Editing Talk:1545: Strengths and Weaknesses

For anyone who wants to take a stab at a more thorough (or better written) explanation of ancestry, the wiki pages for {{w|Identical_ancestors_point}} and {{w|Most_recent_common_ancestor}} helped me to start understanding the topic. I think its easy to jump to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that Cueball will be the ancestor of all living humans, however it isn't quite as intuitive as I believed. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at the talk for that Wikipedia page. The figures for most recent common ancestor given there are incredible, but the community lacks the will to replace with decent science. [[User:Asimong|Asimong]] ([[User talk:Asimong|talk]]) 05:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand, why would come a day that he is "either an ancestor to all living humans, or to none of them"? It's very possible for him to be the ancestor to ''some'' living humans forever [[User:Egoist|Egoist]] ([[User talk:Egoist|talk]]) 19:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:If you have lots of children, and then if people interbreed randomly, as time goes forward it becomes less and less likely that any randomly selected person is ''not'' one of your descendents.  As probability of ''not'' goes to zero, fraction of ''yes'' goes to 100%.  But, if you do not have lots of children, and your kids don't either, at some future moment you may have zero descendents, and after that statistics cannot save you. [[User:Pesthouse|Pesthouse]] ([[User talk:Pesthouse|talk]]) 22:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Two cases that haven't been dealt with: 
1.) Humanity gets wiped out before this happens, so there are no living humans for Cueball to be ancestor to tor not. (0/0 case)

2.) Through physical separation, humanity diverges into 2 or more species, and Cueball is only an ancestor to some of these different species. Would all of these species be considered humans? I'm not familiar with the semantics.

I'm also not sure how likely either of these are.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.100|108.162.215.100]] 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
: In your case (1), that means he will *both* be the ancestor to all people or to none. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 01:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Also! Assuming Cueball hasn't had kids yet, he is already an ancestor to no living humans. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.100|108.162.215.100]] 23:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In this comic it is very likely that Cueball is confused regarding the software concept of recursion and "children" or child nodes. This plays off of the idea that if he reproduces he will eventually become a common ancestor to all existing humans at some point in the future (infinte recursion), or he won't reproduce and therefore will have no children (ancestor to none). This is further played with in the subtext which mentions implementing quick sort (a recursive sorting algorithm). Also of note, there are many other comics where cueball is confused by software concepts. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.111|108.162.219.111]] 21:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a bit to this explanation.  I think the explanation as it was dealt too heavily with the existential portion of the exchange and missed one really important part of the joke: Ponytail's questions are meant to be related to Cueball's PROFESSIONAL strengths and weaknesses (and his ambitions), but his responses are either accidentally or deliberately "missing the point" - he's responding from an existential point of view instead of a professional one.  I hope that the portion of the explanation I added will help clarify this point. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

:Not only he's responding from existential point of view. Also, his answers are equally true for ANY interviewed.
:PS: I'm not sure why is sex described as "awkward". Sure, having sex during interview is very uncommon, but "awkward"? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

We're fooling ourselves with job interviews, they are largely useless, and in fact may exclude the best candidates because they don't "interview well"; we would be better off doing a lottery after establishing basic credentials (literacy, basic communication ability...) Even Google has come to this conclusion, after all those puzzles and other crap:
:"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html )
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 For anyone who wants to take a stab at a more thorough (or better written) explanation of ancestry, the wiki pages for {{w|Identical_ancestors_point}} and {{w|Most_recent_common_ancestor}} helped me to start understanding the topic. I think its easy to jump to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that Cueball will be the ancestor of all living humans, however it isn't quite as intuitive as I believed. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@@ Line 9: / Line 7: @@
 Two cases that haven't been dealt with:
-.) Humanity gets wiped out before this happens, so there are no living humans for Cueball to be ancestor to or not. (0/0 case)
+.) Humanity gets wiped out before this happens, so there are no living humans for Cueball to be ancestor to tor not. (0/0 case)
 .) Through physical separation, humanity diverges into 2 or more species, and Cueball is only an ancestor to some of these different species. Would all of these species be considered humans? I'm not familiar with the semantics.
@@ Line 24: / Line 22: @@
 :Not only he's responding from existential point of view. Also, his answers are equally true for ANY interviewed.
 :PS: I'm not sure why is sex described as "awkward". Sure, having sex during interview is very uncommon, but "awkward"? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
-::Have you ever had sex in an office chair, or on one of those round tables they have in mini-conference rooms that are often used for interviews, or in the space between one of those tables and the wall?
-::Also, all you know about your interviewer is that she's "Janice from HR here at Whizco", but she's just read a 2-page summary of your life. That could add to the awkwardness.
-::And finally, assuming this is the HR interview before the technical and business interviews, and she's already asked half her questions, you've got maybe 15 minutes left to have sex, then clean up and look professional again.
-::But mostly it's the lack of good surfaces. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 02:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 We're fooling ourselves with job interviews, they are largely useless, and in fact may exclude the best candidates because they don't "interview well"; we would be better off doing a lottery after establishing basic credentials (literacy, basic communication ability...) Even Google has come to this conclusion, after all those puzzles and other crap:
-:"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html ) {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.27}}
+:"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html )
-Numberphile has [https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=444 a video] that explains the Strength. If it's worth adding to the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.82|172.68.211.82]] 13:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)