Talk:2504: Fissile Raspberry Isotopes

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

This joke is like a visual pun, a raspberry fruit looks sorta like a nuclear model, and so it behaves the same (ie can go supercritical). 20:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Along with an actual pun: pi in "pi meson" sounds like pie in "raspberry pie". Barmar (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
If it isn't also an intentional tertiary reference to the Raspberry Pi computer board, I'll eat my hat! 21:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd say you would have to eat it. Cannot see what this comic has to do with a computer board, just because it is named after a raspberry pie. This joke is obviously about the berries looking like nuclear cores, and pie mesons. Not about anything with a computer. So take some salt an eat (or swallow one the hats in your link, along with a camel :p ) --Kynde (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I interpreted 'tertiary' to mean that randall was 'primed' to talk about raspberry pies due to his exposure to the board, and similarly for readers finding it interesting and humorous. Baffo32 (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Though raspberries resemble the common depiction of nuclei, perhaps we need to explain that in reality, nuclei are rather different..? BunsenH (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think anyone reading xkcd and this page, will figure it out via the links ;-) --Kynde (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I tend to forget that nuclei aren't little raspberries made of nucleons, even though I used to be a fusion researcher. In fact I'm sure I was only ever half-aware they weren't (I didn't study the actual nuclear physics, ok!)... so +1 from me in favour of adding a bit about the 'real' nature of nuclei, that would be interesting. --192·168·0·1 (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest referring to the raspberry parts as 'drupelets' rather than 'ovaries'. 12:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I love eating the juiciest and sweetest of fruit ovaries, raspberries and strawberries are my favorite but I also enjoy apples and grapes --Lackadaisical (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I looked this up briefly and I _think_ that the ovaries are what develop into the drupelets, here, not certain, judging by phrasing on wikipedia. So I changed it. Don't eat the ovaries, eat the part that's designed for eating. Baffo32 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Fine but you forgot the transcript. I have changed it there so drupelet is the word used. --Kynde (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The page says "Of course, in real life raspberries don't do that.[citation needed]" - where is one supposed to find a useful citation to state that fields of raspberries don't explode? 22:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s the point! 02:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a joke, and you are free to remove it if you so judge. Others may disagree. Sometimes raspberry farms have some pretty hard to describe explosive activity when their parts combine in rare chain reactions. Baffo32 (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a reference to 'xkcd 285', a long running joke in the xkcd community, What If? and Randal's other books, and the xkcd merch shop (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
And severely overused. Imho it should only be used when we are actually looking for a citation for someting stated without proof in the explanation. So I generally feel free to remove them as I did here. --Kynde (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree there can (and has been) overuse, but by your criteria there would be absolutely no 285-backrefetencing at all. In use on The Original Wiki and all the rest there other cite-markers requesting an edit to clarify, expand, use better units, add comic issue and page, etc, and th9se exist (or can be made to exist) here.
I wouldn't suggest every clause of every sentence of every paragraph of every comic's explanation be in-joked, but (with exceptions on a very few rare occasions that will doubtlessly be edited down by a future editor like you, or me, anyway) I see no harm in so labelling up to one axiomatic statement this way per article (the absolutely most obvious and inarguable and, by editors' aggregate concensus without resorting to an edit-war, humorous-to-so-label statement).
By dint of the humour-decay so described, results in one permanent example fit to tickle the funnybone of all but the most curmudgeonly every 2, 3 or 4 comics, on a rolling average. In every case being absolutely obvious to pretty much everyone that it is there for amusement value (especially amidst dry, technical detail) even to those only just arrived upon these particular digital shores...
IMO, of course, having no authority or desire for authority here. 17:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure part of the joke here is the edit war it can stimulate, not sure. But clearly it would be overdoing it to formalize including one every single explanation. Baffo32 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like there might be more to this joke. When I'm plucking raspberries in the forest, they break in half pretty often, causing me to get juice on my hands, which is pretty annoying. 21:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

And then that juice on your hands breaks another raspberry in half, because you are worried less about keeping your hands clean ... and then you hand your juicy raspberries to a friend, getting their hand juicy from your hand ... The NRC arrive and it's just red, everywhere. Baffo32 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If a Raspberry breaks, germs can better feed off the fruit and multiply then decompose nearby fruits. The title text states blackberries, not raspberries. Mesons consist of quark and antiquark. Quark is a dairy product used as ingredient in baking pies. 13:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't believe that the Raspberry Pi is not implicated here, but personally I can't see the connection. Can someone? Asimong (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It's talked about above. Maybe there wasn't room for a microcontroller-based allusion (after helping sparking the base word-association that begot the comic's final target), or maybe it's totally coincidental to the original inspiration and had not enough commonality to suggest bringing it into the fray. I can't believe it did not cross Randall's mind somewhere along the way, though. Perhaps its lack of intricate tying-in is more indicative of it being actively not shoehorned in. (Every idea I have about how to cameo the Pi seems rather clunky to me, at best. But then I'm not a polymathic parodist of long standing...) 11:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was a miss that it wasn't pie masons (as in mason jars... frequently used for preserving fruit). WileyC (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)