Although CIDU is no longer actively soliciting “synchronicity” submissions, sometimes exceptions must be made. Both of these editorial comics appeared two weeks ago, on Wednesday, April 24th; by coincidence they just happened to be right next to each other in my daily link list (but that was only because of the alphabetical proximity of the author’s names).
P.S. CIDU Bill was exceedingly strict with his requirements for the “synchronicity” tag. They had to be published on exactly the same day, and it was more than just the appearance of an identical object or concept in each comic: the setup or point of the joke had to be the same.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Perusing some of the other synchronicities, I’m not sure he was actually that strict about it.
I was reading recently a piece about the continuing efforts of proponents to have “Anthropocene” accepted by the official stratigraphy bodies. Part of the difficulty has been that the markers they have been choosing have been very recent. So not even the biggest scientific proponents would want to push calling the present moment LATE Anthropocene.
@Dana, there has been a problem with it all along, in that it is only halfway a scientific suggestion, and in other ways a public-awareness / political suggestion. The public-awareness aspect seems on a winning path, with non-technical cartoonists using the term Anthropocene freely and expecting it to be recognized.
That leaves open the question, is it necessary to have Geologists formally accept and define the term? Would that help with the political push? Or is it really quite a separate matter?
@ Dana (2) – I am sure that the recent decision against codifying an official “anthropocene” era was the reason that the term appeared in Sorensen’s strip.
P.S. @ Powers (1) – Were the synchronicities you looked at posted before or after 16-Sep-2020? Yes, even Bill made exceptions, but my impression of his standards wasn’t just from the published record, it was also based on the percentage of submissions that he rejected, which was (in my experience) fairly high.
The “anthropocene” designation certainly makes sense to me.
I see mto recall Bill accepting one or two of mine that were a day or so apart. I suspect that, as with much in life, being really good in one aspect allows a little fudging in another aspect.
@Boise Ed, it’s fine that “anthropocene” gets a makes-sense-to-you — it gets a makes-sense-to-me, too! But that’s a makes-sense-for-popular/political/social-usage.
However, since I’m not a geologist, and I don’t know but think probably you are not either, neither of us – nor Jen Sorenson – has any reason to claim a voice in questions whether it ought to be accepted as an “official” scientific designation. Is there really a distinct change in the fossil (and will-someday-be-fossil) records, in the deposited (and in-the-process-of-being-deposited) layers? How would we know? We could pick and choose among the professionals, and support those whose position favors what side we favor for our own external reasons. But that is not how we should treat science.