
:(n > 1%)<br />
:-Poker<br />
:-Spin the Bottle<br />
:-Beer Pong<br />
:-Never Have I Ever<br />
:-Truth or Dare<br />
<br />
:Rare<br />
:(1% >= n > 0.01%)<br />
:-Chess<br />
:-Blackjack<br />
:-Tennis<br />
:-Settlers of Catan<br />
:-Pictionary<br />
<br />
:Extremely Rare<br />
:(0.01% >= n > 0)<br />
:-Cricket<br />
:-Magic: the Gathering<br />
:-Stickball<br />
:-Agricola<br />
:-Jumanji<br />
<br />
:Nonexistent<br />
:(n = 0)<br />
:-Poohsticks<br />
:-Podracing<br />
:-Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma<br />
:-Chess by Mail<br />
:-Conway's Game of Life<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Sport]]<br />
[[Category:Chess]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1944:_The_End_of_the_Rainbow&diff=1514191944: The End of the Rainbow2018-01-22T17:19:51Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1944<br />
| date = January 19, 2018<br />
| title = The End of the Rainbow<br />
| image = the_end_of_the_rainbow.png<br />
| titletext = The retina is the exposed surface of the brain, so if you think about a pot of gold while looking at a rainbow, then there's one at BOTH ends.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] appears to reference the myth that at the end of every {{w|rainbow}} lies a {{w|leprechaun}}'s pot of gold. Instead of claiming that leprechauns and their gold don't exist, [[Cueball]] offers the refutation that, technically, {{w|File:Circular_rainbow.jpg|rainbows are circles}}, so they do not have an end. This is true for an idealised rainbow, and for some actual rainbows: if the viewer has an unobstructed view of the light-reflecting substance creating the effect for the whole of the circle's circumference, they could see a full circle. In practice, the circle is often broken by the horizon or, for example, discontinuity in cloud cover.<br />
<br />
However, Megan counters that if one considers the path that light takes to form a rainbow, then it forms a two-cone structure, where the Sun (the vertex of the outer cone) emits light rays that move towards the Earth (forming the faces of the outer cone), then reflect off water droplets located at just the right angle (the circular base) to reach our eyes (the vertex of the inner cone). Thus, such a rainbow structure ''can'' be said to have "ends", represented by the vertices of the two cones: one at the eye of the viewer, and another at the light source (usually the sun).<br />
<br />
Megan then says that the Sun is indeed a pot of gold. The Sun is approximately 1.989 × 10<sup>30</sup> (1 nonillion 989 octillion) kilograms[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html], and its abundance of gold is approximately 0.3 parts per trillion[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1968PASAu...1..133A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&filetype=.pdf&type=PRINTER&whole_paper=YES]. Based on these numbers, the sun contains 5.967 × 10<sup>17</sup> (596 quadrillion 700 trillion) kilograms of gold. This equates to 5.967 × 10<sup>14</sup> (596 trillion 700 billion) metric tons of gold. As such, Megan's statement that the sun contains "quintillions of tons of gold" is off by a factor of roughly 4000, but the amount of gold within the sun is, nonetheless, far more than a pot's worth.<br />
<br />
The amount of water in the oceans is about 1.35 × 10<sup>18</sup> (1 quintillion 350 quadrillion) metric tons[https://phys.org/news/2014-12-percent-earth.html]. If we assume that Megan is still talking in terms of mass rather than volume or molecule count, then her next statement (that there is more gold in the sun than water in the oceans) would have been true had she been correct in her previous claim, but in fact there is more sea-water than sun-gold by a factor of roughly 2300.<br />
<br />
Cueball then asks about leprechauns (perhaps ironically, since Megan's theory at this point appears to involve astronomy/physics, not mythical creatures/beings). Megan replies that the leprechauns all died when the Sun formed, building on the irony of Cueball's question (& opening questions about the role of leprechauns in the early formation of our solar system).<br />
<br />
The title text suggest that, since the pot of gold exists as an idea in the brains of people thinking about it, and the retina is the foremost part of the brain for light perception, it can be argued that, in addition to existing in the sun as the comic explains, the gold (and leprechauns) also exist at the other end, in the retina and brain of the person seeing the rainbow -- as long as they are thinking about a pot of gold at the time -- and then it's gone as soon as they stop thinking about it.<br />
<br />
Many neurologists would agree with the concept that ideas in your mind can be said to be physically located in your brain. However, there are significant implications to this. For example, there is a hippopotamus in the room you are in. It's in your brain, because you read that sentence. Feel free to inform anybody else nearby of this, and any similar true facts.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are walking.]<br />
:Megan: There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.<br />
:Cueball: Rainbows are circles. They have no end.<br />
:Megan: Not quite!<br />
<br />
:[In a borderless panel, a multi-part graphic is shown depicting what Megan is describing off-panel: a short cone inside a longer cone, with the longer cone having its point starting at the Sun, the shorter cone having its point at a miniature Cueball's head, and both cones sharing the same circular base. The diagram is repeated from 3 different perspectives to make the structure easier to grasp.]<br />
:Megan (off-panel): A '''rainbow''' is light leaving the Sun, bouncing off the clouds, and converging on your eye. It's an inside-out two-ended cone.<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are still walking.]<br />
:Megan: One end of that cone is your retina.<br />
<br />
:[A wider view of the same scene, with Megan and Cueball walking on a dark ground.]<br />
:Megan: The other end is the Sun—which contains quintillions of tons of gold. There's more gold in the Sun than water in the oceans.<br />
:Cueball: So there ''is'' a pot of gold!<br />
:Cueball: What about leprechauns?<br />
:Megan: All incinerated as the sun formed. Very sad.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
As of January 19, 2017, the value of gold is 42,692.98 USD per kilogram. Based on this, all of the gold in the sun is worth 2.5474901 × 10^22 (25 sextillion 474 quintillion 901 quadrillion) USD. Of course, if you tried to sell the gold in the sun, the market would be saturated and the value of gold would plummet astronomically. You would never be able to cash out.<br />
<br />
The idea that the Sun is valuable in monetary terms is also present in [[1622: Henge]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Cueball]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1944:_The_End_of_the_Rainbow&diff=1514181944: The End of the Rainbow2018-01-22T17:03:17Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1944<br />
| date = January 19, 2018<br />
| title = The End of the Rainbow<br />
| image = the_end_of_the_rainbow.png<br />
| titletext = The retina is the exposed surface of the brain, so if you think about a pot of gold while looking at a rainbow, then there's one at BOTH ends.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] appears to reference the myth that at the end of every {{w|rainbow}} lies a {{w|leprechaun}}'s pot of gold. Instead of claiming that leprechauns and their gold don't exist, [[Cueball]] offers the refutation that, technically, {{w|File:Circular_rainbow.jpg|rainbows are circles}}, so they do not have an end. This is true for an idealised rainbow, and for some actual rainbows: if the viewer has an unobstructed view of the light-reflecting substance creating the effect for the whole of the circle's circumference, they could see a full circle. In practice, the circle is often broken by the horizon or, for example, discontinuity in cloud cover.<br />
<br />
However, Megan counters that if one considers the path that light takes to form a rainbow, then it forms a two-cone structure, where the Sun (the vertex of the outer cone) emits light rays that move towards the Earth (forming the faces of the outer cone), then reflect off water droplets located at just the right angle (the circular base) to reach our eyes (the vertex of the inner cone). Thus, such a rainbow structure ''can'' be said to have "ends", represented by the vertices of the two cones: one at the eye of the viewer, and another at the light source (usually the sun).<br />
<br />
Megan then says that the Sun is indeed a pot of gold. The Sun is approximately 1.989 × 10<sup>30</sup> (1 nonillion 989 octillion) kilograms[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html], and its abundance of gold is approximately 0.3 parts per trillion[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1968PASAu...1..133A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&filetype=.pdf&type=PRINTER&whole_paper=YES]. Based on these numbers, the sun contains 5.967 × 10<sup>17</sup> (596 quadrillion 700 trillion) kilograms of gold. This equates to 5.967 × 10<sup>14</sup> (596 trillion 700 billion) metric tons of gold. As such, Megan's statement that the sun contains "quintillions of tons of gold" is off by a factor of roughly 4000, but the amount of gold within the sun is, nonetheless, far more than a pot's worth.<br />
<br />
The amount of water in the oceans is about 1.35 × 10<sup>18</sup> (1 quintillion 350 quadrillion) metric tons[https://phys.org/news/2014-12-percent-earth.html]. If we assume that Megan is still talking in terms of mass rather than volume or molecule count, then this means that her next statement (that there is more gold in the sun than water in the oceans) is off by a factor of roughly 2300 (though it would have been true if the previous one was).<br />
<br />
Cueball then asks about leprechauns (perhaps ironically; Megan's theory at this point appears to involve astronomy/physics, not mythical creatures/beings). Megan replies that the leprechauns all died when the Sun formed, building on the irony of Cueball's question (& opening questions about the role of leprechauns in the early formation of our solar system)<br />
<br />
The title text suggest that, since the pot of gold exists in the brains of people thinking about it, and the retina is the foremost part of the brain for the light perception, it can be argued that, in addition to existing in the sun as the comic explains, the gold (and leprechauns) also exist at the other end, in the retina and brain of the person seeing the rainbow -- as long as they are thinking about a pot of gold at the time -- and then it's gone as soon as they stop thinking about it.<br />
<br />
Many neurologists would agree with the concept that ideas in your mind can be said to be physically located in your brain. However, there are significant implications to this. For example, there is a hippopotamus in the room you are in. It's in your brain, because you read that sentence. Feel free to inform anybody else nearby of this, and any similar true facts.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are walking.]<br />
:Megan: There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.<br />
:Cueball: Rainbows are circles. They have no end.<br />
:Megan: Not quite!<br />
<br />
:[In a borderless panel, a multi-part graphic is shown depicting what Megan is describing off-panel: a short cone inside a longer cone, with the longer cone having its point starting at the Sun, the shorter cone having its point at a miniature Cueball's head, and both cones sharing the same circular base. The diagram is repeated from 3 different perspectives to make the structure easier to grasp.]<br />
:Megan (off-panel): A '''rainbow''' is light leaving the Sun, bouncing off the clouds, and converging on your eye. It's an inside-out two-ended cone.<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are still walking.]<br />
:Megan: One end of that cone is your retina.<br />
<br />
:[A wider view of the same scene, with Megan and Cueball walking on a dark ground.]<br />
:Megan: The other end is the Sun—which contains quintillions of tons of gold. There's more gold in the Sun than water in the oceans.<br />
:Cueball: So there ''is'' a pot of gold!<br />
:Cueball: What about leprechauns?<br />
:Megan: All incinerated as the sun formed. Very sad.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
As of January 19, 2017, the value of gold is 42,692.98 USD per kilogram. Based on this, all of the gold in the sun is worth 2.5474901 × 10^22 (25 sextillion 474 quintillion 901 quadrillion) USD. Of course, if you tried to sell the gold in the sun, the market would be saturated and the value of gold would plummet astronomically. You would never be able to cash out.<br />
<br />
The idea that the Sun is valuable in monetary terms is also present in [[1622: Henge]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Cueball]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1944:_The_End_of_the_Rainbow&diff=1514171944: The End of the Rainbow2018-01-22T17:01:33Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1944<br />
| date = January 19, 2018<br />
| title = The End of the Rainbow<br />
| image = the_end_of_the_rainbow.png<br />
| titletext = The retina is the exposed surface of the brain, so if you think about a pot of gold while looking at a rainbow, then there's one at BOTH ends.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] appears to reference the myth that at the end of every {{w|rainbow}} lies a {{w|leprechaun}}'s pot of gold. Instead of claiming that leprechauns and their gold don't exist, [[Cueball]] offers the refutation that, technically, {{w|File:Circular_rainbow.jpg|rainbows are circles}}, so they do not have an end. This is true for an idealised rainbow, and for some actual rainbows: if the viewer has an unobstructed view of the light-reflecting substance creating the effect for the whole of the circle's circumference, they could see a full circle. In practice, the circle is often broken by the horizon or, for example, discontinuity in cloud cover.<br />
<br />
However, Megan counters that if one considers the path that light takes to form a rainbow, then it forms a two-cone structure, where the Sun (the vertex of the outer cone) emits light rays that move towards the Earth (forming the faces of the outer cone), then reflect off water droplets located at just the right angle (the circular base) to reach our eyes (the vertex of the inner cone). Thus, such a rainbow structure ''can'' be said to have "ends", represented by the vertices of the two cones: one at the eye of the viewer, and another at the light source (usually the sun).<br />
<br />
Megan then says that the Sun is indeed a pot of gold. The Sun is approximately 1.989 × 10<sup>30</sup> (1 nonillion 989 octillion) kilograms[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html], and its abundance of gold is approximately 0.3 parts per trillion[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1968PASAu...1..133A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&filetype=.pdf&type=PRINTER&whole_paper=YES]. Based on these numbers, the sun contains 5.967 × 10<sup>17</sup> (596 quadrillion 700 trillion) kilograms of gold. This equates to 5.967 × 10<sup>14</sup> (596 trillion 700 billion) metric tons of gold. As such, Megan's statement that the sun contains "quintillions of tons of gold" is off by a factor of roughly 4000. But the amount of gold within the sun is far more than a pot's worth nonetheless.<br />
<br />
The amount of water in the oceans is about 1.35 × 10<sup>18</sup> (1 quintillion 350 quadrillion) metric tons[https://phys.org/news/2014-12-percent-earth.html]. If we assume that Megan is still talking in terms of mass rather than volume or molecule count, then this means that her next statement (that there is more gold in the sun than water in the oceans) is off by a factor of roughly 2300 (though it would have been true if the previous one was).<br />
<br />
Cueball then asks about leprechauns (perhaps ironically; Megan's theory at this point appears to involve astronomy/physics, not mythical creatures/beings). Megan replies that the leprechauns all died when the Sun formed, building on the irony of Cueball's question (& opening questions about the role of leprechauns in the early formation of our solar system)<br />
<br />
The title text suggest that, since the pot of gold exists in the brains of people thinking about it, and the retina is the foremost part of the brain for the light perception, it can be argued that, in addition to existing in the sun as the comic explains, the gold (and leprechauns) also exist at the other end, in the retina and brain of the person seeing the rainbow -- as long as they are thinking about a pot of gold at the time -- and then it's gone as soon as they stop thinking about it.<br />
<br />
Many neurologists would agree with the concept that ideas in your mind can be said to be physically located in your brain. However, there are significant implications to this. For example, there is a hippopotamus in the room you are in. It's in your brain, because you read that sentence. Feel free to inform anybody else nearby of this, and any similar true facts.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are walking.]<br />
:Megan: There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.<br />
:Cueball: Rainbows are circles. They have no end.<br />
:Megan: Not quite!<br />
<br />
:[In a borderless panel, a multi-part graphic is shown depicting what Megan is describing off-panel: a short cone inside a longer cone, with the longer cone having its point starting at the Sun, the shorter cone having its point at a miniature Cueball's head, and both cones sharing the same circular base. The diagram is repeated from 3 different perspectives to make the structure easier to grasp.]<br />
:Megan (off-panel): A '''rainbow''' is light leaving the Sun, bouncing off the clouds, and converging on your eye. It's an inside-out two-ended cone.<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are still walking.]<br />
:Megan: One end of that cone is your retina.<br />
<br />
:[A wider view of the same scene, with Megan and Cueball walking on a dark ground.]<br />
:Megan: The other end is the Sun—which contains quintillions of tons of gold. There's more gold in the Sun than water in the oceans.<br />
:Cueball: So there ''is'' a pot of gold!<br />
:Cueball: What about leprechauns?<br />
:Megan: All incinerated as the sun formed. Very sad.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
As of January 19, 2017, the value of gold is 42,692.98 USD per kilogram. Based on this, all of the gold in the sun is worth 2.5474901 × 10^22 (25 sextillion 474 quintillion 901 quadrillion) USD. Of course, if you tried to sell the gold in the sun, the market would be saturated and the value of gold would plummet astronomically. You would never be able to cash out.<br />
<br />
The idea that the Sun is valuable in monetary terms is also present in [[1622: Henge]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Cueball]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1944:_The_End_of_the_Rainbow&diff=1514161944: The End of the Rainbow2018-01-22T16:52:56Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1944<br />
| date = January 19, 2018<br />
| title = The End of the Rainbow<br />
| image = the_end_of_the_rainbow.png<br />
| titletext = The retina is the exposed surface of the brain, so if you think about a pot of gold while looking at a rainbow, then there's one at BOTH ends.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] appears to reference the myth that at the end of every {{w|rainbow}} lies a {{w|leprechaun}}'s pot of gold. Instead of claiming that leprechauns and their gold don't exist, [[Cueball]] offers the refutation that, technically, {{w|File:Circular_rainbow.jpg|rainbows are circles}}, so they do not have an end.<br />
<br />
However, Megan counters that if one considers the path light takes to form a rainbow, then it forms a two-cone structure, where the Sun (the vertex of the outer cone) emits light rays that move towards the Earth (forming the faces of the outer cone), then reflect off water droplets located at just the right angle (the circular base) to reach our eyes (the vertex of the inner cone). Thus, such a rainbow structure ''can'' be said to have "ends", represented by the vertices of the two cones: one at the eye of the viewer, and another at the light source (usually the sun).<br />
<br />
Megan then says that the Sun is indeed a pot of gold. The Sun is approximately 1.989 × 10<sup>30</sup> (1 nonillion 989 octillion) kilograms[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html], and its abundance of gold is approximately 0.3 parts per trillion[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1968PASAu...1..133A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&filetype=.pdf&type=PRINTER&whole_paper=YES]. Based on these numbers, the sun contains 5.967 × 10<sup>17</sup> (596 quadrillion 700 trillion) kilograms of gold. This equates to 5.967 × 10<sup>14</sup> (596 trillion 700 billion) metric tons of gold. As such, Megan's statement that the sun contains "quintillions of tons of gold" is off by a factor of roughly 4000. But the amount of gold within the sun is far more than a pot's worth nonetheless.<br />
<br />
The amount of water in the oceans is about 1.35 × 10<sup>18</sup> (1 quintillion 350 quadrillion) metric tons[https://phys.org/news/2014-12-percent-earth.html]. If we assume that Megan is still talking in terms of mass rather than volume or molecule count, then this means that her next statement (that there is more gold in the sun than water in the oceans) is off by a factor of roughly 2300 (though it would have been true if the previous one was).<br />
<br />
Cueball then asks about leprechauns (perhaps ironically; Megan's theory at this point appears to involve astronomy/physics, not mythical creatures/beings). Megan replies that the leprechauns all died when the Sun formed, building on the irony of Cueball's question (& opening questions about the role of leprechauns in the early formation of our solar system)<br />
<br />
The title text suggest that, since the pot of gold exists in the brains of people thinking about it, and the retina is the foremost part of the brain for the light perception, it can be argued that, in addition to existing in the sun as the comic explains, the gold (and leprechauns) also exist at the other end, in the retina and brain of the person seeing the rainbow -- as long as they are thinking about a pot of gold at the time -- and then it's gone as soon as they stop thinking about it.<br />
<br />
Many neurologists would agree with the concept that ideas in your mind can be said to be physically located in your brain. However, there are significant implications to this. For example, there is a hippopotamus in the room you are in. It's in your brain, because you read that sentence. Feel free to inform anybody else nearby of this, and any similar true facts.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are walking.]<br />
:Megan: There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.<br />
:Cueball: Rainbows are circles. They have no end.<br />
:Megan: Not quite!<br />
<br />
:[In a borderless panel, a multi-part graphic is shown depicting what Megan is describing off-panel: a short cone inside a longer cone, with the longer cone having its point starting at the Sun, the shorter cone having its point at a miniature Cueball's head, and both cones sharing the same circular base. The diagram is repeated from 3 different perspectives to make the structure easier to grasp.]<br />
:Megan (off-panel): A '''rainbow''' is light leaving the Sun, bouncing off the clouds, and converging on your eye. It's an inside-out two-ended cone.<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are still walking.]<br />
:Megan: One end of that cone is your retina.<br />
<br />
:[A wider view of the same scene, with Megan and Cueball walking on a dark ground.]<br />
:Megan: The other end is the Sun—which contains quintillions of tons of gold. There's more gold in the Sun than water in the oceans.<br />
:Cueball: So there ''is'' a pot of gold!<br />
:Cueball: What about leprechauns?<br />
:Megan: All incinerated as the sun formed. Very sad.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
As of January 19, 2017, the value of gold is 42,692.98 USD per kilogram. Based on this, all of the gold in the sun is worth 2.5474901 × 10^22 (25 sextillion 474 quintillion 901 quadrillion) USD. Of course, if you tried to sell the gold in the sun, the market would be saturated and the value of gold would plummet astronomically. You would never be able to cash out.<br />
<br />
The idea that the Sun is valuable in monetary terms is also present in [[1622: Henge]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics_featuring_Cueball]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1141:_Two_Years&diff=1513861141: Two Years2018-01-22T14:40:54Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1141<br />
| date = November 30, 2012<br />
| title = Two Years<br />
| image = two years.png<br />
| titletext = She won the first half of all our chemo Scrabble games, but then her IV drugs started kicking in and I *dominated*.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic marks the second year of [[Randall Munroe]]'s wife's battle with cancer, and appears to depict actual events from those two years. Randall is depicted as [[Cueball]] and his wife as [[Megan]], as per usual for both.<br />
<br />
[[Image:two years key.png|right]]<br />
<br />
Explanations of the individual panels:<br />
*Panel 1: Randall's wife-to-be (at that point) receives a diagnosis over the phone (from Dr. [[Ponytail]]) as Randall sits by her side supportively. His wife has Megan long hair at this time.<br />
*Panel 2: His wife undergoes IV (intravenous) {{w|chemotherapy}}. Because of the hair loss that results from chemotherapy, many patients opt to shave their heads when they undergo chemotherapy. As can be seen from the stubble she did not shave her hair, but has lost almost all of it. Only the hair coming back between chemo sessions is the cause of the stubble. Her hair grows back over the course of the panels following the end of her chemo (from panel 7).<br />
*Panel 3: The two of them spend time alone together, experiencing something beautiful in the world for it may be one of her last chances to do so. Randall reinforces this sentiment in panel 8. In this panel (#3) she wears a {{w|knit cap}} presumably because it is cold, as well as the fact that patients with hair loss from chemo are urged by doctors to keep their heads covered to protect their scalps from the sun.<br />
*Panel 4: The couple waits for a phone call from her doctor to hear the results of a scan. Both are clearly impatient and anxious.<br />
*Panel 5: More chemotherapy. The couple plays {{w|Scrabble}}, in which players use letter tiles to spell words in a cross-word style. She uses the fact that she has cancer as leverage to get Randall to ignore the fact that the word she has played ('''zarg''') is not a real word.<br />
*Panel 6: Someone suggests they come for a visit next year, but all they can think about are the words "next year." Their future is entirely uncertain because of her health, making long-term planning a consistent source of worry and doubt. In this panel she wears a knit cap to hide her missing hair. <br />
*Panel 7: Randall and his fiancée marry. With the chemotherapy completed, her hair has grown back enough that she has stopped using her knit cap.<br />
*Panel 8: The couple goes whale ({{w|humpback whales}}) watching, possibly on their {{w|honeymoon}}. In this panel, she again wears the knit cap either because it is cold or because she is weak.<br />
*Panel 9: Randall paraphrases a line from the song "{{w|Still Alive}}" (watch the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_S0PGu-cH4 video]) from the video game ''{{w|Portal}}'' (''"I'm doing science and I'm still alive"''). He does this because his wife is again back at her laptop working.<br />
*Panel 10: The two of them sit under a tree reflecting on the significance of the past two years.<br />
*Panel 11: Randall and his wife go out to dinner to celebrate the fact that she has made it two years since her {{w|biopsy}}. This turns awkward for [[Hairy]], the waiter, since he had assumed it was an anniversary of their marriage.<br />
<br />
The title text is referring to a possible {{w|Chemotherapy#Neurological adverse effects|side-effect of chemotherapy drugs}}, the inability to concentrate. It could also just be the fact that the chemo can make you feel just terrible. When whatever effect kicks in, she loses the rest of their Scrabble games for that day. However, as we see in panel 5, there is a reason why she wins ''all'' of the first half of their games. But this is not enough, or she even forgets to play on the cancer, when the drugs takes effect.<br />
<br />
Knit caps have only been used a few times in xkcd, most prominently on [[1350:_Lorenz#Knit_Cap_Girl|Knit Cap Girl]] in [[1350: Lorenz]], see her section for more details.<br />
<br />
This strip is continued in [[1928: Seven Years]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Randall and Randall's fiancée sit on a bed, Randall's fiancée is talking on the phone. The person she is talking to, a doctor holding a clipboard, is shown inset.]<br />
:Randall's fiancée: Oh god.<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's fiancée sit together while Randall's fiancée, now bald, is receiving chemotherapy. They are both on their laptops.]<br />
:IV pump: ... Beeep ... Beeep ... Beeep ...<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's fiancée (who is wearing a knit cap) are paddling a kayak against a scenic mountain backdrop.]<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's fiancée sit at a table, staring at a cell phone. There is a clock on the wall. Her head is stubbly.]<br />
:Randall's fiancée: How long can it take to read a scan!?<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's fiancée are back at the hospital again, Randall's fiancée receiving chemo. They are playing Scrabble.]<br />
:Randall: "Zarg" isn't a word.<br />
:Randall's fiancée: But ''caaaancer.''<br />
:Randall: ...Ok, fine.<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's fiancée (wearing a knit cap) are listening to a Cueball-like friend. A large thought bubble is above their heads and it obscures the friends talk. The text below, split in three is the only part there can be no doubt about:]<br />
:Friend: So next year you should come visit us up in the mounta<br />
::a<br />
::and<br />
:Randall and Randall's fiancée (thinking): '''"Next year"'''<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's fiancée are getting married, with a heart above their heads. Randall's wife's hair is growing back.]<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's wife (wearing a knit cap) stand on a beach, watching a whale jump out of water.]<br />
:''Fwoosh''<br />
<br />
:[Randall's wife is sitting at a desk with her laptop standing on top of two books. Her hair has grown back a little more. Randall stands behind her.]<br />
:Randall: Hey— <br />
:Randall: you're doing science, <br />
:Randall: and you're still alive.<br />
:Randall's wife: Yeah!<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's wife sit under a tall tree on a hill.]<br />
:Randall: It's really only been two years?<br />
:Randall's wife: They were big years.<br />
<br />
:[Randall and Randall's wife sit at a table in a fancy restaurant. Her hair has grown back even more. The waiter (Hairy) brings them a dish with a cover on it.]<br />
:Waiter: Happy... Anniversary?<br />
:Randall's wife: Biopsy-versary!<br />
:Waiter: <small>...Eww.</small><br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
While it is known that Randall's wife has since survived more than two years past the date of the invitation in Panel 6, it is unknown whether the invitation was later accepted, as the followup comic [[Seven Years]] does not seem to include a visit "up in the mountains" among its various other recreational activities. However, since it is possible that the invitation was made up for the comic in order to represent the worry over any invitation envisioning the future at that time, it is possible that it was never proposed as depicted in the comic. Therefore, the real life invitation(s) which inspired the inclusion of Panel 6 in the comic could perhaps have referred in real life to an activity that is actually depicted in [[Seven Years]], or to some other activity, which then may or may not have been realized.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]<br />
[[Category:Cancer]]<br />
[[Category:Romance]]<br />
[[Category:Video games]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Title_text&diff=151385Title text2018-01-22T14:36:57Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''title text''' is an {{w|HTML attribute}} [[Randall]] puts on almost every xkcd image which normally adds something tangentially relevant to the topic of the comic. In some of the early comics, the title text was used to explain the joke (see, for example, [[5: Blown apart]]). It can be accessed by hovering the mouse pointer over the image on the main site, or by clicking the Alt Text button near the comic title on the mobile site (m.xkcd.com). <br />
<br />
Strictly speaking, calling this the 'alt text' is incorrect, as Randall uses the 'title' attribute rather than the 'alt' attribute in the HTML sources (cf. {{w|Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images|Wikipedia's entry on "Alt text"}}), but Randall himself refers to it as Alt text in [[45: Schrodinger]] and in his page with details about the comic, including Randall's transcript. See more on how to access the title text on a mobile device where hovering is not possible here: [[xkcd#Transcript_on_xkcd|Transcript on xkcd]].<br />
<br />
When using a device that cannot display the title text, it can be found in the [[Transcript on xkcd]].<br />
<br />
[[File:tt.png|left|The title text for 377: Journal 2]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The title text for [[377: Journal 2]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Meta]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:114:_Computational_Linguists&diff=151373Talk:114: Computational Linguists2018-01-22T11:17:34Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>Why {{w|Ryan North}}? [[Special:Contributions/108.233.253.211|108.233.253.211]] 21:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all, Ryan North happened to specialize in computational linguistics in his masters degree. He was mentioned because he was a computational linguist. On a side note, Ryan North's father was called Randall (though he was not the Randall whose comics this wiki explains). This may have somehow influenced Ryan's name appearing on this list.--[[User:Commarchinin|Commarchinin]] ([[User talk:Commarchinin|talk]]) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: It may also be a joke on Ryan's webcomic name: "Dinosaur Comics" [[Special:Contributions/121.44.164.207|121.44.164.207]] 09:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Don't particle physicists have the same issue: string theorists, Bohmians, Many-worldsians, Copenhagen-interpretians, all-possible-pathians, etc.? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 02:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=240:_Dream_Girl&diff=151210240: Dream Girl2018-01-18T16:37:07Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 240<br />
| date = March 26, 2007<br />
| title = Dream Girl<br />
| image = dream girl.png<br />
| titletext = No matter how elaborately you fool yourself.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The comic itself is pretty self-explanatory; [[Cueball]] had a very emotional dream.<br />
<br />
This comic is a commentary on people who dream, daydream, and wish for things to happen, commonly in a romantic context. Cueball dreams of a girl who gives him a time and a place, and the last panel implies that he went to that place at the given time, but did not find the girl. The strip builds up hope and anticipation that this supernaturally romantic reunion will occur, but grounds the reader with the last line of the comic and the title text.<br />
<br />
The coordinates of the note lead to [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=42.39561+-71.13051&hl=en&ll=42.395612,-71.130509&spn=0.001549,0.002642&sll=32.907845,-96.605711&sspn=0.159394,0.338173&t=h&z=19 Reverend Thomas J. Williams Park in Cambridge, MA, USA]. The time on the note, September 23, 2007, was about six months ''after'' the publishing of this comic. One hundred eighty-one days, to be exact.<br />
<br />
Notably, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160605010651/http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/48208-wisdom-of-crowds/ several hundred xkcd fans met up at that very time and place]. [[Randall]] also visited the meetup, and was recorded as saying "Maybe wanting something does make it real."<br />
<br />
The idea that the frame of the comic grabs the people inside was already used in comic [[82: Frame]] and is used again in [[475: Further Boomerang Difficulties]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Geohashing]]<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball and a friend are talking.]<br />
<br />
:Cueball: I had a dream that I met a girl in a dying world.<br />
<br />
:[In the next frame, Cueball's words fill the entire frame.]<br />
<br />
:Cueball: It was all coming apart. Hairline cracks in reality widened to yawning chasms. Everything was going dark and light all at once, and there was a sound like breaking waves rising into a piercing scream at the edge of hearing. I knew we didn't have long together.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: She grabbed me and spoke a stream of numbers into my ear. Then it all went away.<br />
:[A girl grabs him as cracks in the edges of the panel become tendrils and grab Cueball and the girl.]<br />
<br />
:Cueball: I woke up. The memory of the apocalypse faded to mere fancy, but the numbers burned bright in my mind. I wrote them down right away.<br />
:[A note reads: 42.39561 -71.13051 2007 09 23 14 38 00.]<br />
:Cueball: They were coordinates. A place and a time, neither one too far away.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: What else could I do? When the day came, I went to the spot and waited.<br />
<br />
:Friend: ...and?<br />
:Cueball: It turns out wanting something doesn't make it real.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Romance]]<br />
[[Category:Dreams]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1942:_Memorable_Quotes&diff=1512081942: Memorable Quotes2018-01-18T16:31:14Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Table */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1942<br />
| date = January 15, 2018<br />
| title = Memorable Quotes<br />
| image = memorable_quotes.png<br />
| titletext = "Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. &mdash;Randall Munroe<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Finish adding the explanations for all quotes, and make sure none of the explanations are pithy or self-evident.}}<br />
This comic "helpfully" provides random quotes to be used by anyone as {{w|blurb}}s, online reviews, motivational quotes or similar short bits of text. Either the webcomic xkcd or its creator Randall Munroe may be quoted when using any of the provided lines, as stated at the top of the comic. <br />
<br />
In particular, their "usefulness" lies in the fact that almost any of them are equally applicable to almost any situation. This is achieved by making each quote not really about anything in particular, aside from the fact that they are quotes. This is in contrast to typical quotes, which are never quite this aware that they will be quoted, but this is to be expected when the lines here were made solely for being quoted. <br />
<br />
These self-aware quotes are, on a meta level, jokes about quotations generally. Most of Randall's quotes either sabotage the quoting work, reference some aspect of quotes as used in practice, or both---and it can be both when the aspects referenced are about twisting people's words to look like they agree with you.<br />
<br />
The title-text does not have an ending quote mark, so "- Randall Munroe" is part of the quote, and possibly everything in xkcd after that until the next ending quote.<br />
<br />
==Table==<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"<br />
! Quote !! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|''"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."''<br />
|Quotes are often used in, or on, publications and documents to add weight to them by making it seem like the person being quoted endorses their content or message. This quote would actively undermine the reputation of the work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote was taken out of context."''<br />
|Quotes are commonly taken out of context to make it look as though they support a (sometimes fallacious) point, or to falsely imply an endorsement of the work they are attached to. However, since this quote serves no purpose beyond pointing out that it is out of context, there would be no point in trying to use it in this way. In any case, since all these quotes are provided without any real context, it's not clear what taking it out of context would mean.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."''<br />
|Many quotes are misattributed to famous people who are well known for originating a lot of quotes (such as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed Mark Twain], [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Misattributed Dr. Seuss], or [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed Albert Einstein]). If this quote was attributed to Mark Twain, however, it would be immediately clear that either it wasn't said by him, or he was lying at the time. <br />
|-<br />
|''"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."''<br />
|This is likely the case for many famous, widely admired people who are often quoted for all sorts of arguments, even diametrically opposed ones. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is very memorable."''<br />
|This is likely not the case; this quote itself is very forgettable, being very short, and containing no insight on anything meaningful. However, the irony is that this simple quote stating it’s memorableness may be enough to get it stuck in your head, making it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. This quote could actually be useful if you were preparing a presentation on how to give presentations, and wanted to illustrate the misuse of quotes.<br />
|-<br />
|''"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."''<br />
|The quote is attempting to sabotage the authorship of the book that uses it. Paradoxically, though, by implying that Randall wrote the book, it also implies that he is the one using the quote, and therefore claiming credit that is not due to him.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [Quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. —Ed.]''<br />
|<br />
The quote itself is referencing how sometimes quotes include mistakes or typographical oddities that may make the reader worry a mistake has been made by the quoting author. An editor's note can be included to assure the original was like that.<br />
<br />
The quote also references the potential for ambiguity when quoting a quote that includes a fake editor’s note such as this (one that is actually by the author, not the editor). A quote that does that makes it harder to provide an actual editor’s note about the quote, because it could be unclear who wrote each editor’s note. Such problems of clarity can be solved using different formatting or typographical techniques such as footnotes. Programming languages avoid this type of ambiguity by using {{w|escape characters}}.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."''<br />
|Websites that collect quotes are infamous for not checking sources. This has been parodied in many ways.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."''<br />
|Quotes are used because they summarize succinct ideas into a memorable, pithy phrase. It is a common experience for them to be so memorable that they are the only part you remember from a given presentation, especially if the presentation was weak. <br />
|-<br />
|''"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"''<br />
|Quotes are used to add weight, wit, or authority to a work. If your quote doesn't quite manage this, however, then the inclusion of the quote might just look like you're trying to impress people. <br />
|-<br />
|''"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."''<br />
|This would probably occur if you decided to follow Randall's advice and include this quote in your work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude.''"''<br />
|The quote imitates the stereotype of strange revelations being made by hippies, typically ones on drugs. If it were true, it would mean that whoever wrote the quoting work would be stealing the entire thing from somewhere, with the exception of these two weird sentences pointing it out.<br />
|-<br />
|''"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."''<br />
|The author of this quote is apparently making a desperate attempt to get a quote published by challenging the editors of ''{{w|Bartlett's Familiar Quotations}}'', or perhaps is resentful, having attempted to get them to publish his quote(s) and been rejected.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."''<br />
|Inspirational quotes are often set in a fancy font above a picture of a sunset, mountain range, beach, etc. to make them look more profound. This quote suggests that, without such formatting, it looks boring and average.<br />
|- <br />
|''"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... you know what, never mind."''<br />
|People often begin speeches with a memorable quote. This quote attempts to explain that it is being used as such, but it fails and gives up.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Sent from my iPhone"''<br />
|This is the default email signature on an {{w|iPhone}}. Quoting this would lead the reader to think that you typed the preceding work on your phone.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. —Randall Munroe<br />
|Appears in the title text. Randall Munroe is saying that because there's no ending quotation mark, the rest of the book this quote is in is part of Randall's quote, including, weirdly, the piece of text after what the quote should be specifying that Randall has also said his name.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Needs some formatting}}<br />
:Looking for a quote for something?<br />
:Here are some for general use.<br />
<br />
:They can be attributed to xkcd or Randall Munroe as needed.<br />
<br />
:"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."<br />
:"This quote was taken out of context."<br />
:"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."<br />
:"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."<br />
:"This quote is very memorable."<br />
:"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."<br />
:"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. -ED.]<br />
:"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."<br />
:"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."<br />
:"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"<br />
:"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."<br />
:"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude."<br />
:"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."<br />
:"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."<br />
:"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... You know what, never mind!"<br />
:"Sent from my iPhone."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1942:_Memorable_Quotes&diff=1512071942: Memorable Quotes2018-01-18T16:23:42Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Table */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1942<br />
| date = January 15, 2018<br />
| title = Memorable Quotes<br />
| image = memorable_quotes.png<br />
| titletext = "Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. &mdash;Randall Munroe<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Finish adding the explanations for all quotes, and make sure none of the explanations are pithy or self-evident.}}<br />
This comic "helpfully" provides random quotes to be used by anyone as {{w|blurb}}s, online reviews, motivational quotes or similar short bits of text. Either the webcomic xkcd or its creator Randall Munroe may be quoted when using any of the provided lines, as stated at the top of the comic. <br />
<br />
In particular, their "usefulness" lies in the fact that almost any of them are equally applicable to almost any situation. This is achieved by making each quote not really about anything in particular, aside from the fact that they are quotes. This is in contrast to typical quotes, which are never quite this aware that they will be quoted, but this is to be expected when the lines here were made solely for being quoted. <br />
<br />
These self-aware quotes are, on a meta level, jokes about quotations generally. Most of Randall's quotes either sabotage the quoting work, reference some aspect of quotes as used in practice, or both---and it can be both when the aspects referenced are about twisting people's words to look like they agree with you.<br />
<br />
The title-text does not have an ending quote mark, so "- Randall Munroe" is part of the quote, and possibly everything in xkcd after that until the next ending quote.<br />
<br />
==Table==<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"<br />
! Quote !! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|''"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."''<br />
|Quotes are often used in, or on, publications and documents to add weight to them by making it seem like the person being quoted endorses their content or message. This quote would actively undermine the reputation of the work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote was taken out of context."''<br />
|Quotes are commonly taken out of context to make it look as though they support a (sometimes fallacious) point, or to falsely imply an endorsement of the work they are attached to. However, since this quote serves no purpose beyond pointing out that it is out of context, there would be no point in trying to use it in this way. In any case, since all these quotes are provided without any real context, it's not clear what taking it out of context would mean.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."''<br />
|Many quotes are misattributed to famous people who are well known for originating a lot of quotes (such as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed Mark Twain], [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Misattributed Dr. Seuss], or [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed Albert Einstein]). If this quote was attributed to Mark Twain, however, it would be immediately clear that either it wasn't said by him, or he was lying at the time. <br />
|-<br />
|''"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."''<br />
|This is likely the case for many famous, widely admired people who are often quoted for all sorts of arguments, even diametrically opposed ones. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is very memorable."''<br />
|This is likely not the case; this quote itself is very forgettable, being very short, and containing no insight on anything meaningful. However, the irony is that this simple quote stating it’s memorableness may be enough to get it stuck in your head, making it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. This quote could actually be useful if you were preparing a presentation on how to give presentations, and wanted to illustrate the misuse of quotes.<br />
|-<br />
|''"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."''<br />
|The quote is attempting to sabotage the authorship of the book that uses it. Paradoxically, though, by implying that Randall wrote the book, it also implies that he is the one using the quote, and therefore claiming credit that is not due to him.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [Quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. —Ed.]''<br />
|<br />
The quote itself is referencing how sometimes quotes include mistakes or typographical oddities that may make the reader worry a mistake has been made by the quoting author. An editor's note can be included to assure the original was like that.<br />
<br />
The quote also references the potential for ambiguity when quoting a quote that includes a fake editor’s note such as this (one that is actually by the author, not the editor). A quote that does that makes it harder to provide an actual editor’s note about the quote, because it could be unclear who wrote each editor’s note. Such problems of clarity can be solved using different formatting or typographical techniques such as footnotes. Programming languages avoid this type of ambiguity by using {{w|escape characters}}.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."''<br />
|Websites that collect quotes are infamous for not checking sources. This has been parodied in many ways.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."''<br />
|Quotes are used because they summarize succinct ideas into a memorable, pithy phrase. It is a common experience for them to be so memorable that they are the only part you remember from a given presentation, especially if the presentation was weak. <br />
|-<br />
|''"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"''<br />
|Quotes are used to add weight, wit, or authority to a work. If your quote doesn't quite manage this, however, then the inclusion of the quote might just look like you're trying to impress people. <br />
|-<br />
|''"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."''<br />
|This would probably occur if you decided to follow Randall's advice and include this quote in your work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude.''"''<br />
|The quote imitates the stereotype of strange revelations being made by hippies, typically ones on drugs. If it were true, it would mean that whoever wrote the quoting work would be stealing the entire thing from somewhere, with the exception of these two weird sentences pointing it out.<br />
|-<br />
|''"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."''<br />
|The author of this quote is apparently making a desperate attempt to get a quote published by challenging the editors of ''{{w|Bartlett's Familiar Quotations}}''.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."''<br />
|Inspirational quotes are often set in a fancy font above a picture of a sunset, mountain range, beach, etc. to make them look more profound. This quote suggests that, without such formatting, it looks boring and average.<br />
|- <br />
|''"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... you know what, never mind."''<br />
|People often begin speeches with a memorable quote. This quote attempts to explain that it is being used as such, but it fails and gives up.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Sent from my iPhone"''<br />
|This is the default email signature on an {{w|iPhone}}. Quoting this would lead the reader to think that you typed the preceding work on your phone.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. —Randall Munroe<br />
|Appears in the title text. Randall Munroe is saying that because there's no ending quotation mark, the rest of the book this quote is in is part of Randall's quote, including, weirdly, the piece of text after what the quote should be specifying that Randall has also said his name.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Needs some formatting}}<br />
:Looking for a quote for something?<br />
:Here are some for general use.<br />
<br />
:They can be attributed to xkcd or Randall Munroe as needed.<br />
<br />
:"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."<br />
:"This quote was taken out of context."<br />
:"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."<br />
:"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."<br />
:"This quote is very memorable."<br />
:"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."<br />
:"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. -ED.]<br />
:"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."<br />
:"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."<br />
:"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"<br />
:"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."<br />
:"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude."<br />
:"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."<br />
:"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."<br />
:"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... You know what, never mind!"<br />
:"Sent from my iPhone."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1942:_Memorable_Quotes&diff=1511991942: Memorable Quotes2018-01-18T12:32:00Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Table */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1942<br />
| date = January 15, 2018<br />
| title = Memorable Quotes<br />
| image = memorable_quotes.png<br />
| titletext = "Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. &mdash;Randall Munroe<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Finish adding the explanations for all quotes, and make sure none of the explanations are pithy or self-evident.}}<br />
This comic "helpfully" provides random quotes to be used by anyone as {{w|blurb}}s, online reviews, motivational quotes or similar short bits of text. Either the webcomic xkcd or its creator Randall Munroe may be quoted when using any of the provided lines, as stated at the top of the comic. <br />
<br />
In particular, their "usefulness" lies in the fact that almost any of them are equally applicable to almost any situation. This is achieved by making each quote not really about anything in particular, aside from the fact that they are quotes. This is in contrast to typical quotes, which are never quite this aware that they will be quoted, but this is to be expected when the lines here were made solely for being quoted. <br />
<br />
These self-aware quotes are, on a meta level, jokes about quotations generally. Most of Randall's quotes either sabotage the quoting work, reference some aspect of quotes as used in practice, or both---and it can be both when the aspects referenced are about twisting people's words to look like they agree with you.<br />
<br />
The title-text does not have an ending quote mark, so "- Randall Munroe" is part of the quote, and possibly everything in xkcd after that until the next ending quote.<br />
<br />
==Table==<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"<br />
! Quote !! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|''"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."''<br />
|Quotes are often used in, or on, publications and documents to add weight to them by making it seem like the person being quoted endorses their content or message. This quote would actively undermine the reputation of the work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote was taken out of context."''<br />
|Quotes are commonly taken out of context to make it look as though they support a (sometimes fallacious) point, or to falsely imply an endorsement of the work they are attached to. However, since this quote serves no purpose beyond pointing out that it is out of context, there would be no point in trying to use it in this way. In any case, since all these quotes are provided without any real context, it's not clear what taking it out of context would mean.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."''<br />
|Many quotes are misattributed to famous people who are well known for originating a lot of quotes (such as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed Mark Twain], [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Misattributed Dr. Seuss], or [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed Albert Einstein]). If this quote was attributed to Mark Twain, however, it would be immediately clear that either it wasn't said by him, or he was lying at the time. <br />
|-<br />
|''"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."''<br />
|This is likely the case for many famous, widely admired people who are often quoted for all sorts of arguments, even diametrically opposed ones. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is very memorable."''<br />
|This is likely not the case; this quote itself is very forgettable, being very short, and containing no insight on anything meaningful. However, the irony is that this simple quote stating it’s memorableness may be enough to get it stuck in your head, making it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. This quote could actually be useful if you were preparing a presentation on how to give presentations, and wanted to illustrate the misuse of quotes.<br />
|-<br />
|''"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."''<br />
|The quote is sabotaging the work that uses it. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [Quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. —Ed.]''<br />
|<br />
The quote itself is referencing how sometimes quotes include mistakes or typographical oddities that may make the reader worry a mistake has been made by the quoting author. An editor's note can be included to assure the original was like that.<br />
<br />
The quote also references the potential for ambiguity when quoting a quote that includes a fake editor’s note such as this (one that is actually by the author, not the editor). A quote that does that makes it harder to provide an actual editor’s note about the quote, because it could be unclear who wrote each editor’s note. Such problems of clarity can be solved using different formatting or typographical techniques such as footnotes. Programming languages avoid this type of ambiguity by using {{w|escape characters}}.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."''<br />
|Websites that collect quotes are infamous for not checking sources. This has been parodied in many ways.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."''<br />
|Quotes are used because they summarize succinct ideas into a memorable, pithy phrase. It is a common experience for them to be so memorable that they are the only part you remember from a given presentation, especially if the presentation was weak. <br />
|-<br />
|''"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"''<br />
|Quotes are used to add weight, wit, or authority to a work. If your quote doesn't quite manage this, however, then the inclusion of the quote might just look like you're trying to impress people. <br />
|-<br />
|''"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."''<br />
|This would probably occur if you decided to follow Randall's advice and include this quote in your work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude.''"''<br />
|The quote imitates the stereotype of strange revelations being made by hippies, typically ones on drugs. If it were true, it would mean that whoever wrote the quoting work would be stealing the entire thing from somewhere, with the exception of these two weird sentences pointing it out.<br />
|-<br />
|''"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."''<br />
|The author of this quote is apparently making a desperate attempt to get a quote published by challenging the editors of ''{{w|Bartlett's Familiar Quotations}}''.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."''<br />
|Inspirational quotes are often set in a fancy font above a picture of a sunset, mountain range, beach, etc. to make them look more profound. This quote suggests that, without such formatting, it looks boring and average.<br />
|- <br />
|''"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... you know what, never mind."''<br />
|People often begin speeches with a memorable quote. This quote attempts to explain that it is being used as such, but it fails and gives up.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Sent from my iPhone"''<br />
|This is the default email signature on an {{w|iPhone}}. Quoting this would lead the reader to think that you typed the preceding work on your phone.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. —Randall Munroe<br />
|Appears in the title text. Randall Munroe is saying that because there's no ending quotation mark, the rest of the book this quote is in is part of Randall's quote, including, weirdly, the piece of text after what the quote should be specifying that Randall has also said his name.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Needs some formatting}}<br />
:Looking for a quote for something?<br />
:Here are some for general use.<br />
<br />
:They can be attributed to xkcd or Randall Munroe as needed.<br />
<br />
:"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."<br />
:"This quote was taken out of context."<br />
:"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."<br />
:"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."<br />
:"This quote is very memorable."<br />
:"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."<br />
:"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. -ED.]<br />
:"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."<br />
:"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."<br />
:"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"<br />
:"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."<br />
:"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude."<br />
:"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."<br />
:"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."<br />
:"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... You know what, never mind!"<br />
:"Sent from my iPhone."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1942:_Memorable_Quotes&diff=1511981942: Memorable Quotes2018-01-18T12:22:34Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Table */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1942<br />
| date = January 15, 2018<br />
| title = Memorable Quotes<br />
| image = memorable_quotes.png<br />
| titletext = "Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. &mdash;Randall Munroe<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Finish adding the explanations for all quotes, and make sure none of the explanations are pithy or self-evident.}}<br />
This comic "helpfully" provides random quotes to be used by anyone as {{w|blurb}}s, online reviews, motivational quotes or similar short bits of text. Either the webcomic xkcd or its creator Randall Munroe may be quoted when using any of the provided lines, as stated at the top of the comic. <br />
<br />
In particular, their "usefulness" lies in the fact that almost any of them are equally applicable to almost any situation. This is achieved by making each quote not really about anything in particular, aside from the fact that they are quotes. This is in contrast to typical quotes, which are never quite this aware that they will be quoted, but this is to be expected when the lines here were made solely for being quoted. <br />
<br />
These self-aware quotes are, on a meta level, jokes about quotations generally. Most of Randall's quotes either sabotage the quoting work, reference some aspect of quotes as used in practice, or both---and it can be both when the aspects referenced are about twisting people's words to look like they agree with you.<br />
<br />
The title-text does not have an ending quote mark, so "- Randall Munroe" is part of the quote, and possibly everything in xkcd after that until the next ending quote.<br />
<br />
==Table==<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"<br />
! Quote !! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|''"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."''<br />
|Quotes are often used in, or on, publications and documents to add weight to them by making it seem like the person being quoted endorses their content or message. This quote would actively undermine the reputation of the work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote was taken out of context."''<br />
|Quotes are commonly taken out of context to make it look as though they support a (sometimes fallacious) point, or to falsely imply an endorsement of the work they are attached to. However, since this quote serves no purpose beyond pointing out that it is out of context, there would be no point in trying to use it in this way. In any case, since all these quotes are provided without any real context, it's not clear what taking it out of context would mean.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."''<br />
|Many quotes are misattributed to famous people who are well known for originating a lot of quotes (such as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed Mark Twain], [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Misattributed Dr. Seuss], or [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed Albert Einstein]). If this quote was attributed to Mark Twain, however, it would be immediately clear that either it wasn't said by him, or he was lying at the time. <br />
|-<br />
|''"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."''<br />
|This is likely the case for many famous, widely admired people who are often quoted for all sorts of arguments, even diametrically opposed ones. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is very memorable."''<br />
|This is likely not the case; this quote itself is very forgettable, being a very short and bland quote in a list of far more interesting quotes. However, the irony of this simple quote stating it’s memorableness may be enough to get it stuck in your head, making it a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.<br />
|-<br />
|''"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."''<br />
|The quote is sabotaging the work that uses it. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [Quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. —Ed.]''<br />
|<br />
The quote itself is referencing how sometimes quotes include mistakes or typographical oddities that may make the reader worry a mistake has been made by the quoting author. An editor's note can be included to assure the original was like that.<br />
<br />
The quote also references the potential for ambiguity when quoting a quote that includes a fake editor’s note such as this (one that is actually by the author, not the editor). A quote that does that makes it harder to provide an actual editor’s note about the quote, because it could be unclear who wrote each editor’s note. Such problems of clarity can be solved using different formatting or typographical techniques such as footnotes. Programming languages avoid this type of ambiguity by using {{w|escape characters}}.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."''<br />
|Websites that collect quotes are infamous for not checking sources. This has been parodied in many ways.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."''<br />
|Quotes are used because they summarize succinct ideas into a memorable, pithy phrase. It is a common experience for them to be so memorable that they are the only part you remember from a given presentation, especially if the presentation was weak. <br />
|-<br />
|''"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"''<br />
|Quotes are used to add weight, wit, or authority to a work. If your quote doesn't quite manage this, however, then the inclusion of the quote might just look like you're trying to impress people. <br />
|-<br />
|''"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."''<br />
|This would probably occur if you decided to follow Randall's advice and include this quote in your work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude.''"''<br />
|The quote imitates the stereotype of strange revelations being made by hippies, typically ones on drugs. If it were true, it would mean that whoever wrote the quoting work would be stealing the entire thing from somewhere, with the exception of these two weird sentences pointing it out.<br />
|-<br />
|''"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."''<br />
|The author of this quote is apparently making a desperate attempt to get a quote published by challenging the editors of ''{{w|Bartlett's Familiar Quotations}}''.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."''<br />
|Inspirational quotes are often set in a fancy font above a picture of a sunset, mountain range, beach, etc. to make them look more profound. This quote suggests that, without such formatting, it looks boring and average.<br />
|- <br />
|''"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... you know what, never mind."''<br />
|People often begin speeches with a memorable quote. This quote attempts to explain that it is being used as such, but it fails and gives up.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Sent from my iPhone"''<br />
|This is the default email signature on an {{w|iPhone}}. Quoting this would lead the reader to think that you typed the preceding work on your phone.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. —Randall Munroe<br />
|Appears in the title text. Randall Munroe is saying that because there's no ending quotation mark, the rest of the book this quote is in is part of Randall's quote, including, weirdly, the piece of text after what the quote should be specifying that Randall has also said his name.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Needs some formatting}}<br />
:Looking for a quote for something?<br />
:Here are some for general use.<br />
<br />
:They can be attributed to xkcd or Randall Munroe as needed.<br />
<br />
:"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."<br />
:"This quote was taken out of context."<br />
:"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."<br />
:"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."<br />
:"This quote is very memorable."<br />
:"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."<br />
:"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. -ED.]<br />
:"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."<br />
:"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."<br />
:"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"<br />
:"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."<br />
:"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude."<br />
:"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."<br />
:"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."<br />
:"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... You know what, never mind!"<br />
:"Sent from my iPhone."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1942:_Memorable_Quotes&diff=1511971942: Memorable Quotes2018-01-18T12:20:37Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Table */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1942<br />
| date = January 15, 2018<br />
| title = Memorable Quotes<br />
| image = memorable_quotes.png<br />
| titletext = "Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. &mdash;Randall Munroe<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Finish adding the explanations for all quotes, and make sure none of the explanations are pithy or self-evident.}}<br />
This comic "helpfully" provides random quotes to be used by anyone as {{w|blurb}}s, online reviews, motivational quotes or similar short bits of text. Either the webcomic xkcd or its creator Randall Munroe may be quoted when using any of the provided lines, as stated at the top of the comic. <br />
<br />
In particular, their "usefulness" lies in the fact that almost any of them are equally applicable to almost any situation. This is achieved by making each quote not really about anything in particular, aside from the fact that they are quotes. This is in contrast to typical quotes, which are never quite this aware that they will be quoted, but this is to be expected when the lines here were made solely for being quoted. <br />
<br />
These self-aware quotes are, on a meta level, jokes about quotations generally. Most of Randall's quotes either sabotage the quoting work, reference some aspect of quotes as used in practice, or both---and it can be both when the aspects referenced are about twisting people's words to look like they agree with you.<br />
<br />
The title-text does not have an ending quote mark, so "- Randall Munroe" is part of the quote, and possibly everything in xkcd after that until the next ending quote.<br />
<br />
==Table==<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"<br />
! Quote !! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|''"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."''<br />
|Quotes are often used in, or on, publications and documents to add weight to them by making it seem like the person being quoted endorses their content or message. This quote would actively undermine the reputation of the work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote was taken out of context."''<br />
|Quotes are commonly taken out of context to make it look as though they support a (sometimes fallacious) point, or to falsely imply an endorsement of the work they are attached to. However, since this quote serves no purpose beyond pointing out that it is out of context, there would be no point in trying to use it in this way. In any case, since all these quotes are provided without any real context, it's not clear what taking it out of context would mean.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."''<br />
|Many quotes are misquoted as being said by famous people (such as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed Mark Twain], [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Misattributed Dr. Seuss], or [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed Albert Einstein]). If this quote was attributed to Mark Twain, however, it would be immediately clear that either it wasn't said by him, or he was lying at the time. <br />
|-<br />
|''"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."''<br />
|This is likely the case for many famous, widely admired people who are often quoted for all sorts of arguments, even diametrically opposed ones. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is very memorable."''<br />
|This is likely not the case; this quote itself is very forgettable, being a very short and bland quote in a list of far more interesting quotes. However, the irony of this simple quote stating it’s memorableness may be enough to get it stuck in your head, making it a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.<br />
|-<br />
|''"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."''<br />
|The quote is sabotaging the work that uses it. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [Quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. —Ed.]''<br />
|<br />
The quote itself is referencing how sometimes quotes include mistakes or typographical oddities that may make the reader worry a mistake has been made by the quoting author. An editor's note can be included to assure the original was like that.<br />
<br />
The quote also references the potential for ambiguity when quoting a quote that includes a fake editor’s note such as this (one that is actually by the author, not the editor). A quote that does that makes it harder to provide an actual editor’s note about the quote, because it could be unclear who wrote each editor’s note. Such problems of clarity can be solved using different formatting or typographical techniques such as footnotes. Programming languages avoid this type of ambiguity by using {{w|escape characters}}.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."''<br />
|Websites that collect quotes are infamous for not checking sources. This has been parodied in many ways.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."''<br />
|Quotes are used because they summarize succinct ideas into a memorable, pithy phrase. It is a common experience for them to be so memorable that they are the only part you remember from a given presentation, especially if the presentation was weak. <br />
|-<br />
|''"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"''<br />
|Quotes are used to add weight, wit, or authority to a work. If your quote doesn't quite manage this, however, then the inclusion of the quote might just look like you're trying to impress people. <br />
|-<br />
|''"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."''<br />
|This would probably occur if you decided to follow Randall's advice and include this quote in your work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude.''"''<br />
|The quote imitates the stereotype of strange revelations being made by hippies, typically ones on drugs. If it were true, it would mean that whoever wrote the quoting work would be stealing the entire thing from somewhere, with the exception of these two weird sentences pointing it out.<br />
|-<br />
|''"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."''<br />
|The author of this quote is apparently making a desperate attempt to get a quote published by challenging the editors of ''{{w|Bartlett's Familiar Quotations}}''.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."''<br />
|Inspirational quotes are often set in a fancy font above a picture of a sunset, mountain range, beach, etc. to make them look more profound. This quote suggests that, without such formatting, it looks boring and average.<br />
|- <br />
|''"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... you know what, never mind."''<br />
|People often begin speeches with a memorable quote. This quote attempts to explain that it is being used as such, but it fails and gives up.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Sent from my iPhone"''<br />
|This is the default email signature on an {{w|iPhone}}. Quoting this would lead the reader to think that you typed the preceding work on your phone.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. —Randall Munroe<br />
|Appears in the title text. Randall Munroe is saying that because there's no ending quotation mark, the rest of the book this quote is in is part of Randall's quote, including, weirdly, the piece of text after what the quote should be specifying that Randall has also said his name.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Needs some formatting}}<br />
:Looking for a quote for something?<br />
:Here are some for general use.<br />
<br />
:They can be attributed to xkcd or Randall Munroe as needed.<br />
<br />
:"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."<br />
:"This quote was taken out of context."<br />
:"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."<br />
:"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."<br />
:"This quote is very memorable."<br />
:"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."<br />
:"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. -ED.]<br />
:"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."<br />
:"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."<br />
:"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"<br />
:"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."<br />
:"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude."<br />
:"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."<br />
:"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."<br />
:"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... You know what, never mind!"<br />
:"Sent from my iPhone."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1942:_Memorable_Quotes&diff=1511951942: Memorable Quotes2018-01-18T12:10:12Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Table */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1942<br />
| date = January 15, 2018<br />
| title = Memorable Quotes<br />
| image = memorable_quotes.png<br />
| titletext = "Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. &mdash;Randall Munroe<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Finish adding the explanations for all quotes, and make sure none of the explanations are pithy or self-evident.}}<br />
This comic "helpfully" provides random quotes to be used by anyone as {{w|blurb}}s, online reviews, motivational quotes or similar short bits of text. Either the webcomic xkcd or its creator Randall Munroe may be quoted when using any of the provided lines, as stated at the top of the comic. <br />
<br />
In particular, their "usefulness" lies in the fact that almost any of them are equally applicable to almost any situation. This is achieved by making each quote not really about anything in particular, aside from the fact that they are quotes. This is in contrast to typical quotes, which are never quite this aware that they will be quoted, but this is to be expected when the lines here were made solely for being quoted. <br />
<br />
These self-aware quotes are, on a meta level, jokes about quotations generally. Most of Randall's quotes either sabotage the quoting work, reference some aspect of quotes as used in practice, or both---and it can be both when the aspects referenced are about twisting people's words to look like they agree with you.<br />
<br />
The title-text does not have an ending quote mark, so "- Randall Munroe" is part of the quote, and possibly everything in xkcd after that until the next ending quote.<br />
<br />
==Table==<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"<br />
! Quote !! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|''"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."''<br />
|Quotes are often used in, or on, publications and documents to add weight to them by making it seem like the person being quoted endorses their content or message. This quote would actively undermine the reputation of the work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote was taken out of context."''<br />
|Quotes are commonly taken out of context in order to make a (fallacious) point. Randall predicted this and wrote a line that would point this out directly if used as a quote.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."''<br />
|Many quotes are misquoted as being said by famous people (such as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed Mark Twain], [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Misattributed Dr. Seuss], or [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed Albert Einstein]). If this quote was attributed to Mark Twain, however, it would be immediately clear that either it wasn't said by him, or he was lying at the time. <br />
|-<br />
|''"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."''<br />
|This is likely the case for many famous, widely admired people who are often quoted for all sorts of arguments, even diametrically opposed ones. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is very memorable."''<br />
|This is likely not the case; this quote itself is very forgettable, being a very short and bland quote in a list of far more interesting quotes. However, the irony of this simple quote stating it’s memorableness may be enough to get it stuck in your head, making it a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.<br />
|-<br />
|''"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."''<br />
|The quote is sabotaging the work that uses it. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [Quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. —Ed.]''<br />
|<br />
The quote itself is referencing how sometimes quotes include mistakes or typographical oddities that may make the reader worry a mistake has been made by the quoting author. An editor's note can be included to assure the original was like that.<br />
<br />
The quote also references the potential for ambiguity when quoting a quote that includes a fake editor’s note such as this (one that is actually by the author, not the editor). A quote that does that makes it harder to provide an actual editor’s note about the quote, because it could be unclear who wrote each editor’s note. Such problems of clarity can be solved using different formatting or typographical techniques such as footnotes. Programming languages avoid this type of ambiguity by using {{w|escape characters}}.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."''<br />
|Websites that collect quotes are infamous for not checking sources. This has been parodied in many ways.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."''<br />
|Quotes are used because they summarize succinct ideas into a memorable, pithy phrase. It is a common experience for them to be so memorable that they are the only part you remember from a given presentation, especially if the presentation was weak. <br />
|-<br />
|''"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"''<br />
|Quotes are used to add weight, wit, or authority to a work. If your quote doesn't quite manage this, however, then the inclusion of the quote might just look like you're trying to impress people. <br />
|-<br />
|''"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."''<br />
|This would probably occur if you decided to follow Randall's advice and include this quote in your work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude.''"''<br />
|The quote imitates the stereotype of strange revelations being made by hippies, typically ones on drugs. If it were true, it would mean that whoever wrote the quoting work would be stealing the entire thing from somewhere, with the exception of these two weird sentences pointing it out.<br />
|-<br />
|''"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."''<br />
|The author of this quote is apparently making a desperate attempt to get a quote published by challenging the editors of ''{{w|Bartlett's Familiar Quotations}}''.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."''<br />
|Inspirational quotes are often set in a fancy font above a picture of a sunset, mountain range, beach, etc. to make them look more profound. This quote suggests that, without such formatting, it looks boring and average.<br />
|- <br />
|''"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... you know what, never mind."''<br />
|People often begin speeches with a memorable quote. This quote attempts to explain that it is being used as such, but it fails and gives up.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Sent from my iPhone"''<br />
|This is the default email signature on an {{w|iPhone}}. Quoting this would lead the reader to think that you typed the preceding work on your phone.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. —Randall Munroe<br />
|Appears in the title text. Randall Munroe is saying that because there's no ending quotation mark, the rest of the book this quote is in is part of Randall's quote, including, weirdly, the piece of text after what the quote should be specifying that Randall has also said his name.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Needs some formatting}}<br />
:Looking for a quote for something?<br />
:Here are some for general use.<br />
<br />
:They can be attributed to xkcd or Randall Munroe as needed.<br />
<br />
:"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."<br />
:"This quote was taken out of context."<br />
:"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."<br />
:"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."<br />
:"This quote is very memorable."<br />
:"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."<br />
:"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. -ED.]<br />
:"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."<br />
:"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."<br />
:"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"<br />
:"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."<br />
:"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude."<br />
:"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."<br />
:"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."<br />
:"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... You know what, never mind!"<br />
:"Sent from my iPhone."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1942:_Memorable_Quotes&diff=1511941942: Memorable Quotes2018-01-18T12:09:27Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Table */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1942<br />
| date = January 15, 2018<br />
| title = Memorable Quotes<br />
| image = memorable_quotes.png<br />
| titletext = "Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. &mdash;Randall Munroe<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Finish adding the explanations for all quotes, and make sure none of the explanations are pithy or self-evident.}}<br />
This comic "helpfully" provides random quotes to be used by anyone as {{w|blurb}}s, online reviews, motivational quotes or similar short bits of text. Either the webcomic xkcd or its creator Randall Munroe may be quoted when using any of the provided lines, as stated at the top of the comic. <br />
<br />
In particular, their "usefulness" lies in the fact that almost any of them are equally applicable to almost any situation. This is achieved by making each quote not really about anything in particular, aside from the fact that they are quotes. This is in contrast to typical quotes, which are never quite this aware that they will be quoted, but this is to be expected when the lines here were made solely for being quoted. <br />
<br />
These self-aware quotes are, on a meta level, jokes about quotations generally. Most of Randall's quotes either sabotage the quoting work, reference some aspect of quotes as used in practice, or both---and it can be both when the aspects referenced are about twisting people's words to look like they agree with you.<br />
<br />
The title-text does not have an ending quote mark, so "- Randall Munroe" is part of the quote, and possibly everything in xkcd after that until the next ending quote.<br />
<br />
==Table==<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"<br />
! Quote !! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|''"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."''<br />
|Quotes are often used in, or on, publications and documents to add weight to them by making it seem like the person saying the quote endorses their content or message. This quote would actively undermine the reputation of the work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote was taken out of context."''<br />
|Quotes are commonly taken out of context in order to make a (fallacious) point. Randall predicted this and wrote a line that would point this out directly if used as a quote.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."''<br />
|Many quotes are misquoted as being said by famous people (such as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed Mark Twain], [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Misattributed Dr. Seuss], or [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed Albert Einstein]). If this quote was attributed to Mark Twain, however, it would be immediately clear that either it wasn't said by him, or he was lying at the time. <br />
|-<br />
|''"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."''<br />
|This is likely the case for many famous, widely admired people who are often quoted for all sorts of arguments, even diametrically opposed ones. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is very memorable."''<br />
|This is likely not the case; this quote itself is very forgettable, being a very short and bland quote in a list of far more interesting quotes. However, the irony of this simple quote stating it’s memorableness may be enough to get it stuck in your head, making it a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.<br />
|-<br />
|''"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."''<br />
|The quote is sabotaging the work that uses it. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [Quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. —Ed.]''<br />
|<br />
The quote itself is referencing how sometimes quotes include mistakes or typographical oddities that may make the reader worry a mistake has been made by the quoting author. An editor's note can be included to assure the original was like that.<br />
<br />
The quote also references the potential for ambiguity when quoting a quote that includes a fake editor’s note such as this (one that is actually by the author, not the editor). A quote that does that makes it harder to provide an actual editor’s note about the quote, because it could be unclear who wrote each editor’s note. Such problems of clarity can be solved using different formatting or typographical techniques such as footnotes. Programming languages avoid this type of ambiguity by using {{w|escape characters}}.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."''<br />
|Websites that collect quotes are infamous for not checking sources. This has been parodied in many ways.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."''<br />
|Quotes are used because they summarize succinct ideas into a memorable, pithy phrase. It is a common experience for them to be so memorable that they are the only part you remember from a given presentation, especially if the presentation was weak. <br />
|-<br />
|''"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"''<br />
|Quotes are used to add weight, wit, or authority to a work. If your quote doesn't quite manage this, however, then the inclusion of the quote might just look like you're trying to impress people. <br />
|-<br />
|''"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."''<br />
|This would probably occur if you decided to follow Randall's advice and include this quote in your work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude.''"''<br />
|The quote imitates the stereotype of strange revelations being made by hippies, typically ones on drugs. If it were true, it would mean that whoever wrote the quoting work would be stealing the entire thing from somewhere, with the exception of these two weird sentences pointing it out.<br />
|-<br />
|''"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."''<br />
|The author of this quote is apparently making a desperate attempt to get a quote published by challenging the editors of ''{{w|Bartlett's Familiar Quotations}}''.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."''<br />
|Inspirational quotes are often set in a fancy font above a picture of a sunset, mountain range, beach, etc. to make them look more profound. This quote suggests that, without such formatting, it looks boring and average.<br />
|- <br />
|''"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... you know what, never mind."''<br />
|People often begin speeches with a memorable quote. This quote attempts to explain that it is being used as such, but it fails and gives up.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Sent from my iPhone"''<br />
|This is the default email signature on an {{w|iPhone}}. Quoting this would lead the reader to think that you typed the preceding work on your phone.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. —Randall Munroe<br />
|Appears in the title text. Randall Munroe is saying that because there's no ending quotation mark, the rest of the book this quote is in is part of Randall's quote, including, weirdly, the piece of text after what the quote should be specifying that Randall has also said his name.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Needs some formatting}}<br />
:Looking for a quote for something?<br />
:Here are some for general use.<br />
<br />
:They can be attributed to xkcd or Randall Munroe as needed.<br />
<br />
:"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."<br />
:"This quote was taken out of context."<br />
:"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."<br />
:"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."<br />
:"This quote is very memorable."<br />
:"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."<br />
:"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. -ED.]<br />
:"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."<br />
:"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."<br />
:"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"<br />
:"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."<br />
:"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude."<br />
:"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."<br />
:"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."<br />
:"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... You know what, never mind!"<br />
:"Sent from my iPhone."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1942:_Memorable_Quotes&diff=1511921942: Memorable Quotes2018-01-18T11:19:35Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1942<br />
| date = January 15, 2018<br />
| title = Memorable Quotes<br />
| image = memorable_quotes.png<br />
| titletext = "Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. &mdash;Randall Munroe<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Finish adding the explanations for all quotes, and make sure none of the explanations are pithy or self-evident.}}<br />
This comic "helpfully" provides random quotes to be used by anyone as {{w|blurb}}s, online reviews, motivational quotes or similar short bits of text. Either the webcomic xkcd or its creator Randall Munroe may be quoted when using any of the provided lines, as stated at the top of the comic. <br />
<br />
In particular, their "usefulness" lies in the fact that almost any of them are equally applicable to almost any situation. This is achieved by making each quote not really about anything in particular, aside from the fact that they are quotes. This is in contrast to typical quotes, which are never quite this aware that they will be quoted, but this is to be expected when the lines here were made solely for being quoted. <br />
<br />
These self-aware quotes are, on a meta level, jokes about quotations generally. Most of Randall's quotes either sabotage the quoting work, reference some aspect of quotes as used in practice, or both---and it can be both when the aspects referenced are about twisting people's words to look like they agree with you.<br />
<br />
The title-text does not have an ending quote mark, so "- Randall Munroe" is part of the quote, and possibly everything in xkcd after that until the next ending quote.<br />
<br />
==Table==<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"<br />
! Quote !! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|''"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."''<br />
|Quotes are often used in publications and documents to make it seem like the person saying the quote agrees with the book's or document's message. This quote would be impossible to be used in such a way.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote was taken out of context."''<br />
|Quotes are commonly taken out of context in order to make a (fallacious) point. Randall predicted this and wrote a line that would point this out directly if used as a quote.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."''<br />
|Many quotes are misquoted as being said by famous people (such as [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Misattributed Mark Twain], [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss#Misattributed Dr. Seuss], or [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed Albert Einstein]). If this quote was attributed to Mark Twain, however, it would be immediately clear that either it wasn't said by him, or he was lying at the time. <br />
|-<br />
|''"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."''<br />
|This is likely the case for many famous, widely admired people who are often quoted for all sorts of arguments, even diametrically opposed ones. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote is very memorable."''<br />
|This is likely not the case; this quote itself is very forgettable, being a very short and bland quote in a list of far more interesting quotes. However, the irony of this simple quote stating it’s memorableness may be enough to get it stuck in your head, making it a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.<br />
|-<br />
|''"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."''<br />
|The quote is sabotaging the work that uses it. <br />
|-<br />
|''"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [Quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. —Ed.]''<br />
|<br />
The quote itself is referencing how sometimes quotes include mistakes or typographical oddities that may make the reader worry a mistake has been made by the quoting author. An editor's note can be included to assure the original was like that.<br />
<br />
The quote also references the potential for ambiguity when quoting a quote that includes a fake editor’s note such as this (one that is actually by the author, not the editor). A quote that does that makes it harder to provide an actual editor’s note about the quote, because it could be unclear who wrote each editor’s note. Such problems of clarity can be solved using different formatting or typographical techniques such as footnotes. Programming languages avoid this type of ambiguity by using {{w|escape characters}}.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."''<br />
|Websites that collect quotes are infamous for not checking sources. This has been parodied in many ways.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."''<br />
|Quotes are used because they summarize succinct ideas into a memorable, pithy phrase. It is a common experience for them to be so memorable that they are the only part you remember from a given presentation, especially if the presentation was weak. <br />
|-<br />
|''"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"''<br />
|Quotes are used to add weight, wit, or authority to a work. If your quote doesn't quite manage this, however, then the inclusion of the quote might just look like you're trying to impress people. <br />
|-<br />
|''"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."''<br />
|This would probably occur if you decided to follow Randall's advice and include this quote in your work.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude.''"''<br />
|The quote imitates the stereotype of strange revelations being made by hippies, typically ones on drugs. If it were true, it would mean that whoever wrote the quoting work would be stealing the entire thing from somewhere, with the exception of these two weird sentences pointing it out.<br />
|-<br />
|''"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."''<br />
|The author of this quote is apparently making a desperate attempt to get a quote published by challenging the editors of ''{{w|Bartlett's Familiar Quotations}}''.<br />
|-<br />
|''"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."''<br />
|Inspirational quotes are often set in a fancy font above a picture of a sunset, mountain range, beach, etc. to make them look more profound. This quote suggests that, without such formatting, it looks boring and average.<br />
|- <br />
|''"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... you know what, never mind."''<br />
|People often begin speeches with a memorable quote. This quote attempts to explain that it is being used as such, but it fails and gives up.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Sent from my iPhone"''<br />
|This is the default email signature on an {{w|iPhone}}. Quoting this would lead the reader to think that you typed the preceding work on your phone.<br />
|-<br />
|''"Since there's no ending quote mark, everything after this is part of my quote. —Randall Munroe<br />
|Appears in the title text. Randall Munroe is saying that because there's no ending quotation mark, the rest of the book this quote is in is part of Randall's quote, including, weirdly, the piece of text after what the quote should be specifying that Randall has also said his name.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Needs some formatting}}<br />
:Looking for a quote for something?<br />
:Here are some for general use.<br />
<br />
:They can be attributed to xkcd or Randall Munroe as needed.<br />
<br />
:"I disagree strongly with whatever work this quote is attached to."<br />
:"This quote was taken out of context."<br />
:"This quote is often falsely attributed to Mark Twain."<br />
:"I'm being quoted to introduce something, but I have no idea what it is and certainly don't endorse it."<br />
:"This quote is very memorable."<br />
:"I wrote this book, and the person quoting me here is taking credit for it."<br />
:"This entire thing is the quote, not just the part in quote marks." [quote marks, brackets, and editor's note are all in the original. -ED.]<br />
:"Websites that collect quotes are full of mistakes and never check original sources."<br />
:"This quote will be the only part of this presentation you remember."<br />
:"Oooh, look at me, I looked up a quote!"<br />
:"If you're doing a text search in this document for the word 'butts,' the good news is that it's here, but the bad news is that it only appears in this unrelated quote."<br />
:"Wait, what if these quote marks are inside out, so everything in the rest of the document is the quotation and ''this'' part isn't? ''Duuuuude."<br />
:"The editors of ''Bartlett's Familiar Quotations'' are a bunch of cowards who don't have the guts to print this."<br />
:"This quote only looks profound when it's in a script font over a sunset."<br />
:"I don't do a lot of public speaking, so I looked up a memorable quote to start my speech, and this is what I found. OK, you're staring at me blankly, but this whole thing is a quote. I know that sounds confusing, but... You know what, never mind!"<br />
:"Sent from my iPhone."<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1708:_Dehydration&diff=1511851708: Dehydration2018-01-18T09:44:03Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1708<br />
| date = July 18, 2016<br />
| title = Dehydration<br />
| image = dehydration.png<br />
| titletext = I don't care what the research says. Everybody knows you should drink 3,000 glasses of water a day and change your oil every 8 miles.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic plays on the idea that there is little to no consensus in the scientific community with regard to the amount of water a person should drink per day. In the first panel [[White Hat]] presents [[Cueball]] with an innocent and sensible suggestion (although controversial) that people should drink six glasses of water per day. In the second panel, more characters joins the discussion, an off-panel voice claims the most {{w|Drinking_water#Requirements|common misconception}} of eight glasses a day, a number which is not supported by scientific research. [[Ponytail]] again goes two higher with ten highlighting the existence of a wide range of so-called 'optimum' liquid consumption 'rule-of-thumb'. Implied here is the variety of health-related books, articles, blogs or other literature published that self-proclaims an optimum drinking formula.<br />
<br />
The first sign of absurdity also arises here in the second panel when [[Black Hat]] posits that we need 5 glasses of water every minute. This equates to 7200 glasses of water a day, and using an often cited "standard definition of a glass"[https://www.quora.com/One-glass-of-water-is-how-many-ounces], [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061002110517AAltamZ], [http://www.sparkpeople.com/ma/How-many-ounces-is-a-glass-of-water?/7/1/27943956] being equal to 8 oz (236 ml), Black Hat is suggesting that we should each drink 1.7 cubic meters (1700 liters) of water a day, not only curing {{w|dehydration}} but also causing {{w|water intoxication}}. This is a typical Black Hat kind of statement that he uses to further emphasizes the absurdity of the problem at hand.<br />
<br />
Some time later [[Megan]], despite having read through all studies on dehydration (or low-grade dehydration in particular), still has not come to a solid conclusion. She becomes dizzy, admitting that she's been so focused on her work, she has ironically [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForgetsToEat forgotten to eat or drink]. Her personal experience with dehydration prompts someone off-panel to get some water, but since she couldn't find any consensus in her research, she asks how many glasses they should bring her. Presumably to avoid the question of "how many glasses" entirely, Cueball finally suggests that she should drink straight from the tap, a (tenuously) sincere suggestion seeing her dehydration and following the good advice to drink when you are thirsty until that state has been absolved. In the title text of [[1744: Metabolism]], released less than 3 months after this one, Cueball mentions how he starts to feel bad if he refrains from drinking, just like Megan here. In that comic it is Cueball that tells White Hat about his "problems".<br />
<br />
The title text contains a mix-up between two often stated intervals; drinking eight glasses of water per day (which makes no sense, see above) and changing the engine oil every {{w|3,000_mile_myth|3000 miles}} (almost 5000 km) which may be a good rule, but not a necessity. Obviously it's impossible to drink 3000 glasses of water, and changing the oil every eight miles (about 13 km) would make driving a car very impractical.<br />
<br />
The subject of this comic has been graphed in [[715: Numbers]] and mentioned in the what if? ''{{what if|74|Soda Planet}}'':<br />
<blockquote><br />
The question of how much water we should drink per day is the subject of furious debate—the "8 glasses" thing seems to be a myth—but the amount of water we actually drink per day seems to be about a liter.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Later, in the what if? ''{{what if|91|Faucet Power}}'', [[Randall]] comments on the preference for even numbers in the graph, and writes:<br />
<blockquote><br />
The only real solid advice I've heard is that if you're thirsty, you should drink some water.<br />
</blockquote><br />
''How many glasses is "some water"'' remains an open question...<br />
<br />
[[Beret Guy]] and Megan are participants of a thought experiment concerning glasses of water and vacuum in the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|6|Glass Half Empty}}''.<br />
<br />
And the six glasses of water that this comic began with is also mentioned later in [[1853: Once Per Day]].<br />
<br />
This is a rare example of a normal xkcd comic of few panels manages to use five of the seven [[Template:navbox characters|major characters]] who actually interact. It is the [[:Category:Characters with Hats|first comic]] where Black Hat has spoken (or directly interacted) with White Hat. Until this comic, they have only appeared together in complicated/large drawings where there is no interaction between the two. The only other time this happens is in [[1881: Drone Training]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[White Hat and Cueball standing together.]<br />
:White Hat: Many people are mildly dehydrated. And don't realize it. You should drink at least six glasses of water per day.<br />
<br />
:[A voice comes from off-panel to the left as Ponytail enters from the left and Black Hat from the right in this frameless panel.]<br />
:Off-panel voice: No, ''eight'' glasses!<br />
:Ponytail: I heard ten.<br />
:Black Hat: You need to drink at least five glasses of water per minute.<br />
<br />
:[Megan is standing to the left holding a book or a thick binder along her side while holding up a finger with the other hand. A question comes from off-panel to the right. Above her a caption is written in a small frame that breaks the top of this panel's frame:]<br />
:Later:<br />
:Megan: Okay, I just read through every study I could find to try to figure out whether low-grade dehydration is even a real thing.<br />
:Off-panel voice: What did you learn?<br />
<br />
:[Megan looking downwards, has two starbursts a circles and two dots above her head signifying dizziness. Cueball stands to the right as another voice comes from off-panel to the right.]<br />
:Megan: If you spend all day doing research and forget to eat or drink, you start to feel pretty bad.<br />
:Off-panel voice: I'll get some water.<br />
:Megan: ''But how many glas'' - Whoa, feeling dizzy.<br />
:Cueball: Maybe you should just drink straight from the tap.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1759:_British_Map&diff=1511811759: British Map2018-01-18T09:02:45Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1759<br />
| date = November 14, 2016<br />
| title = British Map<br />
| image = british_map.png<br />
| titletext = West Norsussex is east of East Norwessex, but they're both far north of Middlesex and West Norwex.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
This comic is a joke similar to [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#q=how%20americans%20see%20the%20world&safe=active&ssui=on "How Americans see the world"] showing how the average American has opinions on the world, often including jokes such as a lack of {{w|Africa}}, etc. This has been used before in [[850: World According to Americans]].<br />
<br />
Many areas of the UK are most familiar to foreigners thanks to their depiction in various fantasy novels and TV series. This map labels some of these, as well as including many silly names that simply sound like real British towns to an American ear. A protractor is shown off the coast of the {{w|Mull of Kintyre}} in reference to the "{{w|Mull of Kintyre test}}" - according to urban legend, the angle of the Mull defines the maximum allowed erectness for a man on films and home video releases in the UK.<br />
<br />
Randall previously posted [https://blog.xkcd.com/2015/11/24/a-puzzle-for-the-uk/ a map of the UK] on his blog as part of the promotion for his book ''[[What If?]]''. This map is from a very similar position and appears to have been traced from the same source, although there are some slight differences. Both maps include a sketch of {{w|Lake Windermere}} with boats on it, and both have the locations of London, Oxford and Cambridge labeled (the blog map also shows Edinburgh and Bristol - in this comic, these are labelled Eavestroughs and Minas Tirith). Both also contain references to {{w|Stonehenge}} and {{w|Watership Down}}.<br />
<br />
Note that in British English, the correct spelling of “labeled” is ‘labelled’.<br />
<br />
The title text plays around with the concept of the compass directions and how numerous regions (such as South "Sussex" and West "Wessex") incorporate such literal names in their description. Randall is creating similar sounding names which are nonsense-ish ("Norsussex" would be the region of the Northern-Southern Saxons), and placing them in relation to each other in ways which would be geographically implausible, similar to this [http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q3/xx19.html old joke about Boston]. However, in Germany there exists the region called ''Westphalia'' (''Westfalen''), and the eastern part of it is often referred to as ''East-Westphalia'' (''{{w|Ostwestfalen}}''), which sounds somewhat ridiculous. Part of the joke in the title text could be the fact that while three of the locations are fictional, Middlesex does actually exist.<br />
<br />
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable sortable"<br />
!Label on the map !! Explanation !! Actual location !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Helcaraxë<br />
|| The "[http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Helcarax%C3%AB Grinding Ice]", an area of {{w|Middle-Earth}}. Like Helcaraxë, northern Scotland is cold, mountainous and in many areas inhospitable.<br />
|| The {{w|Grampian}} region<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Blick<br />
|| Possibly referencing {{w|Wick, Caithness}}, one of the northernmost towns in Great Britain. The real Wick is substantially further north, off the edge of the map.<br />
||Near {{w|Rhynie, Aberdeenshire}}<br />
|| This is the name of a goblin in the movie "Legend" starring Tim Curry. Could also reference the art supply store, Blick Art Materials<br />
|-<br />
| Everdeen<br />
|| {{w|Katniss Everdeen}} is the heroine of ''{{w|The Hunger Games}}'' series of novels and films<br />
|| {{w|Aberdeen}}<br />
|| In colloquial Scots, its pronunciation is very similar to "Everdeen."<br />
|-<br />
| Highlands<br />
|| {{w|Scottish Highlands|No joke}}<br />
|| {{w|Scottish Lowlands}}<br />
|| Maybe deliberate trolling - Scots have strong feelings about where the Highland-Lowland border is<br />
|-<br />
| Norther Sea<br />
|| Pun on the {{w|North Sea}} - i.e. a sea that is further north (or 'norther') than the North Sea.<br />
|| {{w|Sea of the Hebrides}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Loch Lomond<br />
|| {{w|Loch Lomond|No joke}}<br />
|| Loch Lomond<br />
|| Loch Lomond is the largest lake in Great Britain, and the third largest lake in the UK. It is the subject of a well-known {{w|The_Bonnie_Banks_o%27_Loch_Lomond|traditional song}}, and was referenced in the "beaming" (teleporter) bit in the movie Spaceballs by the Scotty expy 'Snotty'. It also houses a distillery producing a whisky appreciated by Captain Haddock in ''{{w|The Adventures of Tintin}}''. Thanks to the {{w|Loch Ness Monster|monster}}, {{w|Loch Ness}} is by far the most famous Scottish loch, so naming the second most famous subverts expectations.<br />
|-<br />
| Fjordham<br />
|| {{w|Fjords}} are glacial valleys. "-ham" is a common English placename suffix from Old English, related to the modern {{w|Hamlet (place)|hamlet}}. There are several villages in England named {{w|Fordham}}.<br />
|| Near {{w|Oban}} on the {{w|Firth of Lorn}}<br />
|| The Scottish word "Firth" is related to "Fjord", although Lorn is not a fjord in the strict scientific sense - it was formed along the {{w|Great Glen Fault}} by tectonics, rather than glaciers<br />
|-<br />
| Glassdoor<br />
|| {{w|Glassdoor}} is a website where employees can review their employers<br />
|| {{w|Stirling}}<br />
|| Although it's shown near Stirling, the reference seems to be to {{w|Glasgow}}<br />
|-<br />
| Eavestrough<br />
|| A dialectal word for {{w|rain gutter}}<br />
|| {{w|Edinburgh}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Seasedge<br />
|| Procan's realm in ''Dungeons & Dragons''<br />
|| Somewhere near the Scotland-England border<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Chough<br />
|| A {{w|Chough|species of bird in the crow family}}<br />
|| The {{w|Scottish Borders}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Meowth<br />
|| {{w|Meowth}} is a cat-like Pokémon. Name may allude to {{w|Howth}}.<br />
|| {{w|Ayr}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Glutenfree<br />
|| {{w|Gluten-free}} food lacks the protein {{w|gluten}}. This allows {{w|coeliac disease}} sufferers to enjoy it, but has also become a dietary fad in itself. -free Is a common suffix to add to cities.<br />
|| {{w|Cairnryan}}, {{w|Dumfries and Galloway}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Blighton<br />
|| A mashup of {{w|Brighton}} and {{w|Blighty}}<br />
|| The {{w|Scottish Borders}}<br />
|| The real Brighton is much further south, on the south coast.<br />
|-<br />
| North Sea<br />
|| {{w|North Sea|No joke}}<br />
|| North Sea<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Eyemouth<br />
|| {{w|Eyemouth|No joke}} <br />
|| near {{w|Newcastle-upon-Tyne}}<br />
|| The real Eyemouth is further north, where "Seasedge" is marked on the map.<br />
|-<br />
| Earhand<br />
|| A pun on Eyemouth<br />
|| {{w|Carlisle}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Hairskull<br />
|| A pun on Eyemouth<br />
|| {{w|Teesside}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Belfast DeVoe<br />
|| {{w|Belfast}}, capital of Northern Ireland, mashed up with the rock band {{w|Bell Biv DeVoe}}<br />
|| {{w|Belfast}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Lakebottom<br />
|| The {{w|Lake District}}. "-bottom" is a common placename across Northern England, and refers to a town in a valley.<br />
|| {{w|Lake District}}<br />
|| Below Lakebottom is a sketch of a lake with yachts on it. This is illustrative and doesn't correspond to any of the actual lakes which would be barely visible on this map.<br />
|-<br />
| Braintree<br />
|| {{w|Braintree, Essex|Not a joke}}<br />
|| {{w|North Yorkshire}}<br />
|| The real Braintree is much further south, near where "Paulblart" is on the map. Also a possible reference to the [https://www.braintreepayments.com Braintree] online payments platform (widely advertised on podcasts), or a stop at the end of the Red Line in Boston.<br />
|-<br />
| Skinflower<br />
|| A pun on Braintree<br />
|| {{w|Yorkshire Dales}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Bjork<br />
|| {{w|Björk}} is an Icelandic singer<br />
|| {{w|East Riding of Yorkshire}}<br />
|| The reference is presumably to York (historically known as Jórvík), although it's a bit too far east.<br />
|-<br />
| Weedle<br />
|| {{w|Weedle}} is a Pokémon, and also a word meaning "to obtain by trickery or persuasion"<br />
|| {{w|Forest of Bowland}}<br />
|| In the original Pokémon Red and Blue games Weedle is most notably found in '{{w|Viridian Forest}}' which - like the real-life Forest of Bowland - is known for its diverse wildlife.<br />
|-<br />
| Eeugh<br />
|| An expression of disgust<br />
|| {{w|Kingston-upon-Hull}} (generally just "Hull")<br />
|| Pronounced 'ull by locals<br />
|-<br />
| Crewneck<br />
|| A shirt with a {{w|Crewneck|simple round collar}}.<br />
|| {{w|Blackpool}}<br />
|| There is a town called {{w|Crewe}} somewhat further south than shown in Cheshire.<br />
|-<br />
| Paisley<br />
|| {{w|Paisley, Renfrewshire|No joke}}. It sounds funny to Americans because it's associated with {{w|Paisley (design)|paisley}} fabric, a Persian-style print invented in the town. Possibly a pun on {{w|Parsley|parsley}}, a herb.<br />
|| {{w|Burnley}}<br />
|| The real Paisley is in Scotland, near Glasgow.<br />
|-<br />
| Basil<br />
|| Also {{w|Basil|a herb}}, and {{w|Basil Fawlty|one of the most famous British TV characters}}.<br />
|| {{w|Scunthorpe}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Aidenn<br />
|| An apparent pun on the {{w|Scouse}} accent: {{w|h-dropping}} and {{w|th-fronting}} mean the common "hey, then" would be pronounced "ai denn".<br />
|| {{w|Merseyside}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Hillfolk<br />
|| {{w|Hillfolk}} is an RPG. "-hill" (referring to, well, a hill) is common in British placenames, and "-folk" (referring to a tribe or culture) is seen in ''Suffolk'' and ''Norfolk''. Possibly also a reference to {{w|Hobbits}}, a race of little people that live under hills in The Lord of the Rings.<br />
|| {{w|Manchester}}<br />
|| Manchester's name does in fact reference hills: it means "castle on the {{w|breast-shaped hill}}"<br />
|-<br />
| Waterdown<br />
|| To "water something down" is to weaken it. "-down" is common in British placenames and refers to {{w|Downland|chalk hills}}. Possibly a contraction from the book and movie: Watership Down.<br />
|| Near {{w|Grimsby}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Dubstep<br />
|| {{w|Dubstep}} is a genre of electronic music with a heavy bass line.<br />
|| {{w|Dublin}}<br />
|| Dublin is the only non-UK settlement in the map, and one of two on the island of Ireland.<br />
|-<br />
| Borough-upon-Mappe<br />
|| By being recorded here, this is literally a borough upon a map. The "-upon-" is a common element of placenames for towns on rivers, although there's no River Mappe. Possibly referencing the fact that the town is on a "mappe" (map)?<br />
|| {{w|Lincolnshire Wolds}}<br />
||<br />
|-<br />
| Fhqwhgads<br />
|| "[http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/Fhqwhgads Fhqwhgads]" is a joke from the Homestar Runner internet cartoon. In the cartoon, the main character read a fanmail that was signed only with a random keyboard mash of characters, which Strong Bad shortened to "Fhqwhgads," a name that became a running gag on the cartoon.<br />
|| {{w|Wrexham}}<br />
|| This is on the Welsh border; Welsh names often look like a mish-mash of consonants to English speakers; within a few miles of Wrexham are towns like {{w|Yr Wyddgrug}} ("Mold" in English), {{w|Cefn-y-bedd}}, {{w|Gwernymynydd}} and {{w|Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog}}.<br />
|-<br />
| Cadbury<br />
|| {{w|Cadbury}} is a British chocolate company.<br />
|| Near {{w|Boston, Lincolnshire}}<br />
|| Cadbury actually built a town for its workers... but it's called {{w|Bournville}}. There are several towns called {{w|Cadbury_(disambiguation)#Places|Cadbury}} in the UK (where the Cadbury family presumably got its name), but none are near here.<br />
|-<br />
| Cabinetry<br />
|| The art of making {{w|cabinets}}.<br />
|| Near {{w|Oswestry}}<br />
||Several towns in the English Midlands have names ending in -try, including Oswestry. "Cabinetry" could be a pun on {{w|Coventry}}, which lies further to the east.<br />
|-<br />
| The Shire<br />
|| {{w|Shire (Middle-earth)|The Shire}} is home to the {{w|Hobbits}} in {{w|Middle-Earth}}<br />
|| {{w|Midlands}}<br />
|| Tolkien drew inspiration for the Shire from the {{w|West Midlands (region)|West Midlands}}, although Tolkien was from the southern part of the Midlands (roughly where Dampshire is on the map).<br />
An internet posting titled [http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/revocation.asp "A Letter to the U.S" after the 2016 Presidential Election"], falsely attributed to John Cleese, could also have been inspiration for this map. It in particular says: "3. You should learn to distinguish English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). Scottish dramas such as 'Taggart' will no longer be broadcast with subtitles.You must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire Floridashire, Louisianashire." <br />
|-<br />
| Landmouth<br />
|| Literal description<br />
|| {{w|The Wash}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Brandon<br />
|| {{w|Brandon#United Kingdom|Not a joke}}<br />
|| {{w|The Fens}}<br />
|| There are several Brandons in the UK, the nearest being where "Keebler" is on the map. The area shown is borderline-uninhabitable, as it is marshland and lies mostly below sea-level. Only a few farms and isolated hamlets exist here.<br />
|-<br />
| Hamwich<br />
|| A ham sandwich. Both "-ham" and "-wich" are common generic placenames. The village called simply "Ham" and the other called "Sandwich" are fairly close to each other, with a famous roadsign that points to "Ham Sandwich" between them.<br />
|| {{w|Norwich}}<br />
|| Likely to be coincidence but the "Cheese Hamwich" is a breaded cheese and turkey food product sold by {{w|Bernard_Matthews_Ltd}} whose food processing facility is based not far from this map location.<br />
|-<br />
| West Norsussex<br />
|| Mash-up of {{w|West Sussex}} ("South Saxons") with the obsolete {{w|Wessex}} ("West Saxons") and never extant {{w|Norsex}} ("North Saxons")<br />
|| {{w|Midlands}}<br />
||<br />
|-<br />
| Redsox<br />
|| The {{w|Boston Red Sox}} are a baseball team<br />
|| {{w|The Fens}}<br />
|| The Boston Red Sox play at Fenway Park. The map location is not far from the British {{w|Boston, Lincolnshire|Boston}} <br />
|-<br />
| Keebler<br />
|| The {{w|Keebler Elves}} advertise cookies in the US<br />
|| {{w|Elveden}}<br />
|| The name of this village in Thetford Forest means "valley of the elves". <br />
|-<br />
| Bloughshire<br />
|| Most British counties have "-shire" in their name. Originally it meant they were administered by a {{w|sheriff}}. However, they are usually no longer known by those names in Wales.<br />
|| {{w|Powys}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Lionsgate<br />
|| {{w|Lionsgate|A film studio}}<br />
|| {{w|Leicester}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Kingsbottom<br />
|| Another "-bottom". A possible reference to {{w|King's Landing}}, the capital of the Seven Kingdoms of {{w|Westeros}} and one of its districts Fleabottom.<br />
|| {{w|Suffolk Coast National Nature Reserve|Suffolk Coast}}<br />
|| Possibly named for the town of {{w|King's Lynn}}, also located in East Anglia but close to its north coast.<br />
|-<br />
| Aberforth<br />
|| {{w|Aberforth Dumbledore}} is {{w|Albus Dumbledore}}'s brother in the ''Harry Potter'' series. The name is sometimes translated as "from the river", but without any etymological references. "Aber" is Welsh for a "river mouth" or estuary, and is widespread in Wales, and occasionally found due to Celtic influence in other parts of the UK (such as {{w|Aberdeen}}).<br />
|| {{w|Aberystwyth}}<br />
|| {{w|Aberporth}} ("Mouth [of the] port" - the Welsh equivalent of the the English name Portsmouth) is a real town located a little further southwest along the Welsh coast. {{w|Forth}} may be a reference to the {{w|Firth of Forth}} in Scotland, where "Firth" means estuary or fjord, and "Forth" is thought to mean "the open air". Aberforth would literally mean "the mouth of the river Forth", which is the location of {{w|Edinburgh}} in Scotland. Alternatively, "forth" in Welsh could be a soft mutated form of the Welsh name "{{w|Borth}}" (the name of a town - but not a river - a little further north along the coast), which is itself a soft mutated form of the word "porth" meaning port.<br />
|-<br />
| South Norwessex<br />
|| Another mash-up of {{w|Sussex}} ("South Saxons") with the obsolete {{w|Wessex}} ("West Saxons") and never extant {{w|Norsex}} ("North Saxons"). Also southwest of West Norsussex.<br />
|| {{w|Birmingham}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Dryford<br />
|| Would refer to a river crossing without water. "{{w|Ford (crossing)|-ford}}" is a common placename element.<br />
|| {{w|Shropshire Hills}}<br />
||<br />
|-<br />
| Frampton<br />
|| There are many {{w|Frampton}}s in the UK. It means "town on the river Frome" - and there are also several {{w|River Frome}}s. The name is famous thanks to rock musician {{w|Peter Frampton}}<br />
|| {{w|Bury St Edmunds}}<br />
||see also "Southframpton"<br />
|-<br />
| Cambridge<br />
|| {{w|Cambridge|No joke}}<br />
|| {{w|Cambridge}}<br />
|| Cambridge and Oxford, the two most prestigious university towns, are correctly marked. Together, they form {{w|Oxbridge}}<br />
|-<br />
| Kingsfriend<br />
|| Possibly a joke about the royal patronage given to certain towns - for instance, {{w|Bognor Regis}} and {{w|Royal Wootton Bassett}}. Also {{w|Knighton, Powys|Knighton}} (a King's friend?) is very close to this locale, and so is {{w|Kington, Herefordshire|Kington}}.<br />
|| Near the England-Wales border<br />
||<br />
|-<br />
| Cair Paravel<br />
|| {{w|Cair Paravel}} is the castle where the ruler of {{w|Narnia}} lives in the ''Narnia'' series.<br />
|| {{w|Dedham Vale}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Camelot<br />
|| {{w|Camelot}} was (in legend) {{w|King Arthur}}'s court.<br />
|| Near the England-Wales border<br />
|| The King Arthur myth did in fact originate in the Welsh culture. However, most sites associated with Camelot, such as {{w|Winchester}}, {{w|Glastonbury}} and {{w|Cadbury Castle}}, are in England.<br />
|-<br />
| Nothingham<br />
|| A pun on {{w|Nottingham}}, famous for {{w|Sherwood Forest}}, the legendary home of {{w|Robin Hood}}.<br />
|| Near {{w|Northampton}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Cumberbatch<br />
|| A surname, best known as that of actor {{w|Benedict Cumberbatch}}.<br />
|| {{w|Harlow}}<br />
|| The surname of a famous actress is replaced with that of a famous actor<br />
|-<br />
| Dampshire<br />
|| A pun on the county of {{w|Hampshire}}. Generically a joking reference to any county, particularly of the {{w|West Country}}, to imply it is particularly prone to rain.<br />
|| Gloucestershire<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| The CW<br />
|| {{w|The CW|An American TV channel}}.<br />
|| {{w|Pembrokeshire}}<br />
|| Presumably the placement is a reference to Welsh words such as "cwm" which use W as a vowel.<br />
|-<br />
| Whaling<br />
|| The practice of hunting whales. May be a reference to other -ing towns like {{w|Reading, Berkshire|Reading}} (which is actually pronounced "redding", not "reeding"), and also to its location in Wales.<br />
|| {{w|Merthyr Tydfil}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Paulblart<br />
|| ''{{w|Paul Blart: Mall Cop}}'' is a 2009 comedy film starring Kevin James<br />
|| Near {{w|Chelmsford}}<br />
|| Possibly a humorous contrast with Cumberbatch above, a highbrow British classical actor followed by a lowbrow American movie character.<br />
|-<br />
| Oxford<br />
|| {{w|Oxford|No joke}}<br />
|| {{w|Oxford}}<br />
|| See Cambridge. Surprisingly, Randall made no attempt to troll readers by switching the locations of Cambridge and Oxford.<br />
|-<br />
| Moorhen<br />
|| The {{w|moorhen}} is a waterfowl.<br />
|| {{w|Gower Peninsula}}<br />
|| Possibly punning on nearby {{w|Swansea}}.<br />
|-<br />
| Cardigan<br />
|| {{w|Cardigan, Ceredigion|No joke}} - it seems funny to Americans because of the {{w|Cardigan (sweater)|knitted sweater}} popularised by the {{w|James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan|Earl of Cardigan}}<br />
|| {{w|Newport, Wales}}<br />
|| The actual Cardigan is on the west coast. The name may be punning on the city of {{w|Cardiff}}, capital of Wales, which is further south-west.<br />
|-<br />
| BBC Channel 4<br />
|| A composite of {{w|Channel 4}} and the {{w|BBC}} (UK TV operators) confusing the meaning of TV channel with a geographic channel.<br />
|| {{w|Bristol Channel}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| London<br />
|| By virtue of being the capital and largest city, as well as a famous {{w|world city}}, London is one of the few cities in Britain that anyone, no matter how ignorant of British geography, can manage to name correctly.<br />
|| London<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| GMT<br />
|| A reference to {{w|Greenwich Mean Time}}. Shown on the map near the London bourough of Greenwich through which the GMT meridian passes.<br />
|| {{w|Greenwich}} (roughly)<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Corbyn<br />
|| A reference to leader of the UK {{w|Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party}} {{w|Jeremy Corbyn}}.<br />
|| {{w|The Cotswolds}}<br />
|| May be a confusion with the town of {{w|Corby}} although it is not near the location shown.<br />
|-<br />
| Tems-upon-Thames<br />
|| A joke about the counter-intuitive pronunciation of {{w|Thames}}.<br />
|| {{w|Rochester}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Minas Tirith<br />
|| {{w|Minas Tirith}} is the capital of Gondor in ''Lord of the Rings'' and is built on the side of a mountain.<br />
|| {{w|Bristol}}<br />
|| Clifton Village, in Bristol, is built on the side of the Avon Gorge so could be compared to {{w|Minas Tirith}}. Nearby {{w|Cheddar Gorge}} is famous for its steep cliffs that resemble the landscape from Lord of the Rings. <br />
|-<br />
| Hogsmeade<br />
|| {{w|Hogsmeade}} is the nearest village to Hogwarts in the ''Harry Potter'' books.<br />
|| {{w|Dover}}<br />
|| The fictional Hogsmeade was in Scotland. Randall shows the {{w|Channel Tunnel}} running from there, a possible reference to Hogsmeade's secret connections to Hogwarts.<br />
|-<br />
| Tubemap<br />
|| The {{w|Tube Map}} is the map of the {{w|London Underground}}, widely considered a masterpiece of design.<br />
|| {{w|Outer London}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Cambnewton<br />
|| {{w|Cam Newton}} is quarterback for the {{w|Carolina Panthers}}. "Cam-" is common for placenames on any of the several British rivers called "{{w|Cam River|Cam}}", while "Newton" means "new town". Also possibly a pun on Camden Town, a touristic district in North London, although not its actual location on the map.<br />
|| {{w|West Country}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Efrafa<br />
|| Efrafa is a rabbit warren in the story ''{{w|Watership Down}}''.<br />
|| {{w|Chidden}}<br />
|| According to the story, the warren is located roughly here - the real {{w|Watership Down, Hampshire|Watership Down}} is in Hampshire.<br />
|-<br />
| Chansey<br />
|| {{w|Chansey|Another Pokémon}}. "-sey" is a common suffix meaning "island".<br />
|| {{w|Dungeness (headland|Dungeness}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Oughghough<br />
|| Playing on common place name elements, "oughghough" has no clear pronunciation under the rules of English. It could be "Uff-guff", "Oo-gow", "Uh-guh" or any combination of these sounds. The name looks similar to the real {{w|Loughborough}} ("Luff-bruh")<br />
|| {{w|Barnstaple}}<br />
|| Legend has it that Loughborough was once pronounced 'Loogabarooga' by a visiting Australian.<br />
|-<br />
| Sundial<br />
|| A {{w|sundial}} is a clock using a shadow to tell the time.<br />
|| {{w|Wiltshire}}<br />
|| The location roughly corresponds with {{w|Stonehenge}}, an ancient stone circle that was likely used to track the sun (though as a ritual calendar, rather than a clock)<br />
|-<br />
| Dobby<br />
|| {{w|Magical_creatures_in_Harry_Potter#Dobby|Dobby}} is a character in {{w|Harry Potter}}.<br />
|| {{w|Southampton}}<br />
|| Similar to {{w|Derby}}.<br />
|-<br />
| Lower Bottom<br />
|| Another -bottom. Also a redundancy, as the "bottom" is the lowest place by definition.<br />
|| {{w|Devon}}<br />
||<br />
|-<br />
| Southframpton<br />
|| A confusion with {{w|Southampton}} which is nearby the location shown. The use of the postfix "frampton" is a reference to the "Frampton" elsewhere on the map, just as Southampton is distinguished from {{w|Northampton}}.<br />
|| {{w|Milford on Sea}}<br />
|| Frampton happens to be a common surname in the area.<br />
|-<br />
| Blandford<br />
|| {{w|Blandford|No joke}}<br />
|| {{w|Cornwall}}<br />
|| The real Blandford is a bit further east, in Dorset, roughly under the m in 'Southframpton'.<br />
|-<br />
| Menthol<br />
|| {{w|Menthol}} is a chemical with minty taste that produces a cooling sensation, and is used in mints and flavoured cigarettes.<br />
|| {{w|Eastbourne}}<br />
|| Possibly a reference to Methil in Fife (but possibly not).<br />
|-<br />
| West Sea<br />
|| Literal description.<br />
|| {{w|Atlantic Ocean}}<br />
|| Historically, this was the name for the ocean off the UK's west coast. According to the {{w|Shipping Forecast#Region names|list of sea areas}} used in the UK's {{w|Shipping Forecast}}, that region of sea is called "Lundy"<br />
|-<br />
| Tarp<br />
|| Tarp, short for {{w|tarpaulin}}, is a waterproof sheet for storage and weather protection.<br />
|| {{w|Teignmouth}}<br />
|| <br />
|-<br />
| Longbit<br />
|| Literal description.<br />
|| {{w|Cornwall}}<br />
|| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
: [A black-and-white map of Great Britain. The detail on the map is minimal, showing mainly the outlines of the land, upward-pointing angles<!-- is there a better way to describe these? --> representing mountains, and points representing cities. The only other features are a small drawing of a protractor south of one peninsula, and a lake with two small sailboats on the west side of the largest landmass. The caption in the upper-right states in large letters "A BRITISH MAP," then in smaller letters underneath, "LABELED BY AN AMERICAN." Most of the map's area is covered by labels for various features, which are listed below.]<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
In Scotland, from north to south<br />
Helcaraxë<br />
Blick<br />
Everdeen<br />
Norther Sea (to the west)<br />
Highlands<br />
Loch Lomond<br />
Fjordham<br />
Glassdoor<br />
Eavestroughs<br />
Seasedge<br />
Meowth<br />
Chough<br />
Blighton<br />
Glutenfree<br />
<br />
In England, from north to south<br />
Eyemouth<br />
Earhand<br />
Hairskull<br />
Lakebottom<br />
Braintree<br />
Skinflower<br />
Weedle<br />
Bjork<br />
Crewneck<br />
Paisley<br />
Eeugh<br />
Aidenn<br />
Basil<br />
Hillfolk<br />
Waterdown<br />
Borough-Upon-Mappe<br />
Cadbury<br />
Landmouth (to the East)<br />
The Shire<br />
West Norsussex<br />
Redsox<br />
Hamwich<br />
Lionsgate<br />
Keebler<br />
South Norwessex<br />
Kingsbottom<br />
Cambridge<br />
Frampton<br />
Nothingham<br />
Cair Paravel<br />
Dampshire<br />
Cumberbatch<br />
Oxford<br />
Paulblart<br />
Corbyn<br />
London<br />
GMT<br />
BBC Channel 4 (to the West)<br />
Minas Tirith<br />
Tems-Upon-Thames<br />
Tubemap<br />
Hogsmeade<br />
Cambnewton<br />
Oughghough<br />
Efrafa<br />
Chansey<br />
Sundial<br />
Lower Bottom<br />
Dobby<br />
Menthol<br />
West Sea (to the West)<br />
Blandford<br />
Southframpton<br />
Tarp<br />
Longbit<br />
<br />
In Whales, from north to south<br />
Fhqwhgads<br />
Cabinetry<br />
Bloughshire<br />
Aberforth<br />
Dryford<br />
Kingsfriend<br />
Camelot<br />
The CW<br />
Whaling<br />
Moorhen<br />
Cardigan<br />
<br />
In Northern Ireland<br />
Belfast Devoe<br />
<br />
In the Republic of Ireland<br />
Dubstep<br />
</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Maps]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1759:_British_Map&diff=151180Talk:1759: British Map2018-01-18T09:00:43Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
Might be a bit of a stretch, but Cardigan could also be a reference to Ceredigion, the Welsh county. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.34|172.68.10.34]] 16:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
:Ceredigion and Cardigan are the same word - Cardigan is just the Anglicised spelling. That's why it was formerly called Cardiganshire. The town is still called Cardigan, which is mentioned in the table. [[User:Schroduck|Schroduck]] ([[User talk:Schroduck|talk]]) 08:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
Minas Tirith could be a reference to the gorges in North Somerset. It's slap-bang on Cheddar Gorge and Clifton Village (cliff-town) in Bristol is built on the side of the Avon Gorge. [[User:Camarones|Camarones]] ([[User talk:Camarones|talk]]) 12:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The actual location for Braintree should be Essex not North Yorkshire.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.171|141.101.98.171]] 15:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
:When I first saw that, I was wondering how likely a [http://images.neopets.com/halloween/braintree.gif Neopets] reference was. Seeing that it's a real thing, and the creators of Neopets are from the UK, things make a lot more sense now. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.196|108.162.210.196]] 14:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Could Highland be a reference to Highlander? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.84|173.245.52.84]] 15:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
OK, I know you removed the </nowiki> that ruined the italics there, [[User:Davidy22|Davidy]]. Don't lie to me, you troll. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 19:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
:Whoops, was removing autogenerated nowiki text from another user, missed the first tag. Also, that edit was completely unnecessary. 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
::No it wasn't, see that "Please sign your comments" below? Leaving the <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> made the italics become quotemarks, and if there hadn't been a </nowiki> at the end of it, it would ruin the rest too. But thanks for apologizing, just try to be more careful. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 20:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Blick could be referring to Wick , at the top of Scotland ''<small>Please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></small>''<br />
<br />
''Waterdown: Near [the actual] Grimsby'' Interestingly enough, in southern Ontario, Canada, there's a Waterdown not far from a Grimsby. Waterdown is considered part of Hamilton, and is towards its northwestern edge, while Grimsby is to Hamilton's east. --[[User:VonAether|VonAether]] ([[User talk:VonAether|talk]]) 17:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The protractor off the West coast of Scotland is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mull_of_Kintyre_test <br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.215|141.101.98.215]] 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Blick could also be Oldmeldrum.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.229|162.158.234.229]] 19:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why aren't the coordinates part of the first table? [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is Waterdown perhaps another Watership Down reference? [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 20:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pity there's no [[wikipedia:Towcester|Towcester]] :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.251|141.101.98.251]] 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Lakebottom" is equated with Lake Windermere (probably correct, largest lake in the Lake District) and the table states that many waterspeed records were set there. Arguably it is Coniston Water (same area, third largest "Lake" in the region) that is more (in) famous for speed records... Not that Randall references speed at all. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.159|141.101.98.159]] 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree with this, Windermere was home to only one (successful) water speed record attempt. Coniston is more popular for them as it doesn't have as many islands, so you can get a longer run in. Also, whichever one it is, it is drawn roughly east-west, whereas both Coniston and Windermere run north-south.<br />
<br />
For me, the lake with the two boats is an obvious reference to the children's book 'Swallows and Amazons'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swallows_and_Amazons#Places_in_Swallows_and_Amazons See wikipedia] -- so these are neither speedboats nor yachts but rather sailing dinghies. There is however a discrepancy: they had a gaff rig, but it looks like Randall gave them a Bermuda rig.<br />
<br />
Helcaraxë and Blick seem to share a single dot. Maybe Randall forgot to put a dot there, or there's some other reason? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.112|108.162.216.112]] 22:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
:Helcaraxë and Highlands are areas, not towns, so don't get dots. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.32|198.41.239.32]] 07:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
since Randal Munroe wrote the comic, and he is an american, the map WAS labeled by an american[[User:Jessep13|Jessep13]] ([[User talk:Jessep13|talk]]) 00:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
‘Seasedge’ and ‘Eyemouth’ look like they should be Seahouses and Lynemouth. So far as I can tell, Seasedge is marked as a little north of Seahouses, roughly west of Lindisfarne (which suggests Haggerston; regardless, north Northumberland coast), and Eyemouth is marked approximately where Ashington should be; ‘Hairskull’ appears to be where Durham should be. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.160|141.101.98.160]] 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
"BBC Channel 4" might also be a reference to Torchwood and other BBC Shows that were filmed in Wales (though did not necessarily air on Channel 4) [[User:Bpendragon|Bpendragon]] ([[User talk:Bpendragon|talk]]) 03:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In fact, "Channel 4" is a channel not related to the BBC, so the reference to "BBC Channel 4" would be a mash-up between "Channel 4" and "BBC4" [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Wessex", although "obsolete" as a place name, is still in common use as a descriptive term. For example, there is both a Wessex Police Force and a Wessex Water supply company. [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 08:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I know the "Fhqwhgads" reference from the Ikea-ripoff video game Home Improvisation - always thought it was a pun in that game on Ikea's Swedish product names. Is the Homestar Runner reference older? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.162|141.101.98.162]] 09:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
:I always thought it originated in Homestar Runner as a randomly typed name of an email sender. It's from Strong Bad Email #9 dated January 14, 2002, far predating Home Improvisation from 2015. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.243|108.162.221.243]] 14:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Aidenn" is an alternate form of "Eden." It's best known for Poe's using it in "The Raven." If the actual location is Merseyside, it could be a wordplay suggesting divine mercy. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The “hey then” explanation for “Aidenn” is so tortured as to be implausible. It should be changed per the above comment. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.81|172.68.55.81]] 13:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The text [[http://cogink.com/cleese/]] that is referenced for "The Shire" and attributed to John Cleese is actually a hoax, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/revocation.asp [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 10:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
:And the reference in this piece to the incorrectness of "Devonshire" is completely wrong. Although the official name of the county is now "Devon", the form "Devonshire" has a pedigree going back over 1000 years and is still used in formations such as the Duke of Devonshire, HMS Devonshire, the Devonshire Regiment etc. The same goes for Dorset/Dorsetshire. [[User:Mikej|Mikej]] ([[User talk:Mikej|talk]]) 13:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Tarp" probably refers to the meme "It's a tarp!": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=It%27s%20a%20tarp. [[User:Yodah|Yodah]] ([[User talk:Yodah|talk]]) 11:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Riffing on Boston?<br />
<br />
The title text may be derivitive of an old joke around Randall's home town, where Boston has neighborhoods with geographically illogical names: The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the center we find the South End.<br />
This is not to be confused with South Boston, which lies directly east from the South End.<br />
North of the South End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End. BackBay was filled in years ago<br />
<br />
Also, from the counties surrounding Boston: Norfolk is mostly south of Suffolk, except for a small gerrymandered piece that is in the middle between Suffolk and Middlesex.<br />
<br />
;Bottoms<br />
"Bottoms" are not confined to Northern England. We have many bottoms here in Kent, which is not Northern. (See Lock's Bottom and Pratt's Bottom.) Also, "bottom" may refer to somewhere that is lower than somewhere else, but not necessarily in a valley as such. Also also, snurk. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.143|141.101.98.143]] 12:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: "Bottoms" is not confined to Europe either, so don't feel special - we land-dwellers in North America use it too, usually to mean 'Low-lying alluvial land adjacent to a river' as defined in the dictionary! In more general terms, this would refer to land subject to frequent flooding, commonly called a floodplain. If you have a bottoms that never floods, you really should consider renaming it. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 04:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*And "-folk" is not common in place names. It exists in Suffolk and Norfolk but two (among thousands) can't be called common. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.143|141.101.98.143]] 12:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Crewneck could also refer to actual crewneck sweaters, popularised by The Beatles in the 60's. The Beatles came from Liverpool... {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.41}}<br />
<br />
Blighton would be pronounced the same as the surname of Enid Blyton (1897-1968), a famous author of childrens' books known for their resolute white middle class-ness. But she is associated with southern England; she lived in Beaconsfield, west of London. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.82|172.68.55.82]] 16:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While I found this comic funny, what I found most humorous was the reactions to it. Facts: Randall drew a map of Britain, he said it was labeled by an American, and it included both real and made-up place names. Unfortunately, it seems that those commenting here and generating this article interpreted it as an American-bashing opportunity. I interpreted it as this: to the average American, Britain has a LOT of funny names for places and struggles with using appropriate directional prefixes. It's extremely funny how so many of you chose to see it in the least funny way possible, likely because you can only see it through your own eyes! --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why does it list "North Sea" as "no joke" when on the map it's written "Norther Sea"? There must be some explanation for writing it this way. Is it actually pronounced that way in England or something? It's sometimes called "Northern Sea" (or am I thinking of the one near Alaska? Maybe that's the joke?). Bu never "Norther Sea". Unless it's meant to sound like "Northersea", like "Battersea"? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 02:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
: It doesn't - it lists "''North'' Sea" as "no joke"; "''Norther'' Sea" says "pun on North Sea".[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=726:_Seat_Selection&diff=151179726: Seat Selection2018-01-18T08:56:54Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 726<br />
| date = April 21, 2010<br />
| title = Seat Selection<br />
| image = seat_selection.png<br />
| titletext = Don't click on the wing.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Many airlines give passengers the opportunity to select a preferred seat when booking a flight. In this case, [[Megan]] appears to be {{w|Airport check-in|checking in}} at a [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Self_check-in_at_Dublin_Airport.jpg/1280px-Self_check-in_at_Dublin_Airport.jpg self-check-in] at the airport, where she is given the opportunity to select her seat. Rather than selecting a seat on the diagram, Megan clicks on the pilot seat (which is of course not an actual option for online seating reservations{{Citation needed}}). In the last frame, we see that, because she chose the pilot seat, she is now actually sitting in the captain’s seat, flying the plane while whooping. A worried-looking pilot sits behind her at the back of the cockpit, holding both hands in front of his mouth.<br />
<br />
The title text says to not click on the wing. The implication is that if you did click on the wing you would, similarly, end up sitting outside on the wing. Even if you were able to hold on, this would put you above the Death Zone, which is at 7 km (See the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|64|Rising Steadily}}''). Standard cruising altitude is {{w|Stratosphere#Aircraft_flight|10 km.}}. It would be an unpleasant death, as the air is so thin that you actually ''lose'' oxygen to the air (as explained in the mentioned what if?).<br />
<br />
This kind of event could lead to situations as the one depicted in [[1660: Captain Speaking]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A seat selection diagram to book your seat on a plane is displayed on a gray background. It shows the front end of a plane to just behind the wings. The outline of the plane is in a darker gray color, while the seating section is light gray with black seats. The cockpit windows are shown as well as the entrance section in the front of the plane where two arrows point out of the two possible exits one on each side. The first class section with only four seats for each of the 3 rows are clearly separated from the rest of the seats. The six seats for each row is labeled with letters A to F and the rows are labeled for every third seat starting at 9 and ending after two numbers behind the wings at 27. Below, going over the wing pointing down is a frame with light gray background and the following text:]<br />
:<big>Select desired seat</big><br />
:by clicking on the above chart.<br />
:<small><br />
:F<br />
:E<br />
:D<br />
:C<br />
:B<br />
:A<br />
:9 12 15 18 21 24 27<br />
</small><br />
:[Megan in a scarf with two suitcases behind her is standing in an airport, contemplating her choice at the self-check-in looking at the display from the first panel. Behind her is a manned check-in counter with Cueball and Ponytail sitting behind three screens at the counter. Above them is a big sign with an arrow to the right:]<br />
:<big>Gates</big><br />
<br />
:[Back to the seat selection diagram where a hand shaped cursor indicates that Megan has chosen the cockpit of the plane.]<br />
:<nowiki>*Click*</nowiki><br />
:<big>Select desired seat</big><br />
:by clicking on the above chart.<br />
:<small><br />
:F<br />
:E<br />
:D<br />
:C<br />
:B<br />
:A<br />
:9 12 15 18 21 24 27<br />
</small><br />
<br />
:[Close up of Megan seen through the front window in the cockpit of the plane, holding the yoke, her scarf hanging behind her into the next windows frame, like if she was riding a motorcycle, because she makes the plane rise enough for it to fall behind her. A pilot sitting behind her seen in the third window, is wearing a cap and sunglasses. He looks at her with both his hands held in front of his mouth.]<br />
:Megan: <big>WOOOOOOO!</big><br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Computers]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=557:_Students&diff=151178557: Students2018-01-18T08:53:23Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 557<br />
| date = March 18, 2009<br />
| title = Students<br />
| image = students.png<br />
| titletext = The same goes for the one where you're wrestling the Green Ranger in the swimming pool full of Crisco. You guys all have that dream, right? It's not just me. Right?<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Students often dream they have assessments they have forgotten about that are due in a very short time period, leaving no time to complete the assignment, and thus filling them with the feeling of impending failure. The panic and helplessness of being unable to complete the work in time only subsides when the dreamer wakes from the {{w|nightmare}}, although sometimes they wake to a reality where there actually is a looming deadline. <br />
<br />
This comic suggests these dreams continue well after graduation, although there may be a nagging feeling that "I thought I completed everything and graduated".<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the {{w|List_of_Power_Rangers_S.P.D._characters#Bridge_Carson|Green Ranger}} from the ''{{w|Mighty Morphin Power Rangers}}'', or, indeed, any of the many Power Rangers/Super Sentai seasons with a green ranger. {{w|Crisco}} is a brand of vegetable shortening, a fat that is solid at room temperature and frequently used in baking. The joke is that [[Randall]] has a very odd recurring dream, and wants reassurance that he is not the only one... but he likely is!<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan as a teacher speaks to a crowded classroom, where all students are grayed out except one of the Cueball students who is drawn in the normal black line. He has a big thought bubble over his head]<br />
:Megan: Your projects are due today by 5:00 PM.<br />
:Cueball (thinking): ...I didn't even know we had one.<br />
<br />
:[Zoom in in Cueball at his small desk still thinking. No other students are visible, but the desk next to his is shown although also fading out.]<br />
:Cueball (thinking): Wait. I don't think I've been attending. I must have forgotten I had this class. Shitshitshit.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball is sitting at his desk, but now seen from the side, looking from the edge of his desk. The very right part of the drawing, with Cueballs back and chair, now begins to fade.]<br />
:Cueball (thinking): Okay, I'm gonna fail. Will it hold me back? I just want to get out of here. I thought I had ''finished'' my requirements already.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball takes his hand to his face. This panel fades so much it is only about half a panel. Even the frame around the panel disappears.]<br />
:Cueball (thinking): In fact, I think I remember graduating. What the hell is—<br />
<br />
:[As the previous scene completely fades we find Cueball waking up in his bed with small blobs above his head to indicate the dream disappearing.]<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the last three panels of the comic:]<br />
:Fun Fact: Decades from now, with school a distant<br />
:memory, you'll <u>still</u> be having this dream.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]<br />
[[Category:Dreams]]<br />
[[Category:Fun fact]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=103:_Moral_Relativity&diff=151126103: Moral Relativity2018-01-17T17:06:52Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 103<br />
| date = May 17, 2006<br />
| title = Moral Relativity<br />
| image = moral_relativity.jpg<br />
| titletext = It's science!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
This comic pokes fun at {{w|moral relativism}}, a philosophy in the field of {{w|ethics}} that holds that moral judgments are not absolute, but rather vary depending on the circumstances involved and the person (or people) making them. Randall jokes about moral relativism by comparing it to the {{w|theory of relativity}} and creating a new related philosophy called "Moral Relativity." The scientific theory of relativity predicts (among other things) that measurements of an object change the closer to the speed of light it travels—length contracts, observed time slows down, the notion of separated simultaneous events is relative, etc. The graph is a parody on that of the {{w|Lorentz factor}}, which is the factor by which time is dilated and length contracted. It is humorous that the ethics of a situation would be relative the same way physical properties change as the speed of light is approached. This supposed theory of ethics is cited to explain why rap music, perhaps particularly {{w|Gangsta rap}}, which often has lyrics describing rape, murder, and substance abuse, is better when traveling at speed.<br />
<br />
Note that '''relativity''' in Theory of Relativity (in ''physics'') came from the {{w|principle of relativity}}: the idea that equations describing the laws of physics have '''the same form''' in all admissible frames of reference (as opposed to ''moral'' relativity).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A graph, rationalization as a function of speed, increasing asymptotically at ''c''.]<br />
:Related to moral relativism, it states that ethics become subjective only when you approach the speed of light.<br />
:That is, it's okay to be self-serving, steal, and murder as long as you're going really, really fast.<br />
:(Note: This is why rap sounds better on the highway at 90 mph)<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:103:_Moral_Relativity&diff=151125Talk:103: Moral Relativity2018-01-17T17:05:24Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>The issue date might be off. All files since #101 have been created on April 11th, 2006. Anyone with an actual issue date?<br />
<br />
:I've verified that the date is now correct. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Guys, there ''is'' actually such a thing as {{w|Moral relativism}}, which is "the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise". e.g. oh... maybe whether a government should pay a ransom to some group for a kidnapped citizen? There's probably a far better example.<br />
<br />
But, anyway, this also maps well to the whole "two observers moving in differing frames of reference cannot agree on various facts" form of the Space-Time relativism. (As referenced in [[265]] and [[514]], amongst others.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 21:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=103:_Moral_Relativity&diff=151124103: Moral Relativity2018-01-17T17:04:47Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 103<br />
| date = May 17, 2006<br />
| title = Moral Relativity<br />
| image = moral_relativity.jpg<br />
| titletext = It's science!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
This comic pokes fun at {{w|moral relativism}}, a philosophy in the field of {{w|ethics}} that holds that moral judgments are not absolute, but rather vary depending on the circumstances involved and the person (or people) making them. Randall jokes about moral relativism by comparing it to the {{w|theory of relativity}} and creating a new related philosophy called "Moral Relativity." The scientific theory of relativity predicts (among other things) that measurements of an object change the closer to the speed of light it travels—length contracts, observed time slows down, the notion of separated simultaneous events is relative, etc. The graph is a parody on that of the {{w|Lorentz factor}}, which is the factor by which time is dilated and length contracted. It is humorous that the ethics of a situation would be relative the same way physical properties change as the speed of light is approached. This variation in ethics cited to explain why rap music, perhaps particularly {{w|Gangsta rap}}, which often has lyrics describing rape, murder, and substance abuse, is better when traveling at speed.<br />
<br />
Note that '''relativity''' in Theory of Relativity (in ''physics'') came from the {{w|principle of relativity}}: the idea that equations describing the laws of physics have '''the same form''' in all admissible frames of reference (as opposed to ''moral'' relativity).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A graph, rationalization as a function of speed, increasing asymptotically at ''c''.]<br />
:Related to moral relativism, it states that ethics become subjective only when you approach the speed of light.<br />
:That is, it's okay to be self-serving, steal, and murder as long as you're going really, really fast.<br />
:(Note: This is why rap sounds better on the highway at 90 mph)<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=103:_Moral_Relativity&diff=151123103: Moral Relativity2018-01-17T16:59:26Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 103<br />
| date = May 17, 2006<br />
| title = Moral Relativity<br />
| image = moral_relativity.jpg<br />
| titletext = It's science!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
This comic pokes fun at {{w|moral relativism}}, a philosophy in the field of {{w|ethics}} that holds that moral judgments are not absolute, but rather vary depending on the circumstances involved and the person (or people) making them. Randall jokes about moral relativism by comparing it to the {{w|theory of relativity}} and creating a new related philosophy called "Moral Relativity." The scientific theory of relativity predicts (among other things) that measurements of an object change the closer to the speed of light it travels—length contracts, observed time slows down, the notion of separated simultaneous events is relative, etc. The graph is a parody on that of the {{w|Lorentz factor}}, which is the factor by which time is dilated and length contracted. It is humorous that the ethics of a situation would be relative the same way physical properties change as the speed of light is approached. This variation in ethics cited to explain why rap music, perhaps particularly {{w|Gangsta rap}}, which often has lyrics describing rape, murder, and substance abuse, is better when traveling at speed.<br />
<br />
Note that '''relativity''' in Theory of Relativity (in ''physics'') came from the {{w|principle of relativity}} idea that equations describing the laws of physics have '''the same form''' in all admissible frames of reference (as opposed to ''moral'' relativity).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A graph, rationalization as a function of speed, increasing asymptotically at ''c''.]<br />
:Related to moral relativism, it states that ethics become subjective only when you approach the speed of light.<br />
:That is, it's okay to be self-serving, steal, and murder as long as you're going really, really fast.<br />
:(Note: This is why rap sounds better on the highway at 90 mph)<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=102:_Back_to_the_Future&diff=151122102: Back to the Future2018-01-17T16:57:40Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 102<br />
| date = May 15, 2006<br />
| title = Back to the Future<br />
| image = back_to_the_future.jpg<br />
| titletext = He's kind of an asshole, when you think about it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a reference to the "{{w|Back to the Future}}" film series (specifically the first film) in which the protagonist, Marty McFly (played by {{w|Michael J. Fox}}), travels back from 1985 (present day for him) to 1955 and accidentally interferes with his own parents' first meeting. He must then arrange for them to fall in love before he ceases to exist due to the paradox of his own parents never having children. An unintended side-effect of the way events occur is that his dad gains self-confidence in the past and becomes "less of a loser" in the present.<br />
<br />
As noted in the comic, the time machine Marty uses is built by his professor friend, Doctor Emmett L. Brown ({{w|Christopher Lloyd}}), out of a {{w|DeLorean DMC-12}} (a 1980s-era sports car).<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] (or possibly [[Hairy]], as the art is inconsistent in this early comic) has had a very similar experience. He suggests that the aforementioned changes to history are what he really needed to do. After a frame of awkward silence, [[Megan]] reminds him that her father was in the {{w|World Trade Center}} North Tower – implying that he died along with several thousand others in 1 World Trade Center on {{w|September 11, 2001}} at the time the tower collapsed due to a terrorist-flown passenger jet crashing into the building. Megan is therefore implying that saving her father's life (and perhaps the lives of the other 9/11 victims) might have been something else of importance he "needed" to do — perhaps something of significantly more importance. He seems completely oblivious to what she is trying to suggest. Megan starts to explain, but apparently decides that there's no point even trying to get through to him.<br />
<br />
The title text could refer Cueball/Hairy or Marty McFly.<br />
<br />
As a side note, for the comic to make sense, the events in the comic must take place after {{w|September 11, 2001}}, and not 1985 as it is in the movie. Since no dates are mentioned, Cueball probably went back by thirty years, because that's how far back Marty travels in the film.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are standing, talking to one another.]<br />
:Cueball: This weekend, my professor friend built a time machine out of a DeLorean and I went back in time! I helped make sure my parents got together and helped my dad to be less of a loser.<br />
<br />
:Megan: Wow! Do you still have the time machine?<br />
:Cueball: Nah. But I did what I really needed to do.<br />
:Megan: Uh huh.<br />
<br />
:[Neither says anything.]<br />
<br />
:Megan: Okay, you remember that my father was in the WTC North Tower, right? <br />
:Cueball: Yeah...why?<br />
:Megan: I...nothing.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Time travel]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=102:_Back_to_the_Future&diff=151114102: Back to the Future2018-01-17T16:55:36Z<p>141.101.76.16: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 102<br />
| date = May 15, 2006<br />
| title = Back to the Future<br />
| image = back_to_the_future.jpg<br />
| titletext = He's kind of an asshole, when you think about it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a reference to the "{{w|Back to the Future}}" film series (specifically the first film) in which the protagonist, Marty McFly (played by {{w|Michael J. Fox}}), travels back from 1985 (present day for him) to 1955 and accidentally interferes with his own parents' first meeting. He must then arrange for them to fall in love before he ceases to exist due to the paradox of his own parents never having children. An unintended side-effect of the way events occur is that his dad gains self-confidence in the past and becomes "less of a loser" in the present.<br />
<br />
As noted in the comic, the time machine Marty uses is built by his professor friend, Doctor Emmett L. Brown ({{w|Christopher Lloyd}}), out of a {{w|DeLorean DMC-12}} (a 1980s-era sports car).<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]], or possibly [[Hairy]], as the art could be inconsistent on this early comic, has a very similar experience. He suggests that the aforementioned changes to history are what he really needed to do. After a frame of awkward silence, [[Megan]] reminds him that her father was in the {{w|World Trade Center}} North Tower – implying that he died along with several thousand others in 1 World Trade Center on {{w|September 11, 2001}} at the time the tower collapsed due to a terrorist-flown passenger jet crashing into the building. Megan is therefore implying that saving her father's life (and perhaps the lives of the other 9/11 victims) might have been something else of importance he "needed" to do — perhaps something of significantly more importance. He seems completely oblivious to what she is trying to suggest. Megan starts to explain, but apparently decides that there's no point even trying to get through to him.<br />
<br />
The title text could refer Cueball/Hairy or Marty McFly.<br />
<br />
As a side note, for the comic to make sense, the events in the comic must take place after {{w|September 11, 2001}}, and not 1985 as it is in the movie. Since no dates are mentioned, Cueball probably went back by thirty years, because that's how far back Marty travels in the film.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan and Cueball are standing, talking to one another.]<br />
:Cueball: This weekend, my professor friend built a time machine out of a DeLorean and I went back in time! I helped make sure my parents got together and helped my dad to be less of a loser.<br />
<br />
:Megan: Wow! Do you still have the time machine?<br />
:Cueball: Nah. But I did what I really needed to do.<br />
:Megan: Uh huh.<br />
<br />
:[Neither says anything.]<br />
<br />
:Megan: Okay, you remember that my father was in the WTC North Tower, right? <br />
:Cueball: Yeah...why?<br />
:Megan: I...nothing.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Time travel]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:101:_Laser_Scope&diff=151113Talk:101: Laser Scope2018-01-17T16:52:04Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>Wouldn't this comic be about a whole gun aparatus including a laser scope if it were about "missing" (by target) your loved ones? In my opinion, this is much more about stalkers. The "good" stalkers are rarely seen (i.e. using a high powered viewing device of some kind), which would only need the sight, not a whole gun. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Nope. Nothin' ta do with stalkers. The scope is to improve the accuracy of the firearm it is attached to. It's saying "are you missing your loved ones with your un-scopified weapon? This scope will improve your accuracy and you won't miss anymore." [[Special:Contributions/207.225.239.130|207.225.239.130]] 22:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Scopified?, really [[User:Whiskey07|Whiskey07]] ([[User talk:Whiskey07|talk]]) 09:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The parity of meanings shown here is also known as "zeugma". AP English Language for the win! Anonymous 06:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC) {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.91}}<br />
:Actually, a zeugma is specifically an instance in which the word is used once, but applies to multiple parts of the sentence. If it were stated that "I wish I'd missed you then, so I wouldn't now," the title text would be an example. Since missed is included twice, it misses being a zeugma, but not being memorable. (One favorite of mine is: "You are free to execute your laws, and your citizens, as you see fit." -William Riker, Star Trek: TNG.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.197|108.162.246.197]] 05:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Might also be an reference to the classic "blues brothers movies" in which a stalker makes numerous attempts, including one attempt where she uses a rocket launcher<br />
--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.180|141.101.104.180]] 10:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Could also be a reference to the common situation, that one is too sure about one's partner (i.e. not showing them, that one misses them when being a couple but spacially apart) and this being the reason for the partner for leaving one. If one had missed them while being together they would'nt have left. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.253|162.158.89.253]] 17:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:101:_Laser_Scope&diff=151112Talk:101: Laser Scope2018-01-17T16:50:54Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>Wouldn't this comic be about a whole gun aparatus including a laser scope if it were about "missing" (by target) your loved ones? In my opinion, this is much more about stalkers. The "good" stalkers are rarely seen (i.e. using a high powered viewing device of some kind), which would only need the sight, not a whole gun. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Nope. Nothin' ta do with stalkers. The scope is to improve the accuracy of the firearm it is attached to. It's saying "are you missing your loved ones with your un-scopified weapon? This scope will improve your accuracy and you won't miss anymore." [[Special:Contributions/207.225.239.130|207.225.239.130]] 22:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Scopified?, really [[User:Whiskey07|Whiskey07]] ([[User talk:Whiskey07|talk]]) 09:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The parity of meanings shown here is also known as "zeugma". AP English Language for the win! Anonymous 06:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC) {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.91}}<br />
:Actually, a zeugma is specifically an instance in which the word is used once, but applies to multiple parts of the sentence. If it were stated that "I wish I'd missed you then, so I wouldn't now," the title text would be an example. Since missed is included twice, it misses being a zeugma, but not being memorable. (One favorite of mine is: "You are free to execute your laws, and your citizens, as you see fit." -William Riker, Star Trek: TNG.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.197|108.162.246.197]] 05:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Might also be an reference to the classic "blues brothers movies" in which a stalker makes numerous attempts, including one attempt where she uses a rocket launcher<br />
--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.180|141.101.104.180]] 10:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Could also be a reference to the common situation, that one is too sure about one's partner (i.e. not showing them, that one misses them when being a couple but spacially apart) and this being the reason for the partner for leaving one. If one had missed them while being together they would'nt have left. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.253|162.158.89.253]] 17:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:100:_Family_Circus&diff=151111Talk:100: Family Circus2018-01-17T16:48:33Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>Is it more than Pointless (<<< No full stop either, just to be consistent) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.205|108.162.249.205]] 13:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the real Family Circus, isn't it Billy who leaves those paths? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 04:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:99:_Binary_Heart&diff=151110Talk:99: Binary Heart2018-01-17T16:46:00Z<p>141.101.76.16: </p>
<hr />
<div>The l's and 0's in the binary translation make the code: 10101010011010010, which if you remove either the first or the last digit and convert to text make either, &#170;i OR T&#210; which isn't very helpful. {{unsigned|LostFire}}<br />
<br />
10101010011010010 in hexadecimal is 154D2 which could mean "I'm sad too". [[User:Noit|Noit]] ([[User talk:Noit|talk]]) 00:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wondered why he didn't include space characters, but then I realized that ASCII 32 makes for too much white space (only one bit is set) which might spoil the random appearance of the background. Also, shouldn't there be a Doctor Who reference in there somewhere? Just saying... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 18:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This may be part of the reason for 'O' as well; 'o' only has 2 unset bits. ('O' is '01001111', 'o' is '01101111'). [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.181|199.27.128.181]] 23:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe the mixture of o's and O's is only there so that the sequence of bits doesn't contain a single repeating sequence.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.84|108.162.216.84]] 20:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On the 'o's and 'O's - Converting 011001110010111 from binary to decimal gives 13207. Googling that number only gives hits about Syracuse. Does anyone know if there's a connection there? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.205|141.101.89.205]] 01:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This [http://www.binaryhexconverter.com/binary-to-ascii-text-converter Binary-to-Ascii converter] tool can be used to decode the sequence to a string. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Some of the o's in love are capitalized and some of the o's in you are capitalized but no other letter in any other position has mixed capitalization. If you take a lower case o to be a 0 and a capital o to be a 1, that gives you the string of binary digits: 011001110010111. Unfortunately that is 15 bits, not 16 so not quite enough for two letters, but apparently the first 8 bits are "g". If we append a 0 to the last 7 bits, it becomes "g.", if we use a 1 it becomes "g/". Neither seems likely to be anything that i can tell. in hex, those 15 digits become 0x3397. Appending a 0 it's 0x672E and appending a 1 it's 0x672F. Negating the bits (in case 1's and 0's were reversed) didn't seem to help either unfortunately. I think there is more to the o and O's but not sure what it is :P<br />
[[User:Atrix256|Atrix256]] ([[User talk:Atrix256|talk]]) 02:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
: It could be the start of 'g*d'... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 16:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The heart pattern isn't symmetric, could the masked-out bits make a message? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.64.29|141.101.64.29]] 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
:The binary of the heart only is 1111101001011111101111010011101100110111011001100111100101001111011101101001011011001110111011001100111001010011110011010010110110111011001001011011010010011100101. I tried entering it into the converter linked to above, and got "�_�;7fyOv����S�-�%���". [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 21:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.16