https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=172.70.147.23&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T06:54:08ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2536:_Wirecutter&diff=220778Talk:2536: Wirecutter2021-11-14T01:12:28Z<p>172.70.147.23: article needs a serious pruning of assertions.</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Note: they don't say they tried out a large number of ''religions'' but a large number of '''belief systems'''. This could include things like "Libertarianism" or "Monarchists". (By CWALLENPOOLE, but not signed in.)<br />
:But the picture of the article title says “The Best Religion” [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.233|108.162.216.233]] 20:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The phrase "highly controversial" should not be used in the explanation. For the record, I am opposed to the things listed in that sentence and my objection is not based in a desire to defend them. Religion itself might be said to be "highly controversial" so the use in the last sentence is both superfluous and biased. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.82.53|172.70.82.53]] 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I really want this article to be real. ----Dave<br />
: Me too. I did something similar in my early 20s, and feel such an article honestly done would be a great help to many. In fact, the current description is slightly inaccurate- in that even lifelong practitioners, do usually have a wandering time in early adulthood if not given direction. Such an article would give some direction.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The major problem with trying multiple religions is that to fully test a religion you need to die - and most people only die once, with the ability to die multiple times being exclusive feature of small number of religions. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
:I ain't mad Hkmaly, but the idea that a religion's primary purpose is to promote a vision of the afterlife is alien to a lot of religions (including my own flavor of Judaism), whose policy on the hereafter is "afterlife, shmafterlife, pass the bagels." Hence also my edits toning down the "religions are about provable belief claims" rhetoric (eyeroll). ----Ben<br />
::Reviewers rarely fully test tech items. (e.g. they often don't cover complete lifecycle costs - what happens to the device after it dies, how easy is it to move on to a new one, etc.) Don't have to test everything to have a meaningful review.<br />
::Many religions make claims about impacts in this life. (e.g., intercessory prayer) Such claims are eminently testable. A comparative review would be interesting. I am only aware of a few such tests, mostly comparing a single product to general average or to no intervention {{w|Efficacy of prayer}}. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.167|108.162.245.167]] 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It doesn't look like the search bar text says "search," but I can't make out what it actually says.--[[User:KrazyKat|KrazyKat]] ([[User talk:KrazyKat|talk]]) 06:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe it says Seance, since for "seach" the high stoke from the H is missing. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.10|162.158.203.10]] 07:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
::or Sermon maybe, that would fit the theme<br />
:Could be Search with large S and smaller caps for the rest? Anyone subscribe to the NYT and care to visit the actual WireCutter site to see the formatting? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.147.195|172.70.147.195]] 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: Don't need to be a subscriber to see the site. It says "Show me the best..." [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 13:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't want to sound controversial but tithing would be a refreshing change comparing to current tax systems [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
: Agreed- 10% is much less than the near 50% I'm paying when I figure it all in.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: You really want to pay tithes AND taxes? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.63|108.162.249.63]] 18:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Last night I was writing a huge thing about religions' almost universal reluctance to be 'tried out' (lestways allowing easy unsubscription at the end) <!-- ((Here's what I wrote, though...)) Most religions (not just the three major Abrahamic supersets) specify exclusivity. To the extent that the sub-sub-branch of the sub-branch of your umbrella faith probably doesn't really even encourage tolerance of a fellow sub-sub-branch of the same sub-branch of the same umbrella (see [[https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religion the archetypal joke]]) and may even be more aggressive to that sibling creed (that might easily absorb many of the fickle-faithful) than to entirely dissimilar one (which has less inroads, and may only extract the really awkward square pegs not really happy with theround holes). It's a memetic necessity, as even in the case of the casual "come and try us!" attitude by any 'recruiting' and evangelising religion there must by necessity still be a trap to close off too many apostates (or head off the 'foreign' proselytisers before they create too many such convertees) or else the creed becomes leaky and needs other ''very'' strong (cultish!) practices to continue to be a going concern. Syncretism is another solution, especially in a panthestic context, by ensuring everything still ''is'' within the rather broader church (literally and figuratively), but still maintains borders that are deliberately guarded against easy departure. ((...that's part of what I wrote.)) --> but on reflection, after a night's sleep, I'm wondering if they just had 70+ 'mystery shoppers' tasked to report back on one assigned 'product' each, their reports aggregated so this didn't matter too much (to the overall report-writers, at least). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.175|172.70.85.175]] 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also, the 'religious' wars metaphor extends quite easily to different platforms, yet (say) laptop reviews might compare a set of Windows vs a Mac or two (vs Chromebook, and maybe others) as options. And when it comes to keyboards, the QWERTY-Othodoxy and the Dvorak-Reformists both have bad (and untrue) things to say about each other, when 'enough time' with any given layout should be good enough to prosper in that. (That said, I had a {{w|Casio_FX-702P|programmable calculator}} from the '80s until it gave up the ghost some time post-Millenium, and I really did not get on with its ''alphabetical''-order keyboard all that time, perhaps because I was QWERTYing almost everywhere else.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.175|172.70.85.175]] 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
:In the case of religions though, the wars are not allegorical, they are literal. Nothing else in human experience really compares to the effects of a religious war (except ''maybe'' our wars to support a certain socioeconomic idealogy). The impact of format wars don't even come close; even if you count Uranium VS Thorium. This comic doesn't really draw a ''comparison'' between reviewing religions & reviewing products; so much as it ''contrasts'' the enormous differences in how we approach the two subjects... <br /> <br />
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(Also also: QWERTY with UK-layout is my own personal sub-sect, with occasional need to adapt to US-layout (physically printed keycaps and/or what the computer ''thought'' was plugged in) with " and # and ~ characters amongst the main jumbled up ones, and no easy £ access. Which wasn't actually as unnerving as being in the 'wrong' bit of Belfast, but had the same subtle note of discordant undertone to it until I shifted my mental gears or ideally corrected the situation satisfactorarily by configuration.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.175|172.70.85.175]] 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There's a book by John S. Dunne, ''The Way of All the Earth'', that advocates essentially trying out religions while keeping one foot in one's own (Dunne describes it as "crossing the abyss and crossing back"). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.158|162.158.74.158]] 17:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Surprised no-one has yet mentioned this joke was done in almost exactly the same way on the UK satirical TV show TW3 in 1963 by David Frost (of later Frost/Nixon fame). --- jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRZWyfERiCc<br />
<br />
I was just looking for psychological/psychiatrical papers that say something about the frequency of mental illnesses by religion. Maaaaaaaaaayyybeeeeeeeeee there is a religion that is clearly superior to other religions in that regard, and so government health officials could make a recommendation to change to a specific religion. :-P --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.57|162.158.88.57]] 10:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
:But then, illnesses (as well as the symptoms of the same illness) depend on the culture, so my sardonic idea was probably left unresearched...--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.106|162.158.91.106]] 12:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Feels like there should be a line in there about how religion is itself often "that which determines what is valued" and therefore very hard to treat objectively. So, for example, if your religion taught that discipline was inherently good, you would think less of another religion that specifically warned against the dangers of excessive discipline. Meanwhile, a member of that religion might think YOUR religion was worse, because - according to the tenets of THEIR religion - you put TOO MUCH emphasis on discipline, while you think your emphasis is correct and THEY are wrong for not having it.<br />
Now, granted, people might want different things from their technology - one person might want user-friendliness, another might value greater customizability - but religion is different in that it, in itself, informs our understandings of "what is valuable". It would be like if Apple users actively began extolling the benefits of user-friendliness BECAUSE they are Apple users and Apple itself is what taught them to value user-friendliness, while Linux users were originally indifferent but BECAME fans of customizability BECAUSE they used Linux. (And yes, there can be cult-like elements of both fandoms, but hopefully the distinction I'm drawing here is reasonably clear: religion tells you what is valuable, technology does not.) <br />
<br />
(Also, why all the Judaism-specific stuff now?) --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.106|172.69.68.106]] 16:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Rather than picking one religion - join them all. Slag-blah takes a militant agnostic approach (we don't know, and neither do you). So they believe in/practice all religions (one a day for a year, so their calendar is 7,823 days long). From [https://web.archive.org/web/20150428210028/http://www.airshipentertainment.com/buckcomic.php?date=20071222 Buck Godot Zap Gun for Hire - Learning about Slag-blah by Phil Foglio, Dec. 2007] Sadly hard to find online, but here is the relevant page from the archive. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.167|108.162.245.167]] 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Went to graduate school (Wash U, St Louis) where one of my classmates said [of the weather!], "I don't know what religion to be." Huh? He explained his habit was to try out a different religion each season, but the weather that month had been changing so often that he didn't know which one to follow on a given day! [Think he was only half serious]<br />
<br />
I feel like the explanation's focus on "can't easily change religion" is both inaccurate and quite missing the point. Religious freedom is not about whether belief is inherent or chosen, but rather about the fact that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to believe. The controversial part, IMO, is not "criticism of an inherent feature like race", but rather, it's the fact that Wirecutter is analysing belief systems, not by trying to judge their truthfulness, but in simple ROI terms. It's a bit like analysing whether female or male children are more cost-effective; people will get upset about the fact that you made the analysis in such mercenary terms at all.<br />
<br />
I am also concerned with the paragraph speculating about ease of changing religion and its possible implications towards comparison between discrimination on the basis of political belief versus skin color. This is a topic about which there is much debate in many places and I'm not sure that debate is appropriate for this site. I say this not out of any particular stance regarding that debate, I say that because this site is intended to provide explanations relating to XKCD and not really for comparison of different kinds of discrimination. I'm going to remove that paragraph. If you strongly disagree please feel to revert my edit but I'd appreciate it if you would then share here why you think it helps explain the comic to someone who might not otherwise understand. [[User:Tomb|Tomb]] ([[User talk:Tomb|talk]]) 13:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The fact that people cannot compare and choose a religion (and are also willing to die with their chosen religion, e.g. in the face of persecution) is the very reason religious freedom exists. Thank you for deleting the section. I will not contribute here for a while.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.128|162.158.89.128]] 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
::This wiki is exclusively about presentation of the comic, not discussion. Nor is it a Mom an' Pop shop where you can threaten their lively hood and stomp out and feel superior. Consider going to reddit or any other media to discuss the expanded meanings of these comics. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.125|172.70.126.125]] 18:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pascal's Wager has literally nothing to do with this comic. Literally nothing. I'm tempted to remove that paragraph altogether, especially since it's also presenting an atheistic critique of the idea and thereby slanting the neutrality of the explanation. --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.47|172.69.71.47]] 13:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The assumptions here really need pruning. For starters, groups *exist* to do exactly what is suggested here: http://shipoffools.com/mystery-worshipper/ being a perfect example. Just as brand loyalty to car manufacturers doesn't prevent reviews, neither does loyalty to religions. And while the claim that all wars are purely economic has been debunked, the idea of purely religious wars will get similar mocking from historians. The claim of exclusivity is absurd, given that Christians use the Jewish scriptures, and Muslims regard both Moses and Jesus as prophets; the Messianic Jews are the most famous example of belonging to two religions.</div>172.70.147.23https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2524:_Comet_Visitor&diff=218878Talk:2524: Comet Visitor2021-10-06T14:19:33Z<p>172.70.147.23: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Yup. nobody says that the Dinosaur Killer wasn't aliens saying "don't get cocky, lifeforms". Best to keep the head down.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.82|141.101.99.82]] 06:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
AFAIK cosmonauts reported that the Great Wall of China actually ''isn't'' visible from space - it's too thin and blends in with the background. Though technically we can probably claim that everything visible on Google Satellite View qualifies as "visible from space"... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.245|172.68.10.245]] 09:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
:If it were satellite view all along. It's aerial view for the higher zoom levels. BTW, anything ''on'' Earth is visible from space, provided there's equipment with sufficient resolution, selectivity and sensitivity vs. distance. From Saturn, well, it needs truly alien equipment to see anything of concern, no big worries. Sweep it under the rug and smile. Send some hello's over Arecibo... ah, crap. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.178|162.158.93.178]] 10:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should we also mention that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch isn't visible AT ALL, even to humans who might be swimming in it? From Wiki: ''Despite the common public perception of the patch existing as giant islands of floating garbage, its low density (4 particles per cubic meter) prevents detection by satellite imagery, or even by casual boaters or divers in the area. This is because the patch is a widely dispersed area consisting primarily of suspended "fingernail-sized or smaller bits of plastic", often microscopic, particles in the upper water column known as microplastics.'' mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.22|172.69.68.22]] 13:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Although perhaps obvious, I feel like this is Randall trying to provide motivation to clean up the Earth (eg. Global warming and what not) in general, but making it kinda fun instead of doomsday scenarios. Might be useful to mention in body of explanation. [[User:Stephenjuniverse|Stephenjuniverse]] ([[User talk:Stephenjuniverse|talk]]) 14:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Possibly, but it could also be prompted by the plan to deploy lots of Starlink satellites that interfere with astronomy. And increasing concern over all the space junk in orbit. We're just messy on many levels, like a teenager who never cleans up his room. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
:That's a fair point. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.147.23|172.70.147.23]] 14:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Regarding the visibility of the Great Wall, it is possible that the chain of geographical significant boundary features (upon which the wall was built, beacause it was a convenient definable and defendable ribbon of terrain to make a claim over) are notably visible. As might other (unrelated, unWalled) geographies/geologies, but you're not looking at those bits 'imagining' you can see the Wall and seeing man-made patterns where there should be none. (Also, if settlements and/or transport links roughly hug one side or the other of the vague and intrinsically non-visible route, for historical or recent reasons, they might add 'relief' enhancement to the scene by whatever geophysical 'smudged marks' they display to the orbital viewer. A bit like Belgium's borders are made very visible at night due to the legislatedly ubiquitous street-lighting, compared to its neighbours, or North Korea by the inverse effect - but especially against its southern neighbour.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.69|141.101.77.69]] 18:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)</div>172.70.147.23https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1321:_Cold&diff=2180671321: Cold2021-09-15T18:08:16Z<p>172.70.147.23: Questioning whether a phenomenon is real is much different from arguing it doesn't exist</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1321<br />
| date = January 24, 2014<br />
| title = Cold<br />
| image = cold.png<br />
| titletext = 'You see the same pattern all over. Take Detroit--' 'Hold on. Why do you know all these statistics offhand?' 'Oh, um, no idea. I definitely spend my evenings hanging out with friends, and not curating a REALLY NEAT database of temperature statistics. Because, pshh, who would want to do that, right? Also, snowfall records.'<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
In this comic, [[Cueball]] (wearing a white knit cap with a pom-pom) and Cueball's friend (wearing a black knit cap) are walking outside in sub 0&nbsp;°F (-17.8&nbsp;°C). White Knit Cap Guy complains about the '''brutal''' cold and as a result questions whether {{w|global warming}} is real. Black Knit Cap Guy explains that this kind of weather used to happen all the time back before the year 2000, showing that global warming is, in fact, very real.<br />
<br />
This is illustrated in panel two by a graph showing the number of days with sub 0&nbsp;°F as a function of year from 1970 to 2013 in the city of {{w|St. Louis}}, (where we learn that Cueball is from). It shows that these days used to be rather common between 1970 and 1999, only to be completely absent for the next 14 years until and including 2013. A [http://www.rcc-acis.org/climatecentral source link] for this graph is provided (though as of June 2014, the link is dead - see [[#Trivia|Trivia]] below).<br />
<br />
Cueball's friend uses this graph to explain that not a single day like this has happened since 2000, until here in 2014 where a {{w|polar vortex}} pushed the temperature down below zero again for two days. This caused many people to react as if it had never been this cold before. He goes on to explain that since this weather is now unusual, we perceive it as being more cold, even though this was a common temperature to reach in past decades. However, Cueball continues to insist that it is too cold, demonstrating he learned nothing from their talk. Subzero {{w|Fahrenheit}} temperatures are very cold to be out in. See for instance the first panel of [[526: Converting to Metric]].<br />
<br />
In the last panel, in a future St. Louis, a [[Cueball]] discovers a thin sheet of ice, suggesting the temperature has fallen just below 32&nbsp;°F (0&nbsp;°C), the freezing point of water. The suggestion here is that the environment has warmed to such an extent that temperatures below 32&nbsp;degrees F are very unusual, and the future Cueball repeats the same short-term fallacy that such "extreme cold" disproves global warming. Someone off-panel, presumably another Black Knit Cap Guy, sighs as the cycle continues.<br />
<br />
The comic reacts to a simplified view of {{w|global warming}} by amateurs, including media, who fail to understand (or choose to ignore) the difference between {{w|climate}} and {{w|weather}}. Short, random weather fluctuations like the polar vortex are taken as examples or counter-examples of climate change and global warming. To understand climate change, one must look at global (not local) and long-term (not short-term) temperature trends.<br />
<br />
Debates on the theory of global warming/climate change often center on whether the current warming trend is primarily caused by humans or is a natural change, as has happened in the past. Within the scientific community, there is an overwhelming consensus that the current trend is {{w|Human impact on the environment|anthropogenic}} (i.e. man-made), but many in the general public (including many politicians) are hesitant to accept this. There is clearly no doubt about where [[Randall]] stands on this debate, as many of his comics and blog posts continue to plead for humanity to do something about the ''man-made'' global warming trend - especially in comic [[1379: 4.5 Degrees]].<br />
<br />
The title text suggests that gathering data about global warming is time-consuming and is the kind of stuff only a real nerd would do. Most people would rather hang out with friends, or at least spend their time with some more fun nerd activity. Randall has been known to use the title text to poke fun at himself over how much time he has spent researching topics and more generally how geeky his interests tend to be. Although the title text tries to deny this geeky behavior, he cannot help himself at the end by mentioning another ''interesting'' climate subject: ''Snowfall records''.<br />
<br />
Climate change, especially global warming, is a [[:Category:Climate change|recurring theme]] in xkcd.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[It's cold, two Guys wearing knit caps (one knit cap is white the other black) are walking outside and the White Knit Cap Guy is shivering.]<br />
:White Knit Cap Guy: It's '''''brutal''''' out. So much for global warming, huh?<br />
:Black Knit Cap Guy: ''*sigh*'' This used to happen all the time.<br />
:White Knit Cap Guy: What?<br />
<br />
:[A dot plot showing number of days with lows below zero Fahrenheit by year since 1970.]<br />
:Black Knit Cap Guy (off-screen): You're from St. Louis, right?<br />
:Black Knit Cap Guy (off-screen): On average, it used to get below 0 °F there a handful of days per year.<br />
:Black Knit Cap Guy (off-screen): But you haven't had a day like that since the nineties.<br />
:[Above the dot plot to the left is a label in a black frame:]<br />
:Days with lows < 0°F<br />
:[Below the dot plot are written the years:]<br />
:1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 <br />
:[Below again is written in small letters:]<br />
:Source: rcc-acis.org/climatecentral<br />
<br />
:[Black Knit Cap Guy has stopped walking.]<br />
:Black Knit Cap Guy: Then, in 2014, when the first polar vortex hit, it dipped below zero for two days.<br />
:Black Knit Cap Guy: And everyone freaked out<br />
<br />
:[They continue walking.]<br />
:Black Knit Cap Guy: because what used to be normal<br />
:Black Knit Cap Guy: now feels too cold.<br />
:White Knit Cap Guy: It ''is'' too cold!<br />
<br />
:[Above the last panel is written in a black frame:]<br />
:The Future:<br />
:[Cueball is pointing at a patch of ice.]<br />
:Cueball: Look at this—'''''ice!''''' In '''''St. Louis!''''' So much for global warming.<br />
:Person off-screen: ''*sigh*''<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*The link to the source rcc-acis.org/climatecentral is dead. [http://www.rcc-acis.org/ rcc-acis.org/] leads to the home page of ACIS which stands for ''Applied Climate Information System'' and this page is still on-line. But it seems like the ''climatecentral'' part of the source link, is now relocated to {{w|Climate Central|Climate Central's}} own web page: [http://www.climatecentral.org/ climatecentral.org/].<br />
*[http://assets.climatecentral.org/pdfs/TVMFrigidNights2014_stlouis_med.jpg The graph] can still be found in Climate Central's assets. The graph is used to illustrate the point in the following article: ''[http://www.climatecentral.org/news/extreme-cold-events-in-a-climate-context-16931 Extreme Cold is Becoming More Rare]'' were similar graphs are shown or referenced for many other US cities.<br />
*From the graph the following info can be found:<br />
**During the 30 years before 2000 there were 89 days with subzero Fahrenheit temperatures, averaging almost three a year.<br />
**During that period there were only one occurrence where there were two years in a row with '''no''' subzero days. This was then followed by a gap of 14 years without.<br />
**The maximum was 13 subzero days in 1984, but no less than three years had more than 10 subzero days.<br />
**As these record years are all in the 8-year period from 1977 to 1984, no less than 52 of these 89 subzero days occurred in those years.<br />
**Here are the number of days from 1970 to 2000 as read of the graph:<br />
***1970 - 4; 1971 - 0; 1972 - 4; 1973 - 0; 1974 - 4; 1975 - 0; 1976 - 1; 1977 - 11; 1978 - 5; 1979 - 8; 1980 - 1; 1981 - 3; 1982 - 11; 1983 - 0; 1984 - 13; 1985 - 2; 1986 - 1; 1987 - 0; 1988 - 1; 1989 - 0; 1990 - 5; 1991 - 0; 1992 - 0; 1993 - 1; 1994 - 3; 1995 - 0; 1996 - 3; 1997 - 6; 1998 - 0; 1999 - 2; 2000 - 0;<br />
***Compared with the graph in the link above, there is one mistake in Randall's version, as there were two days not only one day in 1976 according to the on-line graph.<br />
===NOAA data for St. Louis===<br />
'''Note''' that this is not the same data set as mentioned in xkcd as this is regarding '''freezing''' days and not '''subzero''' days!<br />
<br />
With the full [http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/lsx/climate/stl/temp/temp_stl_ranked_32_0_occurrence.xls excel dataset] of the number of freezing days (i.e. below 32&nbsp;°F) as obtained from the {{w|National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration}}'s homepage [http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=cli_archive NOAA] you get the following plot:<br />
<br />
[[Image:stl-freeze-days-since-1874.png]]<br />
<br />
*Blue points: Number of freezing days (<32&nbsp;°F) for that year<br />
*Red points: Number of freezing days averaged over 10 years (to make trending more readable)<br />
*X-axis is the year (1874..2013)<br />
*Y-axis is the number of days temperature is below 32&nbsp;°F for St. Louis<br />
<br />
From the same dataset [http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/lsx/climate/stl/temp/temp_stl_ranked_32_0_occurrence.xls excel dataset] we can also get the number of sub-zero days i.e. below 0&nbsp;°F (which are those mentioned in the XKCD strip) - plotting those and you get the following plot:<br />
<br />
'''Note''' that this '''IS the same''' data set as mentioned in XKCD. This is '''subzero''' days!<br />
<br />
[[Image:stl noaa days below 0F.png]]<br />
<br />
*Blue points: Number of sub-zero days (<0&nbsp;°F) for that year<br />
*Red points: Number of freezing days averaged over 10 years (to make trending more readable)<br />
*X-axis is the year (1874..2013)<br />
*Y-axis is the number of days temperature is below 0&nbsp;°F for St. Louis<br />
<br />
While there were a number of very cold years with outliers in the 1970s - then the clear overall trend is still that there are fewer days with cold weather over the years.<br />
<br />
So while '''weather is different every year''' (which is also illustrated by the outliers) the '''climate is defined by the long term trend''' - which is the point of this cartoon.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Characters with Hats]] <!--Knit cap guys --><br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Timelines]]<br />
[[Category:Climate change]]<br />
[[Category:Weather]]</div>172.70.147.23https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2513:_Saturn_Hexagon&diff=2178292513: Saturn Hexagon2021-09-09T03:12:11Z<p>172.70.147.23: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2513<br />
| date = September 8, 2021<br />
| title = Saturn Hexagon<br />
| image = saturn_hexagon.png<br />
| titletext = Sorry, in SI units that's "there's a big football in there."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by SATURNS POLAR HEXAGON - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
{{w|Saturn's Hexagon}} is a cloud formation on Saturn centered on its north pole. Similar to Jupiter's {{w|Great Red Spot}}, Saturn's Hexagon has proven a persistent feature observed by multiple space probes. The cause was not known until recently, when data from the 2006-2009 {{w|Cassini–Huygens}} probe could be analyzed in depth. This finding was widely publicized in popular science media (see for example [https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-think-they-figured-out-how-saturn-s-giant-hexagonal-storm-could-have-formed]) and is related to how currents flow deep within Saturn's atmosphere.<br />
<br />
Randall proposes an alternate explanation: it is the top of a {{w|Ball_(association_football)|soccer ball}}. Soccer Balls have been made in the shape of a {{w|truncated icosahedron}}, where faces alternate between regular hexagons and regular pentagons to achieve a more uniform roll, since 1968 when the design was introduced as the {{w|Adidas Telstar}}, a design now considered the "traditional" soccer ball.<br />
<br />
BSBIT stands for Bachelor of Science in Business Information Technology [https://www.acronymfinder.com/Bachelor-of-Science-in-Business-Information-Technology-(BSBIT).html], a relatively new specialization where business majors learn programming techniques [https://vt.edu/academics/majors/business-information-technology.html]. It is probably used in the comic to imply that a graduate of this major came up with the soccer ball model listed in the presentation. (Of course, BSBIT also stands for "Big Soccer Ball In There".)<br />
<br />
Soccer is the name given in the United States to {{w|association football}}, the form of football practiced in most of the world. Since the so-called imperial system (inches, feet, miles, etc.) is also used in the United States wheras the SI system (centimeters, meters, kilometers, etc.) is the system in use in most of the world, "football" is jokingly referred to in the title text as the SI name for "soccer". As much the web caters to a US-based audience many sites use only Imperial measurements and omit metric equivalents, which might cause annoyed international users to respond; Randall parodies this by sarcastically and non-seriously apologizing.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>172.70.147.23https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2509:_Useful_Geometry_Formulas&diff=217485Talk:2509: Useful Geometry Formulas2021-09-02T06:31:03Z<p>172.70.147.23: Parallelogram angles and other assumptions</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
Area formulas are for 2D object as seen instead of surface of a projected 3D object. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.200|162.158.89.200]] 02:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The "decorative stripes and dotted lines" are the parts of the diagrams that are intended to indicate the third dimension. The conceit of the comic is that these are superfluous. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 02:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ca someone explain how the last one works? [[User:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e]] ([[User talk:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|talk]]) 04:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: ''bh'' is the area of the front face. The top face is a parallelogram with sides ''d'' and ''b'', with an angle of ''θ'' between them, so its area is ''d b sin(θ)''. The right face is a parallelogram with sides ''d'' and ''h'', with an angle of ''90º - θ'' between them, so its area is ''h d sin(90º - θ) = h d cos(θ)''. So the area of the whole picture is ''bh + d b sin(θ) + d h cos(θ)''.<br />
: --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.24.165|172.68.24.165]] 04:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: In case you don't know the area of a parallelogram by heart, you can read d b sin(θ) as b * d sin(θ), where d sin(θ) is the height of the parallelogram; if you cut the right corner of the parallelogram off and add it on the left, you get a rectangle where the bottom side is b and the height is that d sin(θ), so it works out. The other parallelogram's area is h * d cos(θ), with the same reasoning. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.241|162.158.90.241]] 05:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Funnily enough, both this comic and [[2506]] are about projection. [[User:CRLF|CRLF]] ([[User talk:CRLF|talk]]) 05:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I had considered working that into the explanation, but that needs to account for the fact that the indicated measurements (e.g. the angle θ) have to be read in 2D, not in 3D and projected. But it would be correct to say that the 2D shapes are projections of simple 3D objects. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.149|162.158.90.149]] 05:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Between this, [[2506]], and all the ones about Mercator and other map projections ... "projection" is a very large word in Randall's brain's word cloud. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.8|172.69.63.8]] 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Feels to me like every comic since 2500 could be tagged "projection" in one sense of the word or another. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.225|172.69.69.225]] 21:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Does the bottom-left formula have a mistake?</s><br />
It seems like the bottom-left formula should be ''A''=''d''(''πr''+''h'') rather than ''A''=''d''(<sup>''πr''</sup>/<sub>2</sub>+''h''), because there are two half-ellipses that add up to a complete ellipse. Am I missing something? (This doesn't ''seem'' like an extra joke, does it?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.179|162.158.106.179]] 05:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
: No, it's correct. ''d'' is all of the major axis, not just half, so we have to divide that by ''2''. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.83|162.158.92.83]] 05:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: Oh, right; good call! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.179|162.158.106.179]] 06:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Does the top-right formula have a mistake?<br />
I think it should be in brackets, the top triangle area needs the ''<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub>'' also, so it should be: ''A''=''<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub>(πab + bh)''<br />
:No, it's correct. The bottom is a half ellipse, with area ''1/2 π a b'', and the top is a triangle with base ''2 b'' and height ''h'', so its area is ''1/2 2b h = bh''. The total area is ''1/2 π a b + b h''.<br />
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.25.144|172.68.25.144]] 06:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;3D formulae for reference:<br />
''4πr^2''<br />
<br />
''πb(a+√(b^2+h^2))'' if a=b<br />
<br />
''πr(2r+h)''<br />
<br />
''2(bd+bh+dh)''<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.80|162.158.107.80]] 09:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
:It would be clarifying to add these to the comic, but of course they are flagrantly wrong. [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 09:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
::Surely ripe for a table, in place of much of the longhand paragraph spiel (which could be kept, but simpler for just the narrative but otherwise non-technical details)... "Shape (2D)", "Area", "Pretended Shape (3D)", "Surface Area", "Volume", ¿"Notes"? (Not sure about specific Notes, some things could/should be said below the formulae/descriptions in the relevent cell to which that matters, in special cases where necessary, which might be better than a Notes either empty or jammed up with all the combined row-specific corollaries, etc, that I can imagine.) Anyway, an idea. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.11|141.101.76.11]] 11:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
:::I think the formulas are correct. Those given should be from the text book, not for those with ellipse bases. Someone has put a lot of work into giving these complicated formulas for the cone and cylinder. But I think that is overkill. I have added to the explanation the simple versions before, and would suggest deleting the complicated, which was never the intention of either text book or Randall! ;-)--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
: Surface area. Not volume. My bad. I usually consider volume associated with pics like like that. Don't use surface area much. [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 22:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
add an extra edited image that is the comic without dotted lines to make it easier to see the 2d shapes? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.177|172.69.71.177]] 12:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Bampf<br />
:And an animated GIF of the 3D solid objects rotating to show their real shapes. At different speeds. If you have the time. :-) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.11|141.101.76.11]] 16:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
: Image here: https://i.imgur.com/dq7VmnK.png Editing done myself, feel free to upload it to this wiki if you have an account on this wiki. :) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.29|162.158.88.29]] 17:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Please do check my (additional) changes to the bottom-right item (hexagon-cum-prism) in both main and transcript texts. As hinted in my edit notes, cos-theta is important because the skewed tetrahedron (rhomboid, whether in plan or the true area of the 'fake' perspective) is not d*b in area. The fact that without the theta it would look like a standard oblique orthographic projection with entirely right-angled corners is perhaps part of the (intended?) confusion, although we can probably assume that all unmarked (and, of course, uncongruent/uncomplimentary) angles are 90° so that it isn't a full on parallelepiped with an additional phi-angle on an adjacent face and a complicated third dependent-angle somewhere upon the remaining face-plane. As such, I put in the cosine element to both the 3d surface formula (it only affects the bd-shape, the both of them) and the 3d volume (from this shape, extrudes without further adjustment straight up the h-axis), but I ''always'' have to second guess if I've done this simple bit of trig right, it seems, even though I should know better and just trust to SOHCAHTOA... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.146|162.158.158.146]] 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
:(Case in point: I thought I'd added cosines, and I'd put sines ''anyway'', when fussing about copying the clipboarded theta-character into the right place! Re-read, seen, corrected(?) this myself. Unless I thought I was was wrong; but I was wrong, I was right!) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.145|162.158.155.145]] 13:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I believe both of those prism formulas should use sine theta. If theta is ninety degrees, then sine theta will be 1 (thus reducing to the rectangular case), whereas cosine of 90 degrees is zero.[[User:Tovodeverett|Tovodeverett]] ([[User talk:Tovodeverett|talk]]) 15:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
:You're right (me again, from just above), I was rushed and ''had'' been right first time, I realised while I was off-grid and it was nagging away at the back of my head. I'm better on paper (or when I can sanity-test real code, but for some reason tapping it in like this just screws my mind up, taking away/inverting my technical ability and reason. (I blame the microwaves emitting from my tablet... pass the tinfoil hat!) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.178|162.158.158.178]] 16:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Unconvinced by the cone! The equation shown, is correct for an isosceles triangle with a half-ellipse on its base. But that shape has 'corners' where the sides meet that half-ellipse. In a 3D projected view of an actual cone, the sides will meet the base ellipse at a tangent, meaning that it is more than a half-ellipse. But I suppose it's close enough as an approximation...[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.131|172.69.55.131]] 15:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
: I verified your claim by imagining the surface of the cone as formed by a set of lines extending from the different points on the ellipse to a single fixed point at the tip. No matter where you put that tip point, the outermost lines seem tangent to the ellipse. Seems it works for both perspective and orthographic projections. Updated the explanation. Randall's formula is incorrect, especially for very short cone projections. [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 22:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
; It's 3am (okay 5am) and I made it really long!<br />
<br />
I just followed the directions in the "incomplete" which said to add in explanations of the formulae ... Please feel free to edit to take out redundancy. However I did add in the following explanations:<br />
- the fact that the formula in the third figure is actually the same as the cross-section represented by the ellipse, which is why you may not get the joke after reading the first picture;<br />
- the use of 'd', 'r' and 'h' in the third figure, which adds to the confusion as they imply "diameter", "radius" and "height"<br />
- the fact that the area calculations must take into account the overlapping shapes (there were previously references to "semi-ellipses" which are extrapolations, not what's drawn there)<br />
Haven't yet done the last figure<br />
- pretty sure 'b' 'd' and 'h' are for 'breadth', 'depth' and 'height' and while 'height' is also used for 2D rectangles, 'breadth' less so in maths textbooks (usually 'width')<br />
- whoever pointed out that there is a theta as well, pretty sure it's only there because it's necessary for the area calculation, as 'depth' only really applies as labelled to rectangular prisms - if the base were not rectangular, 'd' would not be equal to the 'depth'<br />
Will try to come back later and shorten... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.40|162.158.166.40]] 18:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Someone [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2509:_Useful_Geometry_Formulas&diff=217438&oldid=217434 thought that] "formulae" was a typo for "formulas" (which it might easily be, on a QWERTY or similar layout). Not going to revert, but note that (for a mathematical formula, if perhaps not a chemical one/etc, but there's plenty of mixed use) this is actually quite correct. If it were up to me alone (I didn't write that one, orother mentions like in the above Talk contribution), for the record, I'd probably have used "formulæ" myself. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.145|162.158.155.145]] 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you don't assume that the bottom right figure is 3D, what's the justification for projecting upward and assuming that the angle theta is also the angle of the top parallelogram? [[User:Arl guy|Arl guy]] ([[User talk:Arl guy|talk]]) 02:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:If you assume that the two rectangles have equal width and height, then it can be mathematically proven that the angles must be equal (probably using congruent triangles). However this assumption is not stated on the figure. That said, you would make the same assumption for the 3D figure, along with a whole bunch of other assumptions of course.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.147.23|172.70.147.23]] 06:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)</div>172.70.147.23