Difference between revisions of "547: Simple"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 25: Line 25:
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Revision as of 21:33, 7 November 2013

Actually, I think if all higher math professors had to write for the Simple English Wikipedia for a year, we'd be in much better shape academically.
Title text: Actually, I think if all higher math professors had to write for the Simple English Wikipedia for a year, we'd be in much better shape academically.


Cueball seems to be in a physics facility with a particle accelerator. The Physicist asks him his thoughts about a Tertiary F.E.L guidance system for the particle accelerator. The first joke here is that particle accelerators don't use guidance systems. They randomly smash together used charged particles or contain them in beams.

As the text below the comic says, Cueball has spent the previous night reading the Simple English Wikipedia, which is a simplified version of Wikipedia, so he can't stop talking in simplified language, making him sound unintelligent. He refers to the elementary particles and the ad hoc guidance system, which is presumably broken, and says that if the wrong particles collide it would be bad and damage the machine. The joke is also a take on Wikipedia and the fact that it has two versions of the same text.

The title text applies the same principle to teaching mathematics that simple language avoids unnecessary complications as math teachers often write in unnecessarily complicated English, often discouraging math students who are then unable to comprehend the substituted English symbols.

This concept was later revisited in 1133 Up Goer Five.


Friend: Do you have any thoughts regarding the particle accelerator's tertiary F.E.L. Guidance System?
Cueball: We can't put the broken part in the machine. It wouldn't smash the right tiny things together. Then the machine might break.
Cueball: That would be very bad.
I spent all night reading simple.wikipedia.org, and now I can't stop talking like this.

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


This is possibly even another take by xkcd at conspiracy theories such as the one in http://xkcd.com/966/

In this comic too he presents conspiracy theories against each other, the black hole with the guidance system.

The fact that the reference of something bad happening is to the Black hole theories comes from the fact that the comic was drawn the same time the theories were most predominant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_high_energy_particle_collision_experiments#Micro_black_holes Mr Andersom (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a joke here regarding "particle accelerators not having a guidance system" (paraphrasing the first paragraph of explanation, currently). Maybe there's a confusion about the phrase "the particle accelerator's tertiary F.E.L. Guidance System"? The FEL (Free Electron Laser, IIRC) itself is a tunable lasing 'cavity' for electrons that is magnetic, not optical, in nature, but (again, IIRC) is supplied with electrons at relativistic speeds by way of a particle accelerator (depending on which FEL, sometimes dedicated to the FEL and sometimes "from a main multipurpose ring", such as the LHC might be). Particle acceleration requires that the particles being accelerated be constrained within the ring (when being brung up to speed or collided within the ring's in-line experiment zones) or redirected out of the ring (or allowed to depart it, but still in a controlled manner) if being used for an out-of-ring experiment. It's true that particles being smashed are thrown together rather haphazardly (when compared, say, with collisions at the scale of vehicle crash tests), but there's actually quite a lot of sophisticated detection equipment used to work out the path of the particles so that guidance can be applied by magnetic fields (separately from the 'corner turning' ones and/or including those). I think I would consider such systems (including the ones that 'extract' particles for use in off-ring experiments) worthy of the title "guidance systems", albeit external to the particle as opposed to on-board like on a smart missile... And so if (and I haven't checked, so colour me wrong if I turn out to be so) the complex has at least three FELs attached, it's reasonable to assume that the third of these (hierarchically speaking) has, like its brethren, a particle guidance system involved at some point to ensure the electron supply is suitably contained and piped into it... Or it refers to the third of (at least three) beam-guiding systems for the lone FEL. Maybe even this means something active within the magnetic "wiggler" assembly of the FEL itself, or even (if this is what they do) on the output to the FEL leading into the LHC itself... But whichever it is, it the relevent FEL Guidance System surely exists in some form or other.

...TL;DR; - I'm pretty much sure the joke is more of an "Up-goer 5" nature... I also don't see any reference to Black Holes/conspiracy theories... It's just doing an "If this part is broken, you will not go to space collide any particles today" thing, surely? 22:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no time to read this comment. Keep short! --Dgbrt (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with There's nothing about conspiracy theories, even indirectly. I've removed that part. I also don't see anything criticizing Simple English Wikipedia, or two versions. To the contrary, he praises it (albeit somewhat exaggeratedly) in the title text. I left it for now, though. Mattflaschen (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a community portal discussion of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the new Category:Multiple Cueballs. Since there is clearly one Cueball that is the protagonist and do most of the "talking" he should probably be listed as Cueball. Just made a note that the other guys also looks like Cueball. --Kynde (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it would be worth adding a reference to Randall's new book "Thing Explainer", which follows the same concept.-- 00:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine without it, since the comic doesn't directly refer to it (for obvious reasons) and because it's not based on the concept of the limited vocabulary that Thing Explainer and Up Goer Five, it's just simplistic. -Pennpenn 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)