this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
366 points (98.9% liked)

Comic Strips

15184 readers
1485 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Am I missing something, or are the images for "Traditionalist" and "Modern" swapped?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Did they fix it? I currently see Pluto highlighted in Traditionalist and not in Modern.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

I believe in the freedom of information, and to that end, enjoy this rare XKCD misprint

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Yup, they did. Cool.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No the comic is correct. Pluto is not considered a planet anymore.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pluto is highlighted on Modern and is not highlighted on Traditionalist.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Ah i see. Thank you. I had to zoom in to see that.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Since categorizing something as a planet means nothing then traditionalist is the only way to go. If Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter and a sudden orbit change can mean a thing might no longer be called a planet then there is no scientific value in calling things planets. They are just traditional names given to fairly random objects like constellations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I would personally categorize everything with a high enough gravity as a planet, i.e. everything that can hold an atmosphere or sth.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

So, expansive then.

[–] hperrin 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

All those who wander are planets.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

only pluto is a planet, I am spiteful

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

They forgot about bofa . They are the only planets

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

Love it, especially the alt text.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I cannot respect people who call Pluto a planet on internet forums whenever this topic comes up. Not because I agree with NASA, think their definition is perfect, or think those people just cling to nostalgia and hate change, no.

I cannot respect them because Pluto does not care and trying to white knight perceived attacks against it will not impress it, those people are just being pathetic.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You are wrong. Pluto is hot shit and knows it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Since they are both dogs, even though Goofy is anthropomorphic, Pluto and Goofy could technically procreate.

Do with this knowledge as you seem fit...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

While I'm jaded and cynical enough to not be moved by anything anymore and I have already heard that information, I'm somehow still disgusted that you invoked rule 34 here of all places.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I aim to please o7

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Wrong. Pluto is actually one of the coldest bodies in the solar system at an average of -232c

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

It's not white knighting a planet. I'm literally from where it was discovered. I went on field trips to Lowell Observatory as a kid. Fuck all y'all who won't accept my planet.

All dwarf planets are planets. Don't discriminate.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's only a planet if we could walk on it. What would the name for that one be?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago
[–] klu9 7 points 2 days ago

That's messed up.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I’m partial to the simplistic view: big enough to be round, not big enough to fuse hydrogen

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Technically tiny amounts of Hydrogen fusion will happen in the gas giants.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I’m sure there’s a sensible line to be drawn somewhere

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Since people have fused hydrogen on earth, I choose to believe it's not a real planet

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Who put all this color in my XKCD?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Empiricist is a very solid take tbf

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Simplistic was basically the original proposal for a planet before it was highjacked on the last day of the convention by a bunch of scientists with an axe to grind.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

I'm partial to Tom Cardy's view: Pluto isn't a planet, but that doesn't matter because it's still hot shit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

...the highlighted bodies under Lunar are wrong. Charon isn't a moon it's a dwarf planet in its own right. The barycenter of it's orbit isn't inside Pluto. Pluto and Charon are binary dwarf planets not a planet moon pair.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I'm a Universalist. It is all the same thing at different phases of matter at various temperatures and pressures combined with the gravity to hold onto various materials. Keep stacking Earths over and over and you will eventually get a gas giant then a star then a black hole.

What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria. If a gravitationally bound world is acted upon in a way that shifts its orbit, the object cannot be redefined. This is a definition of a state, not an object. Planet, as defined by the IAU is not a noun. Such is what I expect when a highschool teacher wrote a definition instead of actual planetary scientists. I suppose such draconian nonsense was intended to show the backwardness and medieval state of the science of astronomy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You can hide behind fancy words but clearly this is just being simplistic

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m sorry if you didn’t get my lame joke over the fact that the universalist and simplistic definitions of planets give the same result in the comic

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Sorry I missed it. This issue is a pet peeve. We're in the golden age of discovery of new worlds and true extent of the Sol system, but are totally neglecting the significance of this one time in history.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria.

https://lemmy.world/comment/15686674.

https://lemmy.world/comment/15687018

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No valid arguments there either. Your car does not become a bicycle because it is in the bike lane. No object is ever defined by external factors. Only states can be defined by external factors. This is fundamental elementary language 101. The definition of an object is not related to a definition of state. There is absolutely no excuse for this blunder. Any obfuscation is nonsense. The conceptual foundation is fundamentally flawed.

There were no planetary scientists consulted whatsoever in this definition. There is no scientific basis. The paper in question is coauthored and the idea of a Highschool teacher in Temecula California. It has no grounding as a scientific concept. It is draconian in logic and completely baseless in science. It is reflective of dogma in the scientific community when it is defended.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

No valid arguments there either.

Just to be clear, I agree with you, and those links are me doing so. Don't quote have the hang of cross posting here on Lemmy.

~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I've been in the Expansive camp for a while.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

What is "surface"?

Also, what is "landed"? And why is Jupiter out? (Edit: Or the Sun, for that matter.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

What planet has Jupiter landed on?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What is "surface"?

In this context, I believe this is limiting to planets whose water is not deep inside the planet's crust somewhere, but exposed to its atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Ok, but the gas giants should have that. We just can't see them.

Unless you want pure water. But then, how pure?