https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=173.245.54.166&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T07:54:28ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1122:_Electoral_Precedent&diff=882991122: Electoral Precedent2015-04-03T20:08:45Z<p>173.245.54.166: /* Trivia/Errors */ - Joshua: Edit wiki to establish chronology. ==></p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1122<br />
| date = October 17, 2012<br />
| title = Electoral Precedent<br />
| image = electoral_precedent.png<br />
| titletext = No white guy who's been mentioned on twitter has gone on to win.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
During election season in U.S. presidential elections — and especially in election night coverage — it is common for the media to make comments like the ones set out in the first panel of this comic. [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] is demonstrating the problem with making such statements, many of which simply come down to coincidence.<br />
<br />
After the first panel the next 56 panels in this comic refer to each one of the {{w|United States presidential election#Electoral college results|56 presidential elections}} in U.S. history before {{w|Barack Obama|Obama's}} re-election in 2012. The panels depict a pre-election commentator noting a quality or condition that has never occurred to a candidate, until one of the candidates in that election broke the streak. In other words, one can always find at least one unique thing about a candidate who has gone on to win (or in some cases, lose) or the circumstances under which they won (or lost) that is unique from all previous winners (or losers). As the years pass on, these 'streaks' become more and more nested and complicated, and then brought by Randall to the point of absurdity by pointing out very trivial things, such as "No Democratic {{w|incumbent}} without combat experience has ever beaten someone whose first name is worth more in {{w|Scrabble}}" (1996).<br />
<br />
The flaw made by pundits while reporting such streaks is that there will always be ''something'' that has never happened before in an election, and they purport to suggest that these things are related to the candidate's win or loss. Randall considers this a logical flaw. A common one is, as noted in several panels, candidates can't win without winning certain states. The question, however, is one of {{w|Correlation does not imply causation|cause or effect}}.<br />
<br />
Given that there have only been 56 elections, there are always going to be things that haven't happened before. If you go out looking for them, you're sure to find some. There is no magic about why these events haven't happened. In most cases, it is merely coincidence.<br />
<br />
In the last two panels two more statements like the previous are given. They were both true before the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|election in 2012}} on November the 6th. The comic came out in the middle of the campaign on October the 17th. The statements were constructed so that the first predicts that Obama can't win over {{w|Mitt Romney}}, and the second that he cannot lose. As Obama won the election he thus ended the streak ''Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers'' whereas the other streak is still valid.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the fact that {{w|Twitter}} was founded in 2006. Obama won in 2008, so it is true that no white person mentioned on Twitter has ever gone on to win the presidency; although certainly some former presidents, all of whom were white, have subsequently been mentioned on Twitter.<br />
<br />
During these last four week before the election Randall posted no less than four comics related to this election. The others being: [[1127: Congress]], [[1130: Poll Watching]] and [[1131: Math]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:The problem with statements like<br />
:"No <party> candidate has won the election without <state>"<br />
:Or<br />
:"No president has been reelected under <circumstances>"<br />
<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1788-1789|1788}}... No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1792|1792}}... No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1796|1796}}... No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1800|1800}}... No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1804|1804}}... No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1808|1808}}... No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1812|1812}}... No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1816|1816}}... No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1820|1820}}... No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1824|1824}}... No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1828|1828}}... Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1832|1832}}... The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1836|1836}}... New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1840|1840}}... No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1844|1844}}... No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1848|1848}}... The Democrats don't lose when they win Pennsylvania. ...But they did in 1848.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1852|1852}}... New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1856|1856}}... No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1860|1860}}... No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1864|1864}}... No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1868|1868}}... No one can be president if their parent are alive. ...Until Grant.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1872|1872}}... No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1876|1876}}... No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1880|1880}}... As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1884|1884}}... Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1888|1888}}... No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1892|1892}}... No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1896|1896}}... Tall midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1900|1900}}... No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1904|1904}}... No one under 45 has become president. ...Roosevelt did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1908|1908}}... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1912|1912}}... After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1916|1916}}... No Democrat has won without Indiana. ...Wilson did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1920|1920}}... No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1924|1924}}... No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1928|1928}}... No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1932|1932}}... No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1936|1936}}... No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1940|1940}}... No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1944|1944}}... No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1948|1948}}... Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1952|1952}}... No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1956|1956}}... No Republican has won without Missouri. ...Until Eisenhower.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1960|1960}}... Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1964|1964}}... No Democrat has won without Georgia. ...Johnson did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1968|1968}}... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1972|1972}}... No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts. ...Until Nixon did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1976|1976}}... No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1980|1980}}... No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1984|1984}}... No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1988|1988}}... No Democrat who has won Wisconsin (without being from there) has lost. ...Until Dukakis did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1992|1992}}... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 1996|1996}}... No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 2000|2000}}... No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 2004|2004}}... No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 2008|2008}}... No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.<br />
:{{w|United States presidential election, 2012|2012}}... Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost. Which streak will break?<br />
<br />
==Trivia/Errors==<br />
* There was an error in the original 1800 panel of the comic, as Jefferson (not Adams) was the first challenger to beat an incumbent, when Jefferson beat then-president Adams in 1800. This was later corrected.<br />
<br />
* Also, one of the statements of a streak for the 2012 elections can be considered wrong: in 1952, the Republican candidate/running mate Eisenhower/Nixon defeated the Democratic alliterative ticket Stevenson/Sparkman (in what can only be described as a landslide). The comic has been changed, and now reads "Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers" as the streak which would have the Republican ticket as the winners.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Statistics]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]</div>173.245.54.166https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:456:_Cautionary&diff=88298Talk:456: Cautionary2015-04-03T19:42:38Z<p>173.245.54.166: Comment. Sorry, too lazy to do it myself.</p>
<hr />
<div>Isn't 'Talk to your kids about...' from a famous Unilever ad? [[Special:Contributions/101.174.52.183|101.174.52.183]] 09:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is this Megan? Her hair seems awfully curly and it says she's his cousin. Is there an official transcript? [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 20:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Official transcripts, if they do exist, do not contain names in general. These names are just an invention by some communities like this wiki. So, if you have a better stick figure which would match her, talk about this.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
::She is clearly not Megan. I propose to call her ''cousin''. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 22:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::There exists an official transcript for each comic, available to see in the page's source code. According to a comment in [[1037:_Umwelt]], Randall does apparently not type those, but is seemingly done by Davean, his friend maintaining the server. (Note: this is just a guess) [[User:Vgr|Vgr]] ([[User talk:Vgr|talk]]) 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think that this is Megan either. I propose to call her Alice, though, in reference to cryptography. [[User:Official.xian|Official.xian]] ([[User talk:Official.xian|talk]]) 19:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
::I think we're all forgetting something very important here: It's a true story, therefore she has a real name. If we really wanted her correct name, we'd be pestering Randall for it. Anonymous 23:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::And since it's a true story Cueball here's probably meant to be Randall himself. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::And the hair not reminiscent of Megan.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.25|173.245.55.25]] 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::::Then why has nobody fixed it to say Cousin instead of Megan?... [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.166|173.245.54.166]] 19:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)</div>173.245.54.166https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1024:_Error_Code&diff=88296Talk:1024: Error Code2015-04-03T19:02:09Z<p>173.245.54.166: Added a comment.</p>
<hr />
<div>The joke is probably that "sit by a lake" is the name of the tune corresponding with motherboard error -41<br />
<br />
Motherboard error codes are not numbered like other error codes are. Motherboard error codes are just referred to by how the beeps sound (ex. 1 long, 2 short) [[User:Luke1042|Luke1042]]<br />
<br />
Personally, of all motherboard beeping codes, I always liked "No beep = Power supply, system board problem, disconnected CPU, or disconnected speaker...." (Well, when not suffering it myself. And even then I could stand it when it was just the latter and thus of no ''immediate'' consequence...) [[Special:Contributions/31.111.103.76|31.111.103.76]] 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Well then, laptop computers dont beep at all, I guess that must mean that something is always missing --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.111|108.162.250.111]] 03:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yes. You are missing a Desktop. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.60|108.162.216.60]] 20:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)BK201<br />
<br />
This is one of my favourite xkcd comics, it makes me take a long breath and just chill out a bit. Probably the only comic that could be described as 'relaxing' [[Special:Contributions/77.103.5.201|77.103.5.201]] 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Unfortunately the beep codes thing is archaic. Most new computers built since the early to mid-2000s haven't made a beep - instead, the trend has been to rely on visual codes from built-in LEDs (and, later on, from pairs of eight-segment displays relaying hex codes). So a modern code will run from 00 to FF - but it will also be completely silent. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Every computer ever booted in my presence, some before many during and a few shortly after stated time period as well as several brand new this year, has beeped at the end of the POST, with one exception. That one would have beeped, but it's PC speaker was removed because it annoyed the owner. So I don't think hex code error indicators have quite made beepcodes "archaic".--[[User:guest|guest]] 08:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I built my own computer about a year ago, with a motherboard that was quite modern. It definitely uses beep codes. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.107|199.27.133.107]] 04:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The guy at the computer is [[Cueball]], isn't he? So Cuball and friend is the common way here. If not, the the category [[:Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] has also to be removed. But I don't see that. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Anyone got any idea what the yellow things in the lake are? They look like they should be significant? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.94|141.101.104.94]] 05:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Those are lily pad flowers. Before they bloom they look like small balls, and some are yellow[https://www.google.com/search?q=yellow+lily+pad+flower&tbm=isch]. {{unsigned ip|199.27.130.216}}<br />
<br />
The guy at the computer should say at the first panel "That's UNhelpful" instead of "That's helpful", shouldn't he? Or maybe I don't know something in english? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.185|108.162.254.185]] 09:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's called a sarcastic comment, though it's technically irony. It's very common for english speaking people to say "well, that's helpful" when the intended understanding is exactly the opposite.--[[User:guest|guest]] 08:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did... did anyone ever make this book? Somebody should get on that.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.192|108.162.237.192]] 21:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The guy has a lot of these books. http://xkcd.com/330/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.241|108.162.210.241]] 00:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What do they say about code 34?[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 23:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Let's see... I think that means "you get a free sample of brain bleach". [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.166|173.245.54.166]] 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)</div>173.245.54.166https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=27:_Meat_Cereals&diff=8342627: Meat Cereals2015-01-25T06:06:55Z<p>173.245.54.166: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 27<br />
| date = November 4, 2005<br />
| title = Meat Cereals<br />
| image = meat_cereals.jpg<br />
| titletext = Disgusting<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Randall Munroe|Randall]] parodies several real-world breakfast cereals (which typically consist solely of grains and sweet flavorings) by creating versions that contain meat (animal products). The cereals that appear to be parodied (clockwise from top-left) include: Fruit Loops, Rice Krispies, Honey Bunches of Oats, Apple Jacks, Frosted Flakes and Cheerios. There does not appear to be a deeper meaning to this comic than that.<br />
<br />
The Scrapple Jacks parody (the only slightly obscure reference) appears to be made with {{w|scrapple}}, which according to Wikipedia, is a mush of pork scraps and trimmings combined with cornmeal and wheat flour, often buckwheat flour, and spices. Real Apple Jacks ran an ad campaign in the 1980s and 1990's in which an adult or authority figure tasted the cereal and declared "these don't taste like apples!", thus missing the point of why kids liked the cereal. The slogan is parodied on the Scrapple Jacks box. Randall will reference this same slogan in "[[38: Apple Jacks]]".<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A collection of fictional meat based cereals.]<br />
:Pork Loops<br />
:Mice Krispies<br />
:Hammios<br />
:Frosted Bacon Flakes<br />
:Scrapple Jacks<br />
:Honey Bunches of Goats<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*This is the twenty-eighth comic originally posted to livejournal. The previous was [[26: Fourier]]. The next was [[30: Donner]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]</div>173.245.54.166https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1425:_Tasks&diff=80144Talk:1425: Tasks2014-12-03T13:17:30Z<p>173.245.54.166: Summary from an ubergeek of what a 'picture of a bird' is and how to identify it.</p>
<hr />
<div>the source of title text maybe is Szeliski, ''Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications'' (2010), p. 10. --[[User:Valepert|valepert]] ([[User talk:Valepert|talk]]) 06:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.wired.com/2012/06/google-x-neural-network/ Google’s Artificial Brain Learns to Find Cat Videos] might be useful as a description of the problem [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.219|108.162.250.219]] 08:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Sorry for editing your comment but external links have different syntax that internal links so it wasn't working. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Nice Superman joke there, Pudder! --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 10:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:It had been removed in an edit, so I shoehorned in back in :P --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
Isn't there an xkcd where the estimate of 5 years of work is equivalent to "might take forever?" [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I'm pretty sure you're refering to 678. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.132|173.245.52.132]] 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The link in the description is to a document by {{w|Seymour Papert}} and the [http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Summer_Vision_Project.html?id=qOh7NwAACAAJ book] on the project is also by Papert. Is there any contemporary evidence that it was actually Minsky who assigned the project? I think he just got interested in it later. 14:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://xkcd.com/678/ 678: Researcher Translation] is probably what you're thinking of, Rtanenbaum. [[User:Ndgeek|Ndgeek]] ([[User talk:Ndgeek|talk]]) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it possible that Randall's selection of bird rather than another naturally occurring object is a subtle reference to the Birdsnap app (http://engineering.columbia.edu/it-crow-or-raven-new-birdsnap-app-will-tell-you-0) which has solved some of the aspects of this problem? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.137|173.245.48.137]] 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hopefully I can add that this also seems to make reference to the U.S. Forest Service intention to make everyone have a permit to take pics, etc., in national parks. https://www.yahoo.com/travel/dont-take-that-picture-the-u-s-forest-service-might-98484656432.html {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.21}}<br />
<br />
Post the picture to an online forum, say it's a bird, if it's not everyone will correct you as per http://xkcd.com/386/, so scrape forum and if there's a lot of attention it's not a bird, if there isn't much attention it probably is a bird. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.78|141.101.99.78]] 23:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A dev team at Flickr took this comic as a challenge, and set up a PoC at http://parkorbird.flickr.com/ (that seems to work fairly well). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A 'picture of a bird' from a CS perspective is a reverse engineering problem. The picture is a 2 dimensional rendering of a 3-dimensional world and a 'bird' is a 3-dimensional object. It takes years for the mind of a newborn human to be able to recognize a majority of objects based on their 'first look' at a stereoscopic (two-eyes) image presented by their visual cortex. The software equivalency of this would be to create a 3 dimensional representation of objects and create a linear-algebra algorithm that can define the statistical probability that any given shape is within a certain degree of exclusion a matrix representation of the target shape (area) of the 3 dimensional object (bird) based on distance (using spacial reconstruction). It's not impossible, it's just really really hard. - nerd answer</div>173.245.54.166