explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:8: Red spiders

2012-12-13T22:45:43Z

70.91.188.49:

In addition to [[8]] - [[Red spiders]], Red spiders also appear in comic [[42]] - [[Red Spiders 2]] and [[126]] - [[Red Spiders Cometh]] and are referenced in [[77]] - [[Counter-Red Spiders]] [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The "cuboids" always reminded me of how I picture the "stars" in the Battle Room in ''Ender's Game'' -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 22:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:8: Red spiders

2012-12-13T22:45:14Z

70.91.188.49:

Talk:4: Landscape (sketch)

2012-12-13T22:41:42Z

70.91.188.49: Created page with "Interesting... when I first saw this sketch years ago, I assumed that the body of water was frozen and the "river" was a crack in the ice. -- mwburden ~~~~"

Interesting... when I first saw this sketch years ago, I assumed that the body of water was frozen and the "river" was a crack in the ice. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 22:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:69: Pillow Talk

2012-12-13T21:53:51Z

70.91.188.49: Created page with "How terrible of "pillow talk" it makes depends heavily on how geeky your significant other is. My wife has a T-Shirt that reads, "Talk Nerdy to Me!" -- mwburden ~~~~"

How terrible of "pillow talk" it makes depends heavily on how geeky your significant other is. My wife has a T-Shirt that reads, "Talk Nerdy to Me!" -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 21:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:80: My Other Car

2012-12-13T21:37:02Z

70.91.188.49: Created page with "Some comedian (Google is failing to tell me who) once claimed to have seen a bumper sticker that read "My other car is a Rolls Royce"...... on a Rolls Royce. -- mwburden ~~~~"

Some comedian (Google is failing to tell me who) once claimed to have seen a bumper sticker that read "My other car is a Rolls Royce"...... on a Rolls Royce. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 21:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:85: Paths

2012-12-13T21:28:28Z

70.91.188.49:

This is the kind of thing that comes up in story problems in Calculus often. If you can travel in/over one medium at one speed, and in/over another medium at a different speed, what is the optimum path to minimize your travel time. 
An example of this problem would be if there is a drowning swimmer 100 meters offshore, you are 300 meters from the point on the shoreline closest to the swimmer, and you can run at 15mph and swim at 2mph, how far do you run along the shoreline before going into the water to get to the swimmer as quickly as possible? 
The fact that Randall shows two different paths over the "grass" makes me think that he was thinking more along the line of obsessively optimizing his path rather than about whether it might be acceptable or not to walk over the grass. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Along similar lines, [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97628&page=1 this mathematician's dog] uses Calculus (albeit at an intuitive, rather than mathematical level) to optimize the path that it takes to retrieve the ball from the water. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:85: Paths

2012-12-13T21:27:59Z

70.91.188.49:

This is the kind of thing that comes up in story problems in Calculus often. If you can travel in/over one medium at one speed, and in/over another medium at a different speed, what is the optimum path to minimize your travel time. 
An example of this problem would be if there is a drowning swimmer 100 meters offshore, you are 300 meters from the point on the shoreline closest to the swimmer, and you can run at 15mph and swim at 2mph, how far do you run along the shoreline before going into the water to get to the swimmer as quickly as possible? 
The fact that Randall shows two different paths over the "grass" makes me think that he was thinking more along the line of obsessively optimizing his path rather than about whether it might be acceptable or not to walk over the grass. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Along similar lines, [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97628&page=1 this mathematician's dog] uses Calculus (albeit at an intuitive, rather than mathematical level) to optimize the path that it takes to retrieve the ball from the water. -- mwburdenn [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:85: Paths

2012-12-13T21:23:23Z

70.91.188.49: Created page with "This is the kind of thing that comes up in story problems in Calculus often. If you can travel in/over one medium at one speed, and in/over another medium at a different spe..."

Talk:105: Parallel Universe

2012-12-13T20:33:05Z

70.91.188.49:

[[User:Rikthoff|Rikthoff]] ([[User talk:Rikthoff|talk]]) The issue date might be off. All files since 101 have been created on April 11th, 2006. Anyone with an actual issue date?

:I have verified that the date is correct now. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 22:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

----

A comment, and a question:
* First off, I don't think the hairy character could possibly be a woman (or that it should matter anyway), otherwise it would be made clearer in the drawing and the transcript. Compare for instance with previous comics [[102]], [[93]] and [[84]]: each time it is made clear in the drawing as well as in the transcript. So in my opinion it's just another random guy.
* And now, not being a native English speaker, I don't understand what is meant by "make out" here (and I think this should be part of the explanation). "Make out" seems to have multiple possible interpretations, and if it is the semi-sexual meaning (as in {{w|Making out}} on Wikipedia) here, then I don't see the point of "taking this chance to make out with oneself"... a quirky fantasy? and a homosexual one, which doesn't seem in the xkcd style to me...
What I understand is that in the last panel the hairy character realized he could use the same argument for him as well; but apart from that, this comic remains pretty obscure to me. More explanation would be appreciated :-) [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
* My interpretation: It's a classic course of action to {{w|Making out|make out}} (or even have sexual intercourse) with one's duplicate in the event that the two meet. Hairy suggests this to Cueball, pointing out that the duplicate may disappear at any moment because of the potentially tenuous nature of the spell keeping the duplicate in this reality. Hairy then realizes that, hypothetically, he/she could ''also'' spontaneously disappear, and uses this as a way to hint that he/she would like to make out with Cueball. The joke is the same regardless of whether Hairy is [[Megan]] or a male friend of Cueball, but if it's a male friend, there is an added layer of intended humor in the homosexual nature of the suggestion. Either way, Hairy is making the self-serving suggestion that Cueball forgo a rare chance (making out with his alternate-universe duplicate) in order to take advantage of a common chance (making out with an acquaintance from the same universe) because of a superficially identical pressure (spontaneous disappearance; in alternate-Cueball's case, because something would cause them to revert to their universe of origin, and in Hairy's case, because of some unknown hypothetical factor). [[User:JET73L|JET73L]] ([[User talk:JET73L|talk]]) 06:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
**I like this explanation the best. It's really the clearest out of all of them. --[[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
** I agree with Jimmy C and JET73L -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 20:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:109: Spoiler Alert

2012-12-13T20:21:13Z

70.91.188.49:

Trinity doesn't look dead, he looks like he's dodging the sled. He'll be back in two movies. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 03:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

''He?'' Did Carrie Anne Moss get gender reassignment surgery? ;) -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 20:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:109: Spoiler Alert

2012-12-13T20:20:45Z

70.91.188.49:

Talk:109: Spoiler Alert

2012-12-13T20:19:46Z

70.91.188.49:

Trinity doesn't look dead, he looks like he's dodging the sled. He'll be back in two movies. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 03:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
''He?'' Did Carrie Anne Moss get gender reassignment surgery? ;) -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 20:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:582: Brakes

2012-12-12T20:53:34Z

70.91.188.49: Created page with "The shirt would have been even better if they would have put the alt-text underneath! -- mwburden ~~~~"

The shirt would have been even better if they would have put the alt-text underneath! -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 20:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:721: Flatland

2012-12-12T14:34:57Z

70.91.188.49:

There might be another comic in this joke with Cueball's last line "That was out of line." Where a line would be a 2-dimensional object. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 Point of order - a line is a ONE dimensional object (and a point is a zero dimensional object) -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 14:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:721: Flatland

2012-12-12T14:34:16Z

70.91.188.49:

There might be another comic in this joke with Cueball's last line "That was out of line." Where a line would be a 2-dimensional object. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Point of order - a line is a ONE dimensional object (and a point is a zero dimensional object) -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 14:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:721: Flatland

2012-12-12T14:33:10Z

70.91.188.49:

There might be another comic in this joke with Cueball's last line "That was out of line." Where a line would be a 2-dimensional object. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 
Point of order - a line is a ONE dimensional object (and a point is a zero dimensional object) -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 14:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:721: Flatland

2012-12-12T14:32:06Z

70.91.188.49:

There might be another comic in this joke with Cueball's last line "That was out of line." Where a line would be a 2-dimensional object. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 21:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Point of order - a line is a ONE dimensional object (and a point is a zero dimensional object) -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 14:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

922: Fight Club

2012-12-10T13:26:59Z

70.91.188.49: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 922
| date = July 8, 2011
| title = Fight Club
| image = fight_club.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = I'm not saying it's all bad, but that movie has not aged as well as my teenage self in 2000 was confident it would.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Fight Club}} is a movie starring {{w|Brad Pitt}} and {{w|Edward Norton}} that was released in 1999. It included this oft-quoted and parodied line: "The first rule about Fight Club is do not talk about Fight Club.".

The movie certainly does have a message about society and consumerism. But a lot of fans of the film only saw a movie with lots of fighting and mischief. Probably, a lot of people who saw the movie when they were younger, and enjoyed those aspects of it, would be disappointed were they to re-watch it with a better understanding of what the movie’s actually trying to say.

The line "This conversation is over" also appears to be a reference to the same line in the movie, in the scene where the Narrator (Edward Norton) is arguing with Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) while Tyler (Brad Pitt) tells the Narrator what to say from the bottom of the basement stairs.

==Transcript==
:Friend: But ''Fight Club'' isn't really about fighting. It's about the way society—
:Person: Nope, don't wanna hear it.
:Friend: But it says consumers are—
:Person: This conversation is over.

:The first rule of talking to me about movies is do ''NOT'' talk about Fight Club.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:941: Depth Perception

2012-12-10T13:18:50Z

70.91.188.49:

Somebody needs to try this. Couldn't be that hard.
[[Special:Contributions/71.178.11.180|71.178.11.180]] 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Those must have been some tall goalposts if his point of view is above the clouds! -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 13:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the cameras should be mounted on servos so that when the phone is moved or tilted the cameras can follow, so your viewpoint isn't fixed in one direction. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 13:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:941: Depth Perception

2012-12-10T13:16:59Z

70.91.188.49:

942: Juggling

2012-12-10T13:13:43Z

70.91.188.49: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 942
| date = August 24, 2011
| title = Juggling
| image = juggling.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = Later: 'Why is there a book hovering over the trash can?'
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, the joke is that the "How to Juggle" book assumes that there is gravity and momentum in the place where you are juggling. It seems like there is no gravity or momentum because when Cueball throws the juggling balls up in the air, they don't come down, and also don't continue the trajectory that they had when they left his hands. Additionally, the image text tells us that someone else comes along and sees that the juggling book is still hovering over the trash can and never went into it.

While there are places in our universe with zero gravity (or at least microgravity), there is no place in our universe where objects with mass have no momentum. Some possible explanations might be that Cueball is outside of our universe, that Cueball has just discovered something that's theoretically impossible, or that Randall has taken comedic license on the "momentum" part for the sake of the joke.

Also, because Cueball jumps and returns to the ground (panels 6 & 7), it would appear that the effect is limited to the balls and the book, and does not extend to Cueball himself.

==Transcript==
:[The panel shows a close up of Cueball reading a book. The book is called "How To Juggle" and has a picture of a person juggling on the cover.]

:[The view now shows the entirety of Cueball. A book is splayed on the floor behind them, and he is holding some juggling balls.]

:[Cueball throws the juggling balls in the air.]

:[He lowers his arms to prepare to catch the balls. The balls are still hovering in mid-air.]

:[Cueball now stands with his arms by his sides. The balls have not moved and are still suspended in mid-air.]

:[Cueball jumps, trying to grab the lowest ball. He can't reach.]

:[Cueball scratches his head and stares at the still floating juggling balls.]

:[Cueball throws the book into a trash can.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

942: Juggling

2012-12-10T13:10:02Z

70.91.188.49: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 942
| date = August 24, 2011
| title = Juggling
| image = juggling.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = Later: 'Why is there a book hovering over the trash can?'
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, the joke is that the "How to Juggle" book assumes that there is gravity and momentum in the place where you are juggling. It seems like there is no gravity or momentum because when Cueball throws the juggling balls up in the air, they don't come down, and also don't continue the trajectory that they had when they left his hands. Additionally, the image text tells us that someone else comes along and sees that the juggling book is still hovering over the trash can and never went into it.

While there are places in our universe with zero gravity (or at least microgravity), there is no place in our universe where objects with mass have no momentum. Some possible explanations might be that Cueball is outside of our universe, that Cueball has just discovered something that's theoretically impossible, or that Randall has taken comedic license on the "momentum" part for the sake of the joke.

==Transcript==
:[The panel shows a close up of Cueball reading a book. The book is called "How To Juggle" and has a picture of a person juggling on the cover.]

:[The view now shows the entirety of Cueball. A book is splayed on the floor behind them, and he is holding some juggling balls.]

:[Cueball throws the juggling balls in the air.]

:[He lowers his arms to prepare to catch the balls. The balls are still hovering in mid-air.]

:[Cueball now stands with his arms by his sides. The balls have not moved and are still suspended in mid-air.]

:[Cueball jumps, trying to grab the lowest ball. He can't reach.]

:[Cueball scratches his head and stares at the still floating juggling balls.]

:[Cueball throws the book into a trash can.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:942: Juggling

2012-12-10T13:03:51Z

70.91.188.49:

But if there was no gravity, the balls would have maintained the trajectory and (neglecting air resistance) velocity that they had when they left cueball's hands! -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/99.129.248.32|99.129.248.32]] 23:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

:Very true! Please do consider reworking/replacing this explanation so it isn't so misleading! [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Added "or momentum" to the explanation. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 13:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

942: Juggling

2012-12-10T13:03:13Z

70.91.188.49: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 942
| date = August 24, 2011
| title = Juggling
| image = juggling.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = Later: 'Why is there a book hovering over the trash can?'
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, the joke is that the "How to Juggle" book assumes that there is gravity and momentum in the place where you are juggling. It seems like there is no gravity or momentum because when Cueball throws the juggling balls up in the air, they don't come down, and also don't continue the trajectory that they had when they left his hands. Additionally, the image text tells us that someone else comes along and sees that the juggling book is still hovering over the trash can and never went into it.

==Transcript==
:[The panel shows a close up of Cueball reading a book. The book is called "How To Juggle" and has a picture of a person juggling on the cover.]

:[The view now shows the entirety of Cueball. A book is splayed on the floor behind them, and he is holding some juggling balls.]

:[Cueball throws the juggling balls in the air.]

:[He lowers his arms to prepare to catch the balls. The balls are still hovering in mid-air.]

:[Cueball now stands with his arms by his sides. The balls have not moved and are still suspended in mid-air.]

:[Cueball jumps, trying to grab the lowest ball. He can't reach.]

:[Cueball scratches his head and stares at the still floating juggling balls.]

:[Cueball throws the book into a trash can.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1004: Batman

2012-12-07T17:48:03Z

70.91.188.49:

Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in, where a man dressed up as a *bat* gets all of my press? This town needs an enema! -- The Joker (Jack Nicholson, "Batman", 1989) -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1004: Batman

2012-12-07T17:46:49Z

70.91.188.49:

Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in, where a man dressed up as a *bat* gets all of my press? This town needs an enema! -- The Joker (Jack Nicholson, "Batman", 1989) - mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1004: Batman

2012-12-07T17:46:06Z

70.91.188.49: Created page with "Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in, where a man dressed up as a *bat* gets all of my press? This town needs an enema! -- The Joker (Jack Nicholson, "Batman..."

Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in, where a man dressed up as a *bat* gets all of my press? This town needs an enema! -- The Joker (Jack Nicholson, "Batman", 1989) [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1063: Kill Hitler

2012-12-07T15:02:46Z

70.91.188.49:

Actually, I think the joke here is that Black Hat actually did end Hitler's atrocities, but that history is not actually changeable. Hitler's "suicide" was actually Black Hat killing him. This is then layers with the impossibility of changing history. This would imply that anyone that wants to stop Hitler before he rose to power will be circumvented.

[[User:UnaSalusVictis|UnaSalusVictis]] ([[User talk:UnaSalusVictis|talk]]) 01:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)UnaSalusVictis

True, killing Hitler before he rose to power and committed all his atrocities would cause a Grandfather paradox... Cueball invented the time machine and send Black Hat back because he wanted Hitler dead, but if Hitler died before that, there would be no reason to invent the time machine and send Black Hat back which ergo cause the initial trip to kill Hitler not possible and ergo Hitler couldn't die before he rises to power and committed his atrocities. [[Special:Contributions/175.137.100.81|175.137.100.81]] 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in the original timeline, Hitler's atrocities extended beyond 1945. When Black Hat went back in time and assassinated Hitler in 1945, a new time-line was created. When Black Hat returned to the current date, he returned to a different timeline than the one he left. In this timeline (ours), Hitler died in 1945, and because this timeline is based on that fact, Cueball thinks that Black Hat has not changed anything, when in fact, Black Hat's actions created the new timeline. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1063: Kill Hitler

2012-12-07T15:01:02Z

70.91.188.49:

Actually, I think the joke here is that Black Hat actually did end Hitler's atrocities, but that history is not actually changeable. Hitler's "suicide" was actually Black Hat killing him. This is then layers with the impossibility of changing history. This would imply that anyone that wants to stop Hitler before he rose to power will be circumvented.

[[User:UnaSalusVictis|UnaSalusVictis]] ([[User talk:UnaSalusVictis|talk]]) 01:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)UnaSalusVictis

True, killing Hitler before he rose to power and committed all his atrocities would cause a Grandfather paradox... Cueball invented the time machine and send Black Hat back because he wanted Hitler dead, but if Hitler died before that, there would be no reason to invent the time machine and send Black Hat back which ergo cause the initial trip to kill Hitler not possible and ergo Hitler couldn't die before he rises to power and committed his atrocities. [[Special:Contributions/175.137.100.81|175.137.100.81]] 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in the original timeline, Hitler's atrocities extended beyond 1945. When Black Hat went back in time and assassinated Hitler in 1945, all of the history in between was re-written. When Black Hat returned to the current date, he returned to a different timeline than the one he left. In this timeline (ours), Hitler died in 1945, and because this timeline is based on that fact, Cueball thinks that Black Hat has not changed anything, when in fact, Black Hat's actions created the new timeline. -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1063: Kill Hitler

2012-12-07T15:00:34Z

70.91.188.49:

Actually, I think the joke here is that Black Hat actually did end Hitler's atrocities, but that history is not actually changeable. Hitler's "suicide" was actually Black Hat killing him. This is then layers with the impossibility of changing history. This would imply that anyone that wants to stop Hitler before he rose to power will be circumvented.

[[User:UnaSalusVictis|UnaSalusVictis]] ([[User talk:UnaSalusVictis|talk]]) 01:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)UnaSalusVictis

True, killing Hitler before he rose to power and committed all his atrocities would cause a Grandfather paradox... Cueball invented the time machine and send Black Hat back because he wanted Hitler dead, but if Hitler died before that, there would be no reason to invent the time machine and send Black Hat back which ergo cause the initial trip to kill Hitler not possible and ergo Hitler couldn't die before he rises to power and committed his atrocities. [[Special:Contributions/175.137.100.81|175.137.100.81]] 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in the original timeline, Hitler's atrocities extended beyond 1945. When Black Hat went back in time and assassinated Hitler in 1945, all of the history in between was re-written. When Black Hat returned to the current date, he returned to a different timeline than the one he left. In this timeline (ours), Hitler died in 1945, and because this timeline is based on that fact, Cueball thinks that Black Hat has not changed anything, when in fact, Black Hat's actions created the new timeline. [[Special:Contributions/70.91.188.49|70.91.188.49]] 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1131: Math

2012-12-04T16:19:31Z

70.91.188.49: Sign my change

Sorry, I don't know how to upload the correct image. - Artod

:Picture downloaded from xkcd, uploaded to the wiki with the correct license and "xkcd" added to the filename as a prefix, then filename changed in page source to correct image. Hope this helps in the future! - [[User:Coombeseh|Coombeseh]] ([[User talk:Coombeseh|talk]]) 10:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:Can somebody please explain further? I guess the joke is about the forecast? thank you --[[Special:Contributions/89.144.192.97|89.144.192.97]] 14:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Randall's on the nose again. This is why I just turned off all media yesterday, especially toward the end of the evening. Unless you're up for contrived suspense, it's really just tediousness lived through: barely five minutes of "news" per hour, the remaining "empty" time filled with the drone of talking heads waxing obnoxious about irrelevancies. This morning, the results are in, and I'm no worse for not having endured the conjectural drivel... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

:As a note, the title text is referring to the consensus polls, including those at fivethirtyeight.com, which were referred to in the previous episode. Another interpretation of the "numbers" comment is that the predictions based on polling numbers and proper statistical analyses of those, rather than mere punditry and opinion, were always the best predictors of what was going to happen in this election. So not only could numbers retroactively tell us who won (based on actual votes) but numbers when used as individual data points with variance and sample sizes, and combined into an aggregate, were far more effective in telling us prospectively who was going to win. [[Special:Contributions/128.104.149.65|128.104.149.65]] 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers continue <ins>to be best</ins> system for determining? {{unsigned|204.191.29.154}}
:Yes and no. In news stories (see newspaper headlines for an example), this is a typical format. You didn't notice the "To surprise of pundits" part that came first? [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:I believe the previous entry was addressing the missing article "the" in the caption. [[User:mwburden|mwburden]]

[http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/06/comment-thread-3-live-blogging/ For more critical relevance], he texted along these lines yesterday to one of the more prominent non-Nate Silver analysts, Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium {{unsigned|70.167.158.178}}

I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1131: Math

2012-12-04T16:17:23Z

70.91.188.49: Clarify comment

Sorry, I don't know how to upload the correct image. - Artod

:Picture downloaded from xkcd, uploaded to the wiki with the correct license and "xkcd" added to the filename as a prefix, then filename changed in page source to correct image. Hope this helps in the future! - [[User:Coombeseh|Coombeseh]] ([[User talk:Coombeseh|talk]]) 10:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:Can somebody please explain further? I guess the joke is about the forecast? thank you --[[Special:Contributions/89.144.192.97|89.144.192.97]] 14:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Randall's on the nose again. This is why I just turned off all media yesterday, especially toward the end of the evening. Unless you're up for contrived suspense, it's really just tediousness lived through: barely five minutes of "news" per hour, the remaining "empty" time filled with the drone of talking heads waxing obnoxious about irrelevancies. This morning, the results are in, and I'm no worse for not having endured the conjectural drivel... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

:As a note, the title text is referring to the consensus polls, including those at fivethirtyeight.com, which were referred to in the previous episode. Another interpretation of the "numbers" comment is that the predictions based on polling numbers and proper statistical analyses of those, rather than mere punditry and opinion, were always the best predictors of what was going to happen in this election. So not only could numbers retroactively tell us who won (based on actual votes) but numbers when used as individual data points with variance and sample sizes, and combined into an aggregate, were far more effective in telling us prospectively who was going to win. [[Special:Contributions/128.104.149.65|128.104.149.65]] 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers continue <ins>to be best</ins> system for determining? {{unsigned|204.191.29.154}}
:Yes and no. In news stories (see newspaper headlines for an example), this is a typical format. You didn't notice the "To surprise of pundits" part that came first? [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:I believe the previous entry was addressing the missing article "the" in the caption.

[http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/06/comment-thread-3-live-blogging/ For more critical relevance], he texted along these lines yesterday to one of the more prominent non-Nate Silver analysts, Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium {{unsigned|70.167.158.178}}

I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)