explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1173: Steroids

2013-02-14T00:19:57Z

98.234.113.134:

Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::It looks to me like the God from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Though that God would know all about the steroid scandal, presumably. [[Special:Contributions/98.234.113.134|98.234.113.134]] 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?
:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
::I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

== Douglas Adams ==

Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?

:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible:
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:You're probably thinking of his quotes that reference digital watches and what a big mistake it was to leave the oceans (combined with the scene from the show where the guy walks back into the ocean).[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

904: Sports

2012-11-19T20:34:11Z

98.234.113.134: fixed image uri

{{comic
| number = 404
| date = 2011-05-27
| title = Sports
| image = sports.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = Also, all financial analysis. And, more directly, D&D.
}}

==Explanation==

First, a random number generator is something that can give a person any number within a range of numbers. (Or, possibly, any number at all.) For example, a single die will give you any number between 1 and 6.

Second, with an unweighted random number generator each number that is possible has an equal chance of coming up. For example, on a single die there is usually an equal chance of getting a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

Third, a weighed random number generator is one were some numbers are more likely to come-up than others. For example, a weighted die might favor the 6 side more, and thus it will come-up more often.

This comic is referencing the fact that sports, all sports, generate numbers that essentially random. The rules of the sport and the skill of the participants weighs the numbers toward certain outcomes. Every game produces a new batch of numbers: more home runs, more sacks, more passes, more shots, more hits, more misses. If the generator is weighted to favor a specific team in a specific game, that is discussed. Then the results of the game (more random numbers) are discussed. It's the discussion that is the narrative part. If a player breaks a record, that becomes part of the narrative. The number is random, but weighted because of player skill or the rules of the sport.

==Transcript==
:[Two commentators sit behind a desk.]
:Commentator 1: A weighted random number generator just produced a new batch of numbers.
:Commentator 2: Let's use them to build narratives!
:ALL SPORTS COMMENTARY

{{comic discussion}}

904: Sports

2012-11-19T20:32:36Z

98.234.113.134: Created page.

{{comic
| number = 404
| date = 2011-05-27
| title = Sports
| image = http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sports.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = Also, all financial analysis. And, more directly, D&D.
}}

==Explanation==

First, a random number generator is something that can give a person any number within a range of numbers. (Or, possibly, any number at all.) For example, a single die will give you any number between 1 and 6.

Second, with an unweighted random number generator each number that is possible has an equal chance of coming up. For example, on a single die there is usually an equal chance of getting a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

Third, a weighed random number generator is one were some numbers are more likely to come-up than others. For example, a weighted die might favor the 6 side more, and thus it will come-up more often.

This comic is referencing the fact that sports, all sports, generate numbers that essentially random. The rules of the sport and the skill of the participants weighs the numbers toward certain outcomes. Every game produces a new batch of numbers: more home runs, more sacks, more passes, more shots, more hits, more misses. If the generator is weighted to favor a specific team in a specific game, that is discussed. Then the results of the game (more random numbers) are discussed. It's the discussion that is the narrative part. If a player breaks a record, that becomes part of the narrative. The number is random, but weighted because of player skill or the rules of the sport.

==Transcript==
:[Two commentators sit behind a desk.]
:Commentator 1: A weighted random number generator just produced a new batch of numbers.
:Commentator 2: Let's use them to build narratives!
:ALL SPORTS COMMENTARY

{{comic discussion}}

1131: Math

2012-11-08T20:06:37Z

98.234.113.134: /* Explanation */ I removed "media & exit poll" because the forecast range is actually the forecast range of statisticians like Nate Silver who projected an Obama win all along.

{{comic
| number = 1131
| date = November 7, 2012
| title = Math
| image = xkcdmath.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = As of this writing, the only thing that's 'razor-thin' or 'too close to call' is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result.
}}

==Explanation==
In another election-themed comic (this one posted the day after the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|2012 U.S. presidential election}} (see [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], [[1127: Congress]], and [[1130: Poll Watching]]), this comic shows a bar graph representing expected (see note below) electoral college votes in the election, including a dotted line indicating the 270 votes needed to win, a span of projections ("Forecast"), and the actual result.

The forecast range is above the 270 line, showing that Obama (the 'Blue Candidate' according to convention since the 2000 election) was always projected to win by statisticians like Nate Silver and others. The only question among these people was how much he was going to win by. By contrast, most of the media was calling the election too close to call, and some news outlets actually projecting a Romney win.

For those unfamiliar with the US Presidential electoral process: unlike other political offices, the election for president is not a direct election. Instead, each state is apportioned a certain number of "electoral college" votes based on population. For the most part (and there is perennial discussion on whether this should be changed) the candidate that receives the most votes in a given state receives all the electoral college votes for that state. With 538 electoral votes total, receiving 270 electoral college votes (269 (half of 538) + 1) is sufficient to be declared president-elect. For this reason, it is possible to have one candidate actually receive more "popular" votes (more people voted for the candidate,) but have fewer electoral college votes, and consequently, why some "battleground states" are so hotly contested.

The electoral college votes are expectations until the official voting in early December.

==Transcript==
:Heading: Math
:[Bar chart showing 58% blue and 42% red. Header showing range between 53-63% with heading "Forecast". Arrow below pointing at meeting of blue and red sections of graph with heading "Result"]
:Caption: '''Breaking:''' To surprise of pundits, numbers continue to be best system for determining which of two things is larger.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with charts]]