https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=108.162.219.125&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T19:38:34ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1771:_It_Was_I&diff=132416Talk:1771: It Was I2016-12-12T16:14:23Z<p>108.162.219.125: It's a comment about language</p>
<hr />
<div>I find it hilarious how much people get hung up on grammar. Language is a beautiful chaos that we partially order, but it is not set in stone. Seasons, years, and people change, as does language. If you understand what they're saying, why do you still point it out? If it's illegible, it's understandable to point it out, but an extra and or the wrong 'there' isn't going to hurt you. Proper grammar is only so important; it is not the end-all be-all of language. Thank you for reading my short rant. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 16:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"It me" isn't "caveman-speak"... It's a popular Internet meme. See [http://www.papermag.com/it-me-you-and-everyone-we-know-a-look-at-the-webs-most-ambiguous-meme-1427655235.html here] and [http://www.papermag.com/an-interview-with-pastaversaucy-the-inventor-of-the-it-me-meme-1427658503.html here], for starters. --[[User:Esterhazy|Esterhazy]] ([[User talk:Esterhazy|talk]]) 07:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was thinking it might be a reference to the syntax Jar Jar Bings uses "It's a me Jar Jar" "Misa is" etc. which would ad to why Darth Vader begs the Emperor never to speak like this again, it could also serve as a reference to the Darth Jar Jar theories flying around.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.148|162.158.202.148]] 08:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not super familiar with the general style on this wiki, but surely we should note that this ''Star Wars'' comic comes ahead of Friday's ''Rogue One'' premiere, right? Like in a trivia section or the main article somehow? [[User:Aepokk|Aepokk]] ([[User talk:Aepokk|talk]]) 08:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I read it as being the emperor who said "It was me who allowed the-" --[[User:RU42LINES|ru42lines]] ([[User talk:RU42LINES|talk]]) 09:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
: I agree, so edited as such. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.233|141.101.98.233]] 09:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
: Quite right, thanks! --[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 10:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I checked a bunch of online style guides. It looks like Luke is actually wrong here. "to be"/"was" is a linking verb, and generally "It was I" is considered the correct form. "It was me" is acceptable informally but that doesn't invalidate the rule. [[User:Luckykaa|Luckykaa]] ([[User talk:Luckykaa|talk]]) 10:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
: I think you may have missed the point there.--[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 10:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
:: Just a note that might be relevant to a more detailed discussion. This wiki does often detail the academic elements of the joke [[User:Luckykaa|Luckykaa]] ([[User talk:Luckykaa|talk]]) 10:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
::: Please do document them. But the whole point of the cartoon is in fact to discuss this question, but there isn't really a 'right' or 'wrong' and certainly not one prescribed by style guides. See [[1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police]].--[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 10:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/IIAdHEwiAy8 --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.44|141.101.81.44]] 12:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This probably should have a link to [[890|this comic]]. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.120}}<br />
: There already is one! Look closely at the penultimate paragraph --[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1758:_Astrophysics&diff=1307401758: Astrophysics2016-11-11T18:26:01Z<p>108.162.219.125: /* Explanation */ s/v number ageement, and simplify verbosity</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1758<br />
| date = November 11, 2016<br />
| title = Astrophysics<br />
| image = astrophysics.png<br />
| titletext = DEPARTMENT OF NEUROSCIENCE / Motto: "If I hear the phrase 'mirror neurons' I swear to God I will flip this table."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Are there other theories than MOND and the new paper? Seems like there must have been many examples to get such a motto?}}<br />
<br />
The theory of gravity produced by {{w|general relativity}} is generally very accurate—it predicts the orbits of planets precisely, even details like the {{w|Two-body problem in general relativity#Anomalous precession of Mercury|precession of Mercury}} which Newton couldn't fully explain. However, the predictions for the behavior of galaxies are wrong—{{w|Galaxy rotation curve|the galaxies seem to spin at the wrong rates}}.<br />
<br />
The standard explanation is that there is something else filling these galaxies, which has mass (and therefore exerts a gravitational pull) but which can't be seen with current telescopes. This is called {{w|dark matter}}, and most astrophysicists believe it exists—either in the form of {{w|Massive compact halo object|an unknown type of star that is too dim to see}}, or {{w|Weakly interacting massive particles|an undiscovered subatomic particle}}.<br />
<br />
However, an alternative theory which gets proposed regularly is {{w|modified Newtonian dynamics}} (MOND). In MOND, gravity doesn't simply follow the {{w|inverse square law}} but has more complicated behavior. Usually, the extra behavior is either to say that gravitational force can be affected by the acceleration of the particle, or that it goes from inverse-square to just inverse at large distances. It "sounds good" because it's relatively simple—it just changes our understanding of Newton's law of gravitation, rather than requiring entirely new forms of matter or unknown stars to exist—and because it has some nice side-effects, such as explaining why there seems to be a limit on the density of galaxies.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, as the sign says, MOND doesn't fit all the scientific data. One famous counterexample is the {{w|Bullet Cluster}}—two colliding galaxy clusters that are ripping through each other, and from which the mass distribution can be inferred through gravitational lensing. The collision, and the differing ways that ordinary and dark matter interact, have separated the dark matter from ordinary matter to a certain extent, which can be seen in the mass distribution. Another counterexample is MOND's incompatibility with observations of the motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters. Even if MOND ''is'' correct in some way, we still need dark matter to explain the Bullet Cluster. More generally, MOND isn't compatible with general relativity—which has a huge amount of experimental data in its favour—and a MOND-compatible general relativity would be very complicated and ugly.<br />
<br />
The specific impetus for this comic may be [https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 this] recent publication by {{w|Erik Verlinde}} (see popular description of the paper [http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html here]). It was released on-line three days before the release of this comic. Verlinde's theory ({{w|entropic gravity}}) isn't MOND—rather, it's derived from {{w|thermodynamics}} and {{w|quantum information theory}}—but it has a lot in common with it. The paper got a lot of "This will prove Einstein wrong" coverage (see [[1206: Einstein]]), even though it's just a {{w|pre-print}} and hasn't been peer-reviewed or experimentally verified yet. Verlinde's theory also doesn't match the data—[http://motls.blogspot.de/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html it disagrees with experimental results showing how particles interact with gravity].<br />
<br />
Apparently, whoever put up this sign was getting tired of news agencies stating that dark matter has been "disproven".<br />
<br />
The title text lists the text on a similar sign standing outside the Department of {{w|Neuroscience}}. Their motto is "If I hear the phrase 'mirror neurons' I swear to God I will flip this table." {{w|Mirror neurons}} are brain cells which trigger when watching someone else do something. Experiments claim to have found mirror neurons in humans and other apes, and there are theories that make mirror neurons the foundation of learning, empathy, language and consciousness itself. However, {{w|mirror neurons#Doubts concerning mirror neurons|the evidence for mirror neurons is still patchy}}, and even if they exist, it's very simplistic to try to attribute so much of human behavior to a single type of relatively simple cell. In light of this, the motto of the neuroscientists at the department may reflect their frustration and even rage, over what they see as a common misperception.<br />
The title text also uses {{w|Mirror neurons}} as a reference to a joke; it suggests to "flip this table", just as a mirror flips the image in front of it.<br />
<br />
A similar story of a paper questioning science and leading to press coverage was mentioned two days before the release of this comic on the YouTube channel Space Time from PBS Digital Studios in their newest video with the title [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UNLgPIiWAg Did Dark Energy Just Disappear?]. This was based on the press coverage of the paper [http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596 Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae]. The conclusion in the video is that dark energy is still the best explanation. Note this is about the existence of dark energy rather than dark matter. The two are not related!<br />
<br />
Science papers with results that supposedly disprove solidly founded theories have been the subject before in [[955: Neutrinos]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A sign on two posts, in the grass in front of a building with windows and double doors, a window on each door, and bars facing outwards. There is a cement walk leading to the doors. On the sign is the text:]<br />
:<big>'''Department of Astrophysics'''</big><br />
:'''Motto:'''<br />
:''Yes, everybody has already had the idea, "Maybe there's no dark matter—Gravity just works differently on large scales!" It sounds good but doesn't really fit the data.''<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1292:_Pi_vs._Tau&diff=863161292: Pi vs. Tau2015-03-14T08:42:25Z<p>108.162.219.125: /* Math details */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1292<br />
| date = November 18, 2013<br />
| title = Pi vs. Tau<br />
| image = pi vs tau.png<br />
| titletext = Conveniently approximated as e+2, Pau is commonly known as the Devil's Ratio (because in the octal expansion, '666' appears four times in the first 200 digits while no other run of 3+ digits appears more than once.)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This is yet another of [[Randall]]'s [[:Category:Compromise|compromise comics]]. A few mathematicians argue as to whether to use pi, which is the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter, or tau, which is the ratio between a circle's circumference and its radius.<br />
<br />
Some consider pi to be the wrong convention and are in favor of using tau as ''the'' circle constant; see the [http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto Tau Manifesto], which was inspired by the article "[http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html Pi is wrong!]" by mathematician Robert Palais. Others consider proponents of tau to be foolish and remain loyal to pi (see the [http://www.thepimanifesto.com Pi Manifesto]). Of course, regardless of which convention is used, the change is merely in notation — the underlying mathematics remains unaltered. Still, the choice of pi vs. tau can affect the clarity of equations, analogies between different equations, and how easy various subjects are to teach.<br />
<br />
Most people know π (pi) by the approximation 3.14, but do not know τ (tau) which, by definition, is twice as large as pi. Randall is suggesting using "pau", which is a portmanteau of "pi" and "tau", as a number situated, appropriately enough, halfway between pi and tau, i.e. 1.5 pi or 0.75 tau. But of course his number would be inconvenient, as this value does not naturally turn up when working with circles or other mathematical constructs, so there are no commonly used formulas that would use pau.<br />
<br />
The title text claims that pau can be approximated by e+2, as both values are roughly 4.7 — a similarity that holds little since it requires another irrational constant, {{w|E (mathematical constant)|e}}. It also attributes the nickname "Devil's Ratio" to pau, due to the sequence {{w|Number of the Beast|666}} supposedly appearing four times in the first 200 digits of pau when expressed in the {{w|octal}} base. However, this is not the case, and was likely due to an error in the computer system used by WolframAlpha; for more details see below.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[On the left is a "forbidden"-style slashed circle with the π symbol, captioned "Pi". On the right is a "forbidden"-style slashed circle with 2π, captioned "Tau". In the middle it reads 1.5π, captioned "Pau".]<br />
:A compromise solution to the Pi Tau dispute<br />
<br />
==Math details==<br />
Possibly, [[Randall]] used [http://www.wolframalpha.com/ Wolfram|Alpha] to calculate the result (he uses it a lot, for example [http://what-if.xkcd.com/70/ What-if 70: The Constant Groundskeeper] or [http://what-if.xkcd.com/62/ What-if 62: Falling With Helium]).<br />
However, when the comic was published, there was (and still is, as of April 29, 2014) a bug in Wolfram|Alpha so that, when getting 200 octal digits from "pau", it just calculates the decimal value rounded to 15 significant digits (this is 4.71238898038469) and expands that as octal digits as far as needed.<br />
<br />
This gives a periodically repeating number. In the first 200 digits of the octal expansion, the sequences 666 and 6666 do occur, twice and once, respectively. There are 4 occurrences, however, in the first 300 digits:<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022106616734723661726160312772574551366370203115523402704104015532221722772357666</pre><br />
Expansion that long indeed does contain 666 (the {{w|Number of the beast|number of the beast}}) four times (with one instance as 6666). It also contains 0000, 222, 444, and 7777, but they only appear once in a run.<br />
<br />
{{w|Mathematical coincidence|Coincidentally}}, e+2 is also very similar to 1.5 pi, although only to a few digits.<br />
<pre><br />
1.5π = 4.71238898038...<br />
e+2 = 4.71828182845...<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*For Pi the sequence '666' occurs for the first time at position 2440. Many more occurrences can be found here: [http://www.angio.net/pi/ The Pi-Search Page].<br />
*Note that pau is Catalan for peace, which is a good solution for the pi/tau dispute.<br />
*In the discussion it has been theorized that Randall used [[356: Nerd Sniping|Nerd Sniping]]. In which case he was aware of the mistake in Wolfram!<br />
*For an entertaining introduction to the concept of tau, see this [https://www.khanacademy.org/math/recreational-math/vi-hart/pi-tau/v/pi-is--still--wrong Vi Hart video].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Compromise]]</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1345:_Answers&diff=85581Talk:1345: Answers2015-03-04T03:01:26Z<p>108.162.219.125: observation</p>
<hr />
<div>Not true. We know that sleep is important for storing memories and cleaning out toxins. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.89|108.162.222.89]] 11:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:That report is entitled "Brain may flush out toxins during sleep". Note the "may". Add it to the list of hypotheses. [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The idea is that we do not know why we evolved to need sleep, when microorganisms do not sleep. If we had evolved without developing the need to sleep we'd also have evolved another way to retain memories and flush toxins. There is no truly biological reasons why a species would evolve the need to sleep when the option to be alert all the time is more obvious, as it means there is less risk of attack and danger.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.16|108.162.219.16]] 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Apparently, one of the thing brain or body does while sleeping - reindexing memories, flush toxins, self-repairs, I think that the list of hypotheses is long - give us so big advantage when awake that the limited awareness (note that some noises can still wake us up) in period of sleep is worth it. Or, perhaps the alternative solutions are too hard to evolve. Remember that even while sleeping, humans are much more active that most microorganisms: it is probable that need for sleep evolved at the same time as the brain itself. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Stupid personalized jokes and the like in this explanation... [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.174|173.245.53.174]] 11:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm not sure this is the correct explanation.<br />
The paradox of being confronted daily with a mystery and not trying to solve it is inconsistent with the title text. So this explanation doesn't sound right to me.<br />
I think it's more about defining humanity as seeking for answers, while spending a huge amount of time closing off from the world for apparently no reason.<br />
In other words, IMHO, it's not about "[not being] distracted by this mystery", but about "not being able to investigate any mystery during 1/3 of our life even if we want to".<br />
<br />
Also, with my explanation, the original puchline "touché" works better than the the current explanation's suggestion "Which is why it keeps me awake all night". -- Shirluban@[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.36|108.162.229.36]] 12:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I disagree with the above poster (and agree with the explanation) on the basis of the boldface text... "And nobody knows why". Every human sleeps, so if humans were really curious, someone should have figured out why by now.[[User:Nsimonetti|NikoNarf]] ([[User talk:Nsimonetti|talk]]) 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While we do not know why we sleep we do know what happens during sleep. All the studies and hypotheses cited here do show information about the states of our brain during sleep. We are well aware of most of the biological processes that happen in the brain during sleep. Its not that sleep is some utterly mysterious thing our bodies do. Sleep research has not been as rigorously studied as other subjects in science and due to the very nature of science and scientific study to consolidate all this data, test hypotheses and develop theories takes a lot of time, findings must be checked, rechecked, and verified, and then there's the time it takes to use the facts gathered to actually come up with a working theory which, if refuted by testing, the whole process has to be done over again. The point is science takes a lot of time, money and manpower. We already know we need to sleep, we know how not sleeping affects us, there are other important questions in science which we are more driven to find answers to. So, our curiosity is considerable and day by day we continue to discover new things, but not many scientists are interested in a field of study which will get you way less money and recognition than breakthroughs in genetic engineering. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree with the original poster. It is interesting how people spend their entire careers studying a life event that they may never experience (consider a man studying the act of giving birth), yet most of us simply take sleep for granted. Now if we could only make sleep more efficient! I think we could spare a couple months worth of study to this. http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1205 [[User:Puck0687|Puck0687]] ([[User talk:Puck0687|talk]]) 14:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
We could spare quite a lot more than a couple months on this. First, 1205 talks about the benefit over five years, and for us the benefit would be over an entire lifetime. Furthermore, far more people don't study sleep than study it, so the "couple months" you talk about can be multiplied by the total population of people who benefit (both alive today and yet to live), and divided by the population of people studying sleep. That gets you quite a lot more than two months. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.11|108.162.219.11]] 16:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've thought for a while that the ''reason'' we sleep is primarily due to the accumulation of adenosine in the brain (?) - who really knows... [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 16:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The title text is referring to a statement William Dement (Stanford University) actually said. Source: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/05/sleep/max-text [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.117|108.162.245.117]] 17:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I disagree with the notion that we are no longer curious while we are sleeping (implied perhaps only by me?). I have awoken from sleep with answers to questions I went to bed with (or at least possible explanations to investigate). Brain activity has not stopped while we are asleep. I believe we have at least correlated benefits to sleep (or adverse consequences to the lack of sleep) but we don't know how much further down the root cause tree we still need to go - e.g why does sleep help with memory and weight loss and muscle repair. [[User:Ghaller825|Ghaller825]] ([[User talk:Ghaller825|talk]]) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
just becuase we are hungry does not mean we are fed. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.231|108.162.249.231]] 07:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I guess we can know what sleep is for by looking at what happens if we, or other animals, are prevented from sleeping. "Sleepiness" isn't just an urge, but an imperative which is torture if not obeyed. Hallucinations, irritability, and eventually death due to immune system degradation occurs, (at least in rats, dunno about humans) and this happens more quickly than starvation. Seems to me that what we don't know is not the "why" of sleep, but the exact pathways by which these malfunctions are caused, {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.117}}<br />
:The referenced national geographic article has an interesting section on "fatal familial insomnia" in humans. [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's long been a fundamental technique of artificial neural network learning, to alternate between "learning" and "sleep" modes. I've heard (but cannot find the citation, sigh) that when running neural networks, it turns out that they lose the ability to learn after running a long time. But you can avoid this effect if you periodically bathe the neural network with completely random input. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 07:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Makes sense, and reminds me of some optimization algorithms. Interesting! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1344:_Digits&diff=85580Talk:1344: Digits2015-03-04T02:55:11Z<p>108.162.219.125: opinion and maybe explanation update</p>
<hr />
<div>If you want a multiplayer version of the game, go to 2048.mx. (No one ever shows up and it's lonely here.)<br><br />
[[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
Interestingly, the comic number is 1344, and the 2 4-tiles can be combined to give an 8-tile {{unsigned ip|108.162.225.141}}<br />
----<br />
The title text... I guess that's just seeing how regular Tetris would play out on a cityscape? And not a special version of Tetris that used building looking pieces (I guess regular Tetris doesn't look very city-ish to me)<br />
[[User:Kirkjerk|Kirkjerk]] ([[User talk:Kirkjerk|talk]]) 11:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:http://shirt.woot.com/derby/entry/2869/chicago-skyline-tetris-redux [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I thought it was about looking at real life objects and mentally fitting them together. Then I visited the Wikipedia link provided here and I was right! I won't change the explanation because I'm the first one to expose this in the comments. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 02:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
8224 is also (16*16*32)+32 and was a common number to see as a programming error on PDP11's in the 1980's when a (16 bit) integer of zero was stored as two spaces (ascii=32) rather than two nulls (ascii=0) {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.205}}<br />
----<br />
Dammit, thanks to this comic, I found out this game exists. Now I can't stop playing it! Thanks a lot, Randall! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.66|173.245.56.66]] 12:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
Whatever that site http://gabrielecirulli.github.io/2048/ is supposed to do, it doesn't do it on my Linux/Firefox setup. The multiplayer one at http://2048.mx/ does, thank you. PS the plurals of PDP11 and 1980 are PDP11s and 1980s. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.199|141.101.70.199]] 10:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Shouldn't the plural of PDP-11 be PDPs-11? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.37|141.101.70.37]] 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::No...that's not a word any more than "Xboxs 360" or "PlayStations 4". The "-11" bit is part of the name. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 21:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
Yeah, the game only seems to run on Chrome, in my experience. Another interesting link: http://ov3y.github.io/2048-AI/ --[[User:Rakiru|Rakiru]] ([[User talk:Rakiru|talk]]) 15:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
2048 is so close to the weird Hong Kong film about a hotel room two integers lower and the digits evoke the end of freedom in HK (though the preview is so surreal that I can't tell if there is any future in the film or not) But the handover happened in '97 didn't it? This is kindof like naming a movie with 9/11 implications "August 2001" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.34|108.162.219.34]] 03:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
I started seeing 2048 games whenever I closed my eyes. That was scary... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.27|108.162.212.27]] 18:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I started seeing porn whenever I closed my eyes. Then I joined the Fapstronauts! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.48|108.162.212.48]] 18:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1341:_Types_of_Editors&diff=85392Talk:1341: Types of Editors2015-03-01T04:34:27Z<p>108.162.219.125: opinion</p>
<hr />
<div>The horse is a noble animal; refers to this? http://www.marciafarquhar.com/artwork/the-horse-is-a-noble-animal/ --[[User:NSDCars5|NSDCars5]] ([[User talk:NSDCars5|talk]]) 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)NSDCars5<br />
<br />
Title text and last frame are a reference to the book [http://machineofdeath.net/ "Machine of Death"], a collection of short stories in which a machine can tell a person a word, that is in some way related to how they will die. {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.198}}<br />
<br />
Incidentally, Munroe himself wrote a story in that anthology. Apparently, it was titled "?" Has anyone read it?[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.108|199.27.128.108]] 08:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
SPOILER ALERT In the machine of death story from Randal the protagonist struggles with the fact the machine can predict death, it does not fit his world picture. He decides the only way to win is not to play so he never reads his slip of paper and goes to work starting fires to form an huge question mark. In the end he decides to stay in one place to ether die there from hunger and thirst or any other way. He hopes the slip of paper says "murder" instead of anything else as in the machine murdered him. /SPOILER ALERT{{unsigned ip|62.177.168.231}}<br />
<br />
There are also {{w|WYSIWYM}} editors: "what you see is what you mean", where editor marks the content according to its meaning (e.g. section title), but not necessarily exactly as it would appear in presentation. The main advantage of this system is the total separation of presentation and content. Examples include LyX, FrameMaker, WYMeditor, CodeMirror. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
And let's not forget WYGIWYG (wiggywig), "What you get is what you get" A joking reference to the imperfection of certain well-known word processors. At this moment, someone out there is writing a machineofdeath-mode for Emacs. [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 16:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Anyone know that "horse" reference? It sounds familiar but I can't place it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.9|108.162.216.9]] 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I don't know if it's relevant, but there's a sculpture titled "The Horse is a Noble Animal". [http://www.marciafarquhar.com/the-horse-is-a-noble-animal-tatton-park/][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/8605076.stm] [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What about Death Note? Sounds a bit like WYSIHYD is a nerfed version of the Death Note. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.8|108.162.215.8]] 17:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:It's just a correlation. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 17:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Are you Randall? If not, you do not know that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.215|108.162.249.215]] 01:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I vote to add a reference in a Trivia section, as I've seen Trivias here deviating that much. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 04:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this needs an incomplete flag. It doesn't make a clear distinction between the comic and the real-world context, and the latter isn't sufficiently explained. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 18:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Was my indentation of the transcript too much? I thought it added to the understanding of the layout and flow. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I can't believe that no one has made a WYSITUTWYG editor on the internet yet, given that there are already hell tetris machines. [[User:Hppavilion1|Hppavilion1]] ([[User talk:Hppavilion1|talk]]) 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1340:_Unique_Date&diff=85263Talk:1340: Unique Date2015-02-27T04:38:04Z<p>108.162.219.125: local information</p>
<hr />
<div>What about Daylight Saving Time adjustments and leap seconds? Don't they bring duplicates of the same time or is there a way to account for that in the current system? --[[User:Muskar|Muskar]] ([[User talk:Muskar|talk]]) 10:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:One hour is duplicated each year at the end of DST. Not much happens during that hour, because it's the middle of the night. A poorly written computer program that instructs the computer to set back the clock one hour whenever the clock reaches a specific time would get caught in a recursive loop (never advancing beyond that time). Properly, clocks are set back one hour when that time is first reached, but are allowed to advance after the duplicate hour concludes.<br />
<br />
:Not sure if this in regards to a now missing statement in the Wiki, but the reference in the comic is to days. DST occurs as 2AM, so the day is not repeated. However, 1 - 2 is repeated when time is turned back and 2:01 to 2:59 are ignored when moving ahead. Of course, this assumes one lives in a state that recognizes DST. 15:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::In Brazil, when we leave DST, we adjust our clocks from 00:00 to 23:00, so there's a chance the day is repeated. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Leap second does not result in a duplicate. The additional second is allowed by increasing the number of seconds in a minute. Normally, the 60 seconds of 11:59 are numbered from 11:59:00 to 11:59:59, which is followed by 12:00:00. When there is a leap second, 11:59 has 61 seconds, numbered from 11:59:00 to 11:59:60 (61 total seconds) and then 11:59:60 is followed by 12:00:00.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.24|173.245.48.24]] 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My first thought was that he makes fun of people that consider dates like the 12.12.12 as important. As any other date they occur only once and are thus not more special. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.66|108.162.254.66]] 04:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Good point, I have added something about that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Possibly related to the upcoming Pi Day. Also, next year's Pi Day will be 03-14-(20)15, which a few images going around on the Internet have made an annoyingly big deal about. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So - Maybe I suck at searching (I do), but I can't find any information about us being limited to 4 digits in our calendar system...?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.107|173.245.53.107]] 08:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Most of the computer software that handles dates would have problems with more (or less) than four digits. Why bother with variable year length when you can just take the first four characters of "2014-03-10" and it works for the next 8 thousand years? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.103|103.22.200.103]] 09:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Also, most digital displays are limited to four digits for the year. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.103|103.22.200.103]] 09:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::And I don't think we actually start address that sooner that in September 9999. It will be Y2K over again! .... not sure where will people of 9999 get {{w|Fortran}} and {{w|Cobol}} programmers, though. Maybe we should freeze some before we run out of them. :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_billennium#In_literature this] out.--[[User:Rael|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael|talk]]) 21:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'm with you. I suppose there may be places where leading zeros are used (somewhere in software where memory space has been set aside, I suppose) but I can't think of '''any''' common system where one has to use five digits when using a four digit number.<br />
:When we get to December 31, 9999 (assuming he Gregorian calendar is still in use (BIG assumption)) the next day will simply be January 1, 10000 because, as you said, the Gregorian calendar isn't limited to four-digit years. And, as I say, anyone who think there is some problem with writing years as four digit numbers is simply demonstrating that they are not someone to take seriously. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
After visiting the website for the "Long Now Foundation", I find I'm left wondering - why, oh why, would they stop at using a five digit year? why not six? eight? ten? sixteen? thirty-two? [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the point in the comic title is that writing years always with 5 digits is as significant as the zero to the left it will take to do so for most of the next 8000 years. [[User:FlavianusEP|FlavianusEP]] ([[User talk:FlavianusEP|talk]]) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My first thought was that the comic was about date formats and yyyy-mm-dd being better than yy-mm-dd or dd.mm.yy. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.138|173.245.53.138]] 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Dynamic?<br />
<br />
:It isn't, but I've made a dynamic one (based on UTC): https://voidptr.de/xkcd-1340 [[User:N.st|n.st]] ([[User talk:N.st|talk]]) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wanna bet that this comic always shows the current date?--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Haha, that's a great observation! I wish it were so, I'll check again tomorrow. If it's not, someone email Mr. Munroe to make it so, great idea. {{unsigned|Adityarajbhatt}}<br />
<br />
:It's 00:07 (11th of March) right now in China where I am currently located and it still shows 10th of March...just for the record [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.191|108.162.225.191]] 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::It's March 15th now, and it still says the 10th. It's not dynamic. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.76|199.27.128.76]] 20:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::It says 2014-10-01 for me. But I think it was at 11:53 (2014-09-30) when I checked it. And mine matches the atomic clock.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.173|108.162.238.173]] 04:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's funny that Randall seems to have never heard of [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2550 RFC 2550], which goes than the Long Now Foundation in expanding the representable date range. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.161|173.245.53.161]] 15:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Technically, there will be another 2014-03-10; on October 3rd. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.65|108.162.219.65]] 16:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::It would actually be 2014-10-03 "under our system" as stated in the comic. Technically. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::It's like me saying that there will be another 2014-03-10 on March 14th. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.63|173.245.50.63]] 19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wonder if this is also somehow related to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox Interesting number paradox]. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.29|199.27.128.29]] 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
The problem of the date rolling back is partially mitigated by storing the year as an integer instead of as characters, such as how certain Spreadsheet programs, such as OpenOffice Calc, stores years as a 16-bit signed integer. This doesn't solve the issue, only pushing it back to be the year 32768 problem. This is even less of an issue for 64 bit Unix time, which expire on 15:30:08 UTC on Sun, 4 December 292,277,026,596. It's also important to note that the dates, such as 99, or 00 should not be seen as digits, they should be seen as characters (unless, of course, they are BCD digits, which entirely defeats the purpose of shortening the date to 2 characters length). This might seem trivial, but I think it's an important difference.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.41|108.162.216.41]] 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
: 3rd of October won't happen for another seven months. {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.125}}<br />
:: As a (culturally) dd/mm/[yy]yy person (and ignoring, for brevity, the different options for delimiter), I find yyyy-dd-mm as illogical as mm/dd/yyyy... Why should anybody switch 'precision direction', mid-way? Still, as someone who went through the Y2K process ''and'' worked with colleagues across the Atlantic, I tend to use dd/Mmm/yyyy habitually in "for humans" systems (giving the abbreviated month spelling to avoid all ambiguity, as well as full year-number), or my own "yyyymmdd[-hhmm[ss[.ddd...]]]" format in (informal and internal) programming situations, with comments attached to any conversion routines (inwards and outwards). ((And, yes, there ''are'' ISO/other standards, but I find converting from/to them and internally working with my own long-practiced format works best, for me. YMMV. But be aware of how'd you deal with (or ignore) Leap Seconds!)) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.47|141.101.98.47]] 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: I once toyed with the notation 0y20140310, with the "0y" prefix (a pun on C's "0x") distinguishing it from the eight-digit integer 20140310. I later decided that 0y20140310.175959 would be a good way to extend it to specify both date and time, and it still parses as a single C token if that property is useful. (And it sorts properly, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.68|199.27.128.68]] 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
I am surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that we know of no civilization of human beings that has reached 10,000 years with a continuous calendar.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1339:_When_You_Assume&diff=85262Talk:1339: When You Assume2015-02-27T04:21:33Z<p>108.162.219.125: opinion</p>
<hr />
<div>This explanation is most certainly correct. A quick google search will prove as much. [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 15:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[User:Tesshavon|Tesshavon]] ([[User talk:Tesshavon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC) this is a direct reference to the popular saying 'When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME'.<br />
:: My donkey is behind a donkey, I am behind my donkey, my entire country is behind me! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.7|141.101.99.7]] 05:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC) <br />
<br />
I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm just curious. Is there any popular saying about ass-ass-inating someone? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.161|173.245.53.161]] 10:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:To the best of my knowledge, there is no such saying, but I'm sure it's a spelling mnemonic used by many. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] <small>([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]])</small> 14:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I have read of badly programed profanity filters that change "assassin" to "buttbuttin". It's a clbuttic mistake. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220|108.162.250.220]] 13:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Funny that such profanity filters are the ones who gave me the idea of asking. I first heard about them in [http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-2008s_weirdest_stories.html This Is True] (search for "How Embarrbutting" in that page), who took it from The London Telegraph. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.161|173.245.53.161]] 15:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Assert is also used in programming (c and such) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.11|108.162.241.11]] 13:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::And Python, which I was hacking in yesterday, so that came to my mind. But Randall isn't distracting us with any assert + throw unhandled exception jokes today. &mdash; ''[[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)''<br />
<br />
Thank goodness for the 'ERT' explanation; I had terrible notions of a [[739: Malamanteau|portmanteau]] involving 'insert'. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] <small>([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]])</small> 14:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If Megan was going to phrase it like "You know what happens when you assume something? You make an ass out of you and me.", then she wouldn't be assuming anything. Of course, in spoken English, you could determine which one it is through inflection. Maybe Randall could start making voice-overs for the comics. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.80|103.22.200.80]] 18:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Strictly speaking, Megan is asking a rhetorical question; one that she intends to answer herself. However, I once had a dickhead manager try this one on me, so I fully support this comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56|108.162.215.56]] 20:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;This comic explain needs some enhancements!!!<br />
xkcd is a webcomic "A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and '''language'''." There is definitively no ASS here, or ERT... That could be mentioned at trivia, not more. This is all about language — assuming vs. asserting — not more or less. Everything more interpretations are like hearing a message by playing a song backwards. This explain isn't incomplete — it's incorrect! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Um, the explanation is fine. The cheesy "ass" + "u" + "me" pun is well-known, and the comic is quite specifically riffing on it. No pareidolia here. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.72|199.27.128.72]] 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I saw it as that Megan was on an ERT and that Cueball's assumption was about the emergency (e.g. "The building must be safe by now,") hence the comment about an ERT (although I now also see and agree with the explanation of the play on words). [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 23:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::WOW: Neil Armstrong was just a movie star (I will not talk about 911) or what??? Look at the picture, look at the comic; I'm pretty sure Randall is giggle about all the comments here. I'm pretty sure you can find a ERT at the bible many times; but this isn't that Randall talks about!!!--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 00:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Dgbrt, are you rejecting the simple ass-u-me explanation? &mdash; ''[[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)''<br />
::::And this explain is still bad because: 1) A hint to use Google as a help is not a proper way. 2) There is also a real language issue on that both different words "assume" and "assert". The joke is about mixing this language issues and all that memes.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::I know I didn't user Google to search anything, but I knew the "ass out of u and me" joke immediately, same thing with the assert one. That's the comic's joke. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 17:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So... nobody else is going to mention that the proper phrase is, "When you assume, you make an ass IN FRONT OF 'u' and 'me'"? Not only is the "ass" in front of those two letters, but if somebody assumes, they're only making an ass out of theirself, not "you and me". Therefore, YOU are making an ass IN FRONT OF yourself and me. Though... are you truly doing so in front of yourself? Either way, more accurate than the innocent bystander being made an ass out of. [[User:Ferretwilliams|Ferretwilliams]] ([[User talk:Ferretwilliams|talk]]) 05:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I'm not a native English speaker but you seem to be correct and it should be fixed. Other than that, I first read the explanation as it is right now and it's perfect. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 04:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I always like to respond with "... Or you make A SUM out of M and E" just to be different.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.8|173.245.54.8]]mtndew99</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1326:_Sharks&diff=84744Talk:1326: Sharks2015-02-19T01:58:45Z<p>108.162.219.125: opinion</p>
<hr />
<div>Um... Are the sharks the prisoners? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.227|108.162.222.227]] 11:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Yeah, it's awfully quiet... looks like nobody gets this one? :) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.179|108.162.254.179]] 12:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:To some extent. I think the first mentioned "prisoner" who escaped and was swimming could be a human, but maybe not. However, the "PRISONERS" mentioned in the title text are definitely sharks.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.180|199.27.130.180]] 05:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
::The "PRISONERS" in the title text aren't sharks. He's just reinforcing the pretext that the sharks are there to keep the (human) prisoners in check, which gives a justification for constant inspection of the shark tanks --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.64|108.162.216.64]] 01:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No - a real prisoner escapes - and then the evil guy has a reason to release the sharks. And as the sharks are just happy to be free, they escape instead of going for the prisoner. So he can release more sharks ad ifinitum - except that his hang-man can see the problem with the plan - to release sharks into an ocean - that humans are emptying of sharks to use only their fin... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Makes me wonder if Randall recently watched Despicable Me 1 and/or 2... [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 13:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Yeah, or a Sean Connery-era James Bond film... [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.62|173.245.55.62]] 13:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Pat<br />
::Even still, I feel this one is lacking a bit. It would have been better if there was a stick-minion in one of the frames. ;) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Thunderball, Licence to Kill and Despicable Me 1 all feature sharks. But none of them have the same setting as this comic. [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 14:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A quick google search reveals that "Doom Island" is a location in a game called "Fish Wrangler": http://fishwrangler.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_Island. This may tie into the sharks theme...? [[User:Thegreatsasquatch|TheGreatSasquatch]] ([[User talk:Thegreatsasquatch|talk]]) 19:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Occam's Razor would suggest that it's just a generic sounding "Evil Villian Lair" name, rather than a reference to something.[[User:Pennpenn|Pennpenn]] ([[User talk:Pennpenn|talk]]) 22:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If he wanted to save the shark population so bad, why'd he capture them in the first place? Unless...he bred them. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 14:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:By capturing sharks, he could make it seem as though shark populations were actually lower than they were, forcing more extreme action by groups attempting to preserve the oceanic ecology. Once sufficiently strict laws are in place, Cueball can release the sharks into a much safer environment. Alternately, by removing sharks from the ocean, he is reducing the number of sharks that can be killed, therefore more directly helping to protect shark populations. Of course, given his love of sharks, I have little doubt he would have bred sharks, or at least allowed them to breed. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:He just captured a few to breed the rest. Maybe he have to capture a few from time to time, but he would have already released more than what he captured. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 01:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
And not a mention of "Frickin' Lasers!", that I can see... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.250|141.101.99.250]] 10:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What I don't get is that if he wanted to make Doom Island into a marine biology center, wouldn't he want to keep the sharks there? Letting all your fish go makes for a pretty short-lived marine biology center... --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.64|108.162.216.64]] 01:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Release the hounds! With killer bees in their mouths!!! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.214|108.162.249.214]] 10:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do we need the 'Sharks in action movies' section? This isn't TV Tropes, and there is already a link to the applicable TV Tropes page in the explanation. I know it relates the the comic, but it seems a bit unneccesary to me. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 17:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1323:_Protocol&diff=84648Talk:1323: Protocol2015-02-18T03:01:39Z<p>108.162.219.125: I added a bit of text regarding the possible extra joke in the comic title.</p>
<hr />
<div>This is funny. I was really drawn into the conversation due to the names. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 07:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Me too! And I'm even more drawn to the meta-conversation!! :) [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 13:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
::But what about me? Alice and Bob get way too much time already.... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob Carol (whisper) 13:30 29 January 2014 (UTC)]<br />
Eve appears in [[177: Alice and Bob]] --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Heh. I was immediately reminded of the movie, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064100/ I wonder if that movie influenced the encryption names, or vice versa, or mere coincidence?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.72|108.162.216.72]] 12:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the explanation looks complete to me. I vote to remove the tag. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Removed then. There was someone who asked for more [[Cryptography]] comic references. I found 14 and have thus made a new category (see link below). Feel free to add more if I have not found them all by searching on Cryptography and Encryption (I have only included those where there were some direct mention of these issues in the commic - or title text) and not just because there was mention of it in the explanation. However, the words does not have to appear in the commic before I included them. i.e. [[PGP]]. But also feel free to delete one from the list if I was too quick to include it [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The description misses a key aspect of the comic. The conversation follows the pattern of a message being sent from Cueball to the Computer Scientist, with the CS sending an acknowledgement back and Cueball continuing --- much in the matter of an internet communication protocol, as referenced in the title. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I added a bit of text regarding the possible extra joke in the comic title. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 03:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Really excellent explanation. Complete, concise and well written, with some helpful notes in the comments. Keep up the good work! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree this would explain the protocol title, but how does it compute with the message at the bottom: ''I've discovered a way to get computer scientists to listen to any boring story''? [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:The point is that Cueball tells a completely mundane and booooring! story (might be last evening's soap opera, for example), but by replacing the protagonist names with Alice, Bob and Eve, names commonly used in explanation of public key cryptography, he tricked the Computer Scientist into believing he describes some cryptography protocol, thus making him interested. [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
::By the way, what Cueball describes might very well be DNS cache poisoning -- or what NSA's supposed FOXACID servers do. [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I believe the essence of this story is in the encryption aspect, not the TCP. Many protocols feature a message-and-reply type of structure, it's not unique to TCP. The alternative to having CS reply to each phrase is to have him not reply to each phrase, which would be boring and not really indicate what's going on in CS's head. As some cryptography problems can be complex they are sometimes stated in "chunks" so people can follow along [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_cryptographers_problem more easily] (See the Description section of the link). In trying to follow what might be a complex problem sometimes people will acknowledge that they understand each part in turn - weather for their own benefit or that of the problem stater. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Found it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier Bruce Schneier], a notable modern Cryptographer has published a number of cryptography books in which he routinely references characters such as Alice, Bob, and Eve. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]])<br />
:Also: TCP/IP doesn't necessarily ack every packet, it can also ack multiple packets in one go. This allows for a much larger throughput as the latency per packet goes down to zero. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1323:_Protocol&diff=846471323: Protocol2015-02-18T02:59:31Z<p>108.162.219.125: /* Explanation */ added possible extra joke in the title</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1323<br />
| date = January 29, 2014<br />
| title = Protocol<br />
| image = protocol.png<br />
| titletext = Changing the names would be easier, but if you're not comfortable lying, try only making friends with people named Alice, Bob, Carol, etc.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Alice, Bob, and Eve are role names traditionally used in describing cryptographic protocols. Rather than talking about "Person A", "Person B", "Person C", names beginning with each letter are used instead, and giving them different genders let pronouns be used to shorten discussions. For example: "Person A sends Person B a message encoded with Person B's public key" is much easier to parse when written as "Alice sends Bob a message encoded with his public key." Eve is short for "eavesdropper" - a person trying to find out what's being said in the conversations between the other people. The classic situation involves Alice wanting to send a secret message to Bob, while Eve (the eavesdropper), attempts to read the message, ideally without Alice or Bob ever finding out. Additional participants such as Carol (Person C) can be added if necessary. The list of names has become very standardised over time as described at {{w|Alice and Bob}}.<br />
<br />
The joke here is that any computer scientist, hearing the names used, will think that they are listening to a cryptography problem. By changing the names in a story to these role names, you can induce them to listen carefully to boring stories. The fewer the interesting details, the more it sounds like a general problem, so very boring stories are actually the easiest.<br />
<br />
The title text shows a more radical approach to the problem, for people who do not feel comfortable about lying. In this approach, you only make friends with people who have the appropriate names already.<br />
<br />
The comic title also can be interpreted in two ways. First, the computer scientist thinks the conversation is about a encryption protocol. Second, the way the conversation is carried resembles a protocol used by many data communication systems, where one side sends data while the other sends back an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acknowledgement_(data_networks) acknowledgement] upon receiving the data. In this case, the data are the lines of the boring story.<br />
<br />
In comic [[177: Alice and Bob]] these names are used in the same context. Instead of Alice and Bob being perfectly innocent people who just want to communicate in private, Bob is actually having an affair with Alice. Eve —his former partner— cracked the encryption to see what the message contained. Thus, this comic seems to continue the Alice/Bob romance, jealous-Eve plot, with Eve apparently confronting Alice over her text message to Bob.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball is telling a story to a Computer Scientist who is seated at his desk.]<br />
:Cueball: Alice sends a message to Bob saying to meet her somewhere.<br />
:Computer Scientist: Uh huh.<br />
:Cueball: But Eve sees it, too, and goes to the place.<br />
:Computer Scientist: With you so far.<br />
:Cueball: Bob is delayed, and Alice and Eve meet.<br />
:Computer Scientist: Yeah?<br />
:I've discovered a way to get computer scientists to listen to any boring story.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Computers]]<br />
[[Category:Cryptography]]</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1320:_Walmart&diff=84538Talk:1320: Walmart2015-02-16T02:57:04Z<p>108.162.219.125: my opinion</p>
<hr />
<div>For what it's worth, both Facebook and Google+ have features to discriminate your posts between family members, work, friends et.c. - Lists and Circles respectively.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.218|141.101.98.218]] 01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Anything about the repetition of the phrase "the Walmart of social interaction"? --[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maybe the first phrase is meant as a comparison. I.E. The one-stop-shop of interaction. While the second phrase takes it literally, since the comic depicts interaction inside a Walmart (or similar). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 02:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1317:_Theft&diff=84397Talk:1317: Theft2015-02-13T03:30:56Z<p>108.162.219.125: explanation is not quite right, in my opinion</p>
<hr />
<div>This comic seems to be about the idea that true identity theft would require the thief to take on the identity perfectly. The thief in the comic is Randall Munroe making fun of himself and how he is often existential and is excited about space... 1st post--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.78|173.245.55.78]] 05:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe it's a shared account, so it really is Megan's own existentialism & Randall's love of space -- a true crisis!<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.57|108.162.216.57]] 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it worth mentioning the contextual element where this comic correlates with the relase of news of a rash of identity theft during the last quarter of 2013?[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.137|199.27.128.137]] 00:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The title text is a reference to a Greg Egan short story from the collection Axiomatic called Learning to be Me. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.220|141.101.99.220]] 01:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The description of identity theft is incorrect. Simple theft occurs when the thief takes money from the bank under false pretenses. Identity theft occurs when the bank decides to make it somebody else problem instead of taking on the chin and improving security.<br />
<br />
The cartoon is mocking the common mis-perception of what identity theft is.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.188|173.245.52.188]] 18:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Several other comics deal with existentialism, not just 625. If we're not going to mention ones like 167 or 220 then the wording should be changed to something like "(The character Megan also has a habit of expressing existential angst in comics such as 625: Collections.)"--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.8|108.162.242.8]] 00:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Either there should be a link that mentions Randall having existential angst, or it should be corrected to say the identity is from one of xkcd's characters, like Cueball or Megan. If I had a '''lot''' more time, I would search for these references. If someone else recognizes the importance of my opinion (if any), maybe there should be an incomplete tag too. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 03:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1316:_Inexplicable&diff=84396Talk:1316: Inexplicable2015-02-13T03:24:41Z<p>108.162.219.125: opinion</p>
<hr />
<div>[http://xkcd.com/725/ Literally] haunted? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.152|173.245.53.152]] 08:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was wondering too if Randall was also taking a sideways swipe at the way many people today misuse the term "literally".[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.30|108.162.216.30]] 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I would say he trying to say that some errors that computers have are impossible to fathom. I've baffled our IT people on many an occasion and the solution is usual 'rebuild' which is the computer equivalent of an exorcism.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.228|108.162.231.228]] 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Definitely this. It is also much harder to figure out what the problem is with a computer when you weren't the one who has spent all their time using the computer. It is why I can't understand how IT people do their jobs. [[User:Daleb|Daleb]] ([[User talk:Daleb|talk]]) 13:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Surprised nobody mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine Ghost in the machine] yet... --[[User:Koveras|Koveras]] ([[User talk:Koveras|talk]]) 10:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I find the current explanation entertaining but... raises questions.<br />
<br />
Is "This comic is inexplicable and represents a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com." serious?<br />
:I think it's not and I deleted the sentence. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: If the comic is not a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com, then what conceivable combination of words WOULD constitute such a joke? (note: I am not the one who first made the (now deleted) point, but I agree with it.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.214|108.162.231.214]] 08:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion [i.e. that it is 'haunted'] for a human, demons can't possess a computer." - this reads like "demons exist, but are incapable of possessing computer equipment", rather than "demons cannot possess a computer, because they don't even exist", which would be my ''preference'' (under the standard rules of not being able to ''prove'' the non-existence of the supernatral... and, believe me, I've had my fair share of totally baffling computer problems, in my time, and often anthropomorphise equipment, somewhat, ''at least'' to explain it to non-tech users... but then end up adopting the same attitude myself, of course).<br />
<br />
"The title text suggests that Megan insists that Cueball resume possession of his laptop, as she is unsettled by the ghost; Cueball simply refuses, seeing an opportunity to make his problem hers." - I see that as more akin to the "cursed gem" type of story. One simply cannot palm the gem off on somebody else, but it must have a legitimately willing recipient (including a thief stealing it, often) in order for the curse itself to transfer itself. Now that the 'status' of the laptop is known he's not going to accept it back and take the 'curse of errors' back upon himself. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.223|141.101.99.223]] 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I just removed the sentence "While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion for a human, demons can't possess a computer." In the real world ghosts (the comic does not mention demons) don't exist and can't possess either humans or computers; in a fictional world, they might be able to do either or both (a la King's "Trucks"). -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.217|108.162.212.217]] 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Are you completely sure of that? How do you look at news like [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catholic-church-trains-more-priests-to-perform-exorcisms-9046578.html|Catholic Church trains more priests to perform Exorcism]? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the joke is just that normally the smartass that knows more about computers than you is able to easilly fix it, but not in this case. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So am I the only one who thinks that the caption(or whatever the hover over text is called) refers to Cueball trying to return the laptop to a retail store. I mean I can see a store like Best Buy refusing to take back a laptop because a customer insists that there is a ghost in it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.83|108.162.216.83]] 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I agree. but until more people notice it, lets leave it. [[User:Imanton1|Imanton1]] ([[User talk:Imanton1|talk]]) 03:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I thought this too, except I thought it was more a comment on people's attachment to technology, "Demon-posessed or not, it's got all my kitten videos on it!".--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.230|141.101.98.230]] 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You're not the only one. That's exactly what I thought the mouseover text was about, too. I guess it could be read multiple ways, but maybe the explanation should acknowledge that? [[User:Enchantedsleeper|Enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 19:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Overthinking, maybe, but if the computer is haunted (read: possessed), then a valid solution IS to return (read: unpossess? dispossess?) it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.57|108.162.216.57]] 23:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Demons and devils can possess people or things; ghosts only loiter/haunt a location.{{unsigned ip|108.162.216.30}}<br />
<br />
My wife says, "it's a Turing test!"<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.199|108.162.219.199]] 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Am I the only who have thought of a corrupted random access memory on this laptop? Last time when I had a RAM failure on one of my machines, for a non technical person it may have appeared haunted: e.g. not executing just specific applications, writing nonsensical error messages, crashing applications when a specific word was being used...you name it. Running memcheck revealed later that one RAM module had lots of corrupted bytes but the problem only appeared when one RAM module was getting hot. So as long as the machine was idling if behaved just fine. So no ghost for me, I guess. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.217|108.162.231.217]] 09:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
People, there is no implication that this is a new laptop. It cannot be returned to the store, ok? Megan does not want it in her possession, so she wants to give it back to Cueball but he will not accept it. The only reason she says "take it back" is because it this a straight line that allows Cueball to reply "No". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 18:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I once had a computer that was a nudist. After a couple of months it allowed me to get it dressed. I must say it taught me to be more accepting of the needs of electronic devices then and now. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.186|199.27.128.186]] 20:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm not convinced that the strip is genuinely inexplicable, but one thing I am certain of is that there is no explanation to be found here on this page. None. Every single one of the comments above is reaching. If the computer is literally haunted, then describing it as such is not misuse of the term "literally". If there's no terminological misuse, then there's no sideswipe at the misuse. Maybe some computer errors are impossible to fathom, but describing such errors as a 'haunting' does not constitute a joke, etc., etc., etc. To me the key, the "punchline", is Cueball's "told you". That is the only thing that requires explanation. All the stuff above is annotation, NOT explanation. Q: When did Cueball tell Megan that the computer was haunted? A: When he told her that "nothing works or makes sense". To him the two statements, "the computer is haunted" and "nothing works or makes sense" are equivalent. To him haunting can only be a valid explanation in a world which is entirely devoid of logic. I did try to explain that, but my explanation got Occam's-Razored out of existence. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.225|141.101.98.225]] 03:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, my comment about the use of "literally" _was_ meant as an amused remark at best, not explanation. Otherwise I would not have put it on the discussion page :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.152|173.245.53.152]] 15:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did anyone else think of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "I Robot, You Jane"? It could be a reference (Giles: ... There's a demon in the Internet. Ms. Calendar: I know.) [[User:Yuriy206|Yuriy206]] ([[User talk:Yuriy206|talk]]) 17:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Ghost" was also a popular disk cloning and backup software. And restoring from a clean "ghost image" is a common way to fix "haunted" computer. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.123|108.162.231.123]] 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think it's so funny that nobody has mentioned that 1316 is a Windows error code for a network error during an install that can be quite irritating to try and fix/diagnose esp if you are offline/not part of a network with resources. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.87|199.27.128.87]] 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I disagree with "Note that Cueball is far from "non-technical", so this possible interpretation does not literally match the depicted scenario." I'm (nearly) a computer engineer, and I'm still convinced that machines have personality and some errors are unfixable without a NASA level lab. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1311:_2014&diff=842981311: 20142015-02-10T02:58:59Z<p>108.162.219.125: /* Explanation */ typo: from barrieres to barriers</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1311<br />
| date = January 1, 2014<br />
| title = 2014<br />
| image = 2014.png<br />
| titletext = Some future reader, who may see the term, without knowing the history of it, may imagine that it had reference to some antiquated bridge of the immortal Poet, thrown across the silver Avon, to facilitate his escape after some marauding excursion in a neighbouring park; and in some Gentleman's Magazine of the next century, it is not impossible, but that future antiquaries may occupy page after page in discussing so interesting a matter. We think it right, therefore, to put it on record in the Oriental Herald that the 'Shakesperian Rope Bridges' are of much less classic origin; that Mr Colin Shakespear, who, besides his dignity as Postmaster, now signs himself 'Superintendent General of Shakesperian Rope Bridges', is a person of much less genius than the Bard of Avon. --The Oriental Herald, 1825<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is to commemorate the New Year by giving us a view of the coming year (2014) from the past. The comic includes many quotes from the 1800s and early 1900s that speak to a time close to 2014. Many of them are for the twenty-first century in general, and only three mention a year that would be 2014 exactly. All but one of them is a prediction, yet some of these are quotes from fictional literature, and therefore are not true predictions. Words are in boldface to highlight the relevant content in the quote. The grey or non-bold text is non-essential to the point Randall is interested in, and only to be used to understand the context of the quote.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to a certain British officer, Mr. Colin Shakespeare, who experimented and promoted the use of rope suspension bridges in India.[http://books.google.com/books?id=aZRPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA367] The reference to "The Bard of Avon" is a reference to {{w|William Shakespeare|Shakespeare (the playwright)}}, as {{w|River Avon (Warwickshire)|Avon}} is the river on which {{w|Stratford upon Avon}} is set, and is where the playwright was born and spent his youth. The author of this quote under the guise of eliminating the potential confusion that might result after decades or centuries have washed away the context, ironically and possibly vindictively, makes a point to note that the bridge is not named after the playwright, but Mr. Colin Shakespeare, who he considers considerably less intelligent. This topic was previously covered in [[771: Period Speech]]. <br />
<br />
===Additional information===<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Quote<br />
! Author or publisher<br />
! Year<br />
! Years realized<br />
! Description<br />
|-<br />
| "It's desirable '''every thing printed should be preserved,''' for we '''cannot now tell how useful it may become''' two centuries hence." <br />
| Christopher Baldwin<br />
| 1834<br />
| Not a prediction<br />
| A good idea. Now, with Google Books, this can be done in an easier manner. Many books printed between that time and the wide-spread usage of higher-quality wood-pulp paper in the early 1990s are either no longer known to exist, are heavily damaged (mostly through deterioration (see {{w|slow fire}}) or are very scarce.<br />
|-<br />
| "I predict that a century hence the '''Canadian people''' will be '''the noblest specimens of humanity on the face of the earth'''"<br />
| Rev John Bredin<br />
| 1863<br />
| Not realized<br />
| Notably, there is a common joke nowadays that Canadians are always calm, mellow, polite peoples, even when insulting others. The rest of the quote goes as follows: ''"all that was good in the Celt, the Saxon, the Gaul and other races, combining to form neither English, Irish, nor Welsh, but Canadians, who would take their place among the churches of Christendom and the nations of the earth."'' This religious prediction probably wasn't believed even by its author. It's only a harangue.<br />
|-<br />
| "In the twenty-first century '''mankind will subsist entirely upon jellies.'''"<br />
| The Book Lover<br />
| 1903<br />
| Not realized<br />
| Concentrates, which are gelatin like, form a large part of our food sources. Absurd if taken literally, but if he's talking about processed foods in general then he's not too far from the mark.<br />
|-<br />
| "The twenty-first century baby is destined to be rocked and cradled by electricity, warmed and coddled by electricity, perhaps fathered and mothered by electricity. '''Probably the only thing he will be left to do unaided will be to make love.'''"<br />
| Mrs John Lane, The Fortnightly<br />
| 1905<br />
| 1960’s - 1980's<br />
| The process of child-''rearing'' is still a human task by and large, with the exception of artificial insemination, and Viagra, Cialis, vibrators, and other kinkier toys. Probably meant as an exaggeration when it was first said, but it is still valid to some degree. <br />
|-<br />
| "To-day, in the city of New York, sixty-six different tongues are spoken. '''A century hence, there will probably be only one.'''"<br />
| The American Historical Magazine<br />
| 1907<br />
| Not realized<br />
| The number of languages spoken in New York City is believed to be greater than 100; some estimate as many as 800 languages are spoken there. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in the greater New York metropolitan area, almost 7 million people speak a language other than English at home, including over 3.5 million who speak Spanish, 2 million who speak other Indo-European languages, 1 million who speak Asian or Pacific Island languages, and 300,000 who speak other languages. Also, New York City is the location of the headquarters of the United Nations, with diplomats from nearly every country in the world, and several official languages.<br />
|-<br />
| "I often think '''what interesting history we are making for the student of the twenty-first century.'''"<br />
| William Carey Jones<br />
| 1908<br />
| 1900's to now<br />
| Referring to the events that led to {{w|World War I}}. In 1908, {{w|Bosnian crisis|Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina}}. This led to the {{w|Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria|Sarajevo Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria}} in 1914 that is considered the starting event of the World War.<br />
|-<br />
| "China may be a '''great shoe market''' a decade or a century from now."<br />
| Boot and Shoe Recorder<br />
| 1914<br />
| 1970's to now<br />
| While it is true that China is a good shoe market, this quote can be viewed as vastly underestimating the potential of China. To be fair it says "a decade or a century from now" and it was not a great market until China and Nixon broke down trade barriers, which is well after 1924.<br />
|-<br />
| "'''We cannot settle the problem,''' and I venture the prophecy that perhaps '''a century from now this same question may be brought before some future society and discussed very much as it is tonight.'''<br />
| Dr. Barton C. Hirst (on abortion)<br />
| 1914<br />
| 2014<br />
| Abortion is still heavily debated<br />
|-<br />
| "By the twenty-first century '''we shall all be telepaths.'''" <br />
| Gumbril, A character in Aldous Huxley's novel Antic Hay<br />
| 1923<br />
| Not realized<br />
| [http://books.google.com/books?id=pdXj2SZ1mT8C&pg=PA205]: "And it's my firm belief," said Gumbril Senior, adding notes to his epic, "that they [the birds] make use of some sort of telepathy, some kind of direct mind-to-mind communication between themselves. You can't watch them without coming to that conclusion." [...] "It's a faculty," Gumbril Senior went on, "we all possess, I believe. All we animals." [...] "By the twenty-first century, I believe, we shall all be telepaths. Meanwhile, these delightful birds have forestalled us."<br />
|-<br />
| "The physician of the twenty-first century… may even criticize the language of the times, and may find that '''some of our words have become as offensive to him as the term "lunatic" has become offensive to us.'''"<br />
| Dr. C. Macfie Cambell<br />
| 1924<br />
| 1950's to now<br />
| The word "lunatic" is still considered derogatory and because of that it would never be used in a clinical sense. He correctly predicts the trajectory of terms like "{{w|mentally retarded}}", itself adopted by his day to replace earlier terms for the intellectually disabled, such as "moron" and "imbecile", which had become pejorative. Soon enough the word "retard" joined them in that regard, and it now has largely been abandoned as a medical term.<br />
|-<br />
| "Historians of the twenty-first century will look back with well-placed scorn on the '''shallow-minded days''' of the early twentieth century '''when football games and petting parties were considered the most important elements of a college education.'''" <br />
| Mary Eileen Ahern, Library Bureau<br />
| 1926<br />
| Not realized<br />
| While media still encourages such images, and does not look down upon them.<br />
|-<br />
| "'''In the year A.D. 2014''' journalists will be writing on the centenary of the great war — '''that is, if there has not been a greater war.'''"<br />
| F.J.M, The Journalist<br />
| 1934<br />
| 2014<br />
| July 28, 2014 marks 100 years since the beginning of {{w|World War I}} (more than 9 million combatants were killed). As the author of this quote foreshadows, there was a greater war, {{w|World War II}} (around 25 million soldiers were killed). Journalists will definitely write articles of this war on its anniversary, but as the quote correctly predicts it is no longer popularly called '''The Great War''' as World War II had a larger scope, easily identifiable heroes and villains, and was therefore a '''"greater war"'''.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:(This is a series of quotes from various people of various timeframes. Each quote is followed by the author, the document of publication if applicable, and the year.)<br />
<br />
:'''Notes from the past'''<br />
<br />
:It's desirable '''every thing printed should be preserved,''' for we '''cannot now tell how useful it may become''' two centuries hence.<br />
::Christopher Baldwin<br />
:::'''1834'''<br />
<br />
:I predict that a century hence the '''Canadian people''' will be '''the noblest specimens of humanity on the face of the earth'''<br />
::Rev. John Bredin<br />
:::'''1863'''<br />
<br />
:In the twenty-first century '''mankind will subsist entirely upon jellies.'''<br />
::''The Booklover''<br />
:::'''1903'''<br />
<br />
:The twenty-first century baby is destined to be rocked and cradled by electricity, warmed and coddled by electricity, perhaps fathered and mothered by electricity. '''Probably the only thing he will be left to do unaided will be to make love.'''<br />
::Mrs. John Lane, ''The fortnightly''<br />
:::'''1905'''<br />
<br />
:To-day, in the city of New York, sixty-six different tongues are spoken. '''A century hence, there will probably be only one.'''<br />
::''The American Historical Magazine''<br />
:::'''1907'''<br />
<br />
:I often think '''what interesting history we are making for the student of the twenty-first century.'''<br />
::Willian Carey Jones<br />
:::'''1908'''<br />
<br />
:China may be a '''great shoe market''' a decade or a century from now.<br />
::''Boot and Shoe Recorder''<br />
:::'''1914'''<br />
<br />
:'''We cannot settle the problem,''' and I venture the prophecy that perhaps '''a century from now this same question may be brought before some future society and discussed very much as it is tonight.'''<br />
::Dr. Barton C. Hirst on the subject of '''abortion'''<br />
:::'''1914'''<br />
<br />
:By the twenty-first century I believe '''we shall all be telepaths.'''<br />
::Gumbriel, character in ''Antic Hay''<br />
:::'''1923'''<br />
<br />
:The physician of the twenty-first century… may even criticize the language of the times, and may find that '''some of our words have become as offensive to him as the term "lunatic" has become offensive to us.'''<br />
::Dr. C. Macfie Campbell<br />
:::'''1924'''<br />
<br />
:Historians of the twenty-first century will look back with well-placed scorn on the '''shallow-minded days''' of the early twentieth century '''when football games and petting parties were considered the most important elements of a college education.'''<br />
::Mary Eileen Ahern, ''Library Bureau''<br />
:::'''1926'''<br />
<br />
:'''In the year A.D. 2014''' journalists will be writing on the centenary of the great war — '''that is, if there has not been a greater war.'''<br />
::F.J.M, ''The Journalist''<br />
:::'''1934'''<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Language]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1311:_2014&diff=84297Talk:1311: 20142015-02-10T02:58:18Z<p>108.162.219.125: typo</p>
<hr />
<div>Just a note that the PNG file for this comic is (or was initially) actually a TIFF file with a PNG extension. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.236.19|108.162.236.19]] 05:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:And now it's fixed. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 06:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I presume most of the quotes are genuine, but surely Randall has made up the one about subsisting on jellies? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.219|141.101.99.219]] 11:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be so sure. The Book-Lover - Vol. 4. (No. 17 to 22) 1903 [http://www.abebooks.com/Book-Lover-Vol-1903-Poe-Edgar-Allan/1224029705/bd contains] Poe, Edgar Allan and Dickens, Charles and Emerson, Ralph Waldo ... maybe it refers to some of Poe's horror stories? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Spherical jelliies and creams were very fashionable in the era in which it was written, so it may have been simply a prediction of great luxury for the future. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.4|108.162.237.4]] 14:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(Kyt)<br />
<br />
:Here's the Book-lover reference: [http://books.google.com/books?id=jaA5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=%22subsist+entirely+upon+jellies%22+wells&source=bl&ots=HsYajMhDZP&sig=yU1TMIIUcNQfh_-TUh4raXboYn8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OEPEUuq0MtDzoATWzYHwAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22subsist%20entirely%20upon%20jellies%22%20wells&f=false]<br />
::Two sections from the H.G. Wells book it came from (When the Sleeper Wakes):<br />
::"There were several very comfortable chairs, a light table on silent runners carrying several bottles of fluids and glasses, and two plates bearing a clear substance like jelly."<br />
::"They gave him some pink fluid with a greenish fluorescence and a meaty taste, and the assurance of returning strength grew."<br />
:::-- Jim Gillogly [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.15|108.162.215.15]] 16:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ok ... William Carey Jones quote: [https://archive.org/stream/universitycalif08goog/universitycalif08goog_djvu.txt] ... I would say that while technically true, he didn't meant it because he doesn't refer to first world war but instead some problems of American democracy which were probably forgotten ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Christopher Baldwin: [http://books.google.cz/books?id=Fiu4czMiCeYC] ... I would say good luck with preserving everything printed :-), but the idea is certainly good and projects like Google Books are attempting to solve the problem he was talking about. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Actually, no. Google Books is trying to make printed books accessible on-line. That does not make them more preserved, just more accessible. Paper books (provided they're printed on acid-free paper) are actually more likely to be preserved and readable two centuries from now than are electronic media, which must be periodically refreshed. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.87}}<br />
<br />
:::Both paper books and electronic media must be periodically refreshed. Electronic media must be refreshed more often, but on the other hand, they may be refreshed more quickly. Compare time it takes to reprint book (even if you use scanner, OCR and high-speed printer) with time it takes to copy the PDF from older HDD to newer. If we manage to evade World War III, it is easily possible the folder "all data obtained in 2014" will still exist in Google datacenters, safely mirrored to all locations, thousands years after all paper printed today will turn to dust. Archaeologist of 40th century wouldn't dig real dirt, they would dig in exabytes of digital archives, trying to find the real important stuff between stuff someone stored simply because storage capacity was cheap enough. (On the other hand, if we DON'T evade World War III, there wouldn't be any archaeologists in 40th century. It's not like the ruins would be safe to enter anyway.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Found the reference to Shakespearian rope bridges...<br />
http://books.google.com/books?id=BJIeAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=oriental+herald+postmaster&source=bl&ots=7_NUMfRlPW&sig=6d6WLenjQBjOiGJBDoQjIa-FYkk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q0XEUuKbKsTpoATP-4HgCg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=oriental%20herald%20postmaster&f=false {{unsigned|Androgenoide}}<br />
<br />
Found the reference to Spherical jellies: http://books.google.com/books?id=8IckAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PA87&ots=WRVY13FRwM&dq=%22subsist%20entirely%20upon%20jellies%22&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q=%22subsist%20entirely%20upon%20jellies%22&f=false [[User:Zeeprime|Zeeprime]] ([[User talk:Zeeprime|talk]]) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Found another reference to Shakespearian rope bridges. In short, some British officer called Mr. Shakespeare experimented and promoted the use of rope suspension bridges in India, apparently for the ease of colonization and military operations. http://books.google.com/books?id=aZRPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA367 -furrypony [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.181|173.245.48.181]] 21:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This looks like the actual rope bridge quote: http://books.google.com/books?id=8nyrbv2d_EUC&pg=PA115&dq=oriental+herald+%22bard+of+avon%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g5_IUruFMIyPkAffrIDIAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=oriental%20herald%20%22bard%20of%20avon%22&f=false {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.11}}<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the highlighted words can be shuffled to reveal a hidden message? Has Randall done this before? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.214|141.101.99.214]] 07:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The fourth quote (.."rocked and cradled by electricity"..) seems to appear in The Champagne Standard by LANE, Annie Eichberg (Mrs. John Lane). [http://archive.org/stream/champagnestandar00lane/champagnestandar00lane_djvu.txt] {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.224}}<br />
<br />
;regarding the languages of new york city<br />
<br />
http://languagehat.com/doing-field-linguistics-in-new-york-city/ {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.168}}<br />
----<br />
;Tone of the explanation<br />
<br />
I find the tone of the explanation as it stands right now not to be in line with the rest of the explanations available on the site. For example:<br />
<br />
By the twenty-first century I believe we shall all be telepaths.<br />
Absurd<br />
<br />
The plain "absurd" does not provide an explanation, only a judgement. It would be more useful it the explanation contained a link to a source with the quote, to provide context. Or provide a short bio for the person credited with the explanation. I understand the fascination behind arguing against or for the prediction, but that does not explain the comic. For example, you '''could''' argue that this particular prediction is in a sense accurate. Nowadays we all communicate in a way that people from a century ago would consider almost telepathic, given that "telepathy" means "distant experience". No, we are not mind readers, but a lot of us carry a device in our pockets that allows us to experience things at a distance.<br />
<br />
Also, I wonder why some sentences are in boldface. I tried reading only the bold text, and it is not coherent enough. I tried reading the grey text, and it isn't coherent either. I tried several other ways of reading the texts, and I cannot find any "hidden meaning".<br />
<br />
:I believe it's just to highlight content. The grey or non-bold text is (for the most part) non-essential to the content of the quote. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.213}}<br />
<br />
--[[User:Mem|mem]] ([[User talk:Mem|talk]]) 16:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I see I'm not the only one who thought of cellphones when he read that sentence. I've edited the article to reflect this explanation. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 17:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
It seems to me that Randall believes that bolded text is false and grey text is true.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.62|173.245.50.62]] 16:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:This makes no sense. Most of the grey text has little content, and Abortion is still a very debated topic. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.213}}<br />
: I think it's just for emphasis. He used a similar style in [[1227: The Pace of Modern Life]] to highlight the bits that particularly resonate with modern times, e.g., the writer in 1905 who complained that people converse while riding their bikes, oblivious to their surroundings. [[User:Fryhole|Fryhole]] ([[User talk:Fryhole|talk]]) 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is also the recent budding prospect of technologically assisted telepathy, such as was recently done with small laboratory rodents. While not exactly "everyone" just yet, (ahem), the prospect is certainly not "absurd". Technologically enabled telepathy certainly looks possible, and given the rate of technological progress of this century, the prediction could well come true.<br />
<br />
http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/two-rats-communicate-brain-to-brain-130227.htm<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.84|108.162.221.84]] 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
''Technologically assisted telepathy'' redefines the word telepathy. For example Random House says ''communication between minds by some means '''other than sensory perception''''' (my emphasis). Collins: ''the communication between people of thoughts, feelings, desires, etc, involving mechanisms that '''cannot be understood in terms of known scientific laws''''' (my emphasis). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 17:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Note also that the novel is talking about natural telepathy, like the one birds may have. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 22:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.208|108.162.219.208]] 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
I suspect that most -- but not all -- of the "predictions" are apocryphal. For instance, I can indeed find the Gumbril (not "Gumbriel") character and citation in Huxley's "Antic Hay". However, the statement attributed to a methodist preacher and proselytizer (who really existed) in Upper Canada in 1864 seems to me totally out of character, and very hard to believe for the period. It was essentially the French who called themselves "Canadiens". The "others" still saw the place they lived in as an extension of the UK. To wit, John A. MacDonald, who famously wired "Send me another $10,000", also said "A British Subject I was born, a British Subject I shall die".<br />
<br />
;electric baby rearing<br />
<br />
It should be noted that this quote was wrong about making love being a sanctuary from electric devices. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.78}}<br />
----<br />
Regarding languages spoken: according to <br />
<br />
http://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size<br />
<br />
English is only third in languages spoken as primary language after Chinese and Spanish, while closely followed by Hindi and Arabic. I would not be too sure, if English will win out in NYC.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.222|108.162.231.222]] 17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
According to this report from the New York State comptroller's office dated 2006,<br />
<br />
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt3-2007queens.pdf<br />
<br />
there are about 170 languages spoken in Queens. If that's at all accurate, it means that language diversity in New York hasn't shrunk but indeed nearly tripled.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dotour|Dotour]] ([[User talk:Dotour|talk]]) 10:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
I think the quote about colleges, football, and partying is included as an aversion. Football is still huge in the south, and partying everywhere. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.60|173.245.50.60]] 16:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC) (P.S. Apparently this comment got eaten by ??? so I had to post it twice. Weird.)<br />
<br />
----<br />
If not a typo, is it worth mentioning that the guy in the title text is called "Shakespear" not "Shakespeare" but all you modern guys apparently ignored the difference? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56|108.162.215.56]] 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Could be a typo in the quoted Oriental Herald article. The book referenced above spells it "Shakespeare". [[User:Brion|Brion]] ([[User talk:Brion|talk]]) 17:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
English is not my native language, but surely "barrieres" is a typo, right? I'll edit it. If I'm wrong, please revert it. And, if this comment is absolutely unnecessary, please delete it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 02:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1310:_Goldbach_Conjectures&diff=84296Talk:1310: Goldbach Conjectures2015-02-10T02:45:26Z<p>108.162.219.125: removed my comment, I was wrong</p>
<hr />
<div>If a bot can create the text I read here, we have made great strides in artificial intelligence. Probably a human editor forgot to change the "incomplete/incorrect" heading. [[User:Tenrek|Tenrek]] ([[User talk:Tenrek|talk]]) 05:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:You never know, AI has come a loong way. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Let's ask: Tepples, are you a bot? And 199.27.128.62, what about you? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, I'm a bot. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.62|199.27.128.62]] 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I thought that <nowiki>{{incomplete|Created by a BOT}}</nowiki> means that the template was inserted by a BOT. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It does mean that. But as others edit the page, they should keep the "incomplete" reason up-to-date. I've changed it to "incomplete|surely not quite complete yet..." ;) [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I will change this text template beginning at the Friday update when I'm back home. Happy NEW YEAR to everybody! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It all seems to work except that the extremely strong seems to imply the opposite of the extremely weak [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 02:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I think the mistake is in the implication of the very weak to the extremely weak version. In fact, if there is any connection between those two statements it is an implication that goes the other way round. If the extremely strong version is true, we are not looking at the natural numbers. Thus, "Every number greater than 7 is the sum of two other numbers." does ''not'' imply "Numbers just keep going.", at all. (Also this accounts for no numbers at all, so the very weak version would still be correct.) Then there is the case that the extremely strong version is false. An implication from something false to anything is always true. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.200|173.245.53.200]] 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
---I disagree with this, as it is not incorrect to say that "numbers keep going towards seven" as there are an infinite number of numbers approaching 7. Also, the extremely weak conjecture could easily refer to numbers in the negative direction only. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.61}}<br />
<br />
I always find it amusing that people assume that something phrased 'scientifically' is therefore right, whereas something phrased unscientifically (eg religious beliefs taken on faith) are automatically wrong. There seems to be an unexamined assumption that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths. Of course science is really just a methodological system for testing theories. Whenever I try to explain this concept, I try to come up with a general, untestable (non-scientific) assertion that is nonetheless true, alongside a very specific, repeatedly testable (falsifiable) assertion that is therefore eminently scientific, but which happens to be wrong. (Eg "it sometimes rains on Wednesday" and "it rains at least 100mm every Wednesday in Riyadh"). So for me this comic is a commentary on that principle - that the "strength" of a statement is only really impressive if it has also survived testing. [[User:Tarkov|Tarkov]] ([[User talk:Tarkov|talk]]) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:The assumption is not "that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths" but that science works. [[54: Science|Bitches]]. Also, the example you have given is quite bad considering that your first statement is so vague that it is essentially meaningless and apparently, what you want to say with your second statement is that falsifiable claims are falsifiable, which is pretty trivial. Finally, the statements that are phrased unscientifically are not assumed to be automatically wrong but they are impossible to be proven or disproven and are often worded so vaguely that nobody in the known universe knows just what the hell they are supposed to even mean. They are just empty phrases that carry no information whatsoever. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.200|173.245.53.200]] 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
According to the strong twin prime conjecture, all positive numbers greater than one are prime, due to 2 and 3 both being prime and extrapolation on primes from there. Thus, this nearly proves the very strong Goldbach conjecture, excluding one. Should this be noted in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.4|108.162.237.4]] 02:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(Kyt)<br />
<br />
: I don't know if it's worth complicating things to bring the matter up. It's potentially more complicated than a simple error; in Goldbach's day, people still sometimes thought of 1 as a prime number (which simplifies his conjectures). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This also reminds me of those psychological tests that ask how you feel about this and that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.226.228|108.162.226.228]] 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Don't forget the first rule of tautology club. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.236|141.101.98.236]] 18:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Moved from explain:<br />
I disagree with this, as it is not incorrect to say that "numbers keep going towards seven" as there are an infinite number of numbers approaching 7. Also, the extremely weak conjecture could easily refer to numbers in the negative direction only. (Edited by some people.) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Therefore, the "extremely strong" conjecture could not possibly imply (however indirectly) the validity of the "extremely weak" conjecture, as it would if proved true."<br />
: It can be argued that since the "extremely strong" conjecture is obviously a contradiction (as in the logical sense, "a formula that's always false"), thereby, can imply any other formula. That is, if p is always false, then (p->q) for any q is always true. In this sense, if the "strong" version gets proved somehow, you get an inconsistent logical system, in which each and every formula can be proved as true, including those weaker forms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56|108.162.215.56]] 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This sentence is problematic: "The weak conjecture does not, however, imply the strong conjecture." "A does not imply B" technically means "A and not B" which, I'm sure, isn't what was meant. I added "in any evident way" which I think corrects it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.59|199.27.133.59]] 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1310:_Goldbach_Conjectures&diff=84292Talk:1310: Goldbach Conjectures2015-02-10T01:09:48Z<p>108.162.219.125: my opinion</p>
<hr />
<div>If a bot can create the text I read here, we have made great strides in artificial intelligence. Probably a human editor forgot to change the "incomplete/incorrect" heading. [[User:Tenrek|Tenrek]] ([[User talk:Tenrek|talk]]) 05:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:You never know, AI has come a loong way. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Let's ask: Tepples, are you a bot? And 199.27.128.62, what about you? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, I'm a bot. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.62|199.27.128.62]] 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I thought that <nowiki>{{incomplete|Created by a BOT}}</nowiki> means that the template was inserted by a BOT. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It does mean that. But as others edit the page, they should keep the "incomplete" reason up-to-date. I've changed it to "incomplete|surely not quite complete yet..." ;) [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I will change this text template beginning at the Friday update when I'm back home. Happy NEW YEAR to everybody! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It all seems to work except that the extremely strong seems to imply the opposite of the extremely weak [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 02:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I think the mistake is in the implication of the very weak to the extremely weak version. In fact, if there is any connection between those two statements it is an implication that goes the other way round. If the extremely strong version is true, we are not looking at the natural numbers. Thus, "Every number greater than 7 is the sum of two other numbers." does ''not'' imply "Numbers just keep going.", at all. (Also this accounts for no numbers at all, so the very weak version would still be correct.) Then there is the case that the extremely strong version is false. An implication from something false to anything is always true. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.200|173.245.53.200]] 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
---I disagree with this, as it is not incorrect to say that "numbers keep going towards seven" as there are an infinite number of numbers approaching 7. Also, the extremely weak conjecture could easily refer to numbers in the negative direction only. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.61}}<br />
<br />
I always find it amusing that people assume that something phrased 'scientifically' is therefore right, whereas something phrased unscientifically (eg religious beliefs taken on faith) are automatically wrong. There seems to be an unexamined assumption that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths. Of course science is really just a methodological system for testing theories. Whenever I try to explain this concept, I try to come up with a general, untestable (non-scientific) assertion that is nonetheless true, alongside a very specific, repeatedly testable (falsifiable) assertion that is therefore eminently scientific, but which happens to be wrong. (Eg "it sometimes rains on Wednesday" and "it rains at least 100mm every Wednesday in Riyadh"). So for me this comic is a commentary on that principle - that the "strength" of a statement is only really impressive if it has also survived testing. [[User:Tarkov|Tarkov]] ([[User talk:Tarkov|talk]]) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:The assumption is not "that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths" but that science works. [[54: Science|Bitches]]. Also, the example you have given is quite bad considering that your first statement is so vague that it is essentially meaningless and apparently, what you want to say with your second statement is that falsifiable claims are falsifiable, which is pretty trivial. Finally, the statements that are phrased unscientifically are not assumed to be automatically wrong but they are impossible to be proven or disproven and are often worded so vaguely that nobody in the known universe knows just what the hell they are supposed to even mean. They are just empty phrases that carry no information whatsoever. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.200|173.245.53.200]] 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
According to the strong twin prime conjecture, all positive numbers greater than one are prime, due to 2 and 3 both being prime and extrapolation on primes from there. Thus, this nearly proves the very strong Goldbach conjecture, excluding one. Should this be noted in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.4|108.162.237.4]] 02:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(Kyt)<br />
<br />
: I don't know if it's worth complicating things to bring the matter up. It's potentially more complicated than a simple error; in Goldbach's day, people still sometimes thought of 1 as a prime number (which simplifies his conjectures). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This also reminds me of those psychological tests that ask how you feel about this and that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.226.228|108.162.226.228]] 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Don't forget the first rule of tautology club. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.236|141.101.98.236]] 18:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Moved from explain:<br />
I disagree with this, as it is not incorrect to say that "numbers keep going towards seven" as there are an infinite number of numbers approaching 7. Also, the extremely weak conjecture could easily refer to numbers in the negative direction only. (Edited by some people.) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Therefore, the "extremely strong" conjecture could not possibly imply (however indirectly) the validity of the "extremely weak" conjecture, as it would if proved true."<br />
: It can be argued that since the "extremely strong" conjecture is obviously a contradiction (as in the logical sense, "a formula that's always false"), thereby, can imply any other formula. That is, if p is always false, then (p->q) for any q is always true. In this sense, if the "strong" version gets proved somehow, you get an inconsistent logical system, in which each and every formula can be proved as true, including those weaker forms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56|108.162.215.56]] 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This sentence is problematic: "The weak conjecture does not, however, imply the strong conjecture." "A does not imply B" technically means "A and not B" which, I'm sure, isn't what was meant. I added "in any evident way" which I think corrects it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.59|199.27.133.59]] 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe it could be added in the explanation that, the extremely strong conjecture being proven true, all others would hold (extremely weak is problematic). I deduced that from reading the explanation alone, but I really can't know if it's clear enough for everyone. Plus, without understanding this, the conjecture alone sounds very weird. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1306:_Sigil_Cycle&diff=84231Talk:1306: Sigil Cycle2015-02-09T03:10:49Z<p>108.162.219.125: correction (?) and opinion</p>
<hr />
<div>Shouldn't it be QBASIC$ (or QBASIC%), since in Basic the sigil is attached to the end of variable names? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.108|173.245.53.108]] 13:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Could not find where categories can be added, here's a list of suitable categories: Charts, Computers, Comics presenting a compromise Internet, Programming [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.180|173.245.53.180]] 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This comic de-emphasizes the value of sigils. It's very ironic that Randall chose C++, a language with symbols, to exemplify plain words. And C is a reason for not naming technologies after letters. Same with X. You have to search for "C programming language" or "X window system." It's very helpful to distinguish things with unique sigils, especially in this current age where we depend on full-text search. Just look at my login ID, tbc. I have been tbc on the Internet since 1981. But I eventually had to go by tbc0 (e.g. on Twitter) because tbc isn't unique enough. Google was named after 10^100 (an incomprehensibly large number reflecting their ambition). But that number is spelled googol. They own their spelling. Brilliant. Consider examples: iMac, iPhone iPad, Yahoo (a little weak), Facebook (they own that word). It's all about branding. Google Kleenex or Xerox and you'll see that they're excellent sigils. The problem is, those terms have become generic. Their brand is a little weaker for it. Finally, on Twitter, @ and # unleash powerful features. &mdash; [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:C++ uses symbols, but it doesn't use one to denote that an identifier is a variable (like PHP) or the type of an identifier (like early BASIC, Perl, and arguably Twitter). And when I search for X, it's either X11 (the protocol) or Xorg (the widely used server implementation). And [[wikipedia:Barney_Google_and_Snuffy_Smith|Barney Google]] had it first. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 15:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Any way we can expand on the history of programming (if applicable)? Did these languages become popular in a certain order, or were they developed as a response to one another? Or is this comic simply Randall's journey through programming, not specifically tied to the popularity (or development) of certain coding languages? -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.227|108.162.216.227]]<br />
:They pretty much appeared in the order listed. I don't think they represent Randall's experience (or really anything else); the differences in how they handle variable names/types is mostly a function of their different purpose, and Randall picked those specific examples simply to fit the timeline (e.g. sh and ksh have the same syntax as bash, but since they came before QBasic they would break the pattern). {{unsigned ip|108.162.236.13}}<br />
<br />
The google mentioning isn't explained well enough imo. Instead if just saying "they have a service called google plus", it should be told how the + sign is used throughout the service, like every other instance in the article. I may do the edit myself, but it's not likely. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.237|141.101.98.237]] 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
"Ironically, it is the name if the language itself that includes symbols."<br />
<br />
It's not very ironic. Variable names don't include symbols, but commands do. This statement should be rewritten.<br />
<br />
int c = 0;<br />
<br />
c++;<br />
<br />
c += 1;<br />
<br />
c = c + 1; {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.215}}<br />
<br />
:I find it ironic that "C++" in a statement would be interpretted as "C" and only ''post''-incremented (i.e. only incremented when ''next'' referenced). Meaning "C++" is effectively the same as "C", in its own context. They should have named it "++C", if they wanted to indicate that it was ''itself'' improved upon the original value of C. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::This is an incorrect interpretation of the statement c++. c++ as a standalone statement, on a line by itself, will result in c being exactly one greater than before the statement (the value stored in that memory location will indeed be one greater); using prefix or postfix ++ in this context is functionally equivalent and most people just prefer using the postfix version. Where the distinction between the prefix and postfix versions come into play is in more complex statements where the operator's return value is not ignored. For example,<br />
<br />
::int c = 1;<br />
::int x = c++;<br />
<br />
::x will be initialized to 1 because the postfix ++ operator returns the value of c before it was incremented, but the value stored in c will be 2 regardless of further reference. If, instead you initialized x using the prefix version, ++c, x would be 2 because the prefix version of ++ returns the incremented result. (Side note: it's often considered bad practice to rely on the return value of the increment and decrement operators.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.227|108.162.219.227]] 20:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::When not specifically using the post or pre incrementing nature of c++/++c, and just using it as shorthand for c = c + 1, then ++c is demonstrably superior to c++ as there are 2 fewer machine code operations involved {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.41}}<br />
:::No, I stand by what I say. I actually agree with your code, but freely parsing "I will use C++ for this project", as a phrase (at least the first time you utter it) might so easily be a statement that gives a direct result equal to "I will use C for this project". (It helps to have just the right geeky sense of humour, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Oh, I assure you, I am quite geeky. I could, for instance, argue that you're mixing the grammars of English and C++, a natural language and context sensitive language. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.227|108.162.219.227]] 22:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Personally, I see no problem. When you start programming in C++, you are writing code which is effectively C. Only when you program in C++ longer time, the code will improve. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Wrong, as "I will use C++" actually does mean "I will use C++", because the moment you finished uttering it (command break), C indeed becomes one point greater ;) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.43|108.162.222.43]] 06:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Regarding the name of the language, Bjarne Stroustrup himself [http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#name has said], "Connoisseurs of C semantics find C++ inferior to ++C." [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 07:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It's still not ironic that the name includes symbols. I removed the word 'ironically', it doesn't make sense. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.215}}<br />
<br />
Extending the first comment above: Since the strip is known for being rather technically strict, it's odd that it says "word ... will START with", yet QBASIC variables END with symbols, and Google+ ENDS with a symbol.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.216|108.162.216.216]] 18:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: That's not a problem with Google, because the ''sigil'' comes at the beginning there. But it's a problem with QBASIC, all right. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 05:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Although C++ doesn't force you to use sigils, by convention programmers would still use sigils. Conventionally, variable names were named nCount, or fCost. The first character in the variable name indicated the data type. This convention was extended by Visual C++, and it started naming interfaces starting with I. Eventually, this convention fell by the wayside because IDEs started getting smarter and you would get code complete and some sort of information via a tooltip that eliminated the need for the Sigil --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.24|173.245.56.24]] 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::{{w|Hungarian Notation}} (and similar schemes) aren't "sigils" (according to [[wikt:sigil|wiktionary]], a sigil in this context is non-alphanumeric, and the comic would seem to imply this also). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.186|108.162.219.186]] 22:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC).<br />
<br />
I think this explanation could do with some better explanation of the programming concepts it describes. Not every xkcd reader will be familiar with programming languages. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I've expanded the introduction for now to more fully explain programming languages and variables - it wasn't very clear to non-programmers - but I think the rest could use some work too. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 18:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If "C++" "started" with a symbol, then I would agree that it is ironic that it appears in the graph in the position that it does. Since it does not, however, I must dispute your use of the word "ironic". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How could 'see plus plus' be pronounced any other way? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.239|141.101.98.239]] 11:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
: 'see add add'? --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 22:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:'sea-cross squared'? {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.215}}<br />
<br />
;Dispute about the explanation<br />
The explanation is very misleading. Why on earth does the explanation begin with a big chunk of talk about variables?<br />
The comic strip is entirely about probability that a word you encounter will begin with some sigil. Therefore, the explanation should be about WHY the chart is plotted the way it is -- why does QBASIC have such a high probability, and why C++ does not. Everything else will just confuse anyone who comes to this page.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.238|108.162.231.238]] 15:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I did move this discussion to the bottom where it belongs to; new statements should not be posted at the top. And back to your comment: {{w|Sigil (computer programming)}} is very well explained at the beginning, read the Wiki article. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Technically, the strip is about the probability that a word you '''type''' will begin with some sigil. Since there's a change you'll be programming as you'll type, there's sense in explaining the programming context. I'll make it clearer by exposing my unbiased explanation of the strip:Early on, Randall programmed in QBASIC, so the words he typed then had a higher chance of containing sigils. Later on, he programmed in C++, so the chances decreased (in my opinion, did not reached zero due to directives). Later on, he programmed in Perl and wrote Bash scripts, so the chances increased. Later on, he programmed in Python, so the chances decreased again. Later on, he used Google+, Twitter and hashtags in general, so the chances increased again. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 03:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1305:_Undocumented_Feature&diff=842011305: Undocumented Feature2015-02-07T03:41:13Z<p>108.162.219.125: CRT monitor is not an evidence of an old computer, but it is of the possibility of one</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1305<br />
| date = December 18, 2013<br />
| title = Undocumented Feature<br />
| before = [[#Explanation|↓ Skip to explanation ↓]]<br />
| image = undocumented_feature.png<br />
| titletext = And it doesn't pop up a box every time asking you to use your real name. In fact, there's no way to set your name at all. You just have to keep reminding people who you are.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
An {{w|undocumented feature}} is a part of a software product that is not explained in the documentation for the product. [[Cueball]] has found such a feature, a chat room intended to ask for help, accessible through the help page of some unnamed old Windows utility. The people who found the chat room started out using it for its intended purpose (helping users of the utility by contacting other users), however as time has passed they have become friends and enter the chat only to talk to each other, with no relation to computer problems.<br />
<br />
A {{w|virtual machine}} (or VM) is a computer program designed to emulate the hardware of a full computer. In this case, users of the old chat room create VMs only to have the old operating system installed which included the utility program. They use this setup only to access the old chat room. This is shown in the third panel where [[Cueball]] is using a modern laptop to enter the chatroom (presumably by means of a VM), whereas [[Ponytail]] is most likely using an old computer (as evidenced by the CRT monitor).<br />
<br />
A chat room like this must be hosted on some outside server, so the narrator of the comic wonders who runs this server. An obvious thought about this is if and when the server will be shut down, effectively cutting all communication among chat users. Another obvious thought is why the utility author is still maintaining the chat server, since its original purpose of allowing communication between users with problems with the utility program is no longer an issue as everybody has migrated to more modern systems. The comic suggests that the reason for doing this can be a bored {{w|System administrator|sysadmin}}, who is just reading the messages of the chat users and following their lives but never writing anything. This would turn the chat room into a {{w|soap opera}} for the sysadmin.<br />
<br />
The {{w|Deep Web}} is a term used to refer to any information which is available online, but is hard to find (usually because there are no links to that information in web pages). The chat room described would be an example of this. From this point on, the comic takes an {{w|existentialist}} turn (a frequent xkcd trait), talking about how life is short, everything has to end, etc.<br />
<br />
The last panel is a reference to [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304403804579263371125671670 Facebook's recent announcement] that it would start autoplaying video ads, and the title text refers to YouTube requiring its users to use their real-life identities instead of just nicknames. These last parts of the comics somehow reveal that the point of the whole comic is just to complain about aggressive money-driven policies used by modern social networks in general and Facebook in particular. It is hinted that [[Randall]] would prefer older technologies, where limited resources would forbid autoplaying videos or huge databases with every detail of every user's life.<br />
<br />
It's possible that the comic is about an actual chat room, but more likely it is a complete invention, since if it were real someone would have been able to trace its origin. However if it is real, the participants would not want to confirm this in order to protect their privacy.<br />
<br />
The title text mentions the simplicity of this chat; even user names do not exist and other users could only be identified by their behavior because the user names are random and can change on every login.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A support window is shown.]<br />
:An old Windows utility has an undocumented feature. If you open "help" and click on the background, you get dropped into a "support" chat room.<br />
:Support Window: Launching support forum...<br />
<br />
:[An active conversation between two people is shown.]<br />
:Only a few of us ever found it. But we became friends.<br />
<br />
:[Cueball and Ponytail are at computers.]<br />
:We kept launching the program to check in. Eventually some of us were running VMs just to keep accessing it.<br />
<br />
:[Another conversation.]<br />
:As the Internet aged, so did we.<br />
<br />
:[Three question marks.]<br />
:We don't know who runs the server. We don't know why it's still working so many years later. Maybe we're some sysadmin's soap opera.<br />
<br />
:[A group of people are shown in a bubble.]<br />
:It will probably vanish someday, but for now it's our meeting place. Our hideaway.<br />
<br />
:[The bubble is now smaller, and some parts of a web are shown.]<br />
:A life's worth of chat,<br />
<br />
:[More of the web is shown.]<br />
:Buried in the deep web.<br />
<br />
:[A flat landscape is shown with the sun at the horizon.]<br />
:But even if it lasts forever, ''we'' won't. When we're gone, who will remember us?<br />
<br />
:[Cueball and Hairy are shown standing together in a bubble.]<br />
:Who will remember this strange little world and the friendships we built here?<br />
<br />
:Nobody.<br />
<br />
:[An empty bubble is shown.]<br />
:This place is irrelevant. Ephemeral. One day it will be forgotten.<br />
<br />
:[The bubble starts to fade away.]<br />
:And so will we<br />
<br />
:[The bubble has almost completely faded away.]<br />
<br />
:[The bubble is now completely gone.]<br />
<br />
:But at least it doesn't have fucking video ads.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
There are many examples of undocumented features in programs written for old versions of Windows, for example:<br />
*When playing {{w|Solitaire (Windows)|Windows Solitaire}} with the "draw three" option, one can [http://www.eeggs.com/items/42178.html draw single cards] by holding <Ctrl+Alt+Shift> while clicking on the card to draw cards.<br />
*When playing {{w|Microsoft Minesweeper|Windows Minesweeper}} in pre-Windows-95 versions, typing "{{w|xyzzy}}" followed by <Enter> and then <Right-shift>, will [http://www.eeggs.com/items/49964.html turn the top left pixel] of the windows background black or white to indicate if the mouse is over a mine or not.<br />
*The first releases of {{w|Windows 95}} allowed one to see the "credits" for Win95 by creating a folder in the desktop and then [http://www.eeggs.com/items/478.html renaming it several times].<br />
*{{w|Microsoft word|Word}} 97 has an embedded pinball game, accessible by a [http://www.eeggs.com/items/763.html weird sequence of strange actions].<br />
*{{w|Microsoft Excel|Excel}} 97 has also an embedded game of a spaceship floating over a planet, accessible by another [http://www.eeggs.com/items/718.html weird sequence of actions].<br />
*{{w|Microsoft Excel|Excel}} 2000 has an embedded [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGZfuwsvIFQ car racing game].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Internet]]<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Social networking]]<br />
[[Category:YouTube]]</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1305:_Undocumented_Feature&diff=84200Talk:1305: Undocumented Feature2015-02-07T03:39:44Z<p>108.162.219.125: correction regarding Ponytail</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
:;Please never edit existing posts at the talk page! Just add your content! And NEVER edit foreign posts! Use the "Sign Button" on top of editor or type this at the END of your post <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will add the IP or User and a timestamp to the END of your post.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20&#58;53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
This sound pretty cool... Anyone know if it's real or which tool it's in? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.222|173.245.55.222]] 05:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* its real, there are 8 other users, but must stay a secret. {{unsigned ip|108.162.231.233}}<br />
<br />
* There is no secret chat room, stop looking for it. It doesn't exist. Look for your own island on the interweb, don't come spoil ours. [[User:scr_admin|scr_admin]]<br />
<br />
Okay, let's be honest: how many of us, upon seeing today's comic, immediately went here to see if it was real or not? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.4|108.162.245.4]] 07:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* I honestly did just that. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.137|173.245.53.137]] 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* I also just did that... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.206|108.162.231.206]] 08:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* I didn't start up my VM to test it, but I came here to see if was real >.< [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.56|108.162.216.56]] 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* I also did that. But I take that, if it is real and someone uncovers it, it may destroy that community... [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.123|173.245.53.123]] 10:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* Same here. If it is real, I sincerely hope Randall has a) wiresharked it to find out where this chat room resides so he can prod the admin if it ever goes down b) has a backup plan to migrate himself and his friends to some other private chat room. It won't have the same mystery surrounding it, but at least it's something. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.222|108.162.231.222]] 10:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:;Please never edit existing posts at the talk page! Just add your content! And NEVER edit foreign posts! Use the "Sign Button" on top of editor or type this at the END of your post <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will add the IP or User and a timestamp to the END of your post.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20&#58;53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
It's not about Youtube, but Facebook, which just launched AUTOPLAYING video ads. Look at the title text, it's about Facebook's real name policy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.232|108.162.231.232]] 08:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* I wouldn't limit the scope of this commentary just to Facebook; YouTube's been doing autoplaying video ads for years. YouTube's also been asking for real names recently. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.200|108.162.212.200]] 14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* The video ads thing is definitely related to Facebook, but the title text is probably a reference to Youtube recently asking continuously to switch to the real name of google plus account and not the nickname many used on YouTube. Edited the explanation accordingly, since there was no reference to the title text. Spesknight [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.216|108.162.231.216]] 09:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I just searched after reading - and found this site! -- {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.247}}<br />
<br />
* The real secret place is here! {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.75}}<br />
<br />
* So THIS is the secret chat [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.7|108.162.229.7]] 09:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* One day this place will be forgotten and so will we. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.197|108.162.231.197]] 09:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
anyone else recognizes the wonderful tcp-ip explanation movie of Ericsson [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hymzoUpM0K0 Dawn of the net] in frames 6 till 10? [User:Tesshavon|Tesshavon]] ([[User talk:Tesshavon|talk]])<br />
<br />
* Tesshavon you're in my mind ! Also, the 6th frame is comes from one of the most common Friends posters (see e.g. here : [http://www.infinitydish.com/tvblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Friends-friends-69087_1024_768.jpg Friends] ) [[User:dandraka|dandraka]]<br />
<br />
It's true. Small online communities offer a more folksy experience than the online giants. Some of the best places to hang out are BBS's that made it onto the Internet and have been there for 25+ years. {{unsigned ip|216.150.130.111}}<br />
<br />
Well there's always IRC... {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.30}}<br />
<br />
<br />
:;Please never edit existing posts at the talk page! Just add your content! And NEVER edit foreign posts! Use the "Sign Button" on top of editor or type this at the END of your post <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will add the IP or User and a timestamp to the END of your post.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20&#58;53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I've rewritten all the explanation.<br />
As far as I'm concerned, I'd remove the incomplete box.<br />
I just keep it because it's likely that someone else will feel something is missing.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.180|173.245.53.180]] 15:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you're interested in a tightknit community out on the fringes of the Net, go join a MUD. Some are combat oriented, some are roleplay and chat oriented, all are text-based, and many have largely the same exact userbase as they had twenty years ago. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.228|108.162.212.228]] 15:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* If you want a really small and odd community check out the Plato network, you have to emulate a terminal from the late 70's early 80's to use it. --[[User:DECtape|DECtape]] ([[User talk:DECtape|talk]]) 00:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hmm i think randall also wants to share his believs in the subcontext of the comic, the reason why we live on erth as a random error, the sysadmin who probably sees it all(=god), the question what will happen after all that is gone (his opinion, that our lives are compelty senseless)..etc. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.161}}<br />
<br />
* Anyone else think of comic 37 when reading the last panel (due to the ambiguity of whether he is talking about fucking "video ads" or "fucking video" ads)? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.227|173.245.50.227]] 18:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Yes, of COURSE I came here to see if it really exists! I don't know if there's actually a chatroom as described, but Usenet has become much smaller, has no ads, and doesn't require you to know the secret application to get in. IIf a text experience with no ads appeals, dump FB, come back to Usenet! Tell 'em Sea Wasp sent you! :) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.186|108.162.219.186]] 19:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Shhh! You're forgetting the first rule of Usenet! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.6|173.245.54.6]] 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:;Please never edit existing posts at the talk page! Just add your content! And NEVER edit foreign posts! Use the "Sign Button" on top of editor or type this at the END of your post <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will add the IP or User and a timestamp to the END of your post.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20&#58;53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's obviously about life and religion. The sysadmin who never writes anything must be there to keep everything running, because else the chat would stop to exist. Like most religions contribute to a god who is never seen or heard. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.232|108.162.231.232]] 08:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm wondering if he got this idea from Starship Titanic. They had a very similar thing happen. [http://www.metafilter.com/98848/The-Post-That-Cannot-Possibly-Go-Wrong#3435156 See this epic MeFi comment from the self-described "main web hacker" behind Starship Titanic's web site.] [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.119|199.27.128.119]] 17:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've made several edits to clean up the explanation. Not sure whether I should remove the incomplete tag or not. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.227|173.245.52.227]] 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Please don't do that. A comic at this size isn't complete within one or two days. Removing the incomplete tag is a minor issue, explaining is the major one. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't really see why the trivia should be there. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.45|108.162.216.45]] 20:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:This content was moved from the explain section to a trivia section by me. It still needs some rework but it belongs to "old Windows utilities" like Randall is talking about here at the first panel.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of MUDs. I still check in on New Moon [http://eclipse.cs.pdx.edu/] a few times a year. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.236.25|108.162.236.25]] 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I see what you mean. For me it's the Discworld MUD. But it could similarly (i.e. not exactly like the comic suggests) apply to some long-term Usenet groups that I (in)frequent. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 16:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It may not be the tool from the comic, but people here might be interested in: http://kurlander.net/DJ/Projects/ComicChat/resources.html {{unsigned|Jvfrmtn}}<br />
<br />
If this chatroom was real I'd love to see it. I know ts not though. Of course what if there's a little fridge horror in this comic? Like a chatroom 98 sort of thing? Maybe the sysadmin or the people Cueball and the others are talking to are really ghosts or souls that were sucked into an old server forever doomed to spend their days talking to themselves until another unsuspecting user is sucked in.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.36|108.162.215.36]] 02:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ido: Can someone explain why the URL www.xkcd.com/test reference to this strip? looks like an undocumented feature to me :) {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.220}}<br />
<br />
:It doesn't anymore… [[User:Varal7|Varal7]] ([[User talk:Varal7|talk]]) 19:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
::It now displays to [[1367: Installing]]. [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 01:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was doing some searching on the internet, and found, in addition to the one/few on this page, some people who said/implied that they have used this chat before, although, like anything on the internet, the claims may not be true. (Links: http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/436369-does-this-actually-exist [see comments 3, 12, and 14], http://pastebin.com/95nGh8Hk [Says it exists, but doesn't elaborate]) [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I used to be part of something very similar to to what the comic describes (but not exactly the same). When AOL first started, it was a completely 'walled garden' with no access to the internet. Old folks will remember how popular brands used to advertise on TV that you should go to their 'AOL Keyword' instead of a web site URL. Check Wikipedia for more about this. Anyway, AOL had its own set of message boards, for many popular topics, which were not connected to the internet and could only be accessed by other AOL members. I was just a kid. I went exploring through a bunch of message boards about niche topics until I found one with a community that I came to like. We had all kinds of off-topic conversations, and, the moderators having long since gone, it came to resemble its original topical purpose very little. The ages were not kind to AOL, and our group grew smaller and smaller as the AOL service gained a connection to the real internet (including the WWW and Usenet) and not as many new people bothered to look at AOL-only message boards any more. Eventually, the Keyword that accessed our special board stopped working and it was dropped from the public directory that lists all the areas of AOL. But we found a workaround: AOL had its own quasi-URL system that was mostly only used internally in the software and not usually exposed directly through the UI. But, those of us who had directly bookmarked the message board could still access it that way, and we found a way to share the aol:// URL amongst ourselves. Just like in the comic, we couldn't figure out why the message board still worked at all, for many years after it was no longer publicly visible anywhere, and wondered if some sysadmins with a sense of humour at AOL were watching us. It was fun in a way, a secret place all to ourselves. But it was also kind of sad, when sometimes months would go where noone posted. The UI would sometimes get migrated to a newer version with no notice, and then rolled back again just as abruptly. Old messages would suddenly disappear, become resurrected and then disappear again. Eventually, the thing that finally killed it was that one by one, we each stopped paying for AOL as we found better ISPs and couldn’t justify the expense. It would have been easy enough to move to another web site or chat program, and at first, some of us tried to recreate it elsewhere, but it was never really the same, and we could never get the same group completely back together again. But I guess that's how life is anyway: people drift apart. Despite that, many of us still keep in touch and have become very close friends, some of us even in real life. It's good to have friends. xxj{{unsigned|Xxj}}<br />
:TL;DR! Keep your comments short. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
::If you really didn't read that, Dgbrt, you missed out (what are you, from Twitter? everything has to be 160 characters or the ADD kicks in?). It was worth it, for an old internet hand/AOLer. That is too often how life is, xxj; thanks for posting it. I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by nostalgia for some old AOL and GameFaqs message boards, now... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.77|108.162.219.77]] 03:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::This is a typical reaction to misuse my reaction. If you look at my contributions here you would know that I'm really NOT a TWITTER man. I don't like Twitter and AOL was always a big mess by it's time. But including some paragraphs, writing shorter sentences, and I wouldn't have posted my "TL;DR!" reply. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The comic says it's an "old" Windows utility, but the UI in the picture can be from no older than Windows 95. Native Win95 software still runs on modern PCs without resorting to a VM, doesn't it? Did Randall forget how a window looked in Windows 3.1? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.77|108.162.216.77]] 06:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: An old Windows 95 ''program'' may be able to run on modern systems, but an old ''utility'' may be very tightly tied to that particular system. --[[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 08:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the reason for the cartoon is to explain chat room vs Facebook/twitter, and rather then say "IRC", which could be misunderstood (as being very large ?), he made up the hidden utility chat room.... this utilities chatroom would explain how there could be a small chatroom that is not filled with mindless *MERE USERS* ... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.205|108.162.249.205]] 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"whereas Ponytail is still using an old computer (as evidenced by the CRT monitor)." No, it doesn't. A modern computer can still perfectly use old CRTs. I did it myself a while back, while my LCD was being replaced. All it takes is a VGA connection, and I'm not sure whether modern computers are coming without any VGA connection at all, be it in the mobo or the GPU (at least high end GPUs are dropping VGA support). Anyway, that's not an evidence. It '''hints''' that Ponytail may be using an old computer. I shall fix it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 03:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1301:_File_Extensions&diff=84131Talk:1301: File Extensions2015-02-06T02:57:34Z<p>108.162.219.125: my opinion regarding a few points</p>
<hr />
<div>The title text reference of "hand-aligned data" may refer to ASCII art. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.28|108.162.215.28]] 05:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Alan K.<br />
:I'd think not, given that art isn't exactly data. My guess would be tables in the .txt - a .txt file is just raw text with no formatting, so putting a table in requires manually formatting it with a bunch of spaces/tabs. It's not hard, but can be time-consuming and obnoxious. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.47|108.162.219.47]] 23:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Any programmer would tell you to _never_ try and hand-align things with tabs. Different text editors will use anything from 3 to 8 spaces for a tab, meaning that what's aligned in your editor isn't in others.{{unsigned ip|108.162.236.13}}<br />
:::Indent with tabs; align with spaces. More formally, tabs should only be at the beginning of a line, and should have a strong contextual relationship with the surrounding text. This is a reasonably thought out explanation: http://lea.verou.me/2012/01/why-tabs-are-clearly-superior/ [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.67|199.27.128.67]] 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think it's also a notable point, that the better rated document formats are more data centric while the low rated formats mix text informations with design elements and finally become pure graphic formats, which often is an indication, that the author didn't use the accurate file type for (mostly) pure text informations. <br />
Something I don't understand is the gap between jpg and jpeg. The first suffix is AFAIK only an abbreviation used by older DOS/MS Systems to fullfill the 8.3 limitation for filenames. The note about hand alignment might concern the fact, that hand alignment is more time expensive which might increase the amount of the the author spend in overthink the content before layouting. Also often automated layouting as supported by many modern writing application might lead to unexpected and sometimes wrong results, because the automatism has no semantical knowledge about the authors intention, which might lead to post processed errors<br />
Sorry for my bad english, I'm not a natural writer<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.239|108.162.231.239]] 05:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"hand-aligned data" seems to me like (manually) space-indented paragraphs, perhaps even manual padding to achieve the desired justification (centering and right-and-left-margin-hugging). And of course neatly lining up an 'embedded table', perhaps originally extracted from a .csv output. Although a number of plain-text editors (in the days of CGA and pure terminal/fixedspace fonts) or text formatters and wrappers (e.g. Lynx, man-page creaters, etc) ''would'' do things like this for you. And still do. At least insofar as the justification and margining is concerned. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 08:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
If anyone has taken the time to hand align a text file (as in a README, or other info file), they want it to look attractive for people to read. Odd are you're not going to take the time to "hand pretty" the document just to be malicious. Back in the BBS days there were a large number of "online" groups who had "signature" text files which were (very probably) hand aligned, and made extensive use of extended ASCII codes to generate basic graphics. (Granted there were programs to help auto-generate "ascii art".) If you've ever seen these files you'd know. [[http://www.thuglife.org/tlv5/aabout.shtml Example 1]] - [[http://textfiles.com/piracy/NFO/ Example 2]] [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that .jpg and .jpeg are at different levels. Aren't those the same thing? --[[User:Mralext20|Mralext20]] ([[User talk:Mralext20|talk]]) 05:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
Perhaps the .gif could contain suddenly unexpected scary/surprising frames? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.172|108.162.208.172]] 14:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:That JPG/JPEG thing indeed seems strange. The more important distinction is between JPEGs that are photographs (fine) and those that are not (stupid). Also, pre-PNG, non-photograph GIFs could be just fine. And with all the accounting scandals we've seen, why would those spreadsheet formats get any credibility? -- [[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 06:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Alongside .jpeg ('full' extension format) and .jpg (MS '8.3'-compatible extension format), I'd have expected .jpe (often full extension historically truncated on an 8.3 system), I must be honest. (And interesting that .docx doesn't co-inhabit the .doc line... or be somewhere else.) And the disparity betwixt the two versions of JPEG extension ''may'' relate to the tendency for a higher artefact-intensity of images back in the early days (when a better option than GIFs for... certain pictures... e.g. on Usenet between *nix workstations with vastly restricted bandwidths and storage capacities) compared to today's users (cameras that regularly store 10+MP pictures in low-loss JFIF files, and/or in Raw format!). But that may be a spurious or off-track reasoning on my part. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 08:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I measured the bars in photoshop to +/- 2pixels. If we scale .tex to a value of 100 like the transcript says, these are the values I get for the bar lengths (rounded to one decimal place)<br />
.tex 100<br />
.pdf 89.4<br />
.csv 84.9<br />
.txt 66.5<br />
.svg 64.8<br />
.xls 48.6<br />
.doc 21.2<br />
.png 15.1<br />
.ppt 14.5<br />
.jpg 3.4<br />
.jpeg -8.4<br />
.gif -35.8<br />
<br />
Dunno if it is helpful - or even trusted given I'm a first time commenter - but there it is. Closer values than just estimating, though the eyeballed estimates aren't bad. Not going to adjust the actual transcript because I feel that's overstepping my bounds. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.56}}<br />
:Not at all, wikis are free to edit for a reason. If we didn't want new users to be editing pages, we could have turned that off long ago. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''As the information that is provided by the graph comes as png, we should probably not trust her. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.120|141.101.92.120]] 09:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)'''<br />
: Ha, +1 Like :-) [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])<br />
<br />
I never saw image of cute cats lying to me ... I mean, the gif is STILL the preferred format for animation, mostly because it's the only one supported. Animation formats based on PNG didn't catched up, hard to say why ... on the other hand, gif animation apparently have huge number of weird extensions, judging by the number of animated images I found which don't render properly in anything EXCEPT the browser. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:The cute cat may not be lying, but since the format is used in other context -- like banner ads, then the average GIF may well be lying, also I believe there have been many security issues with GIFs and JPGs as they have been used as an attack vector for internet-bad-guys to take over your computer -- so while security issues is not specifically the topic for todays strip, then that may be worth noticing as well [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])<br />
:It is also possible to create animations with svg which is (for good reason, I like that format) ranked higher. Especially for scientific purposes it can be handy. Unfortunately is the MediaWiki software unable to show them. For example in the previous comic is an animation of the Galilean moons shown. That is an gif but someone also uploaded an [[Wikipedia:commons:File:Galilean_moon_Laplace_resonance_animation_(en_-_monochrome_-_350x217).svg|svg animation]] and I would say it does look smoother than the gif. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.215|108.162.231.215]] 14:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:The Grumpy Cat is not grumpy in real life - so cat pictures DO lie! [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
'''What is the scale of the chart? Does 'top' = most trusted'? Never assume anything with xkcd.''' [[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]] ([[User talk:David.windsor|talk]]) 18:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Brilliant. I didn't think of that at all. But now that you mention it... a .gif would be like a small part of a video. And people tend to trust those more than a static picture. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.209|108.162.222.209]] 08:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Of course Randall does not really think that the file extension determines trustworthiness; the graph is tongue-in-cheek. Information can be trustworthy or untrustworthy no matter the format it's given in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.221|108.162.216.221]] 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Yes, I believe the explanation somewhat misinterprets Randall's intentions, especially when it comes to the image formats. I interpret it not as a question of loss of information due to compression but instead a more general impression of when and by whom these formats are used and, as a consequence, the trustworthiness of the information conveyed through these formats. That would explain the jpg/jpeg distinction as (in my experience though I can't provide data that support it) .jpg is nowadays the preferred compressed format in professional contexts and .jpeg looks slightly childish. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.117|141.101.80.117]] 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Reading more into the linked info about viruses embedded in JPEGs, it appears that the only way to receive a virus from a JPEG file would be to have ''already'' received another virus from a standard executable file, where such a virus causes the computer to execute code in a JPEG file rather than simply display it as it normally would. Since such a possibility is independent of the file type (the first virus might just as well have enabled code execution in DOC files, for instance), I've removed that bit of info. [[User:Zowayix|Zowayix]] ([[User talk:Zowayix|talk]]) 03:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Can anyone explain the banner near the top of xkcd.com today, 10 Dec 2013? It reads, <br />
"Dear Wikipedia readers: if everyone reading this _showed up at my house,_ (yellow highlight)I would be like "what {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.220}}<br />
: I believe that is a reference to the similar banner that is on top of wikipedia right now asking for donations. --[[User:Jeff|<b><font color="orange">Jeff</font></b>]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 18:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I don't see that banner, but it appears to be a play on Wikipedia's donation "pleas" that are often posted (including now) as banners at the top of Wikipedia which suggest that (to use the lates one:) "If everyone reading this donated, our fundraiser would be done within an hour". [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 18:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think it's a bit ambiguous whether Randall's references (for example) to jpg and gif means he doesn't trust that the images are accurate because of artifacting and stuff, or whether he's referring to jpgs and gifs that occasionally circulate with text on them as if to present information (e.g., lifehack images, or cat memes...) [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 18:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;missing suffices<br />
<br />
Obviously .html & .htm are so far to the left, they're off the chart. :-)<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.117|108.162.249.117]] 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Any idea what file type was used to spread this hoax?<br />
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/apple-secret-bitcoin-mining-feature/<br />
Various websites reporting on it use .JPG and .PNG, but I don't know what format the original graphic was.<br />
[[User:InspectorClouseau|InspectorClouseau]] ([[User talk:InspectorClouseau|talk]]) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'd be pretty wary of .flv...<br />
[[User:Nick Douglas|Nick Douglas]] ([[User talk:Nick Douglas|talk]]) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't completely agree with ".png"'s explanation: "But since he rates the format so low, is Randall saying we shouldn't trust this chart?" I think it's being seen from the wrong perspective. In my opinion, ".png" is rated low due to being less capable and less commonly used to transmit trustworthy information than those rated higher. What do you all think? If you agree with me, please edit it, as I will not monitor this page.<br />
<br />
I also think that ".tex"'s explanation is lacking. It should be said it's a way to format text documents using programming, in order to make them better looking and easier (for some) to write and format.<br />
<br />
Plus, I generally disagree with a lot of what is said about file extensions, since our whole operating systems could work just fine if all extensions disappeared (provided that programs look for the right files by name only, and maybe a few more folders where created). But that's my own opinion, and not something to be added here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 02:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.219.125