https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=S&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-19T04:04:48ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1478:_P-Values&diff=83527Talk:1478: P-Values2015-01-27T01:25:49Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>IMHO the current explanation is misleading. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value p-value] describes how well the experiment output fits hypothesis. The hypothesis can be that the experiment output is random.<br />
The low p-values point out that the experiment output fits well with behavior predicted by the hypothesis. The higher the p-value the more the observed and predicted values differ.[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 08:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
: High p-values do not signify that the results differ from what was predicted, they simply indicate that there are not enough results for a conclusion. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.113|108.162.230.113]] 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I read this comic as a bit of a jab at either scientists or media commentators who want the experiments to show a particular result. As the significance decreases, first they re-do the calculations either in the hope that result might have been erroneous and would be re-classified as significant, or intentionally fudge the numbers to increase the significance. The next step is to start clutching at straws, admitting that while the result isn't ''[[Technically]]'' significant, it is very close to being significant. After that, changing the language to 'suggestive' may convince the general public that the result is actually more significant than it is, while also changing the parameters of the 'significance' value allows it to be classified as significant. Finally, they give up on the overall results, and start pointing out small sections which may by chance show some interesting features.<br />
<br />
All of these subversive efforts could come about because of scientists who want their experiment to match their hypothesis, journalists who need a story, researchers who have to justify further funding etc etc. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:I like how you have two separate categories - "scientists" and "researchers" with each having two different goals :) [[User:Nyq|Nyq]] ([[User talk:Nyq|talk]]) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
: As a reporter, I can assure you that journalists are not redoing calculations on studies. Journalists are notorious for their innumeracy; the average reporter can barely figure the tip on her dinner check. Most of us don't know p-values from pea soup.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.78|108.162.216.78]] 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This one resembles [https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/ this interesting blog post] very much.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.222|141.101.96.222]] 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[File:null_hypothesis.png]]<br/><br />
[[User:Sten|'''S<small>TEN</small>''']] <small>([[User talk:Sten|talk]])</small> 13:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Heh. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.189|173.245.56.189]] 20:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
See http://xkcd.com/882/ for using a subgroup to improve your p value. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
:I agree. The part about p >= 0.1 reminded me of that comic. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 01:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This comic may be ridiculing the arbitrariness of the .05 significance cutoff and alluding to the "new statistics" being discussed in psychology.[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/march-14/theres-life-beyond-05.html]<br>[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.163|108.162.219.163]] 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1435:_Presidential_Alert&diff=77453Talk:1435: Presidential Alert2014-10-17T22:25:30Z<p>S: Added discussion about title text.</p>
<hr />
<div>Do you think this has to do with the Floss joke on Reddit at all? [[User:Kllrshrk|Kllrshrk]] ([[User talk:Kllrshrk|talk]]) 04:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Kllrshrk<br />
:I don't know about floss joke on reddit, tell me more [[Special:Contributions/103.31.5.112|103.31.5.112]] 04:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2j6pxs/whats_the_joke_with_then_floss/ [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Randall knows reddit; this is most likely a reference.[[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I was thinking that it had something to do with the broadcast he did yesterday (Thursday Oct 16) on the subject of Ebola -- where he really said nothing, other than pamper a bit to the Fox News people, promising an Ebola-czar if he felt it would help [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm going to suggest that the hover text is based on a faked misunderstanding of First Amendment law... the President, as part of the government, can't suggest a preference for one religion over others, including when he's talking to his own children. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.119}}<br />
<br />
: Disagree: Mentioning "God" does not signal any preference of any particular religion -- there is (at least one) god in them all, albeit in religions with more than one god they have individual names where in religions with only one god they may not have a name at all [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: There are arguments regarding talking about your capital-G God ((one) proper name of the generic christian god) as opposed to talking about your small-g god (who might have a specific name, whether Jehova, Allah, Osiris, Odin, Quetzovercoatl or, indeed, God). But that's for etymologists to discuss, probably. Or entomologists, when they're fed up talking about whether Bugs are bugs and are trying to relax by not talking shop. HTH, HAND. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.118|141.101.99.118]] 10:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I read the comic a bit differently: supposing the President accidentally pressed "The Button" (started nuclear war), he would appear on television to tell the country about the impending catastrophe. However, once on TV he can't bring himself to tell everyone that he started a nuclear war by mistake, so he opts for something rather lame and exits -- it will all be over soon anyway.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.191|141.101.104.191]] 07:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Feeling a bit down today? --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 08:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: I had the exact same idea - that he meant to tell them: "you're all gonna die soon" or something similar but decided not to and was desperately trying to find something else to say. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.98|108.162.254.98]] 18:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Where does the "President Cueball" come from? I assumed it was Obama. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 08:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Also the fact that the title text is definitely about Obama implies that the comic features Obama. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 12:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The alt-text seems like an unnecessary swipe at President Obama. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.80|108.162.216.80]] 09:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Everything that occurs here is necessary. [[User:Robert|Robert]] ([[User talk:Robert|talk]]) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
An phone app called Pushbullet recently began pushing xkcds to my phone, and Dashclock places the titles of pushes to my lock screen. Where I'm going with this, if you haven't guessed, is that I found my phone in my bed after 3 AM and blearily woke it to be greeted with a red lock screen reading '''Presidential Alert''' <br />
<br />
A big thank-you to everyone to made my 4 AM wakefulness possible. – [[User:Robert|Robert]] ([[User talk:Robert|talk]]) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Anybody else old enough to remember this Spitting Image/Genesis video (http://youtu.be/1pkVLqSaahk)? [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Regarding the title text, I don't think the joke is that the president would confuse "good night" and "God bless America." It is very common for the United States President to conclude evening speeches with something like "Good night. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America." For a similar example, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqMzidfyxrI (which I just found as a random example). [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1364:_Like_I%27m_Five&diff=66773Talk:1364: Like I'm Five2014-05-05T23:04:59Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>Almost certainly a reference to [http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2014/05/cory-doctorow-how-to-talk-to-your-children-about-mass-surveillance/ this]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.44|108.162.219.44]] 05:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I actually do something like this, though I never heard of the Reddit thing or the above page. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 06:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The alt text leads into me imagining them both "being" 5 and start arguing in a very childish way. I think that's a part of the alt joke.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 08:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I read it as a pun on "parens". As in the equations being so complicated it's hard to tell which parentheses belong together. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.211|141.101.88.211]] 12:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:But those parentheses are only in your mind. The thesis could very well be about Psychology or Latin. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 14:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I did remove this statement: "possibly originating from an [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1171346/quotes?item=qt0381329 episode of Psych])". Maybe someone can give a better prove; the explain still needs some enhancements. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Does this remind anyone else of [[547]]? Except that xkcd argued the opposite (that simplified explanations are beneficial). I'd assume that this means there is a happy middle ground between offering simple, accessible explanations and dumbing things down to the level needed for a 5 year old to understand. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1364:_Like_I%27m_Five&diff=66772Talk:1364: Like I'm Five2014-05-05T23:02:51Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>Almost certainly a reference to [http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2014/05/cory-doctorow-how-to-talk-to-your-children-about-mass-surveillance/ this]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.44|108.162.219.44]] 05:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I actually do something like this, though I never heard of the Reddit thing or the above page. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 06:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The alt text leads into me imagining them both "being" 5 and start arguing in a very childish way. I think that's a part of the alt joke.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 08:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I read it as a pun on "parens". As in the equations being so complicated it's hard to tell which parentheses belong together. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.211|141.101.88.211]] 12:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:But those parentheses are only in your mind. The thesis could very well be about Psychology or Latin. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 14:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I did remove this statement: "possibly originating from an [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1171346/quotes?item=qt0381329 episode of Psych])". Maybe someone can give a better prove; the explain still needs some enhancements. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Does this remind anyone else of [[547]]? Except that xkcd argued the opposite (that simplified explanations are beneficial). [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1363:_xkcd_Phone&diff=66704Talk:1363: xkcd Phone2014-05-04T16:58:48Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>This seems like an SCP artifact [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.220|108.162.249.220]] 10:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I really dislike the tone of the explanation. I mean it's so negative about the features! Not that they are all useful, but isn't this a wiki and should be neutral? It takes also the fun out of it. I would like a screaming while falling phone and the relativity thing would be great for teaching relativity! [[User:RecentlyChanged|RecentlyChanged]] ([[User talk:RecentlyChanged|talk]])<br />
<br />
Where can i get one of these? :D [[User:UniTrader|UniTrader]] ([[User talk:UniTrader|talk]]) 04:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the "scream when falling" thing and the "flightaware" stuff can be done somehow with Tasker. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.103.206|141.101.103.206]] 04:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Designer?<br />
<br />
I suspect it was either Black Hat or Beret Guy, but I'm not sure which. A collaboration? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 04:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This sounds like something straight out of aperture. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.55}}<br />
<br />
;Simulates alternate speeds of light<br />
<br />
Yes, useless as a feature on all the time; but it would be a cool app. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 05:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Absolutely. Where can I get an app like that?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.157|108.162.225.157]] 06:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Travelling at above the simulated speed of light should give an imaginary time dilation, not a negative time dilation.<br />
gamma = 1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}<br />
Thus, after such travel, the value of the clock would be a complex number. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.35|108.162.219.35]] 15:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Changed the speed of light to 2.99x10^8'''<br />
:You guys should probably clarify that the relativisic affects actually depend on how long your trip is or how long you wait to sync your phone. For relativity to be observable on a 12 hour trip, Minimum speed for a phone would have to be 300 m/s or 3000 m/s for the clock to measure even a microsecond/millisecond difference in time. This is well known thanks to the certain [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Velocity_and_gravitational_time_dilation_combined-effect_tests time dilation experiments with planes]. Your GPS chip helps account for an error of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity 7 to 47 microseconds per day]. My point is in terms of time dilation, relativity mattering depends on how long a trip or waiting for synchronization is. By synching, I literally mean with the atomic time clock or with a GPS satellite. The synchronization of your phone with satellites is actually a couple of hundred microseconds, so normally even a light changing clock might not have as noticable changes as you might think. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.225|108.162.238.225]] 13:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.225|108.162.238.225]] 13:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
Yeah sorry forgot to login. does anyone know how to do the indices formatting other than eg 2.99x10(littlex) rather then 2.99x10^x? [[User:Jonv4n|Jonv4n]] ([[User talk:Jonv4n|talk]]) 06:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Whas<sup>sup</sup>? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.220|141.101.89.220]] 07:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
; relativistic effect<br />
Forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm not a physicist but the above explanation says that relativistic time dilation affects only occur at a significant fraction of the speed of light. It is my understanding that time dilation occurs at any speed, but is only perceptible/noticeable/measurable at very large fraction of the speed of light. Unless I'm mistaken the above it should reflect this. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.91|173.245.56.91]] 22:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
; putting "Relative" back into relativity<br />
First time poster, please forgive my transgressions :)<br />
My understanding regarding relativistic effects is that, for a given frame of reference (e.g. phone operator travelling at 0.9c) would be absolutely none. Relativistic effects (as I understand them) would only apply between two different frames of reference. The only effect I can see in this case is if you are moving towards, or away from the phone while operating, and red/blue shift of the radio frequencies. In general, wifi and bluetooth are used locally so wouldn't apply; only the phone network would be affected.<br />
<br />
Also, perhaps the adjustable speed of light is a reference to the the game "A slower speed of light" by MIT Game Lab http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/ (in which you walk around collecting objects; each object slows light down, and increases relativistic effects).<br />
[[User:Jaybee|Jaybee]] ([[User talk:Jaybee|talk]])<br />
<br />
'''Phone may attract/trap insects; this is normal.'''<br />
Funnier if you take it as a reference to the [http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/04/07/mazda_issues_recall_because_spiders_invade_fuel_tank_causing_fire_risk.html spider problems] Mazda keeps on having... {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.64}}<br />
<br />
About the attracting insects ... I would expect this to be normal feature in night. Trapping, however ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
: There are other indications that the phone is at least partly biological, this being the strongest evidence of that. Insects could be the power source for the biological part(s). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 14:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Siri'''<br />
<br />
Could the Siri bit be a reference to Portal? When I first read it, I remembered this GLaDOS quote: "Your Aperture Science Weighted Companion Cube will never threaten to stab you, and in fact cannot speak. If your Weighted Companion Cube does speak, please disregard its advice." Could be completely wrong; just a thought. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.51|173.245.54.51]] 10:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Perhaps Siri is beling likened to the "ATMOS" device in the Doctor Who episode "The Sontaran Stratagem" [[User:Esp666|Esp666]] ([[User talk:Esp666|talk]]) 11:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Lamest. Comic. Ever. And I'm not just saying that because he doesn't mention the Ubuntu Touch OS. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)''<br />
<br />
'''Realistic case'''<br />
<br />
Car telephones and the first cellphones were rather expensive, at least in Germany fake "realistic cases" were sold without any working electronics in it. Usage was to impress silly friends. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.204}}<br />
<br />
I thought this was aimed at the iPhone. Apparently these have an elegant case, but I have never actually seen one. Everyone I know covers their iPhone with some hideous plastic monstrosity, since the design is not practical.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.59|108.162.218.59]] 14:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Could possibly be a reference to the "Realistic" brand, which was used on various products sold by Radio Shack (U.S. electronics retail chain) from 1954 to some time in the '90s.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76|108.162.219.76]] 16:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Screaming when in free fall: my first Android app!'''<br />
<br />
I love the bit about screaming when in free fall: that was the first Android app I hacked together back in 2009 (based on the tricorder app). [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 13:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Title Text'''<br />
<br />
Hover-over title text was truncated; love it.<br />
14:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[[User:Pocono Chuck|Pocono Chuck]] ([[User talk:Pocono Chuck|talk]])<br />
: you must have an really old firefox browser -- you should update !!! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.210|199.27.130.210]] 16:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Happened to me. Using whatever the latest IE is at the moment. It cut off at nause-. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54|173.245.54.54]] 17:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Price includes 2-year Knicks contract.''' ... but a contract with the Knicks would only appeal to pro basketball players.<br />
<br />
Nonsense. Lots of "regular" folks would buy this phone it it meant they got to play in the NBA. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I agree with this. A whole lot of people who think they have "skillz" would buy the phone if they got into the NBA. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54|173.245.54.54]] 17:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This may also be an indirect way of stating that it is incredibly expensive, seeing as those sort of contracts usually involve ''you'' getting compensated. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.33|108.162.216.33]] 13:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Your mobile world just went digital" is an inversion of the marketing-speak that was common when what we'd now regard as smartphones first began to be adopted by the mainstream (iPhone/G1 era, since Symbians, Blackberries, and early WinMo tended to be business or enthusiast devices). People already ubiquitously e-mailed, browsed the Web, etc...what was presented as 'new' was that you could now do it from your phone. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.58|173.245.54.58]] 19:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the "Under certain circumstances, wireless transmitter may control God" statement might be a reference to how transmitting devices have to comply with FCC regulation and not interfere with aircraft or government communications. Perhaps this phone is intended to be noncompliant so as to control high-level electronics, even at supernatural levels. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.66|173.245.56.66]] 21:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Dbrak<br />
<br />
'''Frictionless''' <br />
<br />
You could hold a frictionless phone just by hooking your little finger under the bottom edge, regardless of friction gravity will hold it into your hand. Just like you could leave it in a bowl without it jumping out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.72|108.162.229.72]] 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Unless you held your pinky perfectly balanced, horizontal and motionless, a frictionless object would slide right off it, as it would off any flat surface that is not perfectly horizontal.<br />
14:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.4|108.162.242.4]] 13:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)DCollins<br />
<br />
Wouldn't you be able to hold it somewhat like a normal phone, if you hold a finger under the bottom of it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54|173.245.54.54]] 17:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Saying a frictionless phone can't be held is like saying prisoners would slide out of prisons if they had frictionless surfaces. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 14:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Why the hell this funny phone isn't available at the xkcd store?<br />
I would buy if the price would be in the range of other articles there. Just for fun...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Root needed'''<br />
<br />
I think that needing root for ajust the volume may be a allusion people needing to root Android to change fonts or to take screenshots (untill version 4.x). [[User:FlavianusEP|FlavianusEP]] ([[User talk:FlavianusEP|talk]]) 23:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Alternative meaning: The spirit of xkcd'''<br />
<br />
I think there's a secondary possible interpretation for this comic -- that the various features of the phone represent the overall "spirit" or "attitude" of xkcd, in a way reminiscent of an early strip -- http://xkcd.com/207/ -- about "what xkcd means." More specifically, a common theme in xkcd is taking advanced concepts in science and technology, and applying them to whimsical, humorous, impractical, or outright impossible uses. Several of phone's features -- such as the simulated speed of light -- touch on the same theme. Wordplay, another common xkcd theme, is present as well; and the anthropomorphism of technology, along with making devices appear 'cute', is also present, and also is something that has come up in xkcd many times in the past.<br />
<br />
The comic is called "xkcd Phone", after all -- I think simultaneously with being a parody of phone advertisements, the comic is also meant to show us what a phone that fits into the xkcd world would be like. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.114|108.162.241.114]] 17:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Blowing out candles....'''<br />
<br />
For the birthday candles thing: I do remember seeing a video ad for an app back when the iphone was first opened up to outside developers that would turn the phone into a fan, and it demonstrated that it was strong enough to blow out a birthday candle. Seemed quite useless at the time. Still does today for that matter {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.47}}<br />
<br />
'''Side-facing camera'''<br />
<br />
I thought the joke here was that the camera ''only'' contained a side-facing camera rather than a side camera in addition to a front and back camera. While you can see the camera on the side, you don't see a camera on the front and they don't talk about a rear camera. It'd be pretty annoying to use a side-facing camera for anything but the surreptitious case you described. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 16:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1252:_Increased_Risk&diff=46771Talk:1252: Increased Risk2013-08-17T00:40:24Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>I think this is to address the old chestnut of "<something> will ''double'' your risk of getting cancer!", or the like, where the risk of getting that cancer (in this example) is maybe 1 in 10,000, so doubling the risk across a population wouldmake that a 1 in 5,000 risk to your health... which you may still consider to be an acceptable gamble if it's something nice (like cheese!) that's apaprently to blame and you'd find abstinence from it gives a barely marginal benefit for a far greater loss of life enjoyment. Also, this sort of figure almost always applies towards a ''specific form'' of cancer, or whatever risk is being discussed, meaning you aren't vastly changing your life expectancy at all. In fact, the likes of opposing "red wine is good/bad for you" studies can be mutually true by this same principle (gain a little risk of one condition, lose a little risk from another). (Note: I don't know of any particular "cheese gives you cancer!" stories doing the rounds, at the moment. I bet they have done, but I only mention it because I actually quite like cheese. And I probably ''wouldn't'' give it up under the above conditions.)<br />
<br />
It's also possible that this covers the likes of "<foo> in <country> is 10 times more dangerous than it is <other country>" statements. Perhaps ''only'' ten incidents happened in the former, and a single instance in the latter, out the ''whole'' of each respective country. Or a single incident occured in both, but the second country is ten times the size, so gets 'adjusted for population' in the tables. And, besides which, that was just for one year and was just a statistical blip that will probably revert-towards-the-mean next year.<br />
<br />
Finally, for a given risk of some incident happening on the first two trips, with no 'memory' or build-up involved, it pretty much is half-as-likely-again for the incident to have happened (some time!) in three separate trips. (Not quite, if those that lose against the odds and get caught by the incident the first or second trip never get to ''have'' a (second or) third trip... but for negligable odds like thegiven example, of the dog with the handgun, it's near-as-damnit so.) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Where did "dogs with shotguns" come from? I only saw "handgun" in the comic. Besides, I interpreted the risk as being hit by a negligent discharge from the handgun, not being deliberately attacked by the dog. Also, since probabilities are the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, there are an uncountable number of them. "A x% increase in a tiny risk is still tiny" is an inductive statement, which means it could only be used to argue that a countable set of numbers is tiny. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:If induction base is uncountable, you can prove it for the whole [0; 1]. For example your induction base may be "every risk under 0.00000000000000000001% is tiny". --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think it's worth mentioning that this comic doesn't [[985|distinguish between percentages and percentage points]]. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it the case that doing something three times increases risk by 50% over two times inherently? I feel like this is the case, but it's early, here. Also, I'm not sure Randall is attacked by a dog, he may be using it as a diversion. I think that he's done this before. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 12:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
:(First, good point, DiEvAl, about the percentages/percentage-points. I ''knew'' I'd missed something out in my first thoughts. I actually tend to assume ''against'' percentage points, which is somewhat the opposite from what I've seen in the general public.)<br />
:Actually, depends on how you count it. But I was using the "encounter 'n' incidents per trip", "encounter '2n' incidents per two trips", "encoutner '3n' incidents per three trips" measure, where 3n==2n+50%. But that works best with a baseline of >>1 incidents per trip assumed. In reality, if the chance is a fractional 'p' for an occurance in one instance, it's (1-p) that it ''didn't'' occur thus (1-p)<sup>n</sup> that it didn't occur in any of 'n' instances and 1-(1-p)<sup>n</sup> that it did (at least once, possible several times or even all). Not so simple, but for p tending to zero it 'does' converge on 1.5 times for across three what you'd expect for two (albeit because 0*1.5=0). Like they say, "Lies, Damn Lies...", etc. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't think Randall is being attacked by a dog at all. What he's saying is that if you are going to think getting attacked by a shark is so likely, then you better be watching out for that never-gonna-happen dog scenario too. [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Is 0.000001% really "one in a million"?<br />
;If 1% = 1 in 100, then<br />
:0.1% = 1 in a 1,000<br />
:0.01% = 1 in a 10,000<br />
:0.001% = 1 in a 100,000<br />
:0.0001% = 1 in a 1,000,000<br />
:0.00001% = 1 in a 10,000,000<br />
:'''0.000001% = 1 in a 100,000,000'''<br />
Would it be more accurate to leave off the % sign?<br />
Assuming I'm right, I think it'd be less confusing to leave it and reduce the numbers by a couple orders of magnitude.<br />
--Clayton [[Special:Contributions/12.202.74.87|12.202.74.87]] 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''If the chance of the dog attack is 0.000000001% (one in a billion) on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits is 0.000000002% whereas in three visits it becomes 0.000000003%''<br />
<br />
Um, no. Following that logic, if I go to the beach a billion times then I '''will''' get shot by a dog that is packing. Rather, each visit to the beach has it's own odds, like the rolling of dice? On any particular visit there's a one-in-a-billion chance. And that's true on each subsequent visit as well. Tuesday's visit to the beach isn't twice as dangerous just because I was at the beach on Monday. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 16:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
:For each visit that is the case. Because it's one visit, that's true. However, if (time not being a factor) one were to have a billion visits planned, the odds over all would be increased. Pretty sure that overall this means that you got the joke faster than I did. Thanks for the clarification! [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
::The odds overall may increase with multiple visits. But not, at least, at the rate listed. Otherwise that billionth trip (if one survived that long as one is likely to do) would be certain death. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 17:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Correct. Technically, the odds we are worried about are the "probability of being shot one or more times by a dog". So if the probability is 1/10^9 for any given day, than the odds of not being shot are (10^9-1)/10^9 for any given day, and the odds of not being shot over three days are (10^9-1)^3/10^27, and then the odds of being shot one or more times are 1-((10^9-1)^3/10^27), which is roughly 2.999999997000000001/10^9. That is close, but slightly less, than 3/10^9. [[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Toby Ovod-Everett<br />
::::Absolute incorrect: You always have to look at the single event. More events do not belong together, you always have the same probability at each single event. So, even 10 billion events may or may NOT result in a disaster. Math isn't easy.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::I believe what CFoxx was saying is that if the odds of something happening on any given day are one in three, then the odds of that thing happening at least once during a four day period is NOT 4/3rds! I was pointing out that the proper way to calculate the odds for a four day period is to say that the odds of it not happening on any given day are two in three. You take that probability and raise it to the fourth power, giving the odds that it won't happen at all during a four day period of 16/81, thus the odds that it will happen during that four day period is 65/81. I then did that same calculation for the 1 in a billion chance per day and applied it to the three day period, and recognized that he was correct that the true probability of the event happening one or more times over a three day period was not three times the probability of it happening on any given day, but also noted that the difference for a 1 in a billion chance over a small period is pretty close to the simplistic (but incorrect) approach. My rough estimate for the "one in a billion per day" event happening one or more times during a billion day period is 63.21%.[[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 21:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Toby Ovod-Everett<br />
::::::Wow, we still have many great scientists here!--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just a thought: is the title text a reference to the Sorites paradox? --AJ [[Special:Contributions/80.42.221.105|80.42.221.105]] 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Rats! I made the newbie mistake of editing something before I found the discussion page. I looked for it, honest I did! I see that UTC has already brought up what I referred to as "Cueball's error" in my (pre-log-in) edit. I did find it hard to believe I'd be the first xkcd fan to notice this error. I think this is worth addressing in the explanation, though I of course won't take offense if someone wants to obliterate my edit and start over. (CLSI){{unsigned|CLSI}}<br />
<br />
Maybe he means this: Florida man shot by his dog, police say http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17107343-florida-man-shot-by-his-dog-police-say?lite{{unsigned|Jb}}<br />
<br />
Saying that unfortunately Cueball is mistaken in his calculations because he said 50% instead of 49.99999992% is a bit of an exaggeration. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 20:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Chaos at explain section<br />
Please stop adding this, it does not explain the comic, it only belongs to this discussion page:<br />
<br />
:Note that the 50% figure is an approximation. Assuming the odds of being attacked by a dog is ''x'', the odds of being attacked by a dog at least once in two visits is 1 - (1-''x'')<sup>2</sup>. The odds of being attacked at least once in three visits is 1 - (1-''x'')<sup>3</sup>. Therefore, if one visit has one in a billion probability of attack, then two visits have not 2 in a billion, but 1.999999999 in a billion. Similarly, three visits have a probability of 2.999999997 in a billion. Saying 50% instead of 49.99999992% is a reasonable approximation. <br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, [[Cueball]] is mistaken in his calculations. This is easier to see with an event that has greater probability, such as a coin toss. Assuming the odds of getting heads in one flip is .5, the odds of getting heads at least once in two flips is .75 (i.e., 1 minus [.5 X .5], the odds of getting tails both times), and the odds of getting heads at least once in three flips is .875 (1 minus [.5 X .5 X .5], the odds of getting three tails in a row). Getting heads in three flips is not 50% more likely than getting heads in two flips. With very low probabilities (such as the probability of attack by a dog swimming with a handgun), Cueball's calculation gives an extremely close approximation of the actual probability, but one can't apply the same logic to events of just any probability.<br />
<br />
::Cueball says *statistically* the risk of some bizarre event increases 50%. This is essentially correct as many have pointed out that 49.99999999 is not really statistically different than 50. What is likely bothering a lot of people (including myself) is that the explainxkcd description states "If the chance of the dog attack is one per billion on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits *is* two per billion whereas in three visits it *becomes* three per billion." There are no weasel words like "approximately", "about", "around", etc. This reminds people of flatly incorrect uses of probabilities like the one you describe. But surely the probability of getting heads from a fair coin toss is not on a similar order of magnitude as the probability that a swimming dog shoots someone with a handgun. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I had to think of http://xkcd.com/1102/ when reading the first paragraph of the explainxkcd description. (The context is different, but the dubious use of percentages is the same.) [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1184:_Circumference_Formula&diff=30283Talk:1184: Circumference Formula2013-03-11T23:32:18Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>:Tau x Radius, superscript 2<br />
:Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|74.215.40.250}}<br />
::It's 2''&pi;r''<sup>2</sup>, '''not''' ''&tau;r''<sup>2</sup>. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::You're missing the point. ''&tau;'' == 2''&pi;'' and is considered better than using ''&pi;'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}<br />
::::Only for very loose definitions of "better." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
This comic illustrates the strategy of "The Unconsummated Asterisk", from the essay "Mathmanship" by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7701]).<br />
<blockquote><br />
The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.7<sup>14</sup> calories and thinks "Gee what a whale of a lot of calories" until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says "oh."<br />
</blockquote><br />
For bonus points, Randall could have used also "Pi-Throwing":<br />
<blockquote><br />
For example every schoolboy knows what &pi; stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of &pi; into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a &pi; got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while &pi; was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.<br />
</blockquote> [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: "if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′)." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1184:_Circumference_Formula&diff=30282Talk:1184: Circumference Formula2013-03-11T23:31:33Z<p>S: Why talk about derivatives in an xkcd about geometry?</p>
<hr />
<div>:Tau x Radius, superscript 2<br />
:Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|74.215.40.250}}<br />
::It's 2''&pi;r''<sup>2</sup>, '''not''' ''&tau;r''<sup>2</sup>. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::You're missing the point. ''&tau;'' == 2''&pi;'' and is considered better than using ''&pi;'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}<br />
::::Only for very loose definitions of "better." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
This comic illustrates the strategy of "The Unconsummated Asterisk", from the essay "Mathmanship" by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7701]).<br />
<blockquote><br />
The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.7<sup>14</sup> calories and thinks "Gee what a whale of a lot of calories" until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says "oh."<br />
</blockquote><br />
For bonus points, Randall could have used also "Pi-Throwing":<br />
<blockquote><br />
For example every schoolboy knows what &pi; stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of &pi; into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a &pi; got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while &pi; was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.<br />
</blockquote> [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: "if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′)."</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1134:_Logic_Boat&diff=17155Talk:1134: Logic Boat2012-11-15T00:11:52Z<p>S: Fixed my typo</p>
<hr />
<div>Why not take the boat as well? The goat could drag it around, and you could use it as a makeshift shelter until you finish building a proper house. Also, why does cabbage weigh as much as a goat? [[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<p>I'd say that the wolf is the only one amongst them he should keep. Seeing as how the wolf doesn't treat Cueball like the goat--i.e. rip him to shreds--and actually fears him enough to even respect the goat in his presence, I'd say that the wolf is well broken-in and might make a good companion. The goat, on the other hand, is just dead weight. (Sure, Cueball could eat her, but that's why he has the cabbage.) <br>[1] Take the cabbage across [2] Return alone [3] Find the goat problem solved--and your friend well-fed [4] Take the wolf across [[Special:Contributions/207.237.164.241|207.237.164.241]] 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
Why would cabbage count towards the total capacity of the boat? Take the wolf and the cabbage, return alone, take the goat.--[[Special:Contributions/69.197.220.27|69.197.220.27]] 08:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Maybe it's a sentient boat that knows how many passengers/objects are aboard no matter their weight?--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The comments describing other shortcuts are really just emphasizing the joke in this comic. The logic puzzle introduces arbitrary constraints and asks the solver to come up with a solution. (This is reminiscent of the classic xkcd on [[356|Nerd Sniping]].) Most normal people would have the responses you listed about the constraints being arbitrary, but the people vulnerable to Nerd Sniping (i.e. nerds) usually are willing to ignore reality to solve a puzzle with artificial constraints. The purpose of the puzzle is to encourage logical thinking. (Maybe I should take the wolf first so it can't eat the goat. Oh, but then the goat would eat the cabbage. But if I take the cabbage first, the wolf would eat the goat. Therefore, I must take the goat first. ... Continue reasoning with trial and error until the puzzle is solved...) However, you correctly are pointing out how artificial the constraints on the puzzle are. In the actual comic, the solution of leaving the wolf behind would come as a humorous surprise to the nerd following along coming up with a solution. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1134:_Logic_Boat&diff=17153Talk:1134: Logic Boat2012-11-15T00:07:55Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>Why not take the boat as well? The goat could drag it around, and you could use it as a makeshift shelter until you finish building a proper house. Also, why does cabbage weigh as much as a goat? [[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<p>I'd say that the wolf is the only one amongst them he should keep. Seeing as how the wolf doesn't treat Cueball like the goat--i.e. rip him to shreds--and actually fears him enough to even respect the goat in his presence, I'd say that the wolf is well broken-in and might make a good companion. The goat, on the other hand, is just dead weight. (Sure, Cueball could eat her, but that's why he has the cabbage.) <br>[1] Take the cabbage across [2] Return alone [3] Find the goat problem solved--and your friend well-fed [4] Take the wolf across [[Special:Contributions/207.237.164.241|207.237.164.241]] 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
Why would cabbage count towards the total capacity of the boat? Take the wolf and the cabbage, return alone, take the goat.--[[Special:Contributions/69.197.220.27|69.197.220.27]] 08:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Maybe it's a sentient boat that knows how many passengers/objects are aboard no matter their weight?--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The comments describing other shortcuts are really just emphasizing the joke in this comic. The logic puzzle introduces arbitrary constraints and asks to solver to come up with a solution. (This is reminiscent of the classic xkcd on [[356|Nerd Sniping]].) Most normal people would have the responses you listed about the constraints being arbitrary, but the people vulnerable to Nerd Sniping (i.e. nerds) usually are willing to ignore reality to solve a puzzle with artificial constraints. The purpose of the puzzle is to encourage logical thinking. (Maybe I should take the wolf first so it can't eat the goat. Oh, but then the goat would eat the cabbage. But if I take the cabbage first, the wolf would eat the goat. Therefore, I must take the goat first. ... Continue reasoning with trial and error until the puzzle is solved...) However, you correctly are pointing out how artificial the constraints on the puzzle are. In the actual comic, the solution of leaving the wolf behind would come as a humorous surprise to the nerd following along coming up with a solution. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1133:_Up_Goer_Five&diff=17151Talk:1133: Up Goer Five2012-11-14T23:44:19Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>This comic is also a celebration of what many people, presumably including former NASA employee Randall, consider the greatest technological achievement ever. {{unsigned|158.169.131.14}}<br />
<br />
I'm surprised "ship" isn't among the most commonly used words in English. Where do these statistics come from? [[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 12:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It makes sense that "capsule" and "spaceship" (as one word) are not in the "ten hundred" most-common words (Really, "thousand" isn't on this list either?), but not "fuel" and/or "tank"? People (context: US Midwesterner) talk about filling up their cars all the time! I'd like to see the original 1,000-word list. (Also: "Up Goer"? Well, it goes up -- that's about ALL it does. Makes sense, I guess.) --BigMal27 // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.149|192.136.15.149]] 13:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe is Randall referring to [[wikipedia:Simplified Technical English|Simplified Technical English]]? — [[User:Ethaniel|Ethaniel]] ([[User talk:Ethaniel|talk]]) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
:There is an entry in the Simple English Wikipedia: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_English . The Simple English Wikipedia is interesting to browse, and challenging to write articles for. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
:: Look up Basic English. It is the 850 most used words (or rather the 850 most used words when it was invented in 1930). According to Wikipedia it is still used in some countries as the basic vocabulary to first teach in English. The list of words is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Basic_English_word_list . It looks like this could be what he used.i[[User:Carewolf|Carewolf]] ([[User talk:Carewolf|talk]]) 17:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm inclined to think this is also a nod to 1984's {{w|Newspeak}}, and the dumbing-down effect of an ''overly'' {{w|controlled language}}. It's good to simplify (linguistic) complexity, but with that simplification of text comes a simplification of capacity, too. We push back horizons by exploring unknowns, so restricting things to a small set of knowns may be counterproductive. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
:This is the very point I am trying to make time and again. Some topics cannot be correctly explained to everyone. BTW XKCD #547 had a similar point.<br />
The comic is almost certainly using http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Basic_English_word_list or another work list like it.[[Special:Contributions/82.16.27.115|82.16.27.115]] 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The phrase in the explanation "Helium is much less prone to catching fire" brought a smile to my lips as there is literally <SIC> nothing less prone to catching fire than Helium. [[Special:Contributions/90.208.12.4|90.208.12.4]] 23:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<s>Unfortunately some pedant has changed it to the technically correct, but much less smile-inducing "inflammable". Pitty, it made me smile too.</s> [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit: I've reverted it, because the whole edit was fraught with incorrect minor changes. 23:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Inflammable is '''wrong'''. It means the same as flammable. If you mean 'incapable of burning', the opposite of flammable/inflammable is ''nonflammable''. This is one of the subtleties of English which is avoided by using a greater number of simple words! [[Special:Contributions/87.252.61.205|87.252.61.205]] 13:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I wouldn't say Helium is least prone to catching fire. Sure, it's least prone to chemical reaction, but it is prone to nuclear fusion, which looks sort of like fire. On the other hand Iron, while it can be oxygenated, doesn't really catch fire doing that and I doubt it can chemically react in a way which would look that way. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Fire is strictly defined as the rapid oxidation of a substance in the presence of heat - nuclear fusion is transmutation, not combustion. Iron can undergo a thermite reaction which makes spectacular flying flames. Youtube should have a billion videos of thermite reactions for your perusal. [[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]]<br />
<br />
Since the comic can't use the actual words, it took me some time to find Wikipedia's articles that describe the actual "up goer." In case there's anybody like me who wanted to know more details, I found the {{w|Apollo (spacecraft)}} and {{w|Saturn V}} articles to be very interesting and relevant. BTW, "that stuff they burned in lights before houses had power" is {{w|RP-1|highly refined kerosene}}. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks for doing the research! I've incorporated this into the explanation. Feel free to add more if you think it needs more. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 01:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I like your additions. Much better than what I could come up with! [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It would be pretty nice for a day if everyone just spoke using the most used thousand words in his respective language. Just off hand, describing the band name "Led Zeppelin" would certainly be a treat--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 18:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Anyone who will not be fired off trying to only speak the most used thousand words for workday is working manually or not at all. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1133:_Up_Goer_Five&diff=16977Talk:1133: Up Goer Five2012-11-13T00:34:01Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>This comic is also a celebration of what many people, presumably including former NASA employee Randall, consider the greatest technological achievement ever. {{unsigned|158.169.131.14}}<br />
<br />
I'm surprised "ship" isn't among the most commonly used words in English. Where do these statistics come from? [[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 12:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It makes sense that "capsule" and "spaceship" (as one word) are not in the "ten hundred" most-common words (Really, "thousand" isn't on this list either?), but not "fuel" and/or "tank"? People (context: US Midwesterner) talk about filling up their cars all the time! I'd like to see the original 1,000-word list. (Also: "Up Goer"? Well, it goes up -- that's about ALL it does. Makes sense, I guess.) --BigMal27 // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.149|192.136.15.149]] 13:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe is Randall referring to [[wikipedia:Simplified Technical English|Simplified Technical English]]? — [[User:Ethaniel|Ethaniel]] ([[User talk:Ethaniel|talk]]) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
:There is an entry in the Simple English Wikipedia: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_English . The Simple English Wikipedia is interesting to browse, and challenging to write articles for. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm inclined to think this is also a nod to 1984's {{w|Newspeak}}, and the dumbing-down effect of an ''overly'' {{w|controlled language}}. It's good to simplify (linguistic) complexity, but with that simplification of text comes a simplification of capacity, too. We push back horizons by exploring unknowns, so restricting things to a small set of knowns may be counterproductive. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
:This is the very point I am trying to make time and again. Some topics cannot be correctly explained to everyone. BTW XKCD #547 had a similar point.<br />
The comic is almost certainly using http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Basic_English_word_list or another work list like it.[[Special:Contributions/82.16.27.115|82.16.27.115]] 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The phrase in the explanation "Helium is much less prone to catching fire" brought a smile to my lips as there is literally <SIC> nothing less prone to catching fire than Helium. [[Special:Contributions/90.208.12.4|90.208.12.4]] 23:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:<s>Unfortunately some pedant has changed it to the technically correct, but much less smile-inducing "inflammable". Pitty, it made me smile too.</s> [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit: I've reverted it, because the whole edit was fraught with incorrect minor changes. 23:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Since the comic can't use the actual words, it took me some time to find Wikipedia's articles that describe the actual "up goer." In case there's anybody like me who wanted to know more details, I found the {{w|Apollo (spacecraft)}} and {{w|Saturn V}} articles to be very interesting and relevant. BTW, "that stuff they burned in lights before houses had power" is {{w|RP-1|highly refined kerosene}}. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1133:_Up_Goer_Five&diff=169761133: Up Goer Five2012-11-13T00:30:06Z<p>S: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1133<br />
| date = November 12, 2012<br />
| title = Up Goer Five<br />
| image = up goer five.png<br />
| imagesize = <br />
| titletext = Another thing that is a bad problem is if you're flying up to space and the parts start to fall off your space car in the wrong order. If that happens, it means you won't go to space today, or maybe ever.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Most of the jargon used in rocket science is not among the most commonly used words in everyday life. This comic is a commentary on the absurdity of boiling down technical explanations for lay people.<br />
<br />
The Service Module (SM) Oxygen tanks, have a note that "This part had a ''VERY'' big problem once". This is a reference to the {{w|Apollo 13}} mission. 55 hours after launch, mission control requested the oxygen tanks contents be stirred to get an accurate reading of its contents. There was {{w|Apollo 13#Oxygen tank incident|a large bang}}, and power fluctuated throughout the craft. NASA had to scramble to ensure the safe return of the astronauts, needless to say, the moon landing for that mission was canceled.<br />
<br />
The {{w|Hindenburg disaster}} is referenced in the text "The kind of air that once burned a big sky bag and people died and someone said "oh, the [humans]!". The term "big sky bag" is used as the closest approximation of {{w|zeppelin}} which is a big bag filled with a lighter-than-air gas which makes the whole contraption float. The {{w|LZ 129 Hindenburg|Hindenburg}} on the day of the disaster was filled with {{w|hydrogen}}, despite being designed for use with {{w|helium}}. Helium is much less prone to catching fire, but hydrogen was much less expensive, and is 7% more buoyant than helium. The risks seemed acceptable at the time. The original quote is "Oh, the humanity!" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA] (skip to 0:47 for the quote).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:US Space Team's Up Goer Five<br />
:The only flying space car that's taken anyone to another world (explained using only the ten hundred words people use the most often)<br />
:[A list of Saturn-V parts, top to bottom, with their "Up Goer" description follows]<br />
:[Launch Escape System (LES)]: Thing to help people escape really fast if there's a problem and everthing is on fire so they decide not to go to space<br />
::[LES side nozzle]: Thing to control which direction the escaping people go<br />
::[LES fuel]: Stuff to burn to make the box with the people in it escape ''really fast''<br />
::[LES bottom nozzles]: Place where fire comes out to help them escape<br />
:[Apollo spacecraft]<br />
::[Command Module (CM)]: Part that flies around the other world and comes back home with the people in it and fall in the water.<br />
:::[CM capsule parts]: People box, door, chairs<br />
::[Service Module (SM)]: Part that goes along to give people air, water, computers and stuff. It comes back home with them but burns up without landing.<br />
:::[SM oxygen tanks]: Cold air for burning (and breathing). This part had a ''VERY'' big problem once.<br />
::[Lunar Module (LM)]: Part that flies down to the other world with two people inside<br />
:::[LM descent stage]: Part that stays on the other world (it's still there)<br />
:::[LM feet]: Feet that go on the ground of the other world<br />
:[Instrument Unit]: Ring holding most of the computers<br />
:[S-IVB third stage]: Part that falls of third (this part flew away from our world into space and hit the world we were going toward)<br />
::[Fuel tanks]: Wet and ''<u>very</u>'' cold<br />
:::[Liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank]: The kind of air that once burned a big sky bag and people died and someone said "Oh, the [humans]!" (used for burning)<br />
:::[Liquid oxygen (LOX) tank]: The part of air you need to breathe, but not the other stuff (used for burning)<br />
:::[Helium pressurizing tanks]: Things holding that kind of air that makes your voice funny (it's for filling up the space left when they take the cold air out to burn it.)<br />
::[J-2 engine nozzle]: Fire comes out here<br />
:[S-II second stage]: Part that falls off second<br />
::[LH2 tank]: More sky bag air (for burning) (<u>cold</u> + wet)<br />
::[LOX tank]: More breathing-type air (for burning) (<u>cold</u> + wet)<br />
::[Tank-to-engine fuel lines]: Thing that brings in cold wet air to burn<br />
::[J-2 engine nozzles (qty. 5)]: Fire comes out here<br />
:[S-IC first stage]: Part that falls off first<br />
::[LOX tank]: More breathing-type air (for burning) (<u>cold</u> + wet)<br />
::[Helium pressurizing tank]: More funny voice air (for filling up space)<br />
::[LOX fill line]: Opening for putting in cold wet air<br />
::[RP-1 fuel tank]: This is full of that stuff they burned in lights before houses had power. It goes together with the cold air when it's time to start going up.<br />
::[F-1 engine nozzles (qty. 5)]: Lots of fire comes out here.<br />
:[Bottom of spacecraft]: This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}} <br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with charts]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>Shttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1126:_Epsilon_and_Zeta&diff=15615Talk:1126: Epsilon and Zeta2012-10-27T00:16:23Z<p>S: </p>
<hr />
<div>Official hurricane discussions for [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/EPSILON.shtml EPSILON] and [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/ZETA.shtml ZETA] are here. I did read these discussions back when Randall [http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/08/29/for-the-small-handful-of-hurricane-geeks-out-there made a blag post] poking at them [[User:Odysseus654|Odysseus654]] ([[User talk:Odysseus654|talk]]) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Does this have anything to do with the Italians convicting a bunch of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake? [[Special:Contributions/156.110.38.82|156.110.38.82]] 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Link? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
xkcd 980 (Money) also mentioned the fact that forecast accuracy has improved significantly: "Cost of hurricane forecast improvement funding since 1989: $440 million. Economic savings -- during Hurricane Irene alone -- due to limiting evacuations made possible by recent forecast advances: $700 million." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)</div>S