https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=141.101.99.229&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-19T08:21:39ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2461:_90%27s_Kid_Space_Program&diff=211737Talk:2461: 90's Kid Space Program2021-05-10T21:07:36Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
While searching for popper toys in action, I found a figure in a scientific paper. Not sure if it would belong on this page. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326439672_Dynamics_of_viscoelastic_snap-through#pf2 [[User:Pgn674|Pgn674]] ([[User talk:Pgn674|talk]]) 20:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Isn't it also allusion to Kerbal Space Program game? The ship in picture looks similar to game's stock crafts. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.249|162.158.91.249]] 21:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
Possibly? The girders and the capsule look similar, but the green bit looks a little like a Project Orion pusher plate to me. (Or maybe I just like Project Orion too much). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2458:_Bubble_Wrap&diff=2115012458: Bubble Wrap2021-05-04T09:12:53Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation */ Grammatical re-agreement after badly pre-post-editing the prior attempt.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2458<br />
| date = May 3, 2021<br />
| title = Bubble Wrap<br />
| image = bubble_wrap.png<br />
| titletext = I think of myself as the David Attenborough of factory mailing equipment.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a DAVID ATTENBOROUGH OF FACTORY MAILING EQUIPMENT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
{{w|Bubble wrap}} is packing material made by melting two sheets of plastic together with little pockets of air (the "bubbles") spread throughout the surface. It is wrapped around fragile items for moving or shipping because the air pockets act as a cushion if the item(s) within are struck or shook. Many people enjoy popping bubble wrap as a mindless hobby, perhaps due to the tactility and other sensations of each bubble makes as it bursts.<br />
<br />
The premise behind this comic is that the air inside each bubble comes from the factory where it was made, and thus as each bubble is popped that air - along with anything in it - is released. If one had a very sensitive sense of smell, one could detect unique odors present in the factory at the time not present where you are popping the bubble wrap. The comic has Cueball smelling {{w|WD-40}} (a penetrating oil likely to be found where machines are running), diesel fumes (likely found where trucks drop off supplies or pick up product) and what he thinks is sea air, causing him to muse that the factory is by the ocean.<br />
<br />
In reality, the air inside most factories is much like the air anywhere else. This is particularly true for modern factories which are much cleaner than the popular conception of a dirty, smelly factory from early in the days of industrialization. One would be unlikely to distinctly smell WD-40 or diesel fumes standing in such a factory unless it was right after or right near they were used. It would be even less likely to them smell them when the minuscule amounts of air in the bubbles was then diluted in the larger amount of air surrounding you when they are popped. Furthermore, although the comic suggests popping the bubbles gives one a "tour" of the factory, in fact all of the air added to the bubbles would only come from the machine where the wrap is made. It would be even less likely to pick up smells from other parts of the factory such as diesel fumes from the loading docks, since air is not added to bubble wrap there.<br />
<br />
Although this scenario is unlikely given human olfactory ability, scientists with very sensitive equipment have done essentially this with ice cores. As ice is laid down in places such as the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets, it traps small bubbles from the atmosphere at the time within it. As long as the ice remains frozen, those bubbles remain trapped and do not interact with the current atmosphere, preserving a record of the chemical composition of the air in the past. There have been many scientific expeditions to drill ice cores and then melt pieces of them in a laboratory where special equipment can analyze the ancient air as it is released to study the quantity of oxygen and CO2 within in. The deeper the core is drilled, the farther in the past the sample.<br />
<br />
The title text references {{w|David Attenborough}}, who is famous for having narrated many influential documentaries for the BBC about life on earth. He is renowned for having brought science into the homes of tens of millions. The title text humorously suggests that Cueball's "narration" about what he smells in the bubble wrap is as important and distinguished as Attenborough's award winning work.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[Cueball is standing and holding bubble wrap.]<br />
:Cueball: Hmm...<br />
:Cueball: WD-40, diesel fumes...<br />
:Cueball: And is that sea air? I guess they're near the ocean.<br />
:Bubble wrap: ''POP''<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:If your sense of smell is good enough, popping bubble wrap gives you a tour of a bubble wrap factory.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2456:_Types_of_Scientific_Paper&diff=2112222456: Types of Scientific Paper2021-04-28T23:08:46Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Trivia */ Better.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2456<br />
| date = April 28, 2021<br />
| title = Types of Scientific Paper<br />
| image = types_of_scientific_paper.png<br />
| titletext = Others include "We've incrementally improved the estimate of this coefficient," "Maybe all these categories are wrong," and "We found a way to make student volunteers worse at tasks."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a RESEARCH DEPARTMENT ON A LUNCHBREAK. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
In this comic, Randall describes categories of scientific papers with somewhat humorous generalized titles.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Breakdown of Papers<br />
|-<br />
|Paper Title<br />
|Explanation<br />
|Article Description<br />
|-<br />
|We put a camera somewhere new<br />
|This may involve miniaturisation or other improvements of imaging sensors, power supply, transmission or retention of data, environmental hardening and (possibly) recovery afterwards. Photographs and videos can be especially helpful in understanding what is or was going on, especially for the layman, than more limited signal traces.<br />
<br />
Cameras have been inserted into ''every'' obvious bodily orifice (including swallowed, to be later excreted), placed in interesting habitats to monitor wildlife, sent into volcanic craters/ocean trenches/high altitudes/nuclear reactors, launched into space and sent past/round/onto several of the solar-system's more interesting bodies.<br />
<br />
There's no clue ''which'' new place a camera has now been put, but it will probably at the very least excite people in the appropriately narrow field of research. The title (paraphrasing) does not guarantee that it will interest the public as a whole, but neither does it completely rule out that this will grab the headlines - at least until the next 'newer place' is imaged. <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!<br />
|Rather than starting with the aim of investigating some question, and finding some way of answering it by uncovering evidence, sometimes a writer may have stumbled upon a cache of historic documents that they then feel compelled to justify the resulting 'WikiWalk' they may have found themselves sucked into.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it<br />
| This title refers to the occasional rivalries between scientists within a field, which can push them to seek proof that they, and not their colleague, are correct.<br />
|Note the lack of headers, suggesting an argument more than an explanation of data<br />
|-<br />
|The immune system is at it again<br />
|The human immune system is notoriously complex, and there are countless papers in medical fields just describing its strangeness<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some<br />
|Researchers often attempt to create materials despite there not being any demand, predicting that in the future their material will be game-changing without any actual applications. These researchers have created such a material, and are offering to produce it for anyone who needs it<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|What are fish even doing down there<br />
|Deep sea marine biology regularly discovers [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7QXdlSBGGY strange lifeforms] in unexpected places, and theories explaining deep sea ecosystems are regularly confounded by new data. <br />
|This paper does not appear to have any headers<br />
|-<br />
|This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper<br />
|There is a huge variety in the complexity and importance of subjects studied in scientific papers, and often some supposedly easy task will be sufficiently complicated as to merit its own paper.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?<br />
|One of the struggles of the scientific method is that many experiments will not produce the results scientists desired or expected. These results are still (sometimes) important, but are often ignored compared to research with important findings<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk<br />
|This paper may be imagined as an opportunistic publication. A department or team has seen itself low down on the local 'league table' for academic output. A brainstorming session for a way of rectifying this led to desperately seizing upon the first idle comment made (in lieu of any better sounding ideas) that can somehow be shoehorned into their respective subject area.<br />
This also works in the context of entomology. Insects have the most species of any class of animals [https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/bugnos by a wide margin], but due to their small size, they're not easily seen. As a result, new species are constantly being discovered in places as innocuous as [https://wildlife.org/video-entomologists-discover-30-new-species-in-la-backyards/ someone's backyard.]<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years<br />
| Some papers summarize the work of big research teams, like those working on the [https://repositorio.uc.cl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11534/13948/Observation%20of%20a%20new%20particle%20in%20the%20search%20for%20the%20Standard%20Model%20Higgs%20boson%20with%20the%20ATLAS%20detector%20at%20the%20LHC.pdf Higgs Boson] (list of authors starts at page 17) or LIGO. Since the discoveries which are made are a team effort, probably outlasting many of the individual tenures involved, the papers have many authors listed.<br />
A credit for participation may not mean any particularly great contribution by each individual, but being left out (even for one summer's secondment, seven years before any results could be recorded) would be taken as a slight, and an opportunity missed to be 'citable' in the future.<br />
|A huge portion of the page is taken up by the presumably 500 authors' names, above the main horizontal bar.<br />
|-<br />
|Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research<br />
|Similar to the "my colleague is wrong" paper, but in this case applied to far greater swathes of the community by the author(s) of this (possibly rambling) tract.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We scanned some undergraduates<br />
|Some initial research, especially that on a low budget, may recruit students at the same institution as easily available test-subjects. Quite often these are psychological or sociological studies, but can involve more medical (but non-invasive) 'scans', from simple eyeball-tracking to full-body MRI.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) We've incrementally improved the estimate of this coefficient<br />
|Often scientific research, e.g. in cosmology or physics, will work with an assumed constant value that is known to be only an 'educated guess' of the actual definite value, or an inclusive range. However accurate/certain this is, further experimentation or observation may further narrow down the uncertainty involved to a statistically significant degree.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) Maybe all these categories are wrong<br />
|In some field that relies heavily upon classification (e.g. phylogenetic biology, or the Standard Model in physics) sometimes observations arise that cast doubt on the previously established ideas. It seems that this may have happened here, hopefully with a suggestion of how to reimagine the situation.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) We found a way to make student volunters worse at tasks<br />
|Possibly a pyschology experiment, and maybe not even the result expected. In general, the repetition of an activity will induce greater skill/capacity in a tested individual. By accident or design, the study group in this instance has induced the opposite correlation.<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Trivia===<br />
Originally, this comic's title text misspelt "volunteers" as "volunters". This could have been intentional (''we'' might be the volunteers), but probably not as it was quickly corrected.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
Types of Scientific Paper <br />
<br />
''An array of scientific papers is shown, with only their titles legible. Titles are as follows:''<br />
<br />
We put a camera somewhere new<br />
<br />
Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!<br />
<br />
My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it<br />
<br />
The immune system is at it again<br />
<br />
We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some<br />
<br />
What are fish even doing down there<br />
<br />
This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper<br />
<br />
Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?<br />
<br />
Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk<br />
<br />
We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years<br />
<br />
Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research<br />
<br />
We scanned some undergraduates<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2456:_Types_of_Scientific_Paper&diff=2112212456: Types of Scientific Paper2021-04-28T23:07:03Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation */ Properly sectioning, and formatting. (But I've a feeling Trivia usually goes after Transcript, where it exists.)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2456<br />
| date = April 28, 2021<br />
| title = Types of Scientific Paper<br />
| image = types_of_scientific_paper.png<br />
| titletext = Others include "We've incrementally improved the estimate of this coefficient," "Maybe all these categories are wrong," and "We found a way to make student volunteers worse at tasks."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a RESEARCH DEPARTMENT ON A LUNCHBREAK. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
In this comic, Randall describes categories of scientific papers with somewhat humorous generalized titles.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Breakdown of Papers<br />
|-<br />
|Paper Title<br />
|Explanation<br />
|Article Description<br />
|-<br />
|We put a camera somewhere new<br />
|This may involve miniaturisation or other improvements of imaging sensors, power supply, transmission or retention of data, environmental hardening and (possibly) recovery afterwards. Photographs and videos can be especially helpful in understanding what is or was going on, especially for the layman, than more limited signal traces.<br />
<br />
Cameras have been inserted into ''every'' obvious bodily orifice (including swallowed, to be later excreted), placed in interesting habitats to monitor wildlife, sent into volcanic craters/ocean trenches/high altitudes/nuclear reactors, launched into space and sent past/round/onto several of the solar-system's more interesting bodies.<br />
<br />
There's no clue ''which'' new place a camera has now been put, but it will probably at the very least excite people in the appropriately narrow field of research. The title (paraphrasing) does not guarantee that it will interest the public as a whole, but neither does it completely rule out that this will grab the headlines - at least until the next 'newer place' is imaged. <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!<br />
|Rather than starting with the aim of investigating some question, and finding some way of answering it by uncovering evidence, sometimes a writer may have stumbled upon a cache of historic documents that they then feel compelled to justify the resulting 'WikiWalk' they may have found themselves sucked into.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it<br />
| This title refers to the occasional rivalries between scientists within a field, which can push them to seek proof that they, and not their colleague, are correct.<br />
|Note the lack of headers, suggesting an argument more than an explanation of data<br />
|-<br />
|The immune system is at it again<br />
|The human immune system is notoriously complex, and there are countless papers in medical fields just describing its strangeness<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some<br />
|Researchers often attempt to create materials despite there not being any demand, predicting that in the future their material will be game-changing without any actual applications. These researchers have created such a material, and are offering to produce it for anyone who needs it<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|What are fish even doing down there<br />
|Deep sea marine biology regularly discovers [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7QXdlSBGGY strange lifeforms] in unexpected places, and theories explaining deep sea ecosystems are regularly confounded by new data. <br />
|This paper does not appear to have any headers<br />
|-<br />
|This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper<br />
|There is a huge variety in the complexity and importance of subjects studied in scientific papers, and often some supposedly easy task will be sufficiently complicated as to merit its own paper.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?<br />
|One of the struggles of the scientific method is that many experiments will not produce the results scientists desired or expected. These results are still (sometimes) important, but are often ignored compared to research with important findings<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk<br />
|This paper may be imagined as an opportunistic publication. A department or team has seen itself low down on the local 'league table' for academic output. A brainstorming session for a way of rectifying this led to desperately seizing upon the first idle comment made (in lieu of any better sounding ideas) that can somehow be shoehorned into their respective subject area.<br />
This also works in the context of entomology. Insects have the most species of any class of animals [https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/bugnos by a wide margin], but due to their small size, they're not easily seen. As a result, new species are constantly being discovered in places as innocuous as [https://wildlife.org/video-entomologists-discover-30-new-species-in-la-backyards/ someone's backyard.]<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years<br />
| Some papers summarize the work of big research teams, like those working on the [https://repositorio.uc.cl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11534/13948/Observation%20of%20a%20new%20particle%20in%20the%20search%20for%20the%20Standard%20Model%20Higgs%20boson%20with%20the%20ATLAS%20detector%20at%20the%20LHC.pdf Higgs Boson] (list of authors starts at page 17) or LIGO. Since the discoveries which are made are a team effort, probably outlasting many of the individual tenures involved, the papers have many authors listed.<br />
A credit for participation may not mean any particularly great contribution by each individual, but being left out (even for one summer's secondment, seven years before any results could be recorded) would be taken as a slight, and an opportunity missed to be 'citable' in the future.<br />
|A huge portion of the page is taken up by the presumably 500 authors' names, above the main horizontal bar.<br />
|-<br />
|Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research<br />
|Similar to the "my colleague is wrong" paper, but in this case applied to far greater swathes of the community by the author(s) of this (possibly rambling) tract.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We scanned some undergraduates<br />
|Some initial research, especially that on a low budget, may recruit students at the same institution as easily available test-subjects. Quite often these are psychological or sociological studies, but can involve more medical (but non-invasive) 'scans', from simple eyeball-tracking to full-body MRI.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) We've incrementally improved the estimate of this coefficient<br />
|Often scientific research, e.g. in cosmology or physics, will work with an assumed constant value that is known to be only an 'educated guess' of the actual definite value, or an inclusive range. However accurate/certain this is, further experimentation or observation may further narrow down the uncertainty involved to a statistically significant degree.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) Maybe all these categories are wrong<br />
|In some field that relies heavily upon classification (e.g. phylogenetic biology, or the Standard Model in physics) sometimes observations arise that cast doubt on the previously established ideas. It seems that this may have happened here, hopefully with a suggestion of how to reimagine the situation.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) We found a way to make student volunters worse at tasks<br />
|Possibly a pyschology experiment, and maybe not even the result expected. In general, the repetition of an activity will induce greater skill/capacity in a tested individual. By accident or design, the study group in this instance has induced the opposite correlation.<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Trivia===<br />
Originally, this comic's title text misspelt volunteers as volunters. This may be intentional (''We'' might be the volunteers). This was quickly corrected.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
Types of Scientific Paper <br />
<br />
''An array of scientific papers is shown, with only their titles legible. Titles are as follows:''<br />
<br />
We put a camera somewhere new<br />
<br />
Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!<br />
<br />
My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it<br />
<br />
The immune system is at it again<br />
<br />
We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some<br />
<br />
What are fish even doing down there<br />
<br />
This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper<br />
<br />
Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?<br />
<br />
Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk<br />
<br />
We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years<br />
<br />
Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research<br />
<br />
We scanned some undergraduates<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2456:_Types_of_Scientific_Paper&diff=2112202456: Types of Scientific Paper2021-04-28T23:04:48Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation */ HTH</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2456<br />
| date = April 28, 2021<br />
| title = Types of Scientific Paper<br />
| image = types_of_scientific_paper.png<br />
| titletext = Others include "We've incrementally improved the estimate of this coefficient," "Maybe all these categories are wrong," and "We found a way to make student volunteers worse at tasks."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a RESEARCH DEPARTMENT ON A LUNCHBREAK. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
In this comic, Randall describes categories of scientific papers with somewhat humorous generalized titles.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Breakdown of Papers<br />
|-<br />
|Paper Title<br />
|Explanation<br />
|Article Description<br />
|-<br />
|We put a camera somewhere new<br />
|This may involve miniaturisation or other improvements of imaging sensors, power supply, transmission or retention of data, environmental hardening and (possibly) recovery afterwards. Photographs and videos can be especially helpful in understanding what is or was going on, especially for the layman, than more limited signal traces.<br />
<br />
Cameras have been inserted into ''every'' obvious bodily orifice (including swallowed, to be later excreted), placed in interesting habitats to monitor wildlife, sent into volcanic craters/ocean trenches/high altitudes/nuclear reactors, launched into space and sent past/round/onto several of the solar-system's more interesting bodies.<br />
<br />
There's no clue ''which'' new place a camera has now been put, but it will probably at the very least excite people in the appropriately narrow field of research. The title (paraphrasing) does not guarantee that it will interest the public as a whole, but neither does it completely rule out that this will grab the headlines - at least until the next 'newer place' is imaged. <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!<br />
|Rather than starting with the aim of investigating some question, and finding some way of answering it by uncovering evidence, sometimes a writer may have stumbled upon a cache of historic documents that they then feel compelled to justify the resulting 'WikiWalk' they may have found themselves sucked into.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it<br />
| This title refers to the occasional rivalries between scientists within a field, which can push them to seek proof that they, and not their colleague, are correct.<br />
|Note the lack of headers, suggesting an argument more than an explanation of data<br />
|-<br />
|The immune system is at it again<br />
|The human immune system is notoriously complex, and there are countless papers in medical fields just describing its strangeness<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some<br />
|Researchers often attempt to create materials despite there not being any demand, predicting that in the future their material will be game-changing without any actual applications. These researchers have created such a material, and are offering to produce it for anyone who needs it<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|What are fish even doing down there<br />
|Deep sea marine biology regularly discovers [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7QXdlSBGGY strange lifeforms] in unexpected places, and theories explaining deep sea ecosystems are regularly confounded by new data. <br />
|This paper does not appear to have any headers<br />
|-<br />
|This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper<br />
|There is a huge variety in the complexity and importance of subjects studied in scientific papers, and often some supposedly easy task will be sufficiently complicated as to merit its own paper.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?<br />
|One of the struggles of the scientific method is that many experiments will not produce the results scientists desired or expected. These results are still (sometimes) important, but are often ignored compared to research with important findings<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk<br />
|This paper may be imagined as an opportunistic publication. A department or team has seen itself low down on the local 'league table' for academic output. A brainstorming session for a way of rectifying this led to desperately seizing upon the first idle comment made (in lieu of any better sounding ideas) that can somehow be shoehorned into their respective subject area.<br />
This also works in the context of entomology. Insects have the most species of any class of animals [https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/bugnos by a wide margin], but due to their small size, they're not easily seen. As a result, new species are constantly being discovered in places as innocuous as [https://wildlife.org/video-entomologists-discover-30-new-species-in-la-backyards/ someone's backyard.]<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years<br />
| Some papers summarize the work of big research teams, like those working on the [https://repositorio.uc.cl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11534/13948/Observation%20of%20a%20new%20particle%20in%20the%20search%20for%20the%20Standard%20Model%20Higgs%20boson%20with%20the%20ATLAS%20detector%20at%20the%20LHC.pdf Higgs Boson] (list of authors starts at page 17) or LIGO. Since the discoveries which are made are a team effort, probably outlasting many of the individual tenures involved, the papers have many authors listed.<br />
A credit for participation may not mean any particularly great contribution by each individual, but being left out (even for one summer's secondment, seven years before any results could be recorded) would be taken as a slight, and an opportunity missed to be 'citable' in the future.<br />
|A huge portion of the page is taken up by the presumably 500 authors' names, above the main horizontal bar.<br />
|-<br />
|Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research<br />
|Similar to the "my colleague is wrong" paper, but in this case applied to far greater swathes of the community by the author(s) of this (possibly rambling) tract.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We scanned some undergraduates<br />
|Some initial research, especially that on a low budget, may recruit students at the same institution as easily available test-subjects. Quite often these are psychological or sociological studies, but can involve more medical (but non-invasive) 'scans', from simple eyeball-tracking to full-body MRI.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) We've incrementally improved the estimate of this coefficient<br />
|Often scientific research, e.g. in cosmology or physics, will work with an assumed constant value that is known to be only an 'educated guess' of the actual definite value, or an inclusive range. However accurate/certain this is, further experimentation or observation may further narrow down the uncertainty involved to a statistically significant degree.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) Maybe all these categories are wrong<br />
|In some field that relies heavily upon classification (e.g. phylogenetic biology, or the Standard Model in physics) sometimes observations arise that cast doubt on the previously established ideas. It seems that this may have happened here, hopefully with a suggestion of how to reimagine the situation.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|(Title text) We found a way to make student volunters worse at tasks<br />
|Possibly a pyschology experiment, and maybe not even the result expected. In general, the repetition of an activity will induce greater skill/capacity in a tested individual. By accident or design, the study group in this instance has induced the opposite correlation.<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Trivia: Originally, this comic's title text misspelt volunteers as volunters. This may be intentional (WE might be the volunteers). This was quickly corrected.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
Types of Scientific Paper <br />
<br />
''An array of scientific papers is shown, with only their titles legible. Titles are as follows:''<br />
<br />
We put a camera somewhere new<br />
<br />
Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!<br />
<br />
My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it<br />
<br />
The immune system is at it again<br />
<br />
We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some<br />
<br />
What are fish even doing down there<br />
<br />
This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper<br />
<br />
Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?<br />
<br />
Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk<br />
<br />
We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years<br />
<br />
Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research<br />
<br />
We scanned some undergraduates<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2456:_Types_of_Scientific_Paper&diff=2112102456: Types of Scientific Paper2021-04-28T22:11:03Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2456<br />
| date = April 28, 2021<br />
| title = Types of Scientific Paper<br />
| image = types_of_scientific_paper.png<br />
| titletext = Others include "We've incrementally improved the estimate of this coefficient," "Maybe all these categories are wrong," and "We found a way to make student volunteers worse at tasks."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a RESEARCH DEPARTMENT ON A LUNCHBREAK. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
In this comic, Randall describes categories of scientific papers with somewhat humorous generalized titles.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+Breakdown of Papers<br />
|-<br />
|Paper Title<br />
|Explanation<br />
|Article Description<br />
|-<br />
|We put a camera somewhere new<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!<br />
|Rather than starting with the aim of investigating some question, and finding some way of answering it by uncovering evidence, sometimes a writer may have stumbled upon a cache of historic documents that they then feel compelled to justify the resulting 'WikiWalk' they may have found themselves sucked into.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it<br />
| This title refers to the occasional rivalries between scientists within a field, which can push them to seek proof that they, and not their colleague, are correct.<br />
|Note the single author listed, and the lack of headers, suggesting an argument more than an explanation of data<br />
|-<br />
|The immune system is at it again<br />
|The human immune system is notoriously complex, and there are countless papers in medical fields just describing its strangeness<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some<br />
|Researchers often attempt to create materials despite there not being any demand, predicting that in the future their material will be game-changing without any actual applications. These researchers have created such a material, and are offering to produce it for anyone who needs it<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|What are fish even doing down there<br />
|Deep sea marine biology regularly discovers [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7QXdlSBGGY strange lifeforms] in unexpected places, and theories explaining deep sea ecosystems are regularly confounded by new data. <br />
|This paper does not appear to have any headers<br />
|-<br />
|This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper<br />
|There is a huge variety in the complexity and importance of subjects studied in scientific papers, and often some supposedly easy task will be sufficiently complicated as to merit its own paper.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?<br />
|One of the struggles of the scientific method is that many experiments will not produce the results scientists desired or expected. These results are still (sometimes) important, but are often ignored compared to research with important findings<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk<br />
|This paper may be imagined as an opportunistic publication. A department or team has seen itself low down on the local 'league table' for academic output. A brainstorming session for a way of rectifying this led to desperately seizing upon the first idle comment made (in lieu of any better sounding ideas) that can somehow be shoehorned into their respective subject area.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years<br />
| Some papers summarize the work of big research teams, like those working on the [https://repositorio.uc.cl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11534/13948/Observation%20of%20a%20new%20particle%20in%20the%20search%20for%20the%20Standard%20Model%20Higgs%20boson%20with%20the%20ATLAS%20detector%20at%20the%20LHC.pdf Higgs Boson] (list of authors starts at page 17) or LIGO. Since the discoveries which are made are a team effort, probably outlasting many of the individual tenures involved, the papers have many authors listed.<br />
A credit for participation may not mean any particularly great contribution by each individual, but being left out (even for one summer's secondment, seven years before any results could be recorded) would be taken as a slight, and an opportunity missed to be 'citable' in the future.<br />
|A huge portion of the page is taken up by the presumably 500 authors' names, above the main horizontal bar.<br />
|-<br />
|Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research<br />
|Similar to the "my colleague is wrong" paper, but in this case applied to far greater swathes of the community by the author(s) of this (possibly rambling) tract.<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|We scanned some undergraduates<br />
|Some initial research, especially that on a low budget, may recruit students at the same institution as easily available test-subjects. Quite often these are psychological or sociological studies, but can involve more medical (but non-invasive) 'scans', from simple eyeball-tracking to full-body MRI.<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
Trivia: Originally, this comic's title text misspelt volunteers as volunters. This may be intentional (WE might be the volunteers). This was quickly corrected.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
Title: Types of Scientific Paper<br />
<br />
''An array of scientific papers is shown, with only their titles legible. Titles are as follows:''<br />
<br />
We put a camera somewhere new<br />
<br />
Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!<br />
<br />
My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it<br />
<br />
The immune system is at it again<br />
<br />
We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some<br />
<br />
What are fish even doing down there<br />
<br />
This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper<br />
<br />
Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?<br />
<br />
Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk<br />
<br />
We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years<br />
<br />
Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research<br />
<br />
We scanned some undergraduates<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2453:_Excel_Lambda&diff=2107462453: Excel Lambda2021-04-22T11:10:09Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation: point lambda function link to wiki page on anonymous functions, or lambda functions in programming languages. */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2453<br />
| date = April 21, 2021<br />
| title = Excel Lambda<br />
| image = excel_lambda.png<br />
| titletext = Extremely rude how Turing's later formulations of the halting problem called me out by name specifically.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a SPREADSHEET. What is a lambda function, what does it do, and has one just been added to excel? Can what Cueball suggest in reality be used like a Lambda function? A better link to lambda function on wikipedia is needed What is the meaning of Cueball's last statement? Another reference to a law/hypothesis about computing? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] is computing and [[Ponytail]] has opinions that is reminiscent of the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality series]], although not so harsh. Cueball has had lots of [[Category:Cueball Computer Problems|Computer Problems]], and this may be the road to another one, but it is not as such a problem for him yet.<br />
<br />
The discussion begins because Ponytail finds out that Excel is adding a {{w|Anonymous_function|lambda function}} to their spreadsheet. And she is pleased with this, only to hear Cueball stating that he do not need this as uses a Turing machine on a giant block of columns...<br />
<br />
A classical {{w|Turing machine}} uses an infinitely long strip of tape as its memory. The large column acts as the "tape".<br />
<br />
Ponytail is convinced Cueball is "doing computing wrong". But he claims that all computing is equally wrong citing the {{w|Church-Turing_thesis|Church-Turing thesis}}, a hypothesis which says that a function can be computed by executing a series of instructions if and only if that function is computable by a Turing Machine. All ways of computing are therefor "equally wrong" since, according to this thesis, they can all be translated to a Turing Machine.<br />
<br />
Ponytail then says that Turing would change his mind is he saw Cueball's spreadsheet (almost as saying he would turn in his grave). Cueball's final statement is that Turing could ask him to stop, but would not be able to prove is he actually will stop.<br />
<br />
In the title text the {{w|Halting problem|halting problem}} is mentioned. It is the problem of determining whether a given Turing Machine will halt. The problem has been shown to be undecidable, i.e., there exists no algorithm that computes whether an arbitrary Turing machine will halt or not. [[Randall]]/Cueball has been specifically mentioned in a later formulation of his halting problem, because of the way Randall has behaved. He finds this very rude. This is of course a joke, since Turing has been dead since 1954, long before Randall was born. But it would be crazy indeed, if a scientist became so mad at a person, that he would mention this person by name in his formulation of a serious problem.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[In a narrow panel, Ponytail is walking in from the left, looking down at her phone]<br />
:Ponytail: Oh cool, Excel is adding a lambda function, so you can recursively define functions.<br />
<br />
:[Ponytail, holding her phone to her side stands behind Cueball, who is sitting in an office chair with a hand on a laptop standing on his desk. He has turned around to face her, leaning with the other arm on the back of the chair.]<br />
:Cueball: Seems unnecessary.<br />
:Cueball: When I need to do arbitrary computation, I just add a giant block of columns to the side of my sheet and have a Turing machine traverse down it.<br />
<br />
:[In a frame-less panel Ponytail is standing in he same position behind Cueball, who has resumed working on his laptop with both hands on the keyboard.]<br />
:Ponytail: I think you're doing computing wrong.<br />
:Cueball: The Church-Turing thesis says that all ways of computing are '''''equally''''' wrong.<br />
<br />
:[Ponytail is still behind Cueball, who has a finger raised in the air, and the other hand is on the desk. Cueball's head has a visible sketch layer which has not been erased.]<br />
:Ponytail: I think if Turing saw '''''your''''' spreadsheets, he'd change his mind.<br />
:Cueball: He can ask me to stop making them, but not prove whether I will!<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]<br />
[[Category:Computers]]<br />
[[Category:Spreadsheets]]<br />
[[Category:Programming]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2444:_Ingenuity&diff=209316Talk:2444: Ingenuity2021-04-01T21:05:33Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Wow! I clicked open xkcd at 3:50 or so, I can't believe I was one of the first on the team![[User:Hiihaveanaccount|Hiihaveanaccount]] ([[User talk:Hiihaveanaccount|talk]]) 20:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
: Speaking as an Australian, I usually don't bother to check XKCD until well after the day after the post. It's 9am Thursday, and I'm surprised it's posted this early. [[User:Thisfox|Thisfox]] ([[User talk:Thisfox|talk]]) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Perseverance's maximum driving speed is only about 8 feet/minute (comparable to a baby's crawling speed). So Ingenuity wouldn't have to fly very fast to get it to say "Whee!". [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Can we work in somehow that on the date of the comic, Ingenuity was in the middle of the multi-day deployment process? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.162|162.158.62.162]] 23:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
:I was thinking along those lines. I've made some edits that I think cover your suggestions, but obviously they're open to further refinement/expansion as anyone might desire to make. (The ''exact'' status of deployment, as of comic-posting, might be nice to know, but I don't currently believe it was so precisely timed to "the point they detached" or anything like that.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.80|141.101.107.80]] 01:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the mumble mumble thing is a reference to the four fundamental forces comic<br />
04:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the title Text is a reference to the trope that nobody can really explain satisfactorily explain how flight works... On Mars or on earth. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.25|162.158.203.25]] 06:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Im probably wrong but the title text might be referencing the technobabble in various science fiction but i'm probably wrong --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.224|162.158.212.224]] 20:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)<br />
::(^^Another corrected indenting...^^) Not really. Technobabble is usually very definite words (mis)used or (mis)constructed to 'explain' something, with the gap between canon and reality just hand-waved away. Mumbling over things is more a "I don't care enough even to try to make you understand, live with it" thing, in fiction as in reality. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well, even if Ingenuity can't lift the rover, that setup would make a great Martian lawnmower...although...yeah...I know. :-( [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2444:_Ingenuity&diff=2092852444: Ingenuity2021-03-31T22:48:35Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2444<br />
| date = March 31, 2021<br />
| title = Ingenuity<br />
| image = ingenuity.png<br />
| titletext = Plot twist: Thanks to [mumble mumble] second-order [mumble] Rayleigh-Taylor [mumble] turbulent [mumble] shear, it turns out powered flight is way EASIER on Mars!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a Martian helicopter. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{w|Ingenuity_(helicopter)|Ingenuity}} is a drone-like helicopter deployed to the surface of Mars. It rode on the underside of the Perseverance rover. After the rover released it and cleared its takeoff trajectory, the helicopter was then supposed to take off. The comic projects what might happen if the mission controllers activated the helicopter early and the entire rover took off from the surface.<br />
In the comic, Ponytail and Cueball are standing at mission control, when Cueball slips and hits the button. The Ingenuity drone then takes of, lifting Perserverance with it, and the rover says "Wheee!" Presumably from excitement or happiness.<br />
<br />
In the title text, some character discovers powered flight is easier on Mars, which contradicts our current understanding [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhsZUZmJvaM that powered flight is very difficult on Mars]. Mars may have less gravity, but Mars' atmosphere is 1% the density of earth. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYe3sIaNHVs It's so thin that you couldn't move a feather with a fan.] This is why the character mumbles his explanation of the science, because they know any explanation doesn't actually make sense.<br />
<br />
The total mass of the two vehicles is about 556 times that of the helicopter alone, meaning the unexpected lift effect 'described' would have to be several hundred times more effective than that anticipated, depending upon the factor of overdesign already built in to avoid an expensive marginal failure. It also seems to be trivially easy to balance the extremely top-heavy loading upon the small solar-panel that tops out the counter-rotating coaxial blades, which adds yet more questions of both the dynamic and structural performance, never mind questions about the available power to accomplish this and the later possibilities to recharge.<br />
<br />
It is not the first time that we have seen a Mars vehicle [[1504|vastly exceed expectations]] in these pages.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:[On the surface of Mars]<br />
:Perseverance rover (in robotic voice): Ingenuity helicopter has been lowered. Preparing to release it onto the surface.<br />
<br />
:[In Mission Control on Earth, Cueball trips and clicks on a key on his workstation, while Ponytail stands nearby]<br />
:Cueball: Oops<br />
<br />
:[On Mars, Ingenuity's rotor blades start spinning]<br />
:Ingenuity: Bzzzzzz<br />
<br />
:[Perseverance is being lifted into the air by Ingenuity]<br />
:Perseverance: Wheeee!<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2439:_Solar_System_Cartogram&diff=2086452439: Solar System Cartogram2021-03-22T10:21:44Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2439<br />
| date = March 19, 2021<br />
| title = Solar System Cartogram<br />
| image = solar_system_cartogram.png<br />
| titletext = For sentimental reasons, every active Mars rover is counted as one person, although that's not enough to make Mars more than a dot.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a BELOVED MARS ROVER. Show an example of an electoral cartogram for illustration. Please mention here why else this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
In this comic, [[Randall]] has made a {{w|cartogram}} showing the planets in the {{w|solar system}}. Cartograms are a type of map in which geographic area is displayed proportionately to some secondary characteristic - in this case, population. From the title text it is clear that the population in question is human (persons) (but even if all life forms where counted it it wouldn't matter, since the only confirmed life in the Solar System is on Earth). Thus the other planets have a population of 0 and are shown as nothing more than dots. <br />
<br />
This comic is a joke about electoral cartograms. A standard {{w|United States Electoral College|American electoral map}} is very misleading. Though the split between Democrats and Republicans is about 50-50, most of the area of the U.S. map is shown in red (the color currently associated with the Republican Party). That’s because many Democrats live in densely packed districts, while many Republicans live in rural ones. This has led to the rise of electoral cartograms, where districts are proportionally adjusted in direct relation to population, correcting the misimpression that most of America is conservative.<br />
<br />
Solar system diagrams are likely also to be misleading. Illustrators are overwhelmingly forced to use a far more scaled-down spacing between planets, compared to their scaled sizes; even if they can (or care to) maintain consistency in the relative distances and/or radii on linear scales. (The huge factors of difference involved instead may lend themselves to being {{w|Solar_System_model#Scale_models_in_various_locations|physically modeled}} to better give some sense of the spacing and sizing differences.) Here, Randall has intentionally applied the wrong solution to the problem.<br />
<br />
The title text states that, even though Randall counts every active [[:Category:Mars rovers|Mars rover]] as a person (for sentimental reasons), they are almost nothing compared to Earth's roughly 7,800,000,000 persons. Mars therefore is still nothing more than a dot compared to the Earth. There are a total of five rovers at the moment; in chronological order, they are Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity, Curiosity, and Perseverance. Only the latter two were functional at the time of the comic's publication, giving Mars a rover population of two. (This is a tie for all-time high. Spirit and Opportunity were active together from 2004 to 2010, when Spirit shut down. Opportunity was still active when Curiosity arrived in 2012, and remained so until 2018. With the arrival of Perseverance in 2021, there are again two active rovers. A third rover, China's {{w|Tianwen-1}}, is currently in orbit around Mars and expected to land in May 2021.) <br />
<br />
Mars rovers are a [[:Category:Mars rovers|recurring theme]] on xkcd and only a few weeks earlier, a comic named [[2433: Mars Rovers]] was released. This is the fourth comic this year to reference Mars Rovers.<br />
<br />
This graph also ignores the International Space Station which had seven people onboard<ref name="EXP-64">[https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/exp-64-summary.pdf]</ref> at the time of publication. This may be a reference to areas of the United States which lack representation in Congressional and/or the ability to vote in Presidential elections. Although it is as likely just to be that the ISS does not in any useful way count as a 'planet', especially as the numerous better-qualified dwarf-planets (and other asteroids, comets, moons and the Sun itself) are left unrepresented - even as a zero-population dots.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:Most solar system diagrams are misleading.<br />
:This chart offers a more accurate view by showing the planets sized by population.<br />
:[The eight planets are shown in order with labels. All but Earth show up as tiny indistinguishable dots. Earth is large and clearly drawn, with a view approximately centered on southeast Asia, the region of highest population density.]<br />
:[The spacing between the surfaces of each planet is equal. Earth's label floats below it, while the other planets' labels connect to their respective dots with lines. Mercury, Mars, and Uranus's labels float above them, while Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune's labels float below them.]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]<br />
[[Category:Mars rovers]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1357:_Free_Speech&diff=2086321357: Free Speech2021-03-21T16:46:01Z<p>141.101.99.229: Undo revision 208626 by 172.69.22.150 (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1357<br />
| date = April 18, 2014<br />
| title = Free Speech<br />
| image = free_speech.png<br />
| titletext = I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Both on the Internet and in the physical world, people with unpopular or poorly thought out opinions may complain that their freedom of speech is being restricted because others express their distaste for those opinions. As a defense, these individuals may invoke the {{w|First Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, which provides, among other things, {{w|freedom of speech}} for any entity or person under legal jurisdiction of the U.S. More specifically, it states that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Originally intended as a restriction on the powers of U.S. federal government, which the Constitution defines, structures, and delimits, over time the First Amendment, as well as several others, were "incorporated" via the {{w|Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment}} to apply to state and local governments as well. This protection of free speech, however, does not extend to illegal activities (for example, the concept of a "clear and present danger"), and it does not compel others to listen to or acknowledge the speech. The intended targets of the speech may simply choose to stop listening, or to speak louder in protest.<br />
<br />
An example of this is the incident involving the TV program ''{{w|Duck Dynasty}}'' in December 2013, in which television network {{w|A+E Networks}} [http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-robertson-phil/?hpt=hp_t2 suspended the host after he made homophobic remarks], causing some to comment that his rights had been infringed upon. Similarly in April 2014 [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26895858 controversy erupted when Brendan Eich was forced to resign] as CEO of {{w|Mozilla Corporation|Mozilla}} because it was revealed he had donated money to anti-gay marriage efforts in California. In actuality, the First Amendment was never meant to provide immunity from any and all consequences.<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]], representing [[Randall]], is addressing those who use the freedom of speech argument as a defense against societal censorship. He states that one’s legal right to take a stance on an issue does not require others to listen to said stance. In addition, he also states that this right does not require a commercial or social entity—such as a TV network, a website, or its community—to support a person in spreading their message, even if it had supported you in the past. If someone says something which others find unjustified or offensive, they should be ready to accept the consequences of others' responses.<br />
<br />
The title text points out that regardless of how free speech works, anyone appealing to it as a defense for their argument or opinion is not being persuasive in any case. If the only thing that someone can say in support of an argument is effectively that it is not ''illegal'', then {{w|Damning with faint praise|they are severely undermining it}} by essentially admitting that they don't have any better defense for it.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that the first panel of this comic conflates, under certain schools of thought about justice and rights, a right such as {{rw|free_speech|free speech}} and the legal protections of such. Many viewpoints consider rights to be granted by the government; others consider rights to be innate regardless of what the government does. The former is frequently reflected throughout governments in Europe while the latter is more common throughout the Americas. According to the former, the first panel is technically correct by definition, because the right of free speech is granted by the government's laws and, as such, can only affect the government's influence: thus, the 1st Amendment grants the right to free speech, which by definition cannot be restricted by congress. According to the latter, the first panel is strictly nonfactual because the 1st Amendment only recognizes that the right of free speech exists and, rather than delimiting the right, it instead proscribes the government's actions. However, between these two school of thought, the remaining panels aren't affected by whether or not the first panel is factual by definition.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:Cueball: Public Service Announcement: The '''Right to Free Speech''' means the government can't arrest you for what you say.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: It doesn't mean that anyone '''''else''''' has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,<br />
<br />
:[A picture of a partially open door is displayed.]<br />
:Cueball: And they're showing you the door.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*One famous example of this is {{w|Schenck_v._United_States|Schenck v. United States}}, where the expression "{{w|shouting fire in a crowded theater}}" gave rise. The ruling went along with war hysteria to justify the conviction of peaceful protesters and had nothing to do with creating a dangerous situation or giving false information. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in the ruling, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He later drastically revised his views and became a strong supporter of free speech.<br />
*The {{w|Speakers' Corner}} at Hyde Park in London is another example, everybody can hold a speech but there is no guarantee for a big auditorium.<br />
*As currently construed by the courts, the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution is not limited to preventing the government from arresting people. For example, the [http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/argument-preview-the-first-amendment-public-employment-and-misperceived-political-association/ SCOTUS Blog] notes that the government may not penalize employees, with some exceptions, on the basis of their political views.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2437:_Post-Vaccine_Party&diff=2082912437: Post-Vaccine Party2021-03-16T17:04:20Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2437<br />
| date = March 15, 2021<br />
| title = Post-Vaccine Party<br />
| image = post_vaccine_party.png<br />
| titletext = [Future update] Well, someone accidentally dropped an M&M in their cup of ice water, and we all panicked and scattered.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a POST-VACCINE PARTYGOER. Go into further details regarding individual elements of traditional parties vs. this party (maybe make a table?). What happens with the M&M in the water. Color spreading and people thinking someone is sick? Also mention the future part. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
This is another comic in a [[:Category:COVID-19|series]] related to the {{w|2019-20 coronavirus outbreak|2020 pandemic}} of the {{w|coronavirus}} {{w|SARS-CoV-2}}, which causes {{w|COVID-19}}.<br />
<br />
As more and more people are getting vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus, and as the CDC released guidelines suggesting vaccinated people can start gathering in larger groups, including some groups of unvaccinated people, there is increasing excitement about the possibility to resume get-togethers, and have a party. However, being very cautious, [[Randall]] is detailing the plans for his first "post-pandemic" party by cutting it down from the scope of a normal party. Some of the cut-downs may make sense from a health safety standpoint, others are less likely to be health-based and may be just to deliberately make the party boring, thus limiting attendance, with the effect of it being safer for the few who do come.<br />
<br />
* Drinks<br />
Instead of soda and various alcoholic beverages, he's opting for small glasses of water. Alcoholic beverages could encourage a lowering of inhibitions, help some participants to make bad social decisions, to the detriment of hygiene and reasonable social distancing. Soda would have less of that problem, though some might argue the sugar or caffeine might have some similar effect. Drinking alcohol immediately after vaccination may "accelerate" allergic reaction according to an article on WebMD [https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210127/covid-19-vaccine-how-best-to-prepare]<br />
<br />
* Food<br />
Instead of traditional party foods like pizza, nachos, and snacks, only three individual pieces of candy ({{w|M&Ms}}) and one cracker will be provided. Pizza could be a health issue as people reach into a common pizza box to grab their slice, and likewise snacks if they are in communal bowls. Another possible motive for such meager offerings are the concern that people may have gained weight due to a more sedentary lifestyles while staying home a lot more during the pandemic, so he didn't want them eating a lot of fattening snacks and drinks at his party.<br />
<br />
* Entertainment<br />
Instead of music and {{w|karaoke}} singing and watching sports, the only music allowed will be {{w|ambient music}}, such that is would be hardly noticeable, and the only entertainment being displayed will be {{w|Bob Ross}}, who was famous for his very calm, low-key, painting lessons. (Painting could be followed by watching paint dry, one of the few activities even more boring that this party{{Citation needed|date=March 2021}}.) Music, singing, and watching exciting sports games can cause a lot more movement and airborne particles with the potential of spreading the virus.<br />
<br />
* Activities<br />
Board games, video games, {{w|ping pong}}, and good conversation are already relatively low-key activities, but not low-key enough. The only two games allowed will be 3-card pickup (trimmed down from {{w|52-card pickup}}, which would typically use a full deck of 52 cards), and a single video game, the ancient "{{w|Pong}}" game. Also, while conversation will be allowed, it will not be "good conversation", presumably preferring the conversation to be boring or uninteresting, or even repulsing. It might also be that Randall anticipates the pandemic [[2424|will have worsened peoples' ability to converse normally]], and so is saying that people won't be held to any 'standards' regarding the quality of their conversation.<br />
<br />
In the end, despite Randall's efforts, even the incredibly mild disruption of an M&M falling into a cup of water caused the party-goers to panic and flee, much as Cueball and Ponytail panicked at a meeting in spite of their precautions due to their highly-strung natures in [[2330: Acceptable Risk]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[The comic consist of four underlined headings, two by two grid, with three times four and one time three lines of text beneath each. Almost all of the original lines of text has been crossed out with red, sometimes only partial. And five new items have been added in red, plus some brackets and one arrow. Even one of the red texts have been cossed out]<br />
:<u>Drinks</u><br />
:<s>Soda<br />
:Wine</s> <font color="red">Small cups</font><br />
:<s>Beer</s> <font color="red">of ice water</font><br />
:<s>Cocktails</s><br />
<br />
:<u>Food</u> <font color="red">Three M&Ms</font><br />
:<s>Pizza</s> <font color="red">and a saltine</font><br />
:<s>Nachos</s> <font color="red">per person</font><br />
:<s>Various snacks</s><br />
<br />
:<u>Entertainment</u><br />
:Music <font color="red">(Ambient)</font><br />
:<s>karaoke<br />
:Big screen</s> TV<br />
:showing <s>sports</s><br />
:::<font color="red">Bob Ross</font><br />
<br />
:<u>Activities</u> <br />
:<s>Board games</s> <font color="red"><s>52</s> 3-card pickup</font><br />
:[3 is above 52]<br />
:Video Games<br />
:<s>Ping</s> <font color="red">(</font>Pong<font color="red">)</font><br />
:[A red arrow points from Video Games to Pong]<br />
:<s>Good</s> conversation<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:We're planning our first post-vaccine party, but we want to start slow.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:COVID-19]]<br />
[[Category:Social interactions]]<br />
[[Category:Food]]<br />
[[Category:Sport]]<br />
[[Category:Music]]<br />
[[Category:Video games]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2437:_Post-Vaccine_Party&diff=208222Talk:2437: Post-Vaccine Party2021-03-15T21:08:18Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
Okay, I started it. Join in and make it better! [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I thought that the party food and beverages were reduced to small cups of ice water and m&m as we gained weight over months of staying home. It looks like the list was made earlier in the pandemic when this was not a problem (yet). And now the list has changed since al lot of people gained weight. But pizzas and snack can contribute to the spread of the virus. For the rest I understand it like you N0lqu. mkljun 18:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks, I added that! [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 18:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ping-pong should be a reasonably safe activity. A standard table is 9 feet long, so the players are forced to social distance. And unless you play at expert levels, it's not so energetic that you'll breathe heavily. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is more about how exciting the party is than about COVID precautions. These are all toned-down versions of regular party stuff. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2435:_Geothmetic_Meandian&diff=2078102435: Geothmetic Meandian2021-03-12T10:05:52Z<p>141.101.99.229: Further simplify code</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2435<br />
| date = March 10, 2021<br />
| title = Geothmetic Meandian<br />
| image = geothmetic_meandian.png<br />
| titletext = Pythagorean means are nice and all, but throwing the median in the pot is really what turns this into random forest statistics: applying every function you can think of, and then gradually dropping the ones that make the result worse.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a MEAN MEDIAN. What, actually, is the joke? Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
Geothm means "counting earths" (From Ancient Greek γεω- (geō-), combining form of γῆ (gê, “earth”) and ἀριθμός arithmos, 'counting'). Geothmetic means "art of Geothming" based on the etymology of Arithmetic (from Ancient Greek ἀριθμητική (τέχνη) (arithmētikḗ (tékhnē), “(art of) counting”). This is an exciting new terminology that is eminently suitable for modern cosmology & high energy physics - particularly when doing math on the multiverse. However, it is unlikely this etymology is related to the term "geothmetic meandian" as coined by Randall, as it can be more simply explained as a portmanteau of the three averages in its construction: '''geo'''metric mean, ari'''thmetic mean''', and me'''dian'''.<br />
<br />
There are a number of different ways to identify the '{{w|average}}' value of a series of values, the most common unweighted methods being the {{w|median}} (take the central value from the ordered list of values if there are an odd number - or the value half-way between the two that straddle the divide between two halves if there are an even number) and the {{w|arithmetic mean}} (add all the numbers up, divide by the number of numbers). The {{w|geometric mean}} is less well-known but works similarly to the arithmetic mean. To take the geometric mean of 'n' values, they are multiplied and then the 'n'th root is taken. It will be seen that for purely identical values this returns the single value as the singular average, as would the arithmetic calculation with serial addition then re-division, but it reacts differently to any perturbed values. You might also consider operating arithmetically upon logarithms of the list, then re-exponate the result.<br />
<br />
The geometric mean, arithmetic mean and {{w|harmonic mean}} (not shown) are collectively known as the {{w|Pythagorean means}}, as specific modes of a greater and more generalised mean formula that extends arbitrarily to various other possible nuances of mean-value rationisations (cubic, etc).<br />
<br />
{{w|Outlier}}s and internal biases within the original sample can make boiling down a set of values into a single 'average' sometimes overly biased by flaws in the data, with your choice of which method to use perhaps resulting in a value that is misleading, exagerating or suppressing the significance of any blips.<br />
<br />
<!-- Either here or after the next paragraph, demonstrate how (1,1,2,3,5) resolves in each individual method, perhaps? --><br />
<br />
In this depiction, the three named methods of averaging are embedded within a single function that produces a sequence of three values - one output for each of the methods. Being a series of values, Randall suggests that this is ideally suited to being ''itself'' subjected to the comparative 'averaging' method. Not just once, but as many times as it takes to narrow down to a sequence of three values that are very close to one another. <br />
<br />
It can be shown that the xkcd value of 2.089 for GMDN(1,1,2,3,5) is validated:<br />
<br />
{|-<br />
| F0 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 5 <br />
|-<br />
| || Arithmean || Geomean || Median ||<br />
|-<br />
| F1 || 2.4 || 1.974350486 || 2 <br />
|-<br />
| F2 || 2.124783495 || 2.116192461 || 2 <br />
|-<br />
| F3 || 2.080325319 || 2.079536819 || 2.116192461 <br />
|-<br />
| F4 || 2.0920182 || 2.091948605 || 2.080325319 <br />
|-<br />
| F5 || 2.088097374 || 2.088090133 || 2.091948605 <br />
|-<br />
| F6 || 2.089378704 || 2.089377914 || 2.088097374 <br />
|-<br />
| F7 || 2.088951331 || 2.088951244 || 2.089377914 <br />
|-<br />
| F8 || 2.089093496 || 2.089093487 || 2.088951331 <br />
|-<br />
| F9 || 2.089046105 || 2.089046103 || 2.089093487 <br />
|-<br />
| F10 || '''2.089061898''' || '''2.089061898''' || '''2.089046105''' <br />
|}<br />
<br />
The function GMDN in the comic is not properly defined since F acts on a vector to produce another three vector, so repeated applications of F will always result in a 3 vector for which the ave, geomean and median can be iterated again. However GMDN is shown to produce a single real number rather than a vector. It is thus missing a final operation of returning any of the values of the components of the vector. Each row shows the set Fn(..) composed of the average, geomean and median computed on the previous row, with the sequence {1,1,2,3,5} as the initial F0. Since the average, geomean and median are all forms of averaging, and the composition of averages can be shown to be equivalent to a smoothing function, the value of GMDN will converge to a singular value for any set of starting values. This can be interpreted as similar to a heat equation which approaches equilibrium.<br />
<br />
The comment in the title text about suggests that this will save you the trouble of committing to the 'wrong' analysis as it gradually shaves down any 'outlier average' that is unduly affected by anomalies in the original inputs. It is a method without any danger of divergence of values, since all three averaging methods stay within the interval covering the input values (and two of them will stay strictly within that interval).<br />
<br />
The title text may also be a sly reference to an actual mathematical theorem, namely that if one performs this procedure only using the arithmetic mean and the harmonic mean, the result will converge to the geometric mean. Randall suggests that the (non-Pythagorean) median, which does not have such good mathematical properties with relation to convergence, is, in fact, the secret sauce in his definition.<br />
<br />
There does exist an {{w|arithmetic-geometric mean}}, which is defined identically to this except with the arithmetic and geometric means, and sees some use in calculus. In some ways it's also philosophically similar to the {{w|truncated mean}} (extremities of the value range, e.g. the highest and lowest 10%s, are ignored as not acceptable and not counted) or {{w|Winsorized mean}} (instead of ignored, the values are readjusted to be the chosen floor/ceiling values that they lie beyond, to still effectively be counted as 'edge' conditions), only with a strange dilution-and-compromise method rather than one where quantities can be culled or neutered just for being unexpectedly different from most of the other data.<br />
<br />
The input sequence of numbers (1,1,2,3,5) chosen by Randall is also the opening of the {{w|Fibonacci sequence}}. This may have been selected because the Fibonacci sequence also has a convergent property: the ratio of two adjacent numbers in the sequence approaches the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Relationship_to_Fibonacci_sequence golden ratio] as the length of the sequence approaches infinity.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
F(x1,x2,...xn)=({x1+x2+...+xn/n [bracket: arithmetic mean]},{nx,x2...xn, [bracket: geometric mean]} {x n+1/2 [bracket: median]})<br />
<br />
Gmdn(x1,x2,...xn)={F(F(F(...F(x1,x2,...xn)...)))[bracket: geothmetic meandian]}<br />
<br />
Gmdn(1,1,2,3,5) [equals about sign] 2.089<br />
<br />
Caption: Stats tip: If you aren't sure whether to use the mean, median, or geometric mean, just calculate all three, then repeat until it converges<br />
<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
The following python code (inefficiently) implements the above algorithm:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
from functools import reduce<br />
<br />
<br />
def f(*args):<br />
args = sorted(args)<br />
mean = sum(args) / len(args)<br />
gmean = reduce(lambda x, y: x * y, args) ** (1 / len(args))<br />
if len(args) % 2:<br />
median = args[len(args) // 2]<br />
else:<br />
median = (args[len(args) // 2] + args[len(args) // 2 - 1]) / 2<br />
return mean, gmean, median<br />
<br />
<br />
max_iterations = 10<br />
l = [1, 1, 2, 3, 5]<br />
for iterations in range(max_iterations):<br />
fst, *rest = l<br />
if all((abs(r - fst) < 0.00000001 for r in rest)):<br />
break<br />
l = f(*l)<br />
print(l[0], iterations)<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
And here is an implementation of the Gmdn function in R:<br />
<br />
Gmdn <- function (..., threshold = 1E-6) {<br />
# Function F(x) as defined in comic<br />
f <- function (x) {<br />
n <- length(x)<br />
return(c(mean(x), prod(x)^(1/n), median(x)))<br />
}<br />
# Extract input vector from ... argument<br />
x <- c(...)<br />
# Iterate until the standard deviation of f(x) reaches a threshold<br />
while (sd(x) > threshold) x <- f(x)<br />
# Return the mean of the final triplet<br />
return(mean(x))<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<!--<br />
For a start, there is a syntax error. After the first application of F, you get a 3-tuple. Subsequent iterations preserve the 3-tuple, and we need to analyze the resulting sequence.<br />
Perhaps there is an implicit claim all three entries converge to the same result. In any case, lets see what we get:<br />
<br />
Wlog, we have three inputs (x_1,y_1,z_1), and want to understand the iterates of the map <br />
F(x,y,z) = ( (x+y+z)/3, cube root of (xyz), median(x,y,z) ). Lets write F(x_n,y_n,z_n) = (x_{n+1},y_{n+1},z_{n+1}).<br />
<br />
The inequality of arithmetic and geometric means gives x_n \geq y_n, if n \geq 2, and<br />
--><br />
<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Statistics]]<br />
[[Category:Portmanteau]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2435:_Geothmetic_Meandian&diff=207510Talk:2435: Geothmetic Meandian2021-03-11T03:45:14Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Oh, this one's good. Just checked in (no, I wasn't hovering over the refresh button, my first visit today!) and one glance had me in paroxysms of laughter. But how to explain it? Gonna have to think about that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.96|141.101.98.96]] 01:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I made a really bad spreadsheet to understand better how it works: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fqmHwDmirJrsKPdf94PutFDw31DMAYxNeR7jef1jneE/edit?usp=sharing<br />
<br />
Someone fix my ''awful'' transcript edits please. --[[User:Char Latte49|Char Latte49]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 02:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Seeing the Python added to the Explanation, try this Perl (typed straight here, so not tested)... <br />
## Your prefered variations of "#!/usr/bin/perl", "use strict;" and "use warnings;" here! ##<br />
sub F { my (@vals)=@_; my $invVals=1/int(@vals);<br />
my ($geo,$arith,$med)=(1); # Only defining $geo, so first *= works correctly!<br />
while (@vals) { my($lo,$hi)=(shift @vals,pop @vals); # $hi may be undef - this is intended!<br />
$arith+=$lo; $geo*=$lo; unless (defined $hi) { $med = $lo; last }<br />
$arith+=$hi; $geo*=$hi; unless (@vals) { ($med)=F($lo,$hi) }<br />
}<br />
return ($arith*$invVals, $geo**$invVals, $med);<br />
}<br />
sub GMDN { my (@vals)=sort @_; my $lim=10**(-5); # Adjust $lim to taste...<br />
return "Error: No vals!" unless @vals; # Catch!<br />
return $vals[0] unless ($vals[$#vals]-$vals[0]) > $lim;<br />
return GMDM(F(@vals));<br />
}<br />
my @test=(1,1,2,3,5);<br />
print "Values: @test\nGeothmetic Meandian: ".GMDN(@test)."\n";<br />
...debugged in my head, so probably fatally flawed but easily fixed/adapted anyway. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.109|141.101.99.109]] 03:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why so complicated?<br />
perl -e 'use strict; use warnings; sub F { my ($s,$p) = (0,1); my @srt = sort {$a<=>$b} @_; for (@_) { $s += $_; $p *= $_; } return ($s/@_,$p**(1/@_),$srt[$#_/2]); } sub Gmdn { print join(", ",@_=F(@_)),"\n" for 0..20; return @_; } print join(", ",Gmdn(1,1,2,3,5)),"\n";'<br />
(With interim results) SCNR -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 03:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)<br />
:''I'' can read your version (and I see you do explicit {$a<=>$b}, which indeed ''may'' be necessary in mine for real use, along with additional sanity checks, I will check later) but I wanted to make mine neat, and ''slightly'' tricksy in implementation, but still not quite so entirely obfuscated to the more uninitiated. TIMTOWTDI, etc, so I like your (almost) bare-bones version too. ;)<br />
:(Is 20 cycles enough to converge in sufficiently extreme cases? Won't give "Too deep" error, though, even if it takes at least that long.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 03:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:61:_Stacey%27s_Dad&diff=59451Talk:61: Stacey's Dad2014-02-05T17:51:06Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>Someone had called for this explanation to only link to the lyrics of the song. But that would not explain the comic! As I think this is already a perfect explanation I have removed the incomplete tag! [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:In the interests of community-decisions, I concur. Good explanation that refers to the lyrics (nice inclusion of them, too) to explain the joke. Not incomplete at all. --BigMal // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.88|173.245.55.88]] 15:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:At the time the tag was added, the explanation section was simply a copy-paste of the lyrics with no explanation. The explanation has since been fleshed out, but the tag was never removed. I agree; it's complete now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=899:_Number_Line&diff=57607899: Number Line2014-01-13T20:29:07Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 899<br />
| date = May 16, 2011<br />
| title = Number Line<br />
| image = number line.png<br />
| titletext = The Wikipedia page List of Numbers opens with "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
{{incomplete}}<br />
Once again, Randall seems to be just messing around, this time with a number line.<br />
<br />
*'''Negative numbers''' have the same magnitude as positive numbers but can only be used to represent the removal of that same magnitude (hence the term "difference" being used for subtraction).<br />
<br />
*'''0.<span style="text-decoration: overline;">99</span>'''.... is {{w|0.999...|provably equal to 1}} because there is no number between 0.<span style="text-decoration: overline;">99</span>.... and 1.<br />
<br />
*The '''{{w|golden ratio}}''' or "phi" is the number (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2, about 1.61803. It has many interesting mathematical properties, mostly relating to geometry, and has occasional appearances in nature, such as spirals formed by the seeds in sunflowers. It is also subject to many less credible claims, such as the belief that phi appears in {{w|Parthenon}} (a well-disputed claim) or that rectangles proportioned after phi are more aesthetically pleasing. <br />
<br />
*'''Forbidden Region''' and '''Unexplored''' are both map jokes.<br />
<br />
*'''{{w|e (mathematical constant)|e}}''' (Euler's number) is 2.71828... and '''π''' (pi) is 3.14159265...<br />
<br />
*'''2.9299372''' is a President's Day reference. It is the average of e and pi just as the American Presidents' Day is always observed on the 3rd Monday of February (between {{w|George Washington}} and {{w|Abraham Lincoln}}'s birthdays). (For non-US residents, Washington and Lincoln were the 1st and 16th Presidents of the USA, respectively. Each has a celebrated place in American history.)<br />
<br />
*'''{{w|Gird}}''' is a purely fictional number. (The glyph that Randall uses seems to resemble an older shape of the digit 4, such as seen on [http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/mappinghist/large2296.html archaic maps].). Canon and orthodox are references to organised religions. Gird could be a reference to any or all of:<br />
** [http://www.strangehorizons.com/2000/20001120/secret_number.shtml Bleem] - a fictional integer between 3 and 4<br />
** iCarly's [http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/Derf Derf] - a fictional integer between 5 and 6<br />
** George Carlin's [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bleen Bleen] - a fictional integer between 6 and 7<br />
** [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-033 SCP-033] - a fictional number that causes freaky things to happen<br />
<br />
<br />
*'''Site of the Battle of 4.108''' is another map joke, implying that 4.108 is an actual location, where an eponymous battle was previously fought. It may be a reference (or homage) to the {{w|Battle of Wolf 359}}, a famous military conflict in the fictional universe of Star Trek.<br />
<br />
*It is often the case in the media that "It has been 7 years..." or "In the last 7 years..." etc. It is made to seem like a believable statistic but cannot always be true. Alternatively, it is intended as an absurd joke that the number 7 is just "not to be believed".<br />
<br />
*'''8''' is not the largest even prime. 2 is. A joke intended for those who clearly know that the claim is false.<br />
<br />
*The last entry seems to be a reference to {{w|discrete mathematics}}, which rarely deals with numbers higher than 9. It finishes off the tone of the comic that seems to be shaping the number line terms of what is commonly useful to certain areas of applied mathematics, rather than a complete, accurate version of the number line.<br />
<br />
*The title text is a literalist joke implying that Wikipedia would like its "{{w|List of numbers}}" page to include every number from negative infinity to infinity. It could also be a reference to {{w|Gödel's incompleteness theorems}}, which Randall has used as comic fodder before [http://xkcd.com/468/]. Gödel's theorems roughly assert that a number theory could never be fully complete. The equivalent for just a sheer list of numbers is {{w|Cantor's diagonal argument}}, which is a "proof of the uncountability of the real numbers." Therefore, if Wikipedia ever did have a "{{w|List of numbers}}," it would perforce forever be incomplete, no matter how much it was expanded. Both Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Cantor's diagonal argument feature prominently in <i>{{w|Gödel, Escher, Bach}}</i> by Douglas Hofstadter, to whom Randall devoted a later comic[http://xkcd.com/917/].<br />
<br />
== Transcript ==<br />
:[Number line ranging from -1 to 10.]<br />
:[Arrow pointing left, towards negative numbers] Negative "imitator" numbers (do not use)<br />
:[Line right before the number one] 0.99... (acutally 0.0000000372 less than 1)<br />
:[Line at the golden ratio.] Φ - Parthenon; sunflowers; golden ratio; wait, come back, I have facts!<br />
:[Line at a region between two and 2.2] forbidden region<br />
:[Line at Euler's number.] e<br />
:[Line a bit before 3] 2.9299372 (e and pi, observed)<br />
:[Line at π.] π<br />
:[Line at 3.5 with a ribbon as the numeral] Gird - accepted as canon by orthodox mathematicians <br />
:[Line a bit after 4.] site of battle of 4.108<br />
:[Blob between 4.5 and 6.5 labeled unexplored.]<br />
:[Line at seven.] Number indicating a factoid is made up ("every 7 years...", "science says there are 7...", etc)<br />
:[Line at eight.] Largest even prime<br />
:[Line at 8.75.] If you encounter a number higher than this, you"re not doing real math<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Wikipedia]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1315:_Questions_for_God&diff=572761315: Questions for God2014-01-10T20:48:06Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1315<br />
| date = January 10, 2014<br />
| title = Questions for God<br />
| image = questions_for_god.png<br />
| titletext = What sins could possibly darken the heart of a STEAMBOAT? I asked The Shadow, but he says he only covers men.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|More detail needed.}}<br />
Megan is paraphrasing a famous quote from the British applied mathematician, and fellow of the Royal Society, {{w|Horace Lamb}}, who famously stated in 1932:<br />
<br />
:"I am an old man now, and when I die and go to heaven there are two matters on which I hope for enlightenment. One is {{w|quantum electrodynamics}}, and the other is the {{w|Turbulence|turbulent motion of fluids}}. And about the former I am rather optimistic."<br />
<br />
This was referring to two phenomena in physics that, at the time, were poorly understood and difficult to explain. Lamb's prediction that quantum electrodynamics was easier to explain proved right; nowadays we have a much clearer understanding of QED. However, our understanding of turbulence has improved little. ({{w|Richard Feynman}} famously described it as "the most important unsolved problem of classical physics").<br />
<br />
Cueball, in response, indicates that if he were to gain divine elucidation his question would relate to the widespread schoolyard rhyme "{{w|Miss Susie}}", which typically begins with the stanza:<br />
<br />
:"Miss Susie had a steamboat<br />
:The steamboat had a bell<br />
:Miss Susie went to heaven<br />
:The steamboat went to...<br />
<br />
:Hello operator<br />
:Please give me number nine<br />
:..."<br />
<br />
The rhyming scheme between the second and fourth lines, and implied contrast with "heaven," causes the listener to fill in the word "Hell" instead of the innocuous "Hello".<br />
<br />
Therefore, Cueball is wondering what a steamboat, an object lacking will, could have done to deserve divine punishment.<br />
<br />
The Title Text is a reference to the 1930's pulp series "{{w|The Shadow}}" whose eponymous character is a psychic vigilante. The 1937 radio play's introduction began with the line ''"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"'' Unfortunately, as the subject is a Steamboat and lacks a mind, heart, or Y chromosome, The Shadow would be unable to determine what heinous crimes it had committed to deserve damnation.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:Megan: Horace Lamb said he would have two questions for God: why quantum mechanics, and why turbulence?<br />
:Cueball: I'd have just one: ''What did Miss Susie's steamboat '''do?!'''''<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Religion]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1306:_Sigil_Cycle&diff=55700Talk:1306: Sigil Cycle2013-12-20T21:56:24Z<p>141.101.99.229: </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 />
<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;<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 />
:::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 />
<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 />
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 />
<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)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1306:_Sigil_Cycle&diff=55673Talk:1306: Sigil Cycle2013-12-20T16:37:36Z<p>141.101.99.229: </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 />
<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;<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)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1305:_Undocumented_Feature&diff=55667Talk:1305: Undocumented Feature2013-12-20T16:22:09Z<p>141.101.99.229: </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 />
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)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1301:_File_Extensions&diff=54712Talk:1301: File Extensions2013-12-09T08:35:26Z<p>141.101.99.229: </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 />
<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 />
<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 />
<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)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1301:_File_Extensions&diff=54711Talk:1301: File Extensions2013-12-09T08:27:12Z<p>141.101.99.229: </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 />
<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 />
<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 />
<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)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1300:_Galilean_Moons&diff=54582Talk:1300: Galilean Moons2013-12-07T08:09:02Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>"most likely Callisto, the outermost of the four" - seems that it's definitely Callisto, since its drawn with little craters - no? {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.25}}<br />
<br />
Hmmm. The animation just added agrees with another animation I've seen, in that the three innermost moons never line up all on one side of Jupiter at the same time. So if "Hi" (Io) and "What's your name" (Europa) conjoin on the right side as we're looking, then "What's your name" and "MOOOON!" (Ganymede) should conjoin on the left side. Not that I'm being critical of course...<br />
<br />
[[User:Just some guy|Just some guy]] ([[User talk:Just some guy|talk]]) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Some javascript application available on the net to see the 4 moons orbits around [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/javascript/jupiter jupiter]<br />
<br />
[[User:HmmmHmmm|HmmmHmmm]] ([[User talk:HmmmHmmm|talk]]) 06:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If the inner moons are tidally locked with Jupiter, can you ostensibly state that they're mooning the outer moons, whenever two such moons line up? lol [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.209|108.162.222.209]] 08:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Even with the resonance, "MOOOOOON!" appears still not to have been able to escape with that effect alone until Cueball's own close approach to Megan brought his own gravity well close enough to hers to give rise to a viable transfer orbit. And appears to be now retrograde, relative to its last orbit. Or possibly on a free-return path, unless Cueball steps back before the return transfer happens or makes an appropriate sideways move to quash the orbital potential. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 09:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Hang on... "MOOOOOON!" isn't the "Ugh/So annoying/Almost/Yes!" one. Forgot to note the hint of shading. Still, the above applies to the disgusted/elated moon, clearly not liking either of the Valley Girls ''or'' the loudmouth Jock. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 09:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it just me or does "MOOOOOON!" have a subtle [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moon-moon "MOON MOON"] undertone? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.4|141.101.96.4]] 12:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Am I the only one thinking that the "MOOOOOON!" is a reference to the "SPAAAAACE!" module from portal 2? {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.210}}<br />
:No {{unsigned|Sian}}<br />
*I saw a possible reference to [http://www.wondermark.com/302 "Wondermark"]. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.5|173.245.54.5]] 15:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe moons converse with Cueball, not between them itself?<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.180|173.245.53.180]] 13:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Or with Megan, when opposite to her face?<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.180|173.245.53.180]] 13:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think the moons are clearly conversing with Cueball. Remember that Io executes a full orbit between every panel. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|talk]]) 17:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Animation is incorrect<br />
<br />
The current animation has the wrong speed of the outermost moon, which is currently orbiting at a 5:1 ratio to the innermost. They should all line up along a vertical line once every four rotations. In fact the current animation never lines up all three moons at the same time (at least, not on the same side of the planet). -Greg<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.10|108.162.215.10]] 16:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:The animation is correct. If you look closely at only Europa and Ganymede, you'll see that they are also in a 2:1 resonance, with conjunctions always taking place at the "6 o'clock" position. Io and Ganymede are in a 4:1 resonance, with conjunctions taking place at 12 o'clock, 4 o'clock, and 8 o'clock. The comic is incorrect in having all three moons on the same side of Jupiter at the same time. That never happens in the actual system, though I don't mind it in the name of artistic license. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|talk]]) 17:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::The innermost orbit completes 5 rotations for each 1 of the outermost. How is that a 4:1?<br />
::[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.10|108.162.215.10]] 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I think you need to count more carefully. Start when both moons are at "12 o'clock". In the time it takes for Ganymede to get back to that position, I see Io go around 4 times. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|talk]]) 18:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: You're probably counting from 1 to 5, instead of from 0 to 4. I.e. When they're lined up to start, you could call that conjunction #1, but they've done 0 orbits. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 19:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::If it was five to one the planets would line up every other orbit of Ganymede [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.67|173.245.54.67]]<br />
Did someone change the animation? Because when I watch it, they all line up on the right side.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.79.13|141.101.79.13]] 22:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Not the animation I've been seeing. Starting at an arbitrary point:<br />
:Io@12, Europa@12, Ganymede@3 (I+E Conjunction)<br />
:Io@8, Europa@10, Ganymede@2 (I+G Opposition)<br />
:Io@12, Europa@6, Ganymede@12 (I+G Conjunction, E Opposed)<br />
:Io@4, Europa@2, Ganymede@10 (I+G Opposition)<br />
:Io@12,Europa@12, Ganymede@9 (I+E Conjunction)<br />
:Io@8, Europa@10, Ganymede@8 (I+G Conjunction)<br />
:Io@12, Europa@6, Ganymede@6 (E+G Conjunction, I Opposed)<br />
:Io@4, Europa@2, Ganymede@4 (I+G Conjunction)<br />
:...then repeat<br />
:That's one cycle of Europa and Ganymede, two cycles of Io and Europa (relative to each other, alone) four cycles of Io and Ganymede (likewise).<br />
:There are two 'in-line' conditions, when Ganymede is in conjunction with one of the other moons, the remaining one in opposition, with Ganemedes other Io conjunctions having Europa off at an angle and the other Io/Europa conjunctions having Ganymede off at a right-angle. If I've managed to note all that down correctly. (Note, this is nothing to do with the following plot regarding the XKCD motions, which I quite admire!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 08:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hard to tell exactly which moon was which, until I plotted their cyclic orbits. <br />
<br />
[[File:moons.gif]]<br />
<br />
<br />
"You may also notice at the animated picture that, unlike in the fifth and ninth panels of the comic, the three moons are never on the same side of Jupiter at the same time." The animated picture doesn't match this text. In the animated picture it looks like the three moons are on the same side of Jupiter at least twice for each cycle of Ganymede. -- [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.109|199.27.128.109]] 04:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1300:_Galilean_Moons&diff=54485Talk:1300: Galilean Moons2013-12-06T09:38:26Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hmmm. The animation just added agrees with another animation I've seen, in that the three innermost moons never line up all on one side of Jupiter at the same time. So if "Hi" (Io) and "What's your name" (Europa) conjoin on the right side as we're looking, then "What's your name" and "MOOOON!" (Ganymede) should conjoin on the left side. Not that I'm being critical of course...<br />
<br />
[[User:Just some guy|Just some guy]] ([[User talk:Just some guy|talk]]) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Some javascript application available on the net to see the 4 moons orbits around [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/javascript/jupiter jupiter]<br />
<br />
[[User:HmmmHmmm|HmmmHmmm]] ([[User talk:HmmmHmmm|talk]]) 06:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If the inner moons are tidally locked with Jupiter, can you ostensibly state that they're mooning the outer moons, whenever two such moons line up? lol [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.209|108.162.222.209]] 08:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Even with the resonance, "MOOOOOON!" appears still not to have been able to escape with that effect alone until Cueball's own close approach to Megan brought his own gravity well close enough to hers to give rise to a viable transfer orbit. And appears to be now retrograde, relative to its last orbit. Or possibly on a free-return path, unless Cueball steps back before the return transfer happens or makes an appropriate sideways move to quash the orbital potential. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 09:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Hang on... "MOOOOOON!" isn't the "Ugh/So annoying/Almost/Yes!" one. Forgot to note the hint of shading. Still, the above applies to the disgusted/elated moon, clearly not liking either of the Valley Girls ''or'' the loudmouth Jock. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 09:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1300:_Galilean_Moons&diff=54484Talk:1300: Galilean Moons2013-12-06T09:34:20Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hmmm. The animation just added agrees with another animation I've seen, in that the three innermost moons never line up all on one side of Jupiter at the same time. So if "Hi" (Io) and "What's your name" (Europa) conjoin on the right side as we're looking, then "What's your name" and "MOOOON!" (Ganymede) should conjoin on the left side. Not that I'm being critical of course...<br />
<br />
[[User:Just some guy|Just some guy]] ([[User talk:Just some guy|talk]]) 05:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Some javascript application available on the net to see the 4 moons orbits around [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/javascript/jupiter jupiter]<br />
<br />
[[User:HmmmHmmm|HmmmHmmm]] ([[User talk:HmmmHmmm|talk]]) 06:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If the inner moons are tidally locked with Jupiter, can you ostensibly state that they're mooning the outer moons, whenever two such moons line up? lol [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.209|108.162.222.209]] 08:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Even with the resonance, "MOOOOOON!" appears still not to have been able to escape with that effect alone until Cueball's own close approach to Megan brought his own gravity well close enough to hers to give rise to a viable transfer orbit. And appears to be now retrograde, relative to its last orbit. Or possibly on a free-return path, unless Cueball steps back before the return transfer happens or makes an appropriate sideways move to quash the orbital potential. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 09:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1299:_I_Don%27t_Own_a_TV&diff=54446Talk:1299: I Don't Own a TV2013-12-06T02:05:59Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>Annual Data for households between 1958-1970<br />
http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG<br />
<br />
Plotted next to a fitted logarithmic function<br />
http://imgur.com/aVWmQ9z<br />
<br />
The negative second derivative of this function<br />
http://imgur.com/xywpEJZ<br />
<br />
If someone can find more data for television ownership I'd love to see it :) {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.12}}<br />
<br />
Can someone explain why Randall believes smugness at not owning a television is decreasing? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Because as TVs become less relevant, people don't feel smug for not owning one. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Current explanation - logistic curve<br />
<br />
The current explanation is total bullshit. The thing with the negative second derivative is just saying, that the more embarrased people are, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will increase, which just means, more and more people will get themselves TVs.<br />
The other point of view is, the more smug you will look like for not owning a TV, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will decline, which means, that less and less people are buying TVs.<br />
<br />
It has nothing to do with a logistic curve. The function, which second derivative is depicted in this comic is totally irrelevant.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have the strong feeling he is talking about a sine wave, not a logistic function. It fits the curve in the comic as well as the condition of f"=-f. <br />
Also, it makes way more sense for the smugness to behave like this over time as for the first 30 years TV is culturally extremely significant and you therefore would want to own one in order to participate. But with declining quality of television and the emergence of the internet you might feel as if you were extremely progressive by not owning one anymore.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.189|108.162.254.189]] 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Yes, it definitely could be a sine curve. (see: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29]). If one would neglect the beginning of the function for simplicity, this could be a solution.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
We bid a tearful farewell to our friend the line break. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%283*pi*x%2F100%2Bpi%2F2%29+from+1945+to+2014 [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 12:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree with the commenter who said that the current explanation is bullshit, but I think he has the cause and effect reversed. Randall is saying that you feel more smug about not owning a TV as a result of observing how quickly TV ownership is becoming more or less trendy. In the 1950's, TV's were catching on quickly and becoming more popular, so you would feel embarrassed for not owning one. Later, the trendiness would start to decline as more people owned one, and you would head towards being smug. In the 2000s, people are giving up TVs because the internet makes them unnecessary. As this happens more and more, there's no point in feeling smug because you're no longer bucking a trend at all. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] ([[User talk:Kazim|talk]]) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my view the title text joke is that smugness is defined as a function of TV ownership when in reality TV ownership is a function of smugness. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hold on, the logistic curve gives very reasonable graphs both for ownership of TVs and for the negative second derivative. TV ownership easily fits a logistic curve, as it starts at zero and has to approach some upper limit. The negative second derivative has a very similar shape to the graph in the comic. Here's Wolfram|Alpha for the negative second derivative of a generic logistic curve: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-%28+d%2Fdx+d%2Fdx+%28100%2F%281%2Be%5E-%28.1x%29%29%29%29>. This would suggest that as time goes to infinity, people's feelings about TV ownership approach neutral; they do not oscillate like a sine function. This makes sense, because for the negative second derivative to be a sine function, TV ownership would have to be too, yet TV ownership is unlikely to be periodic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.229|173.245.55.229]] 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have two issues with this explanation: the first is that it's too long to comfortably read, and I don't think the comic content merits such a long explanation. The other is that it reads too complexly. The point of this wiki is to make xkcd accessible for everyone, but it talks about things like sine waves, oscillation and convergence, which not all readers are going to grok. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If we're keeping the explanation surrounding the area of "People therefore discussed television programs frequently, as a major social activity.", it maybe ought to be pointed out that major social discussions about TV programmes dropped off as a result of the increase in the number of TV channels and thus (except for ''particularly'' notable ratings-grabbers) the question of "Did you see what was on TV last night?" increasingly needed further qualifying. (However, I'm not sure this is revelevant.) Oh, and I've a feeling I should be feeling smug, right now. Absolutely gorge myself on radio, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I do not see any evidence that this comic's title text refers in any way to a sine curve. If you consider a logistic function modeling TV ownership over time (which would look the similar to a logistic population growth model), you can take the function's second derivative, which vaguely resembles a sine curve, with the important difference that to the sides of the curve, the line becomes more level rather than repeating the curve. I would say the determining factors are the fact that the beginning of the graph is flat (as opposed to the curve just going to zero or showing the end of the previous curve), and the fact that he mentions the "negative second derivative of TV ownership rate," and the TV ownership rate would follow a model similar to a logistic population model, which is not a sine curve, though the second derivative of such a graph would, in fact, represent a sine curve. --[[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not sure if I'm coming in at the end of an edit war and pouring fuel on the argument, but I think the whole smugness/TV ownership / Programming comments are well made before the last paragraph. I'm confident that Randell's title text is a superficial comment about the shape of the graph. I've edited the last paragraph so there's no mention of sine waves, oscillation, convergence, or interpretation of where the graph starts or where it's going (that seems subjective to me). Just a link to what a "negative second derivative" is, and a statement that the comic resembles that chart. [[User:XQx|XQx]] ([[User talk:XQx|talk]]) 01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Except that graph does closely represent the second derivative graphs I've seen for graphs that start slow, rise suddenly, then level out again, like a population chart, or a chart showing TV ownership over time. [[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] ([[User talk:Zweisteine|talk]]) 01:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think that, theoretically, something closer to an arctangent fits the number of televisions over time graph better than a logarithmic curve- at least if we consider some of the thousands of years during which nobody owned televisions. Linked below is a plot of arctan(x-2) + 1.3 and its negative second derivative (scaled to fit better in WolframAlpha's output window), the latter of which looks as much like the smugness graph in the comic as anything I've seen so far.<br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+atan%28x-2%29+%2B+1.3%2C+6%28x-2%29%2F%28x^2-4+x%2B5%29^2+for+x+%3D+0..4<br />
--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.24|173.245.56.24]] 03:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While the previous explanation of the title text involving the sine function was bogus (it's the second derivative of TV ownership rate, not the second derivative of smugness), the stuff about logistic (or arctangent or other sigmoid) functions is correct (if you believe that TV ownership should follow a sigmoid curve). I think that this can be explained, so I've put that in; hopefully, one can read it without the parentheses to get something understandable to lay folk, and then the parentheses show where Randall's mathematical jargon comes in. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 04:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The "this is incomplete because it needs further information" is not much of an explanation of what needs to be completed. It looks like the tag was added when the explanation was really, really poor and it't now obsolete. I would update it if I could figure out something that is still missing, but at this moment it looks like removing it altogether could be a better option. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.117|173.245.53.117]] 09:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. Removed. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I feel quite smug, not having to pay £145.50 a year to watch people wanting to be famous, or wanting to remind people that they used to be famous, screaming for attention on "Strictly Got Talent Factor On Ice Brother" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.218|141.101.99.218]] 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
:As a fellow Britisher, similarly not paying for (or needing!) a TV Licence, I think this might need explaining to the furriners here. There are different payment methods (<strike>up to</strike> down to, and including, purely commercial channels, but also the same cable/satelite subscriptions as we might ''also'' have to make) supporting TV channels, elsewhere. And how do ''you'' deal with the TV Licencing people, pestering you about your TV that you (I presume) do not have? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Sigmoid function or Sine curve<br />
I'm sorry, but the {{w|Sigmoid function}} doesn't fit the graph. A sine looks much more closer but in fact it is some like f(x) + g(x), the second part looks much more like a sine (but also not accurate) while the first part looks different. And only the second derivative on this graph is important. So g(x) looks similar to a sine and the second derivative shows just an inverted plot, that's the point. There is no real math function.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Back-tracing the provided graph, the (negative) second derivative is clearly near zero up until nearly 1950, declines to a minima around 1965 (it appears to be around 40 pixels per decade, along the scale) before crossing the zero mark at 1980 to a maxima around 2001/2002-ish, then falling again.<br />
:Thus the (positive) first derivative (with an unknown constant of offset) is near horizontal until the 1950s, rises to its steepest in 1965 (i.e. the acceleration in rate of growth is the highest... consistent the uptake of the 'new' technology being popular), continues upwards but finally hits a maxima (in actual rate of growth of TV ownership) in 1980, before tailing off (probably still a rate of ''increase'', but near saturation level. Just after the millenium is around the time I'd expect to see a rise in Large Screen TVs being sold (plasma TVs were late '90s, and we're starting to see proper flatscreen LCDs and, later, OLED versions).<br />
:So, can we relate that to the 'zeroeth' derivative? (i.e. The actual rate of TV ownership... or is it sales..? May be both if you allow for multi-TV homes.) Starting at zero ownership, there was a slow uptake around the 1950s (for the UK, 1953 - the year of the Coronation - was supposed to be the start of the mass-market TV revolution, but perhaps only around one house a street actually ''getting'' a TV for the event... still, it'd somewhat match the quick start of the (negative) curve in the cartoon). The mid 1960s was (amongst other things) the height of the Space Race, and thus in the white-heat of that particular phase of technology. By the 1980s, most existing households without TVs weren't ''going'' to get them, so uptake would have flattened from that point onwards, until eventually the millenium came about and newer/additional sets were installed in houses during that particular credit-boom and period of techno-consumerism.<br />
:IIW, I think it matches a (convoluted, multi-inflected) S-curve from zero on upwards. Possibly beyond 100% if multi-TV ownership counts to technically allow the original curve to strike up above that value. I may have zero TVs operating in my house but most families I know have at ''least'' two of them. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1299:_I_Don%27t_Own_a_TV&diff=54317Talk:1299: I Don't Own a TV2013-12-04T21:18:45Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>Annual Data for households between 1958-1970<br />
http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG<br />
<br />
Plotted next to a fitted logarithmic function<br />
http://imgur.com/aVWmQ9z<br />
<br />
The negative second derivative of this function<br />
http://imgur.com/xywpEJZ<br />
<br />
If someone can find more data for television ownership I'd love to see it :) {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.12}}<br />
<br />
Can someone explain why Randall believes smugness at not owning a television is decreasing? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Because as TVs become less relevant, people don't feel smug for not owning one. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Current explanation - logistic curve<br />
<br />
The current explanation is total bullshit. The thing with the negative second derivative is just saying, that the more embarrased people are, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will increase, which just means, more and more people will get themselves TVs.<br />
The other point of view is, the more smug you will look like for not owning a TV, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will decline, which means, that less and less people are buying TVs.<br />
<br />
It has nothing to do with a logistic curve. The function, which second derivative is depicted in this comic is totally irrelevant.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have the strong feeling he is talking about a sine wave, not a logistic function. It fits the curve in the comic as well as the condition of f"=-f. <br />
Also, it makes way more sense for the smugness to behave like this over time as for the first 30 years TV is culturally extremely significant and you therefore would want to own one in order to participate. But with declining quality of television and the emergence of the internet you might feel as if you were extremely progressive by not owning one anymore.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.189|108.162.254.189]] 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Yes, it definitely could be a sine curve. (see: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29]). If one would neglect the beginning of the function for simplicity, this could be a solution.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
We bid a tearful farewell to our friend the line break. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%283*pi*x%2F100%2Bpi%2F2%29+from+1945+to+2014 [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 12:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree with the commenter who said that the current explanation is bullshit, but I think he has the cause and effect reversed. Randall is saying that you feel more smug about not owning a TV as a result of observing how quickly TV ownership is becoming more or less trendy. In the 1950's, TV's were catching on quickly and becoming more popular, so you would feel embarrassed for not owning one. Later, the trendiness would start to decline as more people owned one, and you would head towards being smug. In the 2000s, people are giving up TVs because the internet makes them unnecessary. As this happens more and more, there's no point in feeling smug because you're no longer bucking a trend at all. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] ([[User talk:Kazim|talk]]) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my view the title text joke is that smugness is defined as a function of TV ownership when in reality TV ownership is a function of smugness. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hold on, the logistic curve gives very reasonable graphs both for ownership of TVs and for the negative second derivative. TV ownership easily fits a logistic curve, as it starts at zero and has to approach some upper limit. The negative second derivative has a very similar shape to the graph in the comic. Here's Wolfram|Alpha for the negative second derivative of a generic logistic curve: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-%28+d%2Fdx+d%2Fdx+%28100%2F%281%2Be%5E-%28.1x%29%29%29%29>. This would suggest that as time goes to infinity, people's feelings about TV ownership approach neutral; they do not oscillate like a sine function. This makes sense, because for the negative second derivative to be a sine function, TV ownership would have to be too, yet TV ownership is unlikely to be periodic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.229|173.245.55.229]] 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have two issues with this explanation: the first is that it's too long to comfortably read, and I don't think the comic content merits such a long explanation. The other is that it reads too complexly. The point of this wiki is to make xkcd accessible for everyone, but it talks about things like sine waves, oscillation and convergence, which not all readers are going to grok. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If we're keeping the explanation surrounding the area of "People therefore discussed television programs frequently, as a major social activity.", it maybe ought to be pointed out that major social discussions about TV programmes dropped off as a result of the increase in the number of TV channels and thus (except for ''particularly'' notable ratings-grabbers) the question of "Did you see what was on TV last night?" increasingly needed further qualifying. (However, I'm not sure this is revelevant.) Oh, and I've a feeling I should be feeling smug, right now. Absolutely gorge myself on radio, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1297:_Oort_Cloud&diff=540961297: Oort Cloud2013-12-02T16:23:09Z<p>141.101.99.229: /* Explanation */ Proofreading, reworded</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1297<br />
| date = November 29, 2013<br />
| title = Oort Cloud<br />
| image = oort_cloud.png<br />
| titletext = ... I wanna try. Hang on, be right back.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The {{w|Oort cloud}} is a hypothesized sphere containing material old as our solar system is, reaching out to roughly 50,000 {{w|Astronomical unit|AU (astronomical units)}} or nearly one {{w|Light-year|light-year}} from the sun. It contains many {{w|small Solar System bodies}}, consisting of unknown material. Gravitational forces from passing stars or collisions with other objects sometimes perturb one of these bodies enough to let it fall into the inner solar system. When it gets closer to the Sun (which is just a bright dot at that far distance) it warms up, and some of its mass is lost as gas and dust, making it more visible as a comet. A new {{w|comet}} is born, and if it gets close enough to the sun it may break up entirely.<br />
<br />
The comet pictured here upon its return strangely resembles the unusual asteroid {{w|P/2013 P5}}. It sported six comet-like tails, but it's still not a comet. In that case the six comet-like tails were suspected to be caused by rapid spinning of that object.<br />
<br />
{{w|C/2012 S1|Comet ISON}} came from the Oort cloud and reached its closest approach to the sun ({{w|Apsis|perihelion}}) on the day before this comic was published. The comet passed very close to the sun, at a distance of 1,860,000 kilometers or 1,150,000 miles from the centre of the sun. It was thus within one sun-diameter of the surface of the sun itself (diameter of sun = 1,391,000 km). At that distance the temperature, at approx. 2,700 degrees Celsius, vaporizes rock as well as ice and can break the comet apart entirely.<br />
<br />
The broken-up object here is presumed to be ISON, and is labeled as such in the transcript, even though Randall hasn't unambiguously identified it. Note that it is not realistic that ISON still would have a tail so far away.<br />
<br />
The closest approach of ISON, or its remains, to Earth will be on December 27, 2013 but it's not clear how visible the comet will be.<br />
<br />
This video shows an animation of the encounter at the sun: [http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2013/11/28/ahead_20131128_cor2_rdiff_512.mpg ISON 28.11.2013].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Three asteroids float in space.]<br />
:ISON: Have you noticed that bright dot in the distance?<br />
:Asteroid: Yeah. What's the deal with it?<br />
<br />
:ISON: Dunno. I'm gonna go check it out.<br />
<br />
:[Pause while ISON checks it out off screen.]<br />
<br />
:ISON (appears burnt): Wow. Do NOT go over there.<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1297:_Oort_Cloud&diff=53937Talk:1297: Oort Cloud2013-11-29T11:05:16Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>Reading the Wikipedia page on the Oort Cloud didn't help me understand the joke. I don't know if it has anything to do with comets, or the asteroids getting smashed up by them. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 05:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
:The asteroid becomes a cost after being severely burnt by the sun. It warns the other asteroid not to go over there. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.55}}<br />
::Which, the title text indicates, is a warning that's utterly ignored... (Also being "right back" indicates a slower perceived thought process. As is probably the case for anything out there in such cold(-ish) depths of space.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 11:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1295:_New_Study&diff=53728Talk:1295: New Study2013-11-26T03:59:19Z<p>141.101.99.229: </p>
<hr />
<div>There was a joke in Czech Republic a few years ago: American scientists discovered, that 80% Europeans believe in everything that starts with: "American scientists discovered". {{unsigned|Jiří Dobrý}}<br />
<br />
The main reason why the Browser Usage hoax was so successful is that it's very plausible. Especially regarding the old versions of Internet Explorer. How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?<br />
:Because 86% of people just use computers as a tool that comes as-is, without wanting to understand how it works and/or could be modified.[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"''How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?''" That's like asking how people could still be using crap like a single-flux nonwidget carburetor. Don't they realize that's so out of date? Answer, of course not. To the VAST majority of people aren't, and don't need to be, aware of what version of a browser they use any more than teh vast majority of people don't know (or need to) what components are under the hood of their car. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
::But when the mechanic has a single-flux non-widget carburetor, there's a problem somewhere. I can personally vouch that all of Radioshack's POS computers run on Windows XP and use IE 6 for all operations except ringing up purchases and taking credit card payments. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.52|108.162.215.52]] 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IE6 or IE8? IE8, I could understand, being the highest level of IE normally installable upon XP (and, apart from the looming 'desupporting' date for XP, a solid enough platform for things that already work well on it). Although I could also understand IE6 if it involves some legacy proprietry scripting code that doesn't run well on IE>6, etc. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 03:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Note that I find hard to believe this was created due to something happening in 2011. While related, I would assume there was some other, more recent study this reacts to. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/] ? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
New to editing. Trying to add this line and it isn't showing up. I believe this is the event he's referring to. <nowiki>* [http://eldeforma.com/2012/08/27/samsung-paga-multa-de-1-billon-de-dolares-a-apple-en-monedas-de-5-centavos/#axzz2lfjwKjjt Samsung pays $1bn USD fine to Apple with 20 billion 5 cent coins]: widely reported on news networks in November 2013</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood<br />
:But that story has nothing to do with a "new study" (or any "study," for that matter). [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Nevermind... figured it out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood<br />
<br />
----<br />
The TV reporter seems to have an impressive head of hair. Is it supposed to be a toupee? [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)</div>141.101.99.229