Talk:1761: Blame

2016-11-18T23:11:21Z

108.162.219.111: Adding talk to represent a satirical viewpoint.

It seems like he's talking about all of the bad things that have happened in 2016 so far making fun of Facebook posts that blame everyone for the things that are happening
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.119|173.245.52.119]] 05:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
: In particular the recent election[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.224|108.162.215.224]] 08:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this a reference to the "echo chamber" issue raised in recent US election? I.e. blaming my friends on facebook for only sharing stories that reinforce my biases and thus my failure to be fully informed about why people who disagree with me do disagree and only blaming them for being dumb isn't a failing on *my* part, but on my friends' parts for only sharing echo-chamber-y material. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.87|108.162.237.87]] 10:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I definitely think it's worth mentioning that this comic is, while written to be timeless, clearly a reaction to the election. (Randall has endorsed both Obama in 2008 and Clinton this year, and judging by #500, cares more than a little, so it's hard to conceive that this *wouldn't* be about the election.)

There are two types of Facebook activity that may be the target of this satire: 1) engaging in angry arguments with Facebook friends with *differing* political opinions, and 2) making numerous angry posts and comments against the other side, despite the fact that they’ll mainly be seen by *like-minded* people in your social media echo chamber. I expect that this comic is aimed at both: 1) the futility of internet arguments has been a topic before, while 2) the title text specifying “scared friends” clearly indicates like-minded people. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.54|162.158.89.54]] 10:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
: Just added the "friends who disagree" to it.
By focusing on blame he has cleverly shifted thinking to Q:"are your friends on Facebook to blame?" A:"probably not as they are almost all likely to have similar views to you" Q:"So why vent anger on Facebook to people who aren't to blame and you don't want to change?" A:"errrrrr...." {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.224}}

There are 3 references in my recent edit. If you go into the source code, you can see the links, but I lack the wikipedia knowledge to get them to properly link out. Help? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be that it is usual for politicians to blame "the others" (countries, etc) to justify that things are not all good in the country, and then, proceed to threaten to do bad things (go to war, revoke treaties, etc) to appease the "country's inner sadness" (and, through this, get votes) ? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.61|173.245.48.61]] 14:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My inclination was to take this as satirizing the number of people who have taken to Facebook to rant about an event that was clearly not the fault of one's immediate circle. However one feels about the election it's clear that spewing venom at anyone who happens to be in your Facebook list is unproductive at best and certainly isn't addressing any appreciable portion of the cause of these events. It seemed to be supported by taking the hover text as a continuation of the problem, suggesting that Cueball has devolved to seeking catharsis. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.132|162.158.74.132]] 17:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)jrow
:Agreed, I took this comic to be a satirical attack on people who post all caps angry messages on Facebook. EX: "I can't believe all you people did this!" , when 90% of their friends probably agree with them (See "Echo Chambers" comments)- it's almost certainly in context of the election, as "Scared Friends" represents a great many Clinton voters very well right now. The clear interpretation to me is that people posting these angry Facebook rants are not going through normal, well-thought out processes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.111|108.162.219.111]] 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This explanation currently claims venting can reduce stress. I have heard that venting actually makes you angrier. (First Google hit appears to be a scientific paper: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/jbickfor/bushman2002.pdf ). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.182|108.162.215.182]] 20:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1545: Strengths and Weaknesses

2015-07-02T21:11:55Z

108.162.219.111:

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)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1761: Blame

Talk:1545: Strengths and Weaknesses