Y-Axis

Explanation:
The comic itself makes a poke at recent trends where the y range for a given dataset is exaggerated, so that a dataset that varies very little in its y-values is exaggerated by constricting the y-axis of the graph to range from just barely below the minimum y-value to just barely above the maximum y-value. This spreads out the y-values so very small differences appear larger and more significant than they really are.
The graph shows an attempt to mislead readers by manipulating the y-axis scale of the graph in a creative manner: The y-axis labels at the left side of the graph are normally spaced; however, the thin, gray gridlines marking each 10% increment are wavy, not straight, and they bunch up before reaching the first data point, resulting in a distorted effective y-axis for the rest of the graph. All the data points lie between the 10% and 20% gridlines, but a casual reader may not notice this and think that the graph uses the full 0% to 100% range.
The title text refers to the Semi-log plot , where one of the two axes is plotted on a logarithmic scale. The title text takes this to a further extreme with the semi-semi-log, where the y-axis labels are only interpreted as logarithmic on the left half of the graph. (For example, on the left half of the graph "3" would be interpreted as 10^3, or 1000, but on the right half it would be interpreted as 3)
[Graph within a frame. The x-axis is unlabeled, with, in addition to the vertical line representing the y-axis, six straight vertical grid lines, evenly spaced, each corresponding to one of the six data points of the line plot.  The y-axis has eleven grid lines, including the x-axis, which are evenly spaced where they intersect the y-axis.  Only the lines for 0% (the x-axis), 50% (the line starting halfway up the graph), and 100% (the top of the graph) are labeled.  Except for the x-axis and the top line, these "horizontal" grid lines are not straight: they start out horizontally, but by the time they have met the first vertical line, representing the first data point, they have diverged significantly from their original positions. The lines representing 20% to 90% curve upwards and then back to horizontal, so that the eight lines representing y-axis values from 20%-90% are, after the first data point, squeezed into the top 10% of the area of the graph.  From this point onwards, the line representing 20% is horizontally even with the label for the 90% line, and the 30%-90% lines are evenly spaced between the 20% line and the 100% line at the top of the graph. Similarly, the 10% line curves downwards and then back to horizontal by the first data point, continuing horizontally from there at a level of approximately 2% of the total height of the graph.  The data points are at approximately 30%, 35%, 20%, 33%, 30%, and 80% of the total height of the graph, and are all between the lines which begin at 10% and 20% of the height of the y-axis.] [Caption below the frame:] People have wised up to the "Carefully Chosen Y-Axis Range" trick, so we misleading graph makers have had to get creative.


Light Hacks

Explanation:
" Life hacking " is the practice of using common everyday items in novel ways to increase the convenience or enjoyment of daily activities. This comic pokes fun at the many blogs and video channels that purport to cover life hacking tips, but merely point out obvious or intended uses for products or well known techniques as low effort clickbait.
Megan tells someone off panel, possibly Cueball , that, by using sheets of paper, she can reflect and diffuse the light coming from a lightbulb. She refers to her discovery as a life hack, while Cueball sarcastically points out that all she has done is reinvent the lampshade, to which Megan again refers to as a life hack.
A Dyson sphere is a hypothetical energy-collecting megastructure encompassing a star, and collecting a large percent of its energy in the process. It is named after the physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson .
The joke here is that Dyson spheres are generally not intended for lightbulbs, yet using them in this way is suggested by Megan as a life hack, poking fun at the fact that life hacks make things more complicated instead of convenient. Freeman Dyson argued that Dyson spheres, if they existed, could be found by infrared surveys, as large objects that would emit infrared radiation. IKEA pendant lampshades are spherical shells that surround the bulb. Megan claims studies have tried to use infrared surveys to find Dyson spheres at Ikea locations, without success. When Cueball tells her the easier way, searching for it online, she eagerly refers to his method as another life hack, much to Cueball's annoyance.
The title text creates a different sort of confusion of the term lifehack, with another sort of popular clickbait videos. Described activity, if done, would be considered a prank - depriving the distractible civilization of their sunlight and energy source, rather than bringing any benefit to the builders of the smaller sphere.
[Megan walks to the right, holding a sheet of paper and a light bulb] Megan: I discovered a cool life hack - you can put a white sheet behind a lightbulb to reflect more light. Off-panel voice: I'm ... not sure that's a life hack.
[Megan stops, and positions the light bulb between two sheets of paper] Megan: And you can put a sheet in front to diffuse the light. Off-panel voice: So you've invented the lampshade. Megan: Life hacks!
Megan: Freeman Dyson suggested that advanced civilizations would build spherical shells that surrounded their bulbs, redirecting 100% of their energy. Off-panel voice: Yes, they have those at IKEA.
Megan: Well, they might. Infrared surveys are inconclusive. Off-panel voice: You know you can just check their website. Megan: Ooh, great life hack! Off-panel voice: No!


Peer Review

Explanation:
When a researcher wants to publish their findings, they send it to an academic journal. The editor of the journal is another researcher (usually a college professor), who gets paid nothing or a minimal honorarium for editing the journal. The editor chooses a few (usually three) peer reviewers who are other researchers familiar enough with the study's subfield to judge the study's quality fairly and accurately, and sends it out to them for review. These peer reviewers do not get paid for the work of reviewing the manuscript and offering a detailed critique of every part of the study, from literature review to methodology to conclusions drawn from the results. If the peer reviewers and editor agree that the study was well-conducted and the paper well-written (or just needs minor revisions), it is accepted and published in the journal. The researcher is not paid for getting their paper published in the journal.
In short, nobody in the process is paid for their work except the journal publisher, who charges other researchers, libraries and individuals for access to the fruit of these people's free labor. This is commonly referred to as a " paywall ".
This system relies upon researchers to be employed by either companies or universities in positions which require them to publish in order to remain employed or achieve promotions or pay raises. In universities, only postdocs and tenure-track or tenured professors are paid in a way that figures in their research time as well as their teaching time, which means that anyone not in one of those positions (lecturers, educators, adjunct instructors) is not paid for any research they might be doing and publishing, nor are those who are conducting research but cannot get a tenure-track job due to universities replacing tenure lines with non-tenure-track positions.
Charging for access to these works has raised controversy in recent years, due to concerns that this may lead to information silos .
Ponytail seems to be presenting papers concluding that this flow of currency is not equitable. Unfortunately, the journal she has submitted these findings to has opted not to review or publish them, likely because they have a financial interest that conflicts with the publishing of her findings, since sending her paper to review would reach her target audience of voluntary peer reviewers and could potentially incite them to go on strike and demand payment for their work.
Furthermore, the comic contains the joke that Ponytail is doing exactly what she is dis-encouraging in the paper: publishing it in a journal, which probably does not pay their reviewers and possibly locks the papers behind a paywall. However, as this is how science works at the moment, she is obliged to do so in order to reach her audience.
The title text refers to a Twitter post that went viral. Researcher Dr. Holly Witteman informs the public that you could just ask many researchers for a PDF copy of their academic paper and that they would be delighted to do so free of charge. (This hearkens back to the days of snailmail, when researchers would distribute printed copies, "reprints", of their work for, at most, the price of a self-addressed stamped envelope.) She has additionally written an article on the situation and how to get papers for free.
Pre-print repositories, such as arXiv , are online databases for researchers to publish drafts of their research for quick distribution to willing reviewers, sidestepping the lengthy and often arduous reviewing process as conducted by many research journals. These databases are free to access by researchers and the general public, and often papers will remain on these sites long after their journal publication, making them a convenient way to get to papers locked behind a paywall. However, the pre-print versions of the papers will often lack peer review, and as such may contain a higher occurrence of errors. There are also sites which collect and re-publish papers for free, such as Sci-Hub , which attempts to provide all published papers free of charge globally. Links to Sci-Hub can go dead after being widely published; as of 4/5/22, this link is active.
In the title text, the publisher refuses to publish a paper that describes ways to get around the paywall restrictions that make up their bottom line. In this refusal they even acknowledged that the author has tried to trick them, maybe by using one of those very long titles filled with incomprehensible jargon that is almost impossible to read, and remember to the end. So they finish the refusal by adding a "but nice try".
[Ponytail is sitting in a office chair at a desk reading from a laptop. Above her the text from the screen is shown in a frame with a zigzag arrow pointing to the laptop.] RE: Economics Journal Submission We have received your manuscript "The Bizarre Economics of Academic Publishing: Why Volunteer Peer Reviewers Should Rise Up and Demand Payment from For-Profit Journals." We have elected not to send it out for review.


Heat Index

Explanation:
Heat index, like wind chill, is a way to combine multiple factors, in this case temperature and humidity, to get a single number indicating what the air "feels like." This page gives a table, a formula, and lots more explanation.
Human skin does not directly detect temperature - only the rate of heat gain or loss.  This is why a piece of metal feels cooler than a piece of plastic or wood at the same exact temperature (below body temperature, above it is the other way around) - the metal conducts heat away from the higher body temperature at a higher rate than a good insulator does.
So in warm weather, it's not just the temperature that matters for comfort.  The humidity and wind speed also factor into it.  When humidity is high, sweat evaporation is less effective at cooling us off than in a "dry heat" with low humidity.
Hence, meteorologists use a combination of temperature and humidity to come up with the "heat index" value...and a combination of temperature and wind speed to produce a "wind chill" number.
Neither scale is particularly scientific in terms of measuring how people feel - but both are a more accurate representation of comfort levels than temperature alone.
The joke here is that these numbers seem entirely subjectively chosen - and in a sense, they really are, although they are calculated from an actual formula (a multivariate fit to a mathematical model of the human body - with nine terms!) and not by guesswork as the flow chart implies.
The title text suggests another way it is calculated: In general the effective temperature is calculated based on the conductivity of heat based on humidity. This is a legitimate method of determining how hot something feels because the heat conductance of water is higher than dry air and humans perceive more heat when the humidity is higher. But humans also tend to exaggerate and so Randall implies to add still a bunch more to satisfy the subjective sentiment.
[A flowchart is shown beneath its title:] How to Calculate the "Heat Index":
[There are four boxes with arrows between. The first rectangular box is at the top, and an arrow points straight down:] Measure the Temperature
[From there an arrow goes straight down to a decision diamond:] Does it look hot enough?
[Two arrow goes out from the diamond. One goes straight down to another rectangular box. Both the arrow and the box has labels:] No Add a few degrees
[From the bottom box an arrow goes back to the diamond. The other arrow from the diamond goes right to a final box with no arrows.  Again both the arrow and the box has labels:] Yes Done


Lightning Distance

Explanation:
The usual trick for determining the distance to a lightning flash is to count the seconds from when you see the flash until when you hear thunder , and divide by five to get miles (or three to get kilometers).  This works because the transmission of light is essentially instantaneous over the relevant distances, while the speed of sound is 331.2 m/s (1,087 ft/s, 1,192 km/h, or 741 mph, varying a bit based on temperature), or about 1/5 mile per second (1/3 kilometer per second).
This comic subverts the usual trick by having Megan describe a highly impractical alternative method.  Megan's method is based on the fact that the speed of electromagnetic radiation, which includes light and radio waves, is not truly fixed and varies by wavelength in a refractive medium (consider the classic case of visible light in a prism). The electromagnetic radiation emitted by lightning on Earth also has to travel through air, which changes its speed in a fashion which depends on its frequency.
Lightning is most visibly observable in the near-infrared visible spectrum around a wavelength of 777 nm . The refractive index (n) of air at 15˚C for a wavelength of 777 nm is 1.0002752 , which equates to a speed of light of 299,709,978 m/s given the relation n=c/v, where c=speed of light in a vacuum and v=the velocity of light in the medium.
Terrestrial lightning generates very-low-frequency radio waves ranging in frequency from 1 kHz to 30 kHz known as whistlers from bouncing off the ionosphere, and wider-band emissions known as sferics . Much of this would exist in the very low frequency category of radio waves, for which literature values of refractive index is harder to determine. Using the formula given in this paper , the refractive index for radio waves in similar conditions is 1.000315, which equates to a speed of light of 299698.0 km/s (or 186223.7 miles/s). This means that to get the distance in kilometers, the time difference between flash and radio burst should instead be multiplied by 13.6 billion (or 8.45 billion for miles).
Using a setup similar to that used for passive radar , it would theoretically be possible to use this effect to determine the distance to a source of extremely short bursts of visible light and radio waves, although one might have to compensate for the tiny effect time with tricks involving phase detection or receiver harmonics.  Large inaccuracies may propagate from the inconsistency of air pressure, temperature, electron density, humidity in the atmosphere, even local temperature of the receiver, which may need to be taken into account.
The joke is that it is impractical for people who haven't spent time with radio engineering, because they haven't heard of measuring such small time intervals (on the scale of 0.1 nanoseconds per kilometer or mile) and because they don't know how to detect radiation outside the visible spectrum, which can be done with a $20 radio dongle.  An upconverter may be needed to measure the low-frequency details, and possibly building one's own loop antenna to pick them up in the first place.  It would be difficult to use such a "rule of thumb" for somebody not already exposed to either the amateur software-defined-radio scene or professional hardware.
Although lightning lasts about 60 to 70 microseconds , during which time the signals we receive would rise and fall somewhat erratically, a software-defined radio can sample the phase and strength of the signal in detail during this time and provide a record of it for comparison with a recording at a different frequency.  A more expensive radio would make life easier, as a sampling rate of at least a few GHz would allow for the time discrepancy to be measured directly using the onset of the signal, rather than possibly inferred from phase differences at different frequencies.
For the purpose of the joke, the "5 billion" value used in the comic is a fair estimate which also references the original rule of 5 seconds per mile nicely, though the result can have a huge margin of error depending on actual conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.), as the title text suggests ("the index of radio refraction does have a lot of variation").
The title text suggests another method of calculating the distance to lightning. Since the absorption of light is also different in different wavelengths, it would be possible to calculate the difference by comparing the brightness instead of relative delay. This would, however, require the knowledge of the emission spectrum of lightning and attenuation ratios of different wavelengths (which would both vary across conditions).
[Cueball and Megan stand on either side of a window, observing a bolt of lightning in a dark sky.] Cueball: What's that trick for telling how many miles away lightning is? Megan: Just count the seconds between the visible flash and the radio wave burst, then multiply by 5 billion.


Complex Numbers

Explanation:
The complex numbers can be thought of as pairs of real numbers with rules for addition and multiplication.

As such, they can be modeled as two-dimensional vectors , with standard vector addition and an interesting rule for multiplication. The justification for this rule is to consider a complex number as an expression of the form , where , i.e. i is the square root of negative 1. Applying the common rules of algebra and the definition of i yields rules for addition and multiplication above.
Regular two-dimensional vectors are pairs of values, with the same rule for addition, and no rule for multiplication.
The usual way to introduce complex numbers is by starting with i and deducing the rules for addition and multiplication, but Cueball is correct to say that some uses of complex numbers could be modeled with vectors alone, without consideration of the square root of a negative number.
The teacher, Miss Lenhart , counters that to ignore the natural construction of the complex numbers would hide the relevance of the fundamental theorem of algebra (Every polynomial of degree n has exactly n roots, when counted according to multiplicity) and much of complex analysis (calculus with complex numbers; the study of analytic and meromorphic functions), but she also agrees that mathematicians are too cool for "regular vectors." Just because the complex numbers can be interpreted through vector space, however, that doesn't mean that they are just vectors, any more than being able to construct the natural numbers from set logic mean that natural numbers are really just sets.
In mathematics, a group is the pairing of a binary operation (say, multiplication) with the set of numbers that operation can be used on (say, the real numbers), such that you can describe the properties of the operation by its corresponding group. An Abelian group is one where the operation is commutative, that is, where the terms of the operation can be exchanged: The title text argues that the "link" between algebra and geometry in "algebreic [sic] geometry" and "geometric algebra" is the operation in an Abelian group, such that both of those fields are equivalent.  Algebraic geometry and geometric algebra are mostly unrelated areas of study in mathematics. Algebraic geometry studies the properties of sets of zeros of polynomials. It runs relatively deep. Its tools were used for example in Andrew Wiles' celebrated proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. For its part, a geometric algebra (a Clifford algebra with some specific properties) is a construct allowing one to do algebraic manipulation of geometric objects (e.g., vectors, planes, spheres, etc.) in an arbitrary space that has a resultant geometric interpretation (e.g., rotation, displacement, etc.). The algebra of quaternions, which is often used to handle rotations in 3D computer graphics, is an example of geometric algebra, as is the algebra of complex numbers. Meta-Abelian groups (often contracted to metabelian groups) is a class of groups that are not quite abelian, but close to being so.
Randall's joke in the title text is a wordplay combining the concepts of (meta-)abelian groups and change in the order of word orders with the general idea of "meta".
This comic is similar to the earlier Miss Lenhart comic 1724: Proofs .
[Cueball (the student) is raising his hand and writing with his other hand. He is sitting down at a desk, which has a piece of paper on it.] Cueball: Does any of this really have to do with the square root of -1? Or do mathematicians just think they're too cool for regular vectors?
[Miss Lenhart (the teacher) is standing in front of a whiteboard.] Miss Lenhart: Complex numbers aren't just vectors. They're a profound extension of real numbers, laying the foundation for the fundamental theorem of algebra and the entire field of complex analysis.
[Miss Lenhart is standing slightly to the right in a blank frame.] Miss Lenhart: And we're too cool for regular vectors. Cueball (off-screen): I knew it!


Disaster Movie

Explanation:
Disaster movies are a sub-genre of movies, which resolve around a disaster, such as a natural disaster, worldwide disease pandemic or an attack. Typically, the plot of a disaster movie is how the main characters escape the disaster, avert its climax or deal with the aftermath of the disaster. Here, Randall has subverted this plot device by showing Ponytail call for a GIS survey team to map out the result of the disaster. Instead of panicking for survival, the scientists are rushing to update their data sets.
"Lava entering the sea, and new rifts opening to the north" may be a reference to the 2018 lower Puna eruption , a volcanic event on the island of Hawaii . Due to this eruption event, lava did enter the Pacific Ocean. As of the time of publishing, this event was still occurring.
GIS ("geographic information system") is a computer system that stores and analyses spatial and geographic data, and by extension, the profession of experts who use computers to make maps and perform spatial analysis.
Presumably, a "GIS survey team" would go above the affected area in a helicopter, mapping the coastline changes caused by the natural disaster. A "GIS survey team" presumably means a team of geographic surveyors. However, surveying is usually carried out on the ground, and surveying is not usually considered part of GIS. Also, these days, satellite imagery is usually used for this purpose, as there are several companies that can provide imagery refreshed as often as every day. Finally, a "GIS survey team" would most likely be one of many companies that provides these kinds of services, not "scientists", as suggested in the caption. An example of this is an ArcGIS map of the mentioned 2018 lower Puna eruption.
A Shapefile is a proprietary data format for spatial data which remains in widespread use, despite being created in the early 90s, and based on an even older database format. Amongst non-GIS people "shapefile" is often used synonymously with "geographic data", regardless of the actual file format. "Our coastline shapefiles" then means "our geographic data for the coastlines", although such data would most likely be stored in a database, not a Shapefile.
The situation described (scrambling to update geographical datasets in the advent of natural disaster) is actually a common occurrence these days. The Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team 's Disaster Response unit does almost exactly this: When there is a natural disaster in a location that lacks high quality GIS data (common in much of the developing world), a team of volunteers across the world mobilises to update and improve OpenStreetMap. They use the latest available satellite imagery, usually donated free for the purpose. Disaster response teams then use the GIS data in OpenStreetMap to create maps and plan their response.
The title text refers to the fact that most GIS datasets are not published in "real time", but, rather in updates every 3 months or less often. This is due to the many manual steps still present in many GIS publishing and consuming workflows, which preclude more frequent schedules. Thus, there is not as much of a rush to do their updates, and the need is not as urgent as the proposed film would show. Randall claims the urgency was exaggerated for dramatic effect, humorously disregarding the fact that neither version of this scene would be dramatic to a typical moviegoer.
[A fraction of an office with two desks is shown. On the right Cueball sits behind a computer while in the middle Ponytail talks into a radio device with a small antenna. On the left Megan runs into the scene holding something like a tablet computer in her hand.] Megan: The lava is entering the sea, and new rifts are opening to the north! Ponytail: Get a GIS survey team in the air! We need to revise our coastline shapefiles!
[Caption below the frame:] I want to make a disaster movie that just shows scientists rushing to update all their data sets.


Voting Software

Explanation:
This comic is a commentary on voting machines specifically, and more generally the contrast between what experts will trust and what the average user will trust.
The first two panels of this comic involve a reporter talking to professional mechanical engineers, asking about the given safety of the products/solutions that each of their fields help to produce (airplanes from aircraft designers in panel 1, elevators from building engineers in panel 2). While the two inventions selected are relatively new when compared to how long humans have existed, the two fields mentioned have existed for multiple human generations, giving enough time to find flaws in their products/solutions and solve said flaws to the point that they can be considered safe for the general public to use.
The comic from panel 3 onwards contrasts this with computer engineers Megan and Cueball , both agreeing that their given field (computer science/software development/software engineering) does not have the overall consistent competency that other fields have (or at least appear to have). Indeed, at least anecdotally there are very few ethical and security restrictions for what developers can/cannot do, and relatively minor consequences when catastrophes arise from poor decisions.
When the reporter follows the interview up with a mention of blockchain technology, Megan and Cueball reflexively tell the reporter to avoid any voting system using the technology at all costs. Blockchain is a relatively new technology that is intended to solve some computer security issues by making it difficult to doctor old data. However, in the process of solving the old computer security issues, it has introduced new computer security issues that have not yet been ironed out; for instance, it doesn't solve input fraud issues, only data-doctoring fraud, so if a program caused the voting machine to record a vote for candidate B whenever a vote for candidate A was cast (such a program could be uploaded to the voting machines through USB, or through the internet which the voting machine must be connected to for blockchain), blockchain would not prevent it. Blockchain has also had a large number of high-profile scams, thefts, and implementations with critical security holes. Thus, Megan and Cueball may not trust this blockchain solution because of this history.
The title text confirms the comic's stance by implicitly saying that any digital voting systems are to not be used under any circumstances. It may also highlight that anyone working in the field is vulnerable to corruption, or at least that the field is far from maturity. Humorously the title text says digital voting systems should still be developed, but mostly to keep the people who want to use them occupied, rather than allowing them to actually publish their work in the real world where it can cause serious harm.
Computer systems, operating primarily in a digital domain, fail differently from most traditional areas of engineering, which operate in analog (or continuous) domains. A small error in an analog part often gives a result which is close to the desired properties (it almost fits, it works most of the time). By contrast, a small error in a digital system (just one bit being changed) can easily make the system function in radically different ways (if not just crash entirely). So not only is software engineering younger than other areas of engineering, but the domain is much less forgiving. Even small errors/variations produce catastrophe down the line.
This fear of computerized voting is a result of a fundamental difference between computer security and other types of safety measures: Most engineers only have to deal with wear and tear, and very rarely have to guard against sabotage. In contrast, in cryptography there is always somebody trying to undo what you've built. Not only that, but new advances in cryptography tend to point out vulnerabilities with previous versions, making them not only obsolete, but dangerously so. For these reasons, it is especially important to make sure that whoever is selling you the security method is both competent and non-malicious, but because crypto software is highly technical and often confidential/proprietary, it can be hard to verify this if you're not an expert in the field (which you won't be, if you're buying it).
These issues are especially pertinent to voting machines , which store incredibly sensitive information but are often catastrophically outdated due to lack of funding. There are also major issues with electronic voting in general; for example, this video from Computerphile raises issues of malware infections, transferring the votes to the election authorities without having them intercepted, and needing to trust both the machine's software and central counting system to present an accurate account of the votes. Furthermore, the people purchasing them, the politicians, are generally not known for their technical understanding -- or their impartiality.
Interestingly, this comic was posted a day before DEF CON 2018, and it was shown there that the voting systems that will be used across America for the mid-term vote in November are, in many cases, extremely insecure. The topic of voting machines has been covered before in 463: Voting Machines , where the use of anti-virus software on the machines has been discussed.
The way blockchain works is that several computers have data being inputted into them. With each tick, they all share their current states with each other, and encrypt and hash it. That state then becomes a 'block' in the chain. They then share states, including that block as part of the state, then hash and encrypt it, and then it becomes a 'block' in the chain. Each 'block' is included in the cryptographic hash of all following blocks, so if a change is made to any given block, all blocks after that block must be changed.
Due to the distributed nature, if changes are made to any chain, it can be compared against the other chains, and so long as the majority say that the changes didn't happen, it's reverted and removed.
This is really great at preventing post-facto data changes. With blockchain you can somewhat guarantee that no one comes in after the election and changes the votes on the machines. (Unless they're handling the blockchain in a stupid fashion, for example without the distribution.) What you cannot do is prevent someone from installing a program on the machine that makes it think that there's a voter when it's idle, and makes it start registering the correct sequence of actions to signify a vote while idle.
Also, the security issues that Blockchain solves could also be solved via write-once memory, which would be more secure and more difficult to doctor.
Most computer security specialists are more worried about programs that randomly deliberately misreport a vote, than people changing the votes after they're already recorded, so blockchain would solve an issue that most computer security specialists are less worried about, while causing new issues (the perpetual internet connection among them).
[A Megan-like woman, with bushy hair, is holding a handheld microphone and interviewing Hairbun and Cueball, standing in a line] [Heading above the panel]: Asking aircraft designers about airplane safety:
Hairbun: Nothing is ever foolproof, but modern airliners are incredibly resilient. Flying is the safest way to travel.
[In a frameless panel, Hairy is holding a handheld microphone and interviewing Cueball] [Heading above the panel]: Asking building engineers about elevator safety:
Cueball: Elevators are protected by multiple tried-and-tested failsafe mechanisms. They're nearly incapable of falling.
[Ponytail is holding a handheld microphone and interviewing Megan and Cueball, standing in a line] [Heading above the panel]: Asking software engineers about computerized voting:
Megan: That's terrifying .
[Zoomed in on Ponytail, Megan and Cueball's faces] Ponytail: Wait, really? Megan: Don't trust voting software and don't listen to anyone who tells you it's safe. Ponytail: Why? Megan: I don't quite know how to put this, but our entire field is bad at what we do, and if you rely on us, everyone will die.
[Zoomed back out, showing Ponytail, Megan and Cueball standing in a line] Ponytail: They say they've fixed it with something called "blockchain." Megan: AAAAA!!! Cueball: Whatever they sold you, don't touch it. Megan: Bury it in the desert. Cueball: Wear gloves.


Pie Charts

Explanation:
Pie Charts graph proportions as "slices" of a circle, like a pie that you cut into slices.  The circle, or Pie, represents the whole sum of the slices, or 100% of the data.  As such, if the data represented by the slices is expressed as percentages, the total of all the slices, by definition, must total 100%.  This comic introduces a new technique for getting around that rule by "warping" the circle to allow more than 100% of the data to exist in the graph. Thus the total amount of 130% is represented with a shape presumably 30% larger in area than the circle.
The resulting warped circle is then actually part of a hyperbolic plane , while a normal circle is part of a flat plane. Of course, it doesn't matter if the geometric shape is a circle or a hyperbolic plane: A changed graphic doesn't magically solve the misrepresentation of percentages. At best, it serves to highlight the methodical error. Regarding doctored statistics: If the same numbers were presented as absolute values instead of percentages, the error would still remain but would be less obvious, especially if you omit the total count of the sample ( Of all people asked, 40 selected green as favorite color, 45 selected red, 30 yellow and 15 blue. This statement omits that you surveyed only 100 people and several of them named several colors, and readers will assume a larger sample.)
Percentages that add up to more than 100% are often a sign that a math error has occurred, whether a typo somewhere or a sloppy case of taking numbers from different sources. However, they can arise naturally in cases where each item can belong to more than one group, such as approval voting (40% of the people like green 45% like red etc., however there may be some that like both green and red). In such cases, a more accurate depiction would have some form of overlap of the pie pieces, not a warping of the space which they occupy, or a completely different representation, such as a bar chart.  Minor cases can also occur if the percentages of the pieces have been rounded for readability - summing the rounded numbers can result in them adding to 99% or 101%.
Percentages don't need to add up to 100% to be correct. For example, if ten people wear blue t-shirts and ten wear red t-shirts, then 50% of them wear each color for a total of 100%. Now if one of each joins the group, 55% of the original population wears each color, for a total of 110%, as the total population risen by 10%. That said, this change should be represented by something like a bar graph, not by pie chart. If percentages are represented by a pie chart, the assumption is that the total should be 100%, independently of the math behind it.
In this case, the right image appears to be what happens when you cut the pie chart segments out of fabric, stitch them together, and let the resultant fabric flop around a bit.
The title text presents an alternative if shading is not possible, namely to excuse the percentage inaccuracy with scientists discussing curvature of space.
[Two colored circles are shown. The circle on the right is warped and bent in shape and shows some shadows from the middle to the outer edges, like a round piece of cloth with wrinkles going out from the center.]
[The left pie chart:] Wrong: 45% (red) 15% (blue) 30% (yellow) 40% (green)
[The right warped and bent pie chart with shadows:] Right: 45% (red) 15% (blue) 30% (yellow) 40% (green)
[Caption below the frame:] How to make a pie chart if your percentages don't add up to 100


Word Puzzles

Explanation:
This is another comic in the " My Hobby " series, where Randall presents his hobby of fooling other people. This particular hobby seems to be a case of Nerd Sniping . Cueball knows that Megan is a word game enthusiast and - while both are probably at a party - he presents a complex sentence rather than just doing small talk. And he is successful as we can see that she is just thinking about the proper solution to that puzzle where probably none exists.
The dialog, caption, and title text contain many words that appear frequently in crossword puzzle answers because they fit well with intersecting words, in part because they have a high density of vowels. Some of the terms (parts of, start of) are also commonly used in cryptic crossword clues to indicate that nearby words should be combined or split to create an answer.
Brian Eno is an English musician, composer, record producer, singer, writer, and visual artist. He is best known for his pioneering work in ambient music and contributions to rock, pop, electronic, and generative music. He was born on 15 May 1948, and is still an active artist. But live concerts by him were rare and may not happen ever again. However, the aria was not written by himself but by his au pair who is also an opera star. And this happened after Eno ended his live career.
The title text goes further on this puzzle and asserts that Lance Ito was playing the aria solo on an oboe at the fictive Ohio's AirAsia Arena . Ito is well known as the judge in the O. J. Simpson murder case.
The kind of puzzle that Megan thinks she is solving is called a "Cryptic" or cryptic crossword , which has markedly different rules than ordinary crosswords. If Cueball's statement had been "Part of this aria is an Indian garment" the answer would have been "sari", because a part of the phrase "this aria" is the sequence "sari", which in turn is an Indian garment. Cueball's actual statement contains quite a few familiar cryptic puzzle triggers. The word "composed" can be a hint of a preceding or following anagram, in this case of "this aria" or of "by Brian" or of even longer adjacent strings. Although "opera star" could be a famous singer, say "Caruso", it might also be the name of an opera followed by the name of an astronomical star. "Au pair" could be any of its ordinary meanings, say "nanny", but might also be "earrings" (because Au is the chemical symbol for gold, and a gold pair could be earrings). The word "start" is often a hint to take just the beginning of a word, so "the start" would be "t", or "start of his" would be "h" or "hi". The New York Times runs a cryptic crossword as its "second Sunday puzzle" every other month or so, and there are other regular cryptic crossword venues. There are various guides on the web for solving cryptics, such as this one at The Atlantic: Puzzler Instructions .
[Cueball and Megan standing together. He makes some gestures with his hand and some musical notes are above him while Megan holds her fist before her mouth.] Cueball: Parts of this aria were composed by Brian Eno's Opera Star au pair at the start of his post-live era. Megan (thinking): ...parts...start...eno...aria...
[Caption below the frame:] My hobby: Messing with word game enthusiasts by using words that make them sure there's a puzzle to solve


Repair or Replace

Explanation:
This comic compares the repair of cars with that of computers or other similar electronic devices.  The question Repair or Replace? comes up more frequently with electronics than with cars, hence the title of the comic, and the humor derived.
Cueball is in his car. He says that there is a weird sound and asks if the  car mechanic Hairy will take a look. Hairy asks him to open the car's hood , exposing the engine, to further identify the cause of the problem. Cueball then says that his hood latch, the lever used to open the hood, is also broken. The solution, according to Hairy, is then to discard the car, and "replace" it with a new car.
In reality, fixing the latch on the hood is a simple task for a skilled mechanic and would not justify writing-off the car. When a car is malfunctioning, the usual response is to attempt to repair it. A car is designed so that many of the parts can be replaced or adjusted. Even in the case of a product recall where the manufacturer recalls the vehicles, it is usually only a single malfunctioning part that needs to be replaced and the rest of the car is left alone to return to the customer. It would be extremely inefficient for a car dealership or mechanic to simply "replace" the entire car when there is a problem with it (although many insurers will provide a temporary replacement "courtesy car" while the car is being repaired).
However, right around the time this comic was published, Subaru just instituted a recall of a few hundred vehicles that it says it will replace the entire car (rather than a single malfunctioning part), as seen here , and this could be the inspiration for this comic.
By contrast, when a computer or electronic device is malfunctioning, it is often judged to be more expensive to repair than to replace, and the usual action is to purchase a new device. It is generally possible to replace each part of a desktop or laptop computer, but harder to do so for more integrated devices such as tablets, and almost impossible to repair individual components with faulty or damaged integrated circuits.
Even where replacing a component is relatively easy (needing little more than a set of screwdrivers), the cost of replacement parts and labor can be a significant proportion of the cost of a completely new device, particularly where a user is not technically confident and pays a repair shop to fit new components. Also, the length of the technology "upgrade cycle" - typically around 3-5 years - is roughly the mean failure time of a device's components.  Thus, users may already be considering a new purchase when their device breaks. Thus, Randall notes in this comic that while it does make sense for electronic devices, the "solution" of replacing an object instead of attempting to repair seems absurd for any other object.
The title text refers to data stored on a computer or electronic device. Before replacing the device, it is recommended backup all your personal files, so that you have future access to them, and to remove them for security. Randall likens this to having your friends and family exit the vehicle, or making backup friends and family before the vehicle is thrown away.
The economics
Cars are much more expensive than computers or other electronic devices, and become obsolete less quickly. The point at which it becomes cheaper to purchase a new computer or phone rather than repair an old one comes much more quickly.
Cars are mostly valuable for their macroscopic features and functions, whereas electronics deliver value mostly with microscopic circuitry. While we can mass produce integrated circuit devices efficiently, the equipment is massively complex and expensive, so it's only practical on an industrial scale. Repairing an individual switch or data line in an individual chip might take a team of experts and a state of the art lab with electron microscopes etc. - millions of times the per unit cost once assembly lines are running
Also, although the comic implies that replaced electronics are discarded (like a car pushed into a pit), sometimes they are sent off to be repaired or refurbished elsewhere.  This provides a better experience for the customer (they get a working device right away instead of waiting for repair) and is more efficient for the company (a consolidated repair facility can have the experience and equipment to repair a device much more quickly than at a retail location). This assumes that the customer asked the manufacturer for a replacement, and did not throw it away themselves before purchasing a new one.
Electronics Repair
Although most corporations find it more profitable to have consumers replace their electronics, there are many resources that are more geared towards repair. Free Geek offers free technology to volunteers in exchange for their work in repairing broken items.  More locations across the world are listed near the bottom of their resources page.  Alternatively, hackerspaces are present in many large cities, and often at the larger ones there are people who would be happy to assist somebody trying to learn to repair their electronics.  On one's own, most problems with electronics can be fixed with some persistence, googling, purchasing of a few tools, and carefully watching youtube videos.
[Cueball is sitting in a car parked to the left of Hairy, who thus stands in front of it while pointing behind him towards a big black hole.] Cueball: My engine's making a weird noise. Can you take a look? Hairy: Sure, just pop the hood. Cueball: Oh, the hood latch is also broken. Hairy: OK, just pull up to that big pit and push the car in. We'll go get a new one.
[Caption below the frame:] I'm sure the economics make sense, but it still freaks me out how quick companies are to replace computing devices instead of trying to fix them.


Equations

Explanation:
This comic gives a set of mock equations. To anyone not familiar with the field in question they look pretty similar to what you might find in research papers or on the relevant Wikipedia pages. Most of the jokes are related to the symbols or "look" of most equations in the given field.
The comic makes jokes about the fields of kinematics, number theory, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, quantum gravity, gauge theory, cosmology, and physics equations. Of course, all of the equations listed are not real equations ( and H 2 EAT are clearly jokes and making a mockery of the given field). As always, Randall is just having a laugh.
All kinematics equations
Most kinematics equations tend to make heavy use of constants, addition, powers, and multiplication. This specific equation resembles the actual kinematics equation d = vt + 1/2at^2, but replaces a (acceleration) with v (velocity) times (density) and replaces velocity with "K 0 ", which is not a term used in kinematics.
All number theory equations
Randall jokes about how number theory often involves the use of summations. The use of π as an integer variable in the double summation is a joke, as π is essentially always used for the well-known constant 3.14159..., not a variable. The use of i as a summation variable is common, though it can also be confused with the imaginary unit √-1. The constants e , i , and π , as well as the theoretical upper bound , often appear in number theory equations.
All fluid dynamics equations
Fluid dynamics equations often involve copious integrals, especially those over closed contours as done here, which are often the main telling factors of those equations to an outsider. The time derivative and gradient operator are common in fluid dynamics, mostly via the Navier-Stokes equation, and the fluid density is one of the functions of central importance. The fraction 8/23 is a comically weird choice, but various unexpected fractions do pop up in fluid dynamics. The ds and dt go with the double contour integral (s is probably distance, t is time), but the derivative with respect to at the end is very much not allowed.
All quantum mechanics equations
Quantum mechanics often involves some of the foreign-looking symbols listed, including bra-ket notation , the tensor product , and the Greek letter Psi for a quantum state. Specifically, the left side of the equation is a ket state labeled Psi that depends on x and y (probably positions), while the right-hand side may be an operator A that depends on the state Psi (it is very unusual to have such a dependence) acting on what looks like another copy of that operator which depends on the outer product of states labeled by x and y (again strange). A charitable interpretation could be that the second A is the eigenfunction A of the operator A. Normally this is clearly indicated by giving the operator a “hat” (^ symbol) or making the eigenfunction into a ket eigenstate, but since the equation is intentionally nonsense both A’s are left ambiguous. Also note that the bra-ket math is inconsistent here, as the left side is a ket, but the right side is just two A’s, which are either operators or functions but are definitely not kets.
All chemistry equations
Chemistry equations use formulas of chemical compounds to describe a chemical reaction. Such equations show the starting chemicals on the left side and the resulting products on the right side, as displayed. Sometimes such an equation might optionally indicate that an activation energy is required, for the reaction to take place in a sensible timeframe, e.g. by heating. A reaction requiring heating is usually indicated by a Greek capital letter Delta ( Δ ) or a specified temperature above the reaction arrow, however this comic uses the "+ HEAT" term on the left side instead. The joke is that Randall interprets "HEAT" to be another chemical, which reacts with Hydrogen (H) to H 2 EAT, which is nonsensical, as heat is transferred energy here, not added matter. Regardless of this, Randall gets the stoichiometry of this equation correct, with the same number of all types of 'atoms' on each side of the equation.
All quantum gravity equations
Quantum gravity uses mathematical groups denoted by uppercase letters, as shown. SU(2) , U(1) , and U(2) are all well-studied groups, though 'SU(U(2))' makes no sense.  The lack of relator means this expression isn't an equation.
All gauge theory equations
Gauge theory is a subset of field theory. Most gauge theory equations appear to have many strange-looking constants and variables with odd labels. However, almost none of the symbols used here are found or applicable to gauge theory.
All cosmology equations
Cosmology is the science of the development and ultimate fate of the universe. The joke here may be pertaining to the different models accepted in the field of cosmology. H is the Hubble parameter , Ω is the universal density parameter , G is the gravitational constant , and Λ is the cosmological constant .
All truly deep physics equations
The joke about the "truly deep physics equations" is that most of the universal physics equations are simple, almost exceedingly so. In general, many of these equations are types of conservation law equations, which reflect some of the basic truths of the universe. A hallmark of conservation laws is that the total amount of some physical value does not change, and so one side of the equation is zero, as shown in the example. One example is Einstein's E = mc² , which shows conservation of mass-energy. Noether's theorem shows that conservation laws have a one-to-one correspondence with a symmetry of nature, making these equations truly 'deep'.
The title text is referencing the fact that the electric and magnetic fields are often explained to physics students using an analogy with fluid dynamics, as well as the fact that they do share some similarities (only in terms of mathematical description as three-dimensional vector fields) with fluids. The permittivity constant (represented with ε 0 ) and the permeability constant (represented with μ 0 ) are coefficients that relate the amount of charge required to cause a specific amount of electric flux in a vacuum and the ability of vacuum to support the formation of magnetic fields, respectively. They appear frequently in Maxwell's equations (the equations that define the electric and magnetic fields in classical mechanics), so Randall is making the joke that any surface integral with them in it automatically is an electromagnetism equation.
[Nine equations are listed, three in the top row and two in each of the next three rows. Below each equation there are labels:]
E=K 0 t+1/2 ρvt 2 All kinematics equations
K n =∑ ∞ i=0 ∑ ∞ π=0 (n-π)(i-e π-∞ ) [K sub n = the summation from i = 0 to infinity of the sum from pi = 0 to infinity of (n - pi) * (i-e^(pi-infinity))] All number theory equations
∂/∂t ∇⋅ρ=8/23 (∯ ρ ds dt ⋅ ρ ∂/∂∇) All fluid dynamics equations
|ψ x,y 〉=A(ψ)A(|x〉⊗|y〉) All quantum mechanics equations
CH 4 +OH+HEAT→H 2 O+CH 2 +H 2 EAT All chemistry equations
SU(2)U(1)×SU(U(2)) All quantum gravity equations
S g =(-1)/(2ε̄) ið(̂ ξ 0 ⨢ p ε ρ v abc ⋅η 0 )̂ f̵ a 0 λ( ξ ) ψ(0 a ) All gauge theory equations
H(t)+Ω+G⋅Λ ... [There is a brace linking the three cases together.] ... > 0 (Hubble model) ... = 0 (Flat sphere model) ... < 0 (Bright dark matter model) All cosmology equations
Ĥ - u̧ 0 = 0 All truly deep physics equations


Dark Matter Candidates

Explanation:
Dark matter is a hypothetical, invisible form of matter used by the vast majority of astronomers to explain the far too high apparent mass of objects at large scales in our universe. In galaxies, stars are orbiting faster than the gravitational force of the sum of the masses of visible matter in the galaxy could cause, and entire galaxies are observed moving much faster around each other than their visible masses could explain. In galactic collisions, the mass can appear to separate from the visible matter, as if the mass doesn't collide but the visible matter does. A small handful of galaxies have been observed to not have this property, suggesting that it is a thing that a galaxy can have more or less of and is separable from. At scales of our solar system, those effects are too small and can't be measured. The most plausible explanation for all of these phenomena is that there is some "dark matter" that has gravity, but is otherwise undetectable. In cosmology, dark matter is estimated to account for 85% of the total matter in the universe.
This comic gives a set of possibilities for what dark matter could possibly be, charted by mass from smallest (given in electronvolts ) to largest (given in kilograms). Masses in the range 10 −15 to 10 −3 kg are given in grams together with appropriate prefixes, while the ton takes the place of 10 3 kg.
Only massive objects ranging from subatomic particles up to super massive ones are covered in this comic. There are also alternative hypotheses trying to modify general relativity with no need of additional matter. The problem is that these theories can't explain all different observations at once. Nonetheless dark matter is a mystery because no serious candidate has been found yet.
The joke in this comic is that the range of the mass of the possible particles and objects stretch over 81 powers of ten, with explanations suggested by astronomers covering only some portions of that range. Randall fills the gaps with highly absurd suggestions.
An axion is a hypothetical elementary particle postulated in 1977 to resolve the strong CP problem in quantum chromodynamics , a theory of the strong force between quarks and gluons which form hadrons like protons or neutrons . If axions exist within a specific range of mass they might be a component of dark matter. The advantage of this particle is that it's based on a theory which could be proved or also disproved by measurements in the future. Other theories, not mentioned in this comic, like the weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) are much more vague.
Sterile neutrinos are hypothetical particles interacting only via gravity. It's an actual candidate for dark matter. The well known neutrinos are also charged under the weak interaction and can be detected by experiments.
Electrons are fundamental particles which compose the outer layers of atoms. A large number of electrons in the galaxy would be relatively easy to detect, as they not only interact with light (which dark matter does not appear to), but also have a strong electric charge. Presumably, space camouflage is a positively-charged coating which prevents electrons from interacting with light. (Needless to say, this is not an actual candidate for dark matter.) The mass of an electron is about 0.5 MeV which fits well into the graph.
A neutralino is a hypothetical particle from supersymmetry and is also a current candidate for dark matter. But there is not evidence whether or not supersymmetry is correct and none of the predicted particles have been found yet.
In theoretical physics, a Q-ball is a stable group of particles. It's an actual candidate for dark matter.
(In billiards, a cue ball is the white (or yellow) ball hit with the cue in normal play. In addition, Cueball is the name explainxkcd uses for the most common xkcd character.)
Pollen is a joke candidate, though people with seasonal allergies may suspect that the universe is genuinely made up entirely of pollen in the springtime.
No-See-Ums are a family (Ceratopogonidae) of small flies, 1–4 mm long, that can pass through most window screens. Another joke candidate, because dark matter is invisible and the name "no-see-ums" implies that the flies are invisible.
Insects of the clade Anthophila are major pollinators of flowering plants. In recent years bees have been disappearing at an alarming rate; Doctor Who explained that they are in fact aliens leaving Earth prior to a Dalek invasion.
In pool, the 8-ball is a black ball numbered 8. It's a pun with Q-ball/cue ball. Unless undetected aliens have discovered billiards and become addicted to it, 8-balls are found only on Earth and are, hence, unlikely dark matter candidates. The 8-ball is also a popular unit of sale for black market pharmaceuticals like cocaine, where it stands for ⅛ ounce (3.5 g). This doesn't make sense as a dark matter candidate either – unless dark matter is hard to detect because it's illegal & trying to avoid the cops.
Cows are bovines extensively farmed on Earth for milk and meat. [ citation needed ] Although there is folklore concerning cows achieving circum-lunar orbits , not to mention their appearance on a beloved space western TV show , as Muppet cow Natalie in the Sesame Street News Flash (and others less-remembered ), they have yet to be found elsewhere in the Universe.  In the television show "Too Close for Comfort", one of the characters is the cartoonist of a comic strip called "Cosmic Cow". Spherical cows (and especially those in a vacuum, as they would essentially be if in space) have also been used (humorously) by physicists needing to simplify some source of mass in a given problem.
While those human constructions are huge on a human scale, they're negligible at universe-scale. It would take a large number of such constructions, distributed through space, to replicate the effects of dark matter; while a scenario could be envisioned where enough such constructs existed, with properties and distribution allowing them to match observations, this is obviously not a likely explanation.
They often show up in fiction and pseudo-scientific literature as alien artifacts generating immense unknown power out of nowhere, with the most famous and influential example being the three monoliths from 2001: A Space Odyssey (with the largest having a mass of about 500,000 tonnes).
Black holes are known to occur in sizes of a few solar masses (about 10 30 -10 31 kg) as remnants of the core of former big stars, as well as in quite large sizes at the centers of galaxies (millions or even billions of solar masses). But recent gravitational wave detections indicate that black holes at 50 or 100 solar masses also exist, though their origin is still not understood. Randall doesn't mention this but some astronomers hope that these could fill at least a part of the gap. While black holes are widely reported to be ruled out as a candidate for dark matter for various reasons Randall has listed, such constraints are based on "monochromatic" mass distributions -- meaning that all such black holes are assumed to have the same mass -- which is considered physically implausible for populations of merging bodies which are known to have vastly different masses. See: Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter (2017) and Primordial black hole constraints for extended mass functions (2017) (That this is a common practice in cosmology may be part of the reference to "buzzkill" astronomers.) He rules out all black holes in the range of approximately 10 10 kg to 10 33 kg even when below some gaps at the bars appear.
Except the last item, all range below the mass of the sun (2x10 30 kg) while the smallest known black hole is about four solar masses.
Not covered by this comic are massive astrophysical compact halo objects (MACHOs) composed of hard to detect dim objects like black holes, neutron stars, brown dwarfs, and other objects composed of normal baryonic matter. Nevertheless observations have shown that the total amount of baryonic matter in our universe on large scales is much smaller than it would be needed to explain all the measured gravitational effects.
Diagrams of our solar system (or any planetary system) often show lines representing the elliptical paths the planet takes around its sun. These lines don't show real objects, though. Astronomers just draw them on pictures of the solar system to show where the planets move. If you draw a line on a map to give someone directions, that line isn't an object in real life; it's just on the map. If these lines were real, they would be huge (Earth's would be 940 million km long (2π AU) and Neptune's would be 28 billion kilometers long). Powers of Ten (1977) gives a good sense of just how large these orbit lines need to be in order to be visible in space diagrams. If these orbit lines were also very dense, they would have a huge mass and could possibly account for the missing 85% of the mass in the universe. But they would also constantly be impaling the planets, including the Earth, which would probably be a problem. [ citation needed ] Their mass would also affect planetary motions in ways which we would detect.  A related worry about space travel was expressed in previous centuries; it was thought that the planets were embedded within crystal shells (spheres or Platonic solids), and a rocket into space could smash the shells and send planets plummeting to Earth. Another joke candidate.
The title text refers to the fact that space is just vast emptiness where a little bit of dirt could be overlooked. Actually the mean density of detectable matter in the universe, according to NASA, is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters . And because this matter is mostly located in galaxies -- and inside there in stars and clouds -- the space between is even more empty. For comparison, one gram of hydrogen consists of 6.022 × 10 23 atoms . Like at home wiping with a cleaning cloth in which we can see the dirt that wasn't clearly visible on the surface we have wiped, Randall believes that some few atoms more per cubic meter could stay undetected in the same way. This isn't true because in the space between galaxies astronomers can detect matter as it spreads over thousands or millions cubic light years. Atoms can't hide; there is always radiation.
Dark matter candidates: [A line graph is shown and labeled at left quarter in eV and further to the right in g together with some prefixes.] [The labels read:] µeV, meV, eV, keV, MeV, GeV, TeV, 10 -18 kg, ng, µg, mg, g, kg, TON, 10 6 kg, 10 12 kg, 10 18 kg, 10 24 kg, 10 30 kg
[All items are shown in bars ranging between two approximately values:] < 1 µeV - 10 meV: Axion
1 eV - 10 keV: Sterile neutrino
0.5 MeV (exactly): Electrons painted with space camouflage
10 GeV - 10 TeV: Neutralino
100 TeV - 10 -17 kg: Q-ball
1 ng - 100 ng: Pollen
0.1 mg - 1 mg: No-See-Ums
10 -1 g (exactly): Bees
10 g - 100 g: 8-balls
100 kg - TON: Space cows
TON - 10 9 kg: Obelisks, monoliths, pyramids
10 9 kg - 10 33 kg: Black holes ruled out by: 10 9 kg - 10 13 kg: Gamma rays 10 13 kg - 10 17 kg: GRB lensing 10 15 kg - 10 22 kg: Neutron star data 10 21 kg - 10 30 kg: Micro lensing 10 24 kg - 10 30 kg: Solar system stability 10 30 kg - 10 33 kg: Buzzkill astronomers
10 33 kg - >10 36 kg: Maybe those orbit lines on space diagrams are real and very heavy


Edgelord

Explanation:
"Edgelord" is modern slang describing a brash provocateur on social media; often in a satirical way that if taken literally would be found disturbing or insensitive. The term derives from the word "edgy", which is used to describe things which are designed to be provocative. "Edgy" and "edgelord" are quite derogatory, carrying further implications of being style over substance, or only having appeal with rambunctious teenagers.
In mathematics, graph theory is the study of graphs, mathematical structures made up of nodes (points) which are connected by edges (or lines).
This comic plays on the fact that graphs have edges. Calling someone with a Graph Theory Ph.D. an 'edgelord' (a master of edges) is somewhat analogous to calling an engineering student a 'forcelord', an astronomy PhD a ' starlord ', or a pharmacologist a ' druglord '.
In reply, White Hat shouts "No", and is also clenching his fists in anger, which is ironic, because he seems to be on edge. Because "edgelord" is perceived as an insult by socially aware adults, Cueball is actually provoking White Hat, making Cueball an edgelord in this interaction.  Similar situational humor is also found in 2008: Irony Definition .
The title text makes the same joke, except that the title would be hyperedgelord instead of edgelord. A hypergraph is a generalization of a graph in which each edge may have more than two endpoints. The term "hyper edge" could easily be considered stereotypically "edgy."
[Cueball is talking to White Hat, who is balling his fist and has small lines above his head to indicate annoyance.] Cueball: So, I hear you're a real edgelord. White Hat: No!
[Caption below the frame:] How to annoy a graph theory Ph.D.


Supreme Court Bracket

Explanation:
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. A tournament bracket is a tree diagram that represents the series of games played during a knockout tournament. US Supreme Court cases are typically titled as Petitioner versus Respondent. To spoof this, Randall has put sixteen famous Supreme Court cases into a tournament bracket, as though they were games in the first round of a single-elimination tournament, and that the winners of the 16 listed court cases will somehow file against each other and then again until the final winner is selected. This is similar to college basketball's March Madness , complete with a ranking bracket. "Sweet 16" in the context of a tournament refers to the stage in a tournament where 16 competitors remain. This comic's concept is thus a word play on "court" (court of law v. basketball court).  The phrase "Supreme Court Bracket" also sounds similar to "Supreme Court Docket", which is the official schedule of cases that the Supreme Court will adjudicate (as all of these cases have been).
The cases are:
The case Marbury v. Madison declared a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, thus preventing several late-term appointments by outgoing President John Adams from being seated under incoming President Thomas Jefferson . More importantly, the ruling established the principle of judicial review by which the Supreme Court can overturn, on the basis of unconstitutionality, laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President . For this reason it is considered the single most important decision in American constitutional law.
The case McCulloch v. Maryland established a broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause, specifically finding that Congress could incorporate a Bank of the United States because the purpose was to help carry out Congress' explicit powers under Article I, section 8.
The case Gibbons v. Ogden established that interstate commerce is regulated by the U.S. Congress according to the U.S. Constitution, that interstate navigation is fundamental to interstate commerce, and that therefore the power to regulate interstate navigation in this way rests with the U.S. Congress, not with any state legislature.
On 01 March 1824, the US Supreme Court decided in favor of Thomas Gibbons in his appeal of a case brought against him by Aaron Ogden in an attempt to prevent Gibbons from operating steamboats to transport goods and passengers between New York City, New York and Elizabethtown, New Jersey. The US Supreme Court decision reversed a prior injunction against Gibbons issued by a New York State court deciding that Ogden held exclusive navigational rights by way of having licensed them from two men to whom the New York State Legislature had granted the navigation rights in several acts between 1798 and 1807.
The case Near v. Minnesota is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that found that prior restraints on publication violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution , a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Noteworthy it was later a key precedent in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), in which the court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers.
National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation was a US labor law case. It declared that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was constitutional. It effectively preserved the New Deal , which was being pursued by US President Roosevelt in reaction to the Great Depression . Previous Supreme Court cases, unlike NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin , had invalidated New Deal statutes.
The case Brown v. Board of Education the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. It stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
This ruling paved the way for the Civil Rights Movement . However, the decision did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed."
In the case Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney or lawyer to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford their own attorneys.
In the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court ruled that a statute barring birth control to prevent pregnancy, also known as contraception, was unconstitutional, at least in its application to married couples, as there was an implicit right to privacy in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional provisions. This ruling was used as precedent in Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), which extended the right to unmarried couples, and in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas (see below).
In Miranda v. Arizona , it was ruled that inculpatory and exculpatory statements would not be accepted in court if a defendant was not informed of their rights under the Fifth Amendment. The "Miranda Rights" warning ("You have the right to remain silent", etc.) is now used across the US.
In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional, and were struck down.  This decision was well ahead of public opinion; a Gallup poll (cited by Think Progress ) conducted the following year showed only 20% in favor.  This case was cited as precedent in Obergefell v. Hodges, listed below.
In Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's right to privacy, balanced against the state's interest in limiting abortions , allowed women to undergo abortions in the first and second trimesters and allowed states the right to forbid third-trimester abortions.
In United States v. Nixon , the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that then-President Richard Nixon 's refusal to hand over certain tape recordings during his impeachment process was unconstitutional. This case placed limits on the power of executive privilege.
In Bush v. Gore , the Supreme Court decided the highly contested 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, arguing in a 5-4 decision that the recount required by Florida state law could not be carried out before the December 12 deadline required by the United States Code. As such, the statewide recount was stopped, and the now-official initial count (which favored Bush) propelled Bush to the presidency.
Lawrence v. Texas ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, making same-sex sexual activity legal in all US states and territories. It explicitly overturned another Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick , a case which had previously ruled such laws to be constitutional.
In Massachusetts v. EPA , Massachusetts and 11 other states sued the EPA for not regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, saying that contrary to the claims of the EPA at that point in time, greenhouse gases are pollutants. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, forcing the EPA to start placing regulations on greenhouse gases.
In Obergefell v. Hodges , the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the right to marriage is protected for same-sex couples by the Fourteenth Amendment.
With the results given above, the "Sweet 16" of the bracket given would be as follows:
The title text refers to a practice of filling out a March Madness bracket, predicting a winner for each game up to the championship. A bracket is "busted" when the result of a game is not as predicted; because future matchups depend on previous results, the whole bracket is worthless at that point. Randall "had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final", predicting both parties would win all previous rounds and advance to the final game/case. Because Connecticut lost its first-round case to Griswold, his bracket is busted in the first round.
In the second part of the title text, Randall writes: "I had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final, probably in a case over who gets to annex Rhode Island."  In fact, there actually was a Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. Connecticut (summary at Justia.com , full text at Google Scholar ) dealing with water rights on the Connecticut River, which flows between the two states.
Rhode Island is a smaller state that borders both Massachusetts and Connecticut (and no other state), hence the joke about "who gets to annex Rhode Island."
In an actual March Madness bracket, "Massachusetts" and "Connecticut" refer to the basketball teams from the University of Massachusetts and the University of Connecticut. So it is possible that a "Massachusetts v. Connecticut" matchup could occur in the basketball championship as well.
Occasionally, cases with the same names (if not the same defendants) have occurred in the United States.
[A tournament bracket tree is shown with 16 participants each on the left and right side. From both sides toward the middle the brackets reduce to eight, then four, two, and one line where the latter join to a rectangle in the middle.]
[Left side:] Marbury - Madison McCulloch - Maryland Gibbons - Ogden Near - Minnesota NLRB - Jones & Laughlin Brown - Board of Education Gideon - Wainwright Griswold - Connecticut
[Right side:] Miranda - Arizona Loving - Virginia Roe - Wade United States - Nixon Bush - Gore Lawrence - Texas Massachusetts - EPA Obergefell - Hodges
[Caption below the frame:] Now that we've finished the round of 32, the Supreme Court will be moving on to the Sweet 16.


Hazard Symbol

Explanation:
Hazard symbols are often required to indicate certain threats to human health. These symbols are typically black symbols on yellow backgrounds, a contrast typically associated with danger even in nature, a phenomenon known as aposematism . However, these symbols also need to be easy to interpret. Therefore, they have simple, recognizable shapes that are internationally uniform and intended to be well-understood.
This comic inverts this latter expectation, by combining multiple hazard symbols into one, creating something that is unique, and very hard to understand. In practice, if such an object were to be labelled, the five hazard symbols would be separated, each in their own triangle.
The hazard symbols are biohazard ☣, radiation ☢, slip and fall hazard symbol, laser hazard, and high voltage symbol ⚡.
Another ridiculous aspect of this comic is how these hazards interact with each other, and their attendant risks. Radioactive waste is usually a show-stopper on its own, but bio hazards, lasers, and high-voltage situations usually scare people more than slippery floors. This is probably a joke on how some hazard symbols are worse than others. Some of these would also cancel each other out: both high voltage and lasers have a tendency to harm microorganisms that might be bio-hazards. Most radioactive substances are solid, thus they are hard to slip on. While they do form compounds which could potentially be liquid and therefore slippery, many of these would kill the pathogens. For example, Uranium hexafluoride is a powerful oxidizer that would destroy most germs.
Biohazard and radioactivity could be combined as radioactive isotopes of Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen can be substituted for their stable counterparts, and high voltage electricity can be applied to anything.  However laser hazard and slipping hazard seem to be mutually exclusive as the former applies to devices and the latter to substances.  One possibly "solution" could be a room sized gas discharge tube filled with a radioactive biohazard that partly condenses and makes the floor slippery.
The title text refers to another unsafe subversion of expectations, in this case, against the NFPA 704 "fire diamond". These are the colourful diamond-shaped symbols often found on the back of tankers, but they are also necessary inclusions on materials safety datasheets. These symbols give numeric indication of the hazardous nature of the material, in three different respects (flammability, health, and reactivity), in addition to providing space for an extra warning on the bottom, typically in the form of one or more letters. Using an emoji instead of numbers and letters would defeat the purpose of the fire diamond, as it would only give a qualitative indication of the danger ("very dangerous"), and additionally, could be very easily mistaken for a 0 (meaning safe).
Note, Material Safety Data Sheets have been deprecated in favor of SDS (Safety Data Sheets) in order to come into compliance with the GHS (Globally Harmonized System) .
😰 is described by Emojipedia as " Anxious Face With Sweat ".  As an additional joke, using this symbol in the fire diamond could be an expression of how awful this mysterious substance is.
[The comic shows symbols, drawn in black on top of a yellow background.] [One large symbol embeds four others and it's composed of the outline of three overlapping and outwards narrowing rings arranged by 120 degrees.] [The symbol at the center shows at the same orientation three blades with a small stepped circle in the middle.] [Inside the ring on top is a symbol of a backwards falling human with a small line depicting the ground.] [The ring on the right below the center contains a circle with radiant alternating smaller and longer lines around. One more longer line points toward the center of the image.] [Embedded into the left lower ring is a bolt with an arrow pointing left downwards.]
[Caption below:] It's important to know the international warning symbol for radioactive high-voltage laser-emitting biohazards that coat the floor and make it slippery.


Begging the Question

Explanation:
This comic makes fun of the constant battle between those who maintain a prescriptive view of language and those who have a descriptive view .  In the prescriptive view, language has fixed rules and fixed usage, and any usage that does not adhere to established rules is incorrect. In the descriptive view however, language is malleable and any usage can be correct if it is common and understood by most people.
The comic specifically calls out two phrases which are commonly misused in the prescriptive sense, and whose meanings have changed in modern usage in the descriptive sense:
Nauseous
Nauseous in its supposedly 'proper' form means "causing nausea ", while nauseated means affected with nausea.
Prescriptively speaking, it is only correct to use the word "nauseous" to describe the food item since that was the cause of Ponytail's nausea. Saying "the food made her nauseous" would be interpreted, by a prescriptivist, as meaning the food somehow caused her (her body, her appearance, etc.) to become so disgusting that she now causes other people to feel nausea. As White Hat states, the proper phrasing is that the "the food was nauseous", and it "made [her] nauseated".
Both historically and in modern usage, however, "nauseous" is a valid synonym of "nauseated". It is difficult, if not impossible, to cite an era of history when most people would not understand "she is nauseous" to mean she does not feel well.
Begging the question
Begging the question originally referred to a logical fallacy where an argument assumed its conclusion. The phrase first meant to question (beg) the original question. In modern usage, it has come to mean to "raise a question or point that has not been dealt with". This is often a point of contention for prescriptivists. However, as the caption explains, Cueball has an entirely different meaning for this phrase that he created himself: "fight a losing battle against changing usage". This is actually a meta-meaning, as that is actually the common activity of prescriptivists who complain about incorrect usage; it's a losing battle, because language change is inevitable and unstoppable. And specifically, trying to preserve the original meaning of "begging the question" is a losing battle.
Ponytail might recognize that her exposure to nauseous food has both nauseated her and caused her to become nauseous to Cueball. The question is not merely begged, it is missed.
The title text also plays on another word commonly argued over by prescriptivists. "Enormity" in its classical usage means either extreme wickedness or a monstrous offense or evil, though it is more commonly used in modern writing as a synonym for enormousness (i.e. largeness in size). The title text exploits the lexical ambiguity that this creates.
[Ponytail and White Hat standing next to each other talking. White Hat has raised his hand while Cueball stands behind him.] Ponytail: That food made me nauseous. White Hat: No, the food was nauseous. It made you nauseated . Cueball: Come on, you're just begging the question.
[Caption below the frame:] I annoy people on all sides by using "beg the question" to mean "fight a losing battle against changing usage".


Sibling-in-Law

Explanation:
This comic shows the complicated way that English refers to sibling-in-law family relationships. As shown in the comic, your sibling's spouse would be called your "sibling-in-law" (brother-in-law for male, sister-in-law for female). However, your spouse's sibling is also called the same way.
The confusion lies with your siblings-in-law's siblings. Randall says they may be "also siblings-in-law, I think?" and further relations are also "possible additional siblings-in-law".
According to Wikipedia, "sibling-in-law is one's spouse's sibling, or one's sibling's spouse, or one's spouse's sibling's spouse"; therefore Randall would be correct with the "also siblings-in-law" on the right (his 'spouse's sibling's spouse') but would be incorrect regarding the one on the left (his 'sibling's spouse's sibling' would not generally be considering a sibling-in-law).
Wiktionary lists a more restrictive definition: siblings-in-law are either "the sibling of one's spouse" or "the spouse of one's sibling". This definition includes only those whom Randall calls siblings-in-law, and none of those he calls "also siblings-in-law, I think?".  The spouse of the sibling of one's spouse or the sibling of the spouse of one's sibling are to be referred as co-siblings-in-law. If anything, this shows that the definition of a sibling-in-law is loose, justifying the "I think ?" sentence of the comic.
Many families also use the term "out-law" to jokingly refer to the distant sibling+spouses which Randall seems uncertain about.
The caption compares "sibling-in-law" to "<X>th cousin <Y> times removed". This family relationship, for example, 1st cousin once removed , is used to describe your 1st cousin's child or the first cousin of one of your parents. The "once removed" indicates that the family relative is one generation above or below yours.
The title text  describes a scenario in a traditional wedding in most English-speaking regions. Prior to the wedding being completed, the officiant will provide a final opportunity for anyone in the audience to speak a reason to object to the wedding. This intended for reasons why they cannot lawfully be wed -- such as that one of the participants is already married to someone else or is too young to marry, that the couple are so closely related that the marriage would be incestuous, or that the marriage license is expired -- or other serious emergencies -- such as evidence of infidelity (sexual or otherwise) that might change one of the participants' minds about their continued commitment to their spouse-to-be. In movies and fiction, this is usually a dramatic moment used for the climax of a critical scene. Regardless, it is an incredibly serious objection to raise, and should not be done so lightly. However, the title text describes a confusing and mundane scenario where the only reason the speaker is objecting to the wedding is because they're unsure whether the marriage would make one of the participants their brother-in-law and thus wouldn't know what to call the groom after the wedding.  In order to avoid their own confusion, they attempted to stop the wedding altogether. The officiator rightly ruled that this objection was neither just cause to object nor a reason that the wedding would be unlawful, and is therefore no reason the couple should be prevented from their own chance at wedded bliss.
Since the title text begins with a FYI (for your information) it is implied that Randall has actually tried to stop a wedding using that reason and has been overruled, and thus he wishes to help others avoid that socially-awkward experience.
[A single layer of a family tree with 15 people depicted as sticky figures side by side is shown. They are connected alternated either by a bracket on top or a short line between them. The four outermost figures on each side are faded out in gray.] [In the middle is Cueball and from below an arrow points at him:] Me [To the left Ponytail is connected by a bracket and the arrow below says:] Sibling [To the right of Cueball Megan is shown connected by a small line, an arrow below her reads:] Spouse [Further to the left and the right the next figures have an arrow below with the nested text:] Siblings-in-law [The next connected figures on both sides are drawn with two other wider arrows embedding this statement:] Also siblings-in-law, I think? [All remaining figures left and right have similar arrows below and the text is:] Possible additional siblings-in-law???
[Caption below the frame:] People complain that “<X> th cousin <Y> times removed” is hard to understand, but to me the most confusing one is sibling-in-law, because it chains across both sibling and marriage links and I don't really know where it stops.


Frontiers

Explanation:
This comic refers to four remaining “final frontiers” of human discovery, according to popular usage—perhaps analyzed using an Internet search engine. It seems to imply that other fields of research aren’t a challenge anymore.
Outer space is so vast in size that it’s impossible for humans to discover even just the stars in our galaxy within a lifetime. Space travel is also very difficult and expensive.
The oceans are very deep [ citation needed ] . The vast majority of the deeper oceans hasn’t been visited by humans, and there is still much we don’t know about the living beings in the deep sea.
The human mind is not only very complex, but also often seems irrational, which makes it harder to investigate. Its relation to the brain is also somewhat mysterious: philosophy of mind is split on whether the mind is ultimately material (materialism) or immaterial (dualism/idealism). Further, certain philosophical systems have trouble explaining its relation to the body, in what is termed the mind–body problem .
Alaska is the state of largest area in the U.S., and also the most sparsely populated. Many places in Alaska have only been partially explored to this day. Randall was probably inspired by the TV series Alaska: The Last Frontier , which plays off of the state’s official nickname of “The Last Frontier”.
The humor from this comic comes from the fact that Alaska seems comparably of less important than the other “Final Frontiers”. It is not as hard or expensive to explore as the ocean bottom and outer space, and it is much smaller. While one's own human mind is much more easily accessible than the other three locations, its nature is a substantial frontier in human knowledge. Furthermore, minds other than one’s own are very hard to access.
The title text refers to the movie Star Trek V: The Final Frontier , released in 1989. “Final frontier” is a recurring motif in the Star Trek franchise (coming from the opening narration for Star Trek: The Original Series ), and is used to describe the exploration of outer space, which remains a notable frontier to humans, both in real life and within Star Trek . Randall , however, jokingly posits that the frontier to be explored is the film itself, and assumes that, because this movie has been out for a while—nearly thirty years—it ought to be fully and comprehensively explored by now.
[In a single framed picture a hand drawn rhombiod is shown. At the inside a few small arrows pointing to the four sides. The text in the middle reads:] Human achievement so far
[Text above the top left side:] Space [Text above the top right side:] The oceans [Text below the bottom left side:] The human mind [Text below the bottom right side:] Alaska
[Caption below the frame:] Final remaining “frontiers,” according to popular usage


Rolle's Theorem

Explanation:
In mathematics, a differentiable function is a function that is "smooth" everywhere, without any sudden breaks or pointy "kinks" or similar. The derivative of such a function is a new function that represents the "slope" or "rate of change" of the original. The function in this comic curves up from point (a) until a point above (c), smoothly turns around, and then curves down from (c) to (b). As a result, the derivative of this function is positive from (a) to (c), and then is negative from (c) to (b). At (c) itself, the function is "flat": the more one zooms in, the more horizontal it looks. The function is moving neither up nor down, so the derivative is neither positive nor negative, but zero. This is what f'(c) = 0 means, as f' is a common notation for the derivative of the function f in differential calculus .
A theorem in mathematics is a statement that has been proven from former accepted statements, like other theorems or axioms . This comic references Rolle's theorem . The theorem essentially states that, if a smoothly changing function has the same output at two different inputs, then it must have one or more turning points in between, as the derivative is zero at each one. As a special case, should the function remain flat between the two inputs, then its derivative is actually zero for every point between the inputs. To Randall , this is obvious. However, the proof of this theorem is not as obvious as the result.
The seeming triviality of the theorem, coupled with the honour bestowed on the theorem namer, leads Randall to make a comparison to attendees of art museums who look at abstract art pieces and perceive only an apparent technical simplicity in the work. Such a visitor might exclaim "My child could paint that!". However, such works of art typically are seen as having value from attributes other than the painterly difficulty in achieving the piece. For example, an artist's work in this style may be lauded for its visionary qualities, or the emotions expressed through the choice of colours or textures. One such artist is Jackson Pollock . The 'clueless' visitor does not see these aspects and believes their child could imitate the piece. Randall suggests he experiences a similar feeling looking at Rolle's Theorem and noting only the obvious correctness without acknowledging the complicated nature of the proof, or other hidden aspects of the theorem.
In the title text, Randall mentions a line together with a coplanar circle. This simply means that both those two-dimensional objects must lay in the same plane in a higher, three-or-more-dimensional space. And by this means, every line drawn through the center of a circle is just a diameter which divides it into two equal parts. Even if this fact is trivial, Proclus says that the first man who proved it was Thales . Auctioning of naming rights , also noted in the title text, refers to the practice of naming entertainment venues for companies which pay for the privilege, such as any of the three Red Bull Arenas or Quicken Loans Arena . Furthermore, "Rolle's" sounds like "Rolls", a common abbreviation for the Rolls Royce brand implying possible sponsorship by the British car manufacturer. The naming of mathematical theorems (along with lemmas, equations, laws, methods, etc.) is not always straightforward and often results in misleading names .
Randall implies that there are many seemingly easy theorems like this. For instance the Dirichlet's box principle, also known as the Pigeonhole principle , that states that if you have more objects than containers, you're going to have to put at least two objects in one container.
[A single framed picture shows a colored x-y-graph with a text above:] Rolle's Theorem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rolle's theorem states that any real, differentiable function that has the same value at two different points must have at least one "stationary point" between them where the slope is zero.
[The graph shows a sine like curve in blue intersecting the x-axis at points "a" and "b" marked in red while in the middle a point "c" has a vertical dashed green line to the apex and on top also in green f'(c)=0 is drawn with a horizontal tangent line.]
[Caption below the frame:] Every now and then, I feel like the math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor squinting at a painting and saying "c'mon, my kid could make that."