Talk:2764: Cosmological Nostalgia Content

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

When I added the transcript it broke the "Created by a BOT" tag on explanation, even though I didn't touch explanation 05:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it was broken before your edit. Someone else changed "BOT" to "Z=90s KID". The equal sign causes problems for mediawiki, but it's been fixed now. --Orion205 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
For anyone who would benefit from a deeper explanation:
In the syntax for templates, equals signs come after parameter names (see Help:Templates § Parameters). So, Created by a Z was parsed as the name of a nonexistent template parameter, and 90s KID - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. was passed in as that parameter's value.
That still wouldn't necessarily be a problem. It just also left the first parameter empty. This specific template is programmed to show an error message when that happens. ~AgentMuffin 06:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Two times the red tint around Megan has been mentioned, in explanation and transcript... I cannot see that, no matter how much I zoon in. Is it actually there (can it be measured on the image file?) or is it just someone who wished it was like that? If it can be measrued it should be explained and if not then the mention should be deleted --Kynde (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was that Megan's line art in this comic appeared more brownish/reddish to me than the line art of the other characters. Specifically, the colour hex #472425 using an online colour hex checker. --Multiuniverse (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
It's definitely there, but I didn't notice it until I saw it mentioned. It's subtle enough that I imagine certain displays or differences in individual color perception could make it harder to see, but trust me, it's certainly there. 07:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Why is everyone so unsure? it's definitely there. Mushrooms (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Not all monitors have the same quality, I can imagine that on some cheapish laptop screens it can be a lot harder to see -- 12:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
On this laptop (Dell Latitude 600 - good for its time, a rather archaic thing now) it shows just. Took the explanation mentioning it for me to notice. (And, yes, I'm using pretty archaic kit, at this moment. Though not my oldest, because I tend not to throw away 'perfectly working' things. That said, when it comes to remembering how the universe is, I'm not quite in the "I remember when all this was fields" category...) 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
For cheap laptops try tilting the screen (or moving your head). 05:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
For me: red green color blindness Josot (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

For anybody wondering: the current (accurately measured) Highest redshifts is z = 11.1 Josot (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit ironic that Randall now clearly identifies "Want to feel old" content as clickbait, while I remember that he himself did a number of comics around that topic some years ago? I imagine that he changed his opinion BECAUSE that became such a popular clickbait topic. Could you link to some of these older comics? ("Want to feel old? Randall Munroe did "want to feel old" comics closer to the inception of xkcd than to today.")-- 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

😄 --Catherine (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Light's velocity is limited only by the speed of causality. As such, I'd recommend modifying the language about light having a "finite" velocity. Technically speaking, the speed of a photon, from the photon's perspective, is non-existent, and what the photon sees, traveling at the speed of causality, is everything happening all at once across it's path. In other words, from the perspective of the photon, there is no passage of time. However, simultaneity varies based on the perspective of the observer.


Before anyone embarrasses themself by asking, "multimanteau" is obviously a portmanteau of "multiple" and "portmanteau". Sheesh, get with the neurolinguistic program. "Phrasemanteau" would also be an acceptable neologism. - Frankie (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not fond of a explanation needing an explanation :/

The first relevant use of "multimanteau" found by Google is this page Victor (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Presumably that makes everything else a unimanteau? 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
That word and the first sentence needs to be deleted from the explanation! --Kynde (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Inconstant "Constant"

I find it weird that so much professional study still refers to an assumed "cosmological constant", when it is observably not constant. Feels like we should be calling it "the cosmological value", since expansion has not been occurring uniformly & considerable localized variation in "vacuum energy" seems relatively certain. Parts of the observable universe are considerably older than the "big bang" that so much theory is hung upon; what part of "these laws are localized effects, not unchanging constants" has not been obvious, for >30 years? ProphetZarquon (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This may be related to the fact that there are so many actual problems around the cosmological "constant" that noone wants to bother renaming it before getting better idea what it actually is. -- Hkmaly (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you,ProphetZarquon, with a slight change. In most of the sciences we call something that's not constant a "variable". Thus we'd have the "cosmologicial variable". Which admittedly does not roll off the tongue as easily. Maybe "cosmic variable" instead? Which seems too alike a "Cepheid variable" star now. Hmm. Maybe I agree with Hkmaly afterall. 😂 Iggynelix (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"Cosmological function" or "cosmological field" is probably more appropriate than "cosmological variable". 05:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Missing comic

It's mid-morning (ET) on Thursday and there's still no new Wednesday comic. Barmar (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Very late (definitely Thursday, I think in all time-zones if it isn't even Friday already), but now exists. The interactivity of it might have had to absorb more time to set up in a working manner... 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Wednesday's very late (i.e. Thursday) is followed by also very late Friday (not yet seen on Saturday, UTC or almost all(?) US timezones). Maybe shortly, but if this continues to be A Thing with a Monday->Tuesday delay then... Certainly check whether defacto publication dates/days need to be revised from the traditional expectation (or even the official publication one). 09:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC) (ps. or, meant to say, late and/or meta April Fool..?)

hi ,I did not find this comic in Menro's twitter ,any one tells why ?-- 11:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)