this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
432 points (98.4% liked)

xkcd

16093 readers
8 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
koraro@lemmy.world
432
xkcd #3155: Physics Paths (imgs.xkcd.com)
submitted 6 months ago by xkcdbot@lemmy.world to c/xkcd@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

xkcd #3155: Physics Paths

Title text:

If nothing else, that reasoning definitely overturns syllogisms.

Transcript:

Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com

Source: https://xkcd.com/3155/

explainxkcd for #3155

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Klear@quokk.au 45 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Relevant xkcd

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Relevant xkcd on an xkcd?

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 months ago

A recent one too!

[–] Klear@quokk.au 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

That is my favorite of all of them! Yes!

[–] finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 6 months ago

I really thought this was just going to be a link to the same comic. Shame on me for doubting ig

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I dunno, the "path to ruin" looks pretty profitable...

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Nobody said it was your ruin

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

I'm sure Randall Munroe knows this better than most, but Einstein's insight more derailed physics than overturned it. What I mean is that the path it seemed like physics was on at the time was torn out from under the establishment. But it's not like the work done to that point was discarded.

[–] deacon@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Eric Weinstein.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

And his brother Bret. Pompous ass. I can't believe I have college credits from his ivermectin ass.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

And this is how you get a positive crackpot index.

Though I've known legit physicists and engineers take pride in [their] >0 CI.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I feel like it's all gotta be from #8 right? It makes it pretty easy to get >0 legitimately, seems like it would be hard for anyone working on black holes to not have a double digit score from that alone.

Though I could see some cheeky positive values from #13, assuming the theory is a well established one, Randi style. (Or #20 for the typo)

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If any paper contains these misspellings of Feynman, Einstein or Hawking I would consider them at best sloppy writers.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

To be fair they're physicists, not English majors

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but misspelling historically significant names is a pretty bad sign for any flavor of science really.

I'm pretty sure Brits would want to stone me if I called that apple guy Newdon.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

It's just the only one that I can imagine a physicist or engineer would be proud of.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago

I'm not unhealthy, they're educated stupid.

[–] zabadoh@ani.social 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If you can get a billionaire or two to back you, the right path can be profitable, and take decades to undo.

[–] ksigley@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

There really is an xkcd for everything.