Talk:2682: Easy Or Hard

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 22:06, 6 March 2023 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

For other people not in US: active ingredient of Tylenol is Paracetamol. -- Hkmaly (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Now paleontologists have pinpointed during what time of year that millions of years event happened, all thanks to new fossil evidence" (from SciShow) It is probably what's referenced in the "What time of year did the cretaceous impact happen?" Pete Ratchatakul (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Paper cited in the title text: Victor (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

AKA 14:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Papers related to the time of the year of the impact:

"... reveal that the impact occurred during boreal Spring/Summer, shortly after the spawning season for fish and most continental taxa." - Seasonal calibration of the end-cretaceous Chicxulub impact event

"Here, by studying fishes that died on the day the Mesozoic era ended, we demonstrate that the impact that caused the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction took place during boreal spring." - The Mesozoic terminated in boreal spring

Pete Ratchatakul (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't mechanisms of Tylenol well known?

No - that's still a fairly new theory and it isn't fully accepted yet, or confirmed that there isn't anything else going on. It's been an area of controversy for a long time - when I graduated it was still thought it was a cox-3 inhibitor and that wasn't that long ago. (I'm a pharmacist.) 12:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I remember reading that the analgesic effect of Tylenol is not significantly greater than placebo, according to some RCTs. So the solution to "how Tylenol works" could simply be that it doesn't. (it's also not that great for treating fever either). USA people are missing out big time for not having approved metamizole/dypirone. 22:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the long-period accuracy of the software that I just used (nor have I cross-checked with any other list or interactive app), but my quick research shows that on 31st March 1889 (dignitaries were officially taken to the top of the Eiffel Tower), Mars was in Pisces, and that in-between then and 6th May (the public got to do the same) it had drifted through Aries (IIRC, forgot to note that explicitly!) and into Taurus, where it was still on 26th May (the lifts opened, and the journey didn't have to be by the stairs!). Although you would have been unlikely to get a good view of Mars as it was quite close to conjunction with the Sun, getting well past Mercury's furthest extent. (In mid-June, it was practically on top of (or over but behind, as it were) the Sun, out of sight for all practical purposes.) I'm sure someone can do a more thorough check than myself, before we set this down properly/succinctly, but it was the first thing I thought of checking for myself. 15:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Top right reminds of 2501: Average Familiarity: I guess that for many people relativity and quantum mechanics might fall in the middle right cell, not the top right. 16:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It takes some familiarity with physics to realize that reconciling them is hard. Lay people may not understand these things at all, but they might assume that they're known well enough by scientists that this is at worst a hard problem. Barmar (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there a category for these types of grids? There should be, he does lots of them. Barmar (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I got 2.125*10^-17 m/s^2, or 3.18*10^-18 N, for the gravitational force/acceleration from the Eiffel Tower on a baseball on Fenway Park. Someone might want to check my calculations, though.--Account (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

How did you get those numbers? I was trying to figure it out (for shits and giggles), but I got a different number. What equations/calculations did you use? -- 14:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It occurred to me that the Boston to Paris gravity question might not be quite as easy as it seems, since the relevant distance would be not “as the crow flies,” but more “as the mega-gopher digs.” (I think?) Miamiclay (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I already edited it away from the (implied) suggestion of Great Circle distance (as a trivial understanding of 'distance between', and probably what most searches for a value would turn up). But using latitude, longitude and radius (local, +altitude if you're into the detail) from a sufficiently accurate geophysical model (at least an oblate spheroid) as spherical coordinates leads quickly to true-ish straight-line length. And probably doesn't need to be sigbificantly further adjusted by the small dimple in spacetime that the Earth puts there, or even the fringe distortions of other tide-inducing (and therefore variable) gravitational bodies.
You might even get away with a mere spherical model (and altitude is surely less significant a factor than the difference between that and the spheroid), for a given necessary accuracy level. But I thought that was too much to explain, so left it a bit vaguer. But if further edits are needed, feel free! 08:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An oblate spheroid is probably overkill. The difference between the polar and equatorial radii is 20 km, about 0.3% of the radius. Certainly, if you're down to the accuracy where you care about the elevation above sea level, this is going to be important, but otherwise it's not going to change your result much to just use a sphere with the mean radius of the Earth. 20:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I can attest to the anesthesia one... Near the beginning of Covid I had to get my foot amputated, something they obviously would knock you out for. However, it was felt that it would be risky in light of Covid so they wouldn't, instead numbing me with a needle to the spine (as I understand it, same idea as the epidural women might get while giving birth). So I was awake and feeling nothing while getting a body part cut off me (both times, I had to get cut twice due to the first cut getting infected). Just shows how delicate even an anesthesiologist's understanding is. NiceGuy1 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it actually a bigger medical mystery how Tylenol works than how general anesthesia works? I figure the latter has had more research dollars spent on it, at the very least. 21:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Calculating how much does the Eiffel Tower's gravity deflect baseballs in Boston is easy, but direct observation is insanely hard. Lamty101 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

But just to observe the force, one only needs a torsion balance and some means of entirely relocating the tower to an equidistant point on the Earth's surface but on a plane at right-angles to that of the original vector (for comparative purposes)... ;) 08:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is the transcript marked as incomplete?

Missing title text? New poster/editor didn't know/bother to remove the tag? 15:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
If it has title text it is overcomplete and TT details would need to be removed from it. Title text is already given verbatim. The Transcript is there to support access to screen-reading/text-searching of information only otherwise available in graphical form, and therefore does not do anything useful by providing the TT (and could be so eadily made to give a different TT). That's my general understanding of the evolved 'policy' on this, anyway. If it changes, I'd suggest that a {{Template}} be inserted below the initially empty Transcript (and above the Discussion insertion) that grabs the {{comic}} field of title text, on the calling page (or optionally another, by numeric parameter, if that would be ever useful) and repeats it verbatim. But, that aside...
If someone has an idea that they have now truly completed the Transcript, they can remove that tag. If someone else believes there are no further worthwhile improvements, they can remove that tag. But someone else might make it 'better', anyway, two minutes or ten years later. And rather than worry about detagging the very latest comic (or even the prior couple, from within the last two) ASAP, I'd personally think about looking at anything untouched for a while from the older comics. And either tweaking (but leaving the tag a little longer for others to review, finishing the job a few days later if no further issues) or finalising as complete rather than polish the turd/gild the lilly.
But I know some people have blitzed all Incomplete tags, and many others clearly consider it not so clear cut and leave them in order to give the benefit of the uncertainty. – Between all our crowd-edits, there seems to be a fairly reasonable concensus, although vanishing Incompletes rarely get replaced by others who disagree but can't themselves (properly) Complete them so it probably biases towards more premature Completing. Which doesn't freeze it, and if the community-accepted 'transcript formatting' hasn't even been done yet it can still be done. (Perhaps the only time I'd reinsert the Incompleteness tag while "finishing" it.) 18:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This whole "hair and baloon" thing

According to a fan theory, hair have a lot of microscopic imperfections like cracks, that tend to rub against things in "microrough" manner.
Meanwhile, ballons, that are made of elastic matter, will have to interact with the hair's ... microscopic stuff.
As a result, there will be quite a surface for interactions on molecular level to bump a lot of molecules one against another without scratching/damaging.
Same thing in lesser proportions happened to me in 2009, when I magnetized my Philips screwdriver by revolving its edges against edges of holer in my PC case.
So, in my opinion, "hair agaist baloon" is a good clue: it takes very little effort unlike revolving a 6mm screwdriver agaist 5 mm holes (talk) Latest revision as of 13:10, 14 October 2022 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The big thing about balloon/whatever charge redistribution is (the last I heard) why charges preferentially travel in one direction upon rubbing. Given the complicated mix of surface-molecules, you can't ascribe it to ready-donor/ready-recipient tendencies, such as in an electrolytic cell specifically designed to promote electron/proton exchange from an amorphous mass. And, if nothing else, having been transfered then the force of newly accumulated charge syould want to flow at least as readily in the other direction upon more dynamic contact, so whatever 'incidental' bias from your particular choice of material-pairing (amber/cloth, latex/keratin, or however the charge differential is established in thunderclouds) there's going to quickly be a limit whereupon the charge-per-subunit is hit by diminishing returns (presumably intra-molecular charge distribution 'soaks' some chare distribution away frm the 'skin' of the respective substances).... So it's more complex than just the above, and definitely does need further study, the last I heard. 15:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI, the effect has a name. It's called triboelectricity ( 00:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)