explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2175: Flag Interpretation

2019-07-15T15:34:34Z

108.162.219.148: Remove incorrect info

{{comic
| number = 2175
| date = July 12, 2019
| title = Flag Interpretation
| image = flag_interpretation.png
| titletext = When Salvador Dalí died, it took months to get all the flagpoles sufficiently melted.
}}

==Explanation==
In many countries including the United States (whose flag is depicted in the comic), it is customary to lower the flag to {{w|half staff}} when important public figures die. This is normally done by raising the flag to full height, then immediately "lowering" it to half height. In the US, regulations regarding flying the flag at half staff specify the length of time for the flag to be flown at half staff, and are based on the importance of the person who has died. There are no regulations where the flag would be flown at any height other than full height or half staff, and there are no regulations where multiple flags would be flown.

The definition of half-staff, or half-mast, differs between countries and does not necessarily imply flying the flag at half the height of the pole or mast. For example, in the USA the flag is usually flown at half the height of the pole, whereas UK practice is to leave space for an 'invisible flag' above the flown flag, which may mean flying the flag near the top of the pole depending on its height. These differing practices contribute to confusion and ambiguity concerning the flag height, which is exploited in the comic.

Randall, as usual, makes a humorous list of fictional additional traditions.

The title text is a reference to ''{{w|The Persistence of Memory}}'' and other paintings and sculptures by {{w|Salvador Dalí}} which include watches and other objects that are melting.

===Table===
{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
! Flag Position !! Randall's Interpretation || Explanation
|-
|Flag at half mast
|Someone important died.
|In the U.S., it is customary to lower the flag to half mast when somebody important died. In the flag raising ritual, the flag is supposed to be raised to full mast first and then lowered back to half mast. At the end of the day, the flag is supposed to re-raised to full mast before lowering the flag from the flagpole.
|-
|Flag at three-quarter mast
|Someone died but we're not sure how we feel about them.
|Assuming that this way of flying the flag follows the same custom as above, it can be inferred that the flag was first raised to full mast, and then lowered by only half the distance customary for honoring an important person. If the people in charge of raising the flag are not convinced of a deceased person's importance, it follows that they would give said person a half-hearted commemoration.
A more literal interpretation is that a single full-mast flag can be taken to mean "nobody important died". If so, 3/4ths mast is a compromise between that and the half mast meaning; in other words, "someone half-important died".
|-
|Flag at base of the mast
|Everyone important died.
|Likewise, if the flag is lowered halfway when an important person dies, lowering it twice as far implies that multiple important people have died. No intermediate positions are shown, so we can't be sure exactly how many. However, Randall does not specify his definition of "everyone," so this scenario could possibly imply that there was an event that led to the complete cessation of life on Earth, possibly leaving nobody to raise the flag.
|-
|Two flags at full mast
|Someone important was successfully cloned.
|Following the "flag for important people" rule, two flags would mean two (cloned) important people.
|-
|Two flags at half mast
|An important person died battling their evil clone.
|The concept of evil clone (or twin) is popular in fiction; in this case, two flags at half mast would mean that both clones (good and evilly diverged), or perhaps the cloned person and their clone-gone-bad (antithetical to the presumably 'good' original), died in some battle where both failed in trying to establish themselves as the sole surviving version.
|-
|Flag at half mast and upside-down
|Nobody has died for weeks and that seems good but statistically it's very alarming.
|Since on average [https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ someone dies every few seconds], it would indeed be extremely unlikely that no one would die for weeks in a row. Although not having anyone die seems good on the surface, it would trigger alarm about why this was happening; what mysterious force could possibly cause cessation of all deaths? And will it continue into the future, triggering an overpopulation crisis in short order?
In real life, flying the US flag {{w|Distress_signal#Inverted_flags|upside down}} is widely considered a distress signal, "a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property", and would not be intended to indicate an important figure has died.
|-
|One normal-sized flag at half mast and five tiny flags at full mast
|Someone diverted a trolley to save five people by killing one important person.
|This is a reference to the {{w|Trolley problem}}, a well-known thought experiment in ethics: An out-of-control trolley is running toward five people who are on the tracks. If you do nothing, these five will be killed. However, you can trigger a switch that will divert the trolley onto a side track, where there is one person who would be killed. Which is the more ethical option?
In this case, the important person was sacrificed, and so is commemorated by the usual custom of lowering the flag to half-mast. The small flags, which represent the non-important people, fly at full mast to indicate those people's continued survival.
|-
|No flag on the pole
|The person who knows where the flag is stored at night died.
|Presumably the flag-keeper died during the night, and nobody living knows where the flag is stored and can't seem to locate it to put it on the flagpole.
|}

==Transcript==
:[8 panels in 2 rows, 4 panels per row - each panel shows a flagpole in a different state of flying flag(s) with a caption at the bottom of the panel below the flagpole.]
:[The US flag at half mast.]
:Caption: Someone important died
:[The same flag at three-quarter mast.]
:Caption: Someone died but we're not sure how we feel about them
:[The flag at the base of the mast.]
:Caption: Everyone important died
:[Two identical flags at full mast.]
:Caption: Someone important was successfully cloned
:[Two identical flags at half mast.]
:Caption: An important person died battling their evil clone
:[An upside-down flag at half mast.]
:Caption: Nobody has died for weeks and that seems good but statistically it's very alarming.
:[A normal-sized flag at half mast and five tiny flags at full mast.]
:Caption: Someone diverted a trolley to save five people by killing one important person
:[A flagpole with no flag.]
:Caption: The person who knows where the flag is stored at night died.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2011: Newton's Trajectories

2018-06-25T08:04:31Z

108.162.219.148:

Actually he's talking about ICBM's that have the potential to end civilisation in fire if actually launched, not the crash of a spaceship.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.156|141.101.107.156]] 04:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the object emitted from the cannon is either a rocket or an ICBM.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.158.46|172.69.158.46]] 04:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't he be talking about the rocket being mistaken for whatever big bomb we use right now and start the whole mutually assured destruction gig? I hear that there have been a lot of close calls/radar malfunctions/whatever whatevers that almost sent us into the apocalypse. Come on, Didn't Germany write a song about that? (Granted, it's apparently the show of force that starts the war, but you guys get my point) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.233|172.69.33.233]] 05:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I am German and didn't write a song on that issue. The song that comes closest for me is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0nw9PAL9WQ Fylingdale Flyer] by Jethro Tull.

Ninety-nine red balloons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Luftballons) by Nena - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 08:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2011: Newton's Trajectories

2018-06-25T08:02:54Z

108.162.219.148:

Actually he's talking about ICBM's that have the potential to end civilisation in fire if actually launched, not the crash of a spaceship.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.156|141.101.107.156]] 04:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the object emitted from the cannon is either a rocket or an ICBM.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.158.46|172.69.158.46]] 04:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't he be talking about the rocket being mistaken for whatever big bomb we use right now and start the whole mutually assured destruction gig? I hear that there have been a lot of close calls/radar malfunctions/whatever whatevers that almost sent us into the apocalypse. Come on, Didn't Germany write a song about that? (Granted, it's apparently the show of force that starts the war, but you guys get my point) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.233|172.69.33.233]] 05:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I am German and didn't write a song on that issue. The song that comes closest for me is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0nw9PAL9WQ Fylingdale Flyer] by Jethro Tull.

Ninety-nine red balloons by Nina - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 08:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

1924: Solar Panels

2017-12-05T15:49:33Z

108.162.219.148: /* Transcript */ bam, also yeah someone do the screen reader thing I can't test it.

{{comic
| number = 1924
| date = December 4, 2017
| title = Solar Panels
| image = solar_panels.png
| titletext = This works for a surprising range of sunlit things, including rooftops (sure), highway surfaces (probably not), sailboats (maybe), and jets, cars, and wild deer (haha good luck).
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SOLAR PANEL - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This handy decision tree aims to help in finding out whether a given object should have {{w|solar panel}}s installed on it.

The root question is whether the object of choice moves. If it doesn't and has no nearby empty space that would be more practical for the solar panel installation, then yes, the object should be equipped with the solar panels. If the object is static, but you could more easily install the panels somewhere else nearby, probably that's the best place. An example of this is a slanted rooftop of a house or a field on a hillside: it's certainly possible to put solar panels there, but it would generally be easier to put them on a flat surface, like a flat-roofed house or a level field if such is available. This way, you are not restricted as to the direction (which might not be optimal on a given incline) and the panels can face the optimal direction or even [https://www.linak.com/business-areas/energy move to track the sun]. For another example of things were "putting next to it" instad of "on it" is generally the easier (and arguably) option, see the "highway surfaces" of the title text.

If the object moves, the next question is whether its batteries can be recharged or swapped with ease, in which case batteries may be a better option than solar panels. The idea is that solar panels on a vehicle sound like an interesting idea, but batteries can be much more easily (and economically) recharged from a fixed electrical station than using solar panels on the vehicle as a power source.

Finally, if the object moves and batteries are not an option, the last question is whether the object heats up during operation. If not, solar panels may be an option. If it gets hot, [[Randall]] doubts it mockingly, presumably because any object that dissipates enough power to "get hot" probably requires more power than could be generated by photo-voltaic panels that could reasonably be mounted onto that object. Obviously, many animals are also "moving objects" fitting this condition, and installing solar panel on them, for any purpose, is bound to be a challenge.

But if changing batteries is not an option and heat production is minimal, then solar panels can be an excellent solution on a moving object. An excellent case for this is on probes and satellites, which are typically powered entirely by solar panels.

The title text suggests that this flow chart is very broadly applicable to anything the Sun hits; however, the flow chart does not mention if the thing in question actually ''needs'' solar panels.

"Highway surfaces" is likely a reference to "{{w|photovoltaic pavement}}". Engineers commonly regard the idea as a nightmare to implement; it would be more practical to install the solar panels ''beside'' the road where damage by cars is less of an issue.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|What about screen readers? Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
There is a flow chart that features yes/no options for each question.

<big>Should I put solar panels on it?</big>

Does it move around?
| |
yes no
| |
Does it have Is there an empty space nearby
regular chances where it would be easier to
to recharge or put them?
swap batteries? | |
| | | |
no yes yes no
| | | |
When running, is it Probably Sure
hot to the touch? not
| |
no yes
| |
Maybe Haha
good luck

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Flowcharts]]

474: Turn-On

2017-11-19T02:12:04Z

108.162.219.148: /* Explanation */ Removed inaccurate sentence: the title text is not a reference to 259, as the clichéd joke is not being used incorrectly ("supercollider" ends with /əɹ̠/, unlike "O RLY").

{{comic
| number = 474
| date = September 10, 2008
| title = Turn-On
| image = turn-on.png
| titletext = Supercollider? I 'ardly know 'er!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic refers to the first start-up (turn-on) of {{w|CERN|CERN's}} {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} (LHC). There was a theoretical concern that that the LHC experiments could create a {{w|black hole}} which would suck in our planet.

[[Cueball]] uses this concern when telling [[Megan]] this could be their last night on Earth, but since the scene is in a bar this is just another lame entry he uses because he just wants to stay the next night together with her.

Megan answers as a physicist and explains that first of all they will not start colliding particles just because they actually turn-on the collider. That will take a while during which everything needs to be checked. Secondly scientists have determined that the fears are unfounded — amongst other because cosmic rays have already been bombarding the earth with particles even more energetic than those created by the LHC. Thus if the LHC could create a black hole that would suck up the earth, then that would have happened long ago due to the cosmic rays! (At present time the collider has been colliding particles for years, and we are still here!)

Cueball feels rejected by her answer and turns away to leave her, but she calls him back explaining very directly that she did not say "no" to his request (to try to stay a night with her). Also as she is a physics grad student she needs an excuse to party — the excuse being that the LHC is turned-on.

Cueball feels encouraged and continues his attempt to get her in to bed. But in his next sentence he involuntarily uses three of the six {{w|Quark}} flavors ({{w|Up quark}}, {{w|Charm quark}}, and {{w|Strange quark}}). Megan continues to be very direct when asking if she has to be on top or bottom (when they are going to have sex). But this is also a sentence she chooses so she can continue using quark flavors ({{w|Top quark}} and {{w|Bottom quark}}). Cueball is flustered and complains that she is assuming too much since he hasn't even bought her a drink. Megan then makes it even worse when she does the order of two {{w|Whiskey sour|Whiskey sours}} just straight down - to use the final flavor ({{w|Down quark}}).

Maybe she just teases Cueball (with her knowledge about the LHC and quarks), or else she is actually so turned-on by the LHC Turn-On that she wishes to have sex with Cueball as soon as possible.

The quarks are some fundamental particles the LHC is generating. All six {{w|Flavour (particle physics)|flavors}} of quarks are in the last panel: Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Charm and Strange. They are also referenced in [[1418: Horse]], [[1621: Fixion]] and in [[1731: Wrong]], the latter also mentioning the up and down flavor. The mention of the drinks being served "straight down" is a reversal of the common bartending term "straight up", but there is no "straight down" in bartending.

The title text is of course a very old joke "[http://urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I+Hardly+Know+Her I 'ardly know 'er!]". In this case Supercollider (another name for the LHC) should be misunderstood as "(Did you) Supercollide her?", which you could put into a (nasty?) sexual context. Using this sentence at the wrong moment could be bad for a nice romance. This could be a reference to the {{w|Futurama}} episode {{w|That's Lobstertainment!}}, in which Humorbot 5.0 tells a similar supercollider joke.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball walks up to Megan sitting at bar.]
:Cueball: So, the LHC's turning on. This could be our last night on earth.
:[While Beret Guy as a bartender walks into the frame Megan replies without turning]
:Megan: Gimme a break. They're not even colliding yet, and it won't do anything cosmic rays haven't.
:[Cueball turns and walks away. But then Megan turns towards him and says:]
:Megan: Hey, I didn't say no.
:Megan: I'm a physics grad student. I need the excuse to party.
:[Cueball turns back and they talk:]
:Cueball: So, you're up for a night with a charming stranger?
:Megan: Depends. Top or bottom?
:Cueball: Hey, I haven't even bought you a drink.
:Megan: Barkeep, two whiskey sours, straight down.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Sex]]

520: Cuttlefish

2017-11-02T18:00:31Z

108.162.219.148: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 520
| date = December 22, 2008
| title = Cuttlefish
| image = cuttlefish.png
| titletext = Unless the CS students finish the robot revolution before you finish the cephalopod one.
}}

==Explanation==
It appears that [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] are {{w|physicists}} visiting a biology lab. Their guide, a {{w|biologist}} looking like Cueball, gives them a description of the humble {{w|cuttlefish}} that is both accurate and makes them sound like other-worldly creatures with highly advanced capabilities.

The scene takes an unusual turn when the scientist implies that the cuttlefish have been easily trained to improve their capabilities. He then demonstrates this by giving a simple command, whereupon the cuttlefish rises out of the water only to attack and kill both Cueball and Megan, demonstrating an ability to fly, talk and discharge lethal electric shocks in the process. (See also [[35: Sheep]]).

This is all revealed to be a dream, but it has given Cueball a warning not to underestimate the biologists. Apparently, they can be just as crazy and dangerous as any other kind of scientist. Cueball (that represent [[Randall]] as it is xkcd that salutes in the final panel) offers a toast to all biologists everywhere and plans an alliance with them against the {{w|chemists}}, hoping to prevent further attacks on physicists. He is then shown drinking from a laboratory flask, something which any scientist would be wary of.

In the past, Randall has been somewhat dismissive of the non-math/non-physics scientific disciplines, so this comic may be trying to mend some bridges with biologists. But not with chemists.

In the title text, CS stands for {{w|Computer Science}}. The "robot revolution" references events in film and literature, wherein robots, having become commonplace in the workforce, achieve independent thought and declare war on humanity, like in {{w|The Terminator}}, {{w|The Matrix}}, or the movie {{w|I, Robot}}. Randall implies that the physicists will switch sides if the robot revolution arrives first. {{w|Cephalopod}} is the class of animals that encompasses cuttlefish as well as {{w|squids}} and {{w|octopodes}}.

==Transcript==
:[A scientist (looking like Cueball) is pointing into an aquarium tank with two small animals floating in the water. He explains that they are cuttlefish to Cueball and Megan who are on the other side of the tank looking into it, Cueball with a hand to his mouth. Above them there is a frame inside the panel with a caption:]
:We visit a bio lab:
:Scientist: These are cuttlefish.

:[Very detailed drawing of a cuttlefish, with it's special W shaped pupils, all eight arms and two longer tentacles, and the striped body with waving parts shown waving down each side. The scientist tells about the animal with text above and below.]
:Scientist (off-panel): They're frighteningly smart, have manipulating arms and tentacles, have ink jets, can dart backwards and see the polarization of light through their w-shaped pupils.
:Scientist (off-panel): And their sides are 200 dpi display screens which they use for camouflage and communication.

:[Back to the original setting where the scientist stand a little further back from the tank with his arms down. Cueball and Megan has also moved further back and are even leaning away from the tank]
:Scientist: When we realized how intelligent they were, we began to teach them.
:Scientist: They've advanced quickly.
:Scientist: '''Cuttlefish: GO.'''

:[The two cuttlefish float straight out of the tank (lines indicating they movement water splashing at the surface of the tank). The scientist looks down at them, while Cueball and Megan holding hands and leans further back and Cueball takes his hand back to his mouth.]

:[Pan to only the scientist, standing with one arm bend in front of him and the other holding a finger up to his mouth, and the tank from where the cuttlefish now flies towards Cueball and Megan who are now off-panel. Lines behind the cuttlefish shows they fly right but bobbing up and down. The cuttlefish talks in a strange way where the letters are alternately up and down.]
:Cuttlefish: K<big>I</big>L<big>L</big> T<big>H</big>E P<big>H</big>Y<big>S</big>I<big>C</big>I<big>S</big>T<big>S</big>
:Cuttlefish: K<big>I</big>L<big>L</big> T<big>H</big>E P<big>H</big>Y<big>S</big>I<big>C</big>I<big>S</big>T<big>S</big>

:[Pan to Megan and Cueball, with the tank almost inside the left frame. Both cuttlefish is surrounded by their own zigzag line, which then extends from them in a thin line to encompass either Cueball or Megan. Cueball was running away from them, when this happens, legs bend at the knees and arms out and one bend. Megan has fallen lying face down arms out.]

:[In this panel with faint gray shading Cueball is waking up in bed from the dream rising up to sitting position suddenly as indicated with two movement lines behind his head. One arm is supporting him on the bed next to the pillow, and the other is pulling his sheet down away from his torso. The first sentence is maybe still part of the dream as there is no line from Cueball to the sentence, and it is written high up. There is a line to the second sentence.]
:Cueball: Oh god.
:Cueball: I knew it.

:[This panel is divided into five segments. At the top there is a large caption in two lines. The there are three drawings following each other from left to right. First a bottle is pouring liquid into a an Erlenmeyer flask (a conical laboratory flask) which is half full. Then Cueball takes the flask and holds it up as a salute. Finally he drinks from it leaning his head way back. Below there is more text.]
:<big>xkcd</big>
:Salutes Bio Majors
:If we join you against the chemists, will you train your fleshy minions to leave us alive?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Dreams]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:1102: Fastest-Growing

2017-07-02T17:12:09Z

108.162.219.148: Research about Mormons

It's about Apple fanboys. [[Special:Contributions/62.195.79.12|62.195.79.12]]
: And how is that? [[Special:Contributions/173.44.98.247|173.44.98.247]] 05:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What if I just started my own religion. Technically speaking it had 0 members, and then I joined it. Would this mean a growth of infinite percent? Also, a flaw with using percents is if a religion has one person, person a, and then person b joined it, it would have 100% growth. Then person b or a (doesn't matter which) leaves. The religion has increased by 100% and decreased by 50%. Now, you can't really add percentages, but I have just grown 50%! Ha! By adding no people! Then if the one tha left, comes and leaves again, I have grown by 100% this year. --[[Special:Contributions/98.221.139.80|98.221.139.80]]
:''Technically'', if you start your own religion, you start out with 1 member (yourself)... unless you invent a religion you don't actually believe in, and then suddenly, um, {{w|Drinking_the_Kool-Aid|drink the koolaid}}. ...;) -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
::OK. I create the religion. Leave it, and come back. It has grown by ∞ %. --[[Special:Contributions/98.221.139.80|98.221.139.80]]
::: You left it? How do we know you weren't excommunicated? ;-) Also, along the lines of ''if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it...'', if a religion has nobody following it, does't it cease to exist? BTW, ∞ is not a numerical quantity, so ∞ % isn't really possible, even if the growth is infinite. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The xkcd religion! Nice one, Black Hat.--[[Special:Contributions/98.221.139.80|98.221.139.80]]

The "claims to be fastest-growing religion" Wikipedia page is now a redirect to {{w|Growth of religion}}. I would change the link in the explanation, but, I'm not sure which section it should go to. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.45|108.162.216.45]] 03:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
:I did update the link and moved it into the section Trivia. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"It seems safe to assume he dislikes this type of missionary method."
Well, it does get pretty boring doing things the same way every night. [[User:Hppavilion1|Hppavilion1]] ([[User talk:Hppavilion1|talk]]) 04:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I love how the character is named "Combover". Fitting. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 18:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What kind of missionary do you think "Combover" is? Looks like a mormon to me... --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple (between 2 and 5) reasons why I don't think Combover is a Mormon. I looked it up—Mormon Missionaries always travel in pairs, but Combover doesn't appear to have any cohort. Also, the percentage mentioned doesn't correlate with Mormonism. Lastly, Mormon Missionaries teach lessons to prospective members before they join; they don't just say "join my religion because." If anyone else agrees with me, I think the references to Mormonism should be removed for these reasons. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 17:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

1836: Okeanos

2017-05-16T16:00:53Z

108.162.219.148: /* Explanation */ fixed comma splice, capitalization

{{comic
| number = 1836
| date = May 12, 2017
| title = Okeanos
| image = okeanos.png
| titletext = WHEN I WAS ON A BOAT I DROPPED MY PHONE CAN U LOOK FOR IT
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Chat comments still need more explanation.}}
The {{w|NOAAS_Okeanos_Explorer_(R_337)|NOAAS Okeanos Explorer}}, named after the Greek (and Roman) personification of the sea {{w|Okeanos}}, is a vessel that is currently exploring the Central Pacific Basin. It livestreams the video feed [http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/media/exstream/exstream.html] of its deep sea exploration online.

This comic seems to be a representation of the livestream on YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmVT36Axtn0]; see the [[#Table of comments|table]] below for details.

The chat section for the actual livestream is disabled, but the comic adds some humorous examples of what the chat section would look like. Several of the examples are the product of commenters falsely believing the livestream is that of a game, probably since most livestreams on YouTube are of people playing games; [[Randall]] is joking about the viewers of said streams in particular not being able to tell the difference, as well as YouTube commenters in general. Randall has mentioned the ridiculousness of comments on YouTube before in both [[202: YouTube]] and [[481: Listen to Yourself]].

In the caption below Randall states that he likes to view the stream and commends them on disabling the chat section, for the reasons given in the comic above.

The title text is yet another comment by someone who dropped their phone in the ocean from a boat, and now wants to use Okeanos' resources to find it, which is of course impossible, as the phone will by now be hidden in the silt on the bottom. And even if not, the chance of finding anything dropped in the {{w|pacific ocean}}, the largest Ocean on the Earth, is all but zero. Also, the Central Pacific Basin, where Okeanos was at the time of this comic's release, is 6500 meters deep; at that depth the water pressure is approximately 4454863 Pascal's, or roughly 646 PSI. This is probably enough to irrevocably damage something as breakable as a cell phone. Needless to say, retrieving one's phone from the bottom of the Central Pacific Basin would be a challenging and pointless endeavor.

==Table of comments==
{| class="wikitable"
!Comment
!Explanation
|-
| Fake
| A very common YouTube comment expressing skepticism, for example saying that the content is edited or computer generated.
|-
| Who else is watching this in 2017?
| This type of comment appears frequently on videos, as a kind of community bonding over discovering or revisiting older content. It is not relevant here, as this is a live feed in 2017.
|-
| Is this {{w|Pre-rendering|prerendered}} or will these graphics be in the game?
| Previews for video games often use a mix of pre-rendered computer graphics and in-game footage, generally because in-game footage is not always visually impressive, interesting to watch, or easy to fit into the narrative of a preview advertisement. This practice can easily mislead people into believing that the pre-rendered graphics represent the actual game graphics, leading to disappointment when they purchase the game and find out that this isn't the case. The commenter, who has mistaken the marine footage for a game trailer, is trying determine if what he's seeing is pre-rendered or not, since it looks photorealistic to the point that he can't believe these are in-game graphics.
|-
| That squid is a {{w|Neoliberalism|neoliberal}}.
| Likely an attempt at trolling; anyone with even a passing knowledge of marine life will be annoyed that the commenter confused the onscreen jellyfish with a squid, and everyone else will be annoyed by the politically-charged accusation in a place where such conversation clearly does not belong. Judging by the following comments, they have successfully baited at least one other person in the chat.
|-
| Why do the McElroy's never talk?
| A reference to The Adventure Zone, a ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}'' podcast hosted by the McElroy Brothers and their father. In the world of The Adventure Zone, there is a creature called the Voidfish, which is generally interpreted to look like a jellyfish.
|-
| Stop messing around and eat the fish already.
| Possibly a gamer or food vlog watcher. It could also be that the commenter believes that the footage is from the perspective of a marine predator.
|-
| This is why {{w|Donald Trump|Trump}} won.
| Another unwelcome injection of politics. This is likely targeted at the 'squid is a neoliberal' commenter, accusing them (in so many words) of being endemic of the widespread ignorance amongst the American population which led to the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.
|-
| Why do you never craft anything?
| A comment referencing games such as ''{{w|Subnautica}}'' and ''{{w|Minecraft}}'', where a key aspect to survival is crafting materials. Not crafting items in these games is often taken as a sign of ignorance or inexperience, which may be a source of mockery for commenters watching a gaming stream.
|-
| This is just a distraction
| Commenter thinks people should be focused on other things which are more important. Possibly political comment. Possibly conspiracy theorist.
|-
| Something is wrong with that baby giraffe.
| A live video of a giraffe in labor and giving birth was viral in April 2017. This commenter is either confused about which video they're watching, and is concerned that the creature on screen (a jellyfish) looks unlike a healthy baby giraffe, or is feigning this confusion as a joke.
|}

==Transcript==
:[The comic takes place during a typical YouTube live-stream. The live-stream is from "OceanExplorerGov", using a submarine to explore the Central Pacific Basin. On the left hand side, the live video feed is playing, showing the ocean's depths. On the right hand side, the chat (typically shown in live-streams) is displayed]

:User #1: Fake
:User #2: Who else is watching this in 2017?
:User #3: Is this pre-rendered or will this be in the game?
:User #4: That squid is a neo-liberal
:User #5: Why do the McElroys never talk
:User #6: Stop messing around and eat the fish already.
:User #7: This is why Trump won
:User #8: Why do you never craft anything
:User #9: This is just a distraction
:User #10: Something is wrong with that baby giraffe

:Caption: I love watching the Okeanos Ocean Exploration live-stream, but it's probably for the best that they don't enable chat.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:YouTube]]

Talk:339: Classic

2017-01-24T21:24:38Z

108.162.219.148:

Looks very much like a turntable and speaker to me. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.45}}

My guess is it's a sarcastic reference to how many songs heavily borrow from Pachelbel's canon in D. In Stairway the clean arpeggiated beginning of the song and the solo around the referenced part of the song, IIRC, as well as Procul Harem's Whiter Shade of Pale are variations on the work, in different keys. The listener knows this but doesn't know Pachelbel's long dead. Just my 2c. If I was certain I'd change the page. If you're convinced please do so. Steve T [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.188|108.162.219.188]] 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The real question is if Randall is a defener(TM) or not. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.219|108.162.231.219]] 15:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks a little like a turntable and speaker to me; if that's what it is supposed to be, I hope that Randall would have made it look more like that. But my only other idea is an iPhone/iPod in a dock, and that argument has a hard time convincing even me. I also think that the title text is a straightforward reference to the talented Lim Jeong-hyun, whom Randall is saying should be supported and encouraged towards greatness. StephenP [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 21:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think having only one explanation is necessary. The comic really could be interpreted either way; there is no "right" way to interpret it. As long as it's clear that they're two different intepretations, it's better to have all the detail and let the reader decide. Can we remove the incomplete? [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with ^ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.205|108.162.249.205]] 01:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; the two explanations aren't really distinct enough to warrant an alternative, and should be combined into one. The point, as I see it, is that baby boomer music is better in many ways - not just lyrically. It's just not a complicated or ambiguous comic to confuse readers with a second explain. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.55}}

Changed the bracketed part in the transcript - the guitarist for Led Zeppelin is Jimmy Page, not Robert Plant. Robert Plant is the vocalist though. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.69|108.162.245.69]] 02:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

; Pachelbel Kid
By "Pachelbel kid", isn't he maybe referring to the guy in the famous [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM "Pachelbel Rant" video from 2006?], implying that in the current generation there are also people that show actual musical talent?--[[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.75|198.41.243.75]] 19:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

:: I have no idea. I rewrote that section because the previous version didn't make any sense, but I haven't linked to that video because I don't know how that fits into the joke and what he's referring to. Was the video spiking in popularity when the comic came out? Is it a well-known meme that an internetter of the mid '00s would have recognised? I don't know so I didn't include that when I edited it, but there's scope for someone to do that if it makes sense. for that to be Randall's joke. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.155|108.162.249.155]] 03:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

::: It's almost certainly a very straightforward reference either to funtwo (AKA Lim Jeong-hyun), who performed the song "Pachelbel Rock" in a YouTube video that went viral in 2006-2007, or perhaps to JerryC, the original composer of the song, both of whom were in their 20s in 2007.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 21:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Classical music isn't "a type of music"; the term didn't even exist back then. It was invented to differentiate it from music that wasn't written in what was considered the "classical style" with rebuttals and mathematical meter and tonal harmony, etc. Back then you were just playing/writing music, which could be described as an arpeggio, or a sonata, or a symphony, opera, etc. "Classic" may be related, but not directly, and it has nothing to do with the number of famous performers, but the style and mode of music itself.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 06:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix all the Way! Happy Birthday! {{unsigned|Int}}

339: Classic

2017-01-24T21:12:44Z

108.162.219.148: Corrected explanation of title text

{{comic
| number = 339
| date = November 7, 2007
| title = Classic
| image = classic.png
| titletext = Someone get that Pachelbel's Canon kid a recording contract, stat.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] listens to the song "{{w|Stairway to Heaven}}" performed by {{w|Led Zeppelin}} using an old {{w|phonograph}}. Led Zeppelin were active during the 1970s, with Stairway To Heaven being released in 1971; as such, the music belongs to the {{w|Baby-boom generation|Baby Boomer generation}}. After the song fades out to the end, he expresses how much it's affected him by stating that the baby boomers are winning over his own generation at music. The way in which the lyrics are written evokes the sound of this particular song as it finishes and fades out.

The title text likely refers to {{w|Lim Jeong-hyun}}, the guitarist in the YouTube video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjA5faZF1A8 ''guitar''] that went viral in 2006-2007, in which he performed a cover of "Canon Rock," a rock arrangement of {{w|Pachelbel's Canon}}. Alternatively, it may refer to {{w|JerryC}}, the original composer of "Canon Rock" who also performed the song in a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by8oyJztzwo YouTube video], though his video did not gain as much popularity as Lim's.

Classical Music was a movement which produced many musical compositions still remembered hundreds of years afterward, and the word 'classic' is now used to describe something that remains popular long after its time. The "Baby Boomer generation" is known for having created many musicians still well-loved today, including:
*{{w|Led Zeppelin}}
*{{w|The Who}}
*{{w|Deep Purple}}
*{{w|Genesis}}
*{{w|The Doors}}
*{{w|Pink Floyd}}
*{{w|Janis Joplin}}
*{{w|Jimi Hendrix}}
*{{w|The Rolling Stones}}
*{{w|Stevie Ray Vaughn}}
*{{w|Creedence Clearwater Revival}}
*{{w|Grateful Dead}}
*{{w|The Beatles}}
*...

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting in front of a turntable, listening to Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin. A guitarist (possibly meant to be Jimmy Page) can be seen in an inset in the top left corner of the first two panels.]
:Song: And as we wind on down the road, our shadows taller than our soul

:Song: When all is one and one is all, to be a rock and not to rooooll

:Song [fading away]: And she's buying a stairway to Heaven

:Cueball: Man. The Baby Boomers are kicking our ASSES.
:Cueball: We need to get it together, guys.

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

Talk:1777: Dear Diary

2016-12-27T00:34:39Z

108.162.219.148: Added humorous comment.

I am not sure if he is actually referring to his own diary. His characters can't interact with him, and never do. To me, it seemed more like Black Hat is so used to fisching on the web that he can't even write a regular diary entry. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.22|108.162.219.22]] 06:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Innertuber40

Is it possible that instead of the metaphoric "Dear Diary", maybe he is literally writing to a person named "Diary"? This can explain the phishing mail body, at least in some extent. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.172|162.158.59.172]] 12:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Just seemed to be an absurd comic to me when I read it. I hadn't considered that he could be applying a scam as a contingency for someone finding his diary, or simply planting it to be found, but it wouldn't be out of character for him to do so. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.102|162.158.122.102]] 13:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A tangent here is the Key, by Tanizaki Junichiro. In it, we read about the lives of a married couple through their respective diaries, and eventually they begin writing in less than honest terms as they know the other is reading their own diary, but keep playing along. A masterful work.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.21|162.158.58.21]] 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Tom Riddle (especially if he'd gotten a wealthier host) definitely should've tried this. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:393: Ultimate Game

2015-06-24T03:43:45Z

108.162.219.148: comment

Why would Gygax choose to play such a luck-heavy game for his life? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::You are kidding, right? Just in case not: Because it can be really long to finish it (therefore gains time by just playing it) and also because he created it. [[Special:Contributions/189.135.40.161|189.135.40.161]] 19:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
::In this situation, I'd rather play a luck-heavy game than a strategy one. Not that I'm a bad chess player, but Death is probably better. He's probably not better at Chutes/Snakes and Ladders, though.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 03:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

----

'''"...Death's boss (satan?) would like."'''
I'd guess Death's boss, in this case, is Jesus - at least he is addressed like that in the last frame ;-)[[Special:Contributions/95.113.60.8|95.113.60.8]] 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:I would think that the "boss" is not meant to be any specific or well-known figure, Satan or Jesus. Based on his depiction, he seems rather generic. I think "Jesus" in the last panel is just used as an exclamation. [[Special:Contributions/24.41.66.114|24.41.66.114]] 03:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

------

Couldn't Gygax just get a terrible role that makes him fail initiative and keep missing, then get totally pwned by a critical hit from Death?
:Terrible rolls (or roles, if a bad character choice?) aside, with the alternative being eternal-''whatever'', it's probably worth a go to spin things out unless you're convinced that the eternity concerned is a better thing. (And ''actually'' a thing, not oblivion.) And if Gary's rotating new members into the party, as seen, then it could become a very long campaign indeed, lasting long after all the original group of characters have retired, become NPC flavour or individually succumbed to the many and various trials and tribulations thrown at them. Unless Death is the DM/GM/whatever (rather than a shared participant in some freeform collaborative game, which probably gives Gygax more than enough leeway to keep going) with enough experience to succesfully bring about a "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" event or foresee and prevent useful tricks such as the casting of Air Wall in naval battles to slew odds in the Adventurers' favour (<-true story... and even when the caster had run out of power, he bluffed enemy ships into colliding with each other by just waving his arms as ''if'' he had created yet another invisible barrier in their paths!) I could see him as outclassed in D&D as Discworld's Death apparently could sometimes be by chess ("REMIND ME AGAIN," he said, "HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE.")  [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 14:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

-----

"Anyone want to play Dungeons and Dragons for the next quadrillion years?" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.45|141.101.98.45]] 21:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

-----
Now if you could challenge Death to any game, would not "The Game" be the ultimate win against Death, as he would then always be the looser? {{unsigned|Para}}
:you made me lose. goddammit. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 08:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
-----
This is the page image for the TV Tropes page "Rules Lawyer". Just wanted to let you know. :) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

1493: Meeting

2015-03-02T18:01:21Z

108.162.219.148: offered alternative explanation based on the company being run by computers

{{comic
| number = 1493
| date = March 2, 2015
| title = Meeting
| image = meeting.png
| titletext = Here at CompanyName.website, our three main strengths are our web-facing chairs, our huge collection of white papers, and the fact that we physically cannot die.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Needs to be expounded upon heavily.}}

[[Beret Guy]]'s business, as previously seen in [[1032: Networking]] and [[1293: Job Interview]], is going well, although it is unclear why. The common theme in these three comics is that Beret Guy misuses common business cliches. The following are examples and phrases that [[Randall]] is likely making a joke about:

* "If you're reading this, the webserver was installed correctly." When a web server is installed automatically (like apache using apt-get), it typically comes with a minimal configuration meant to deliver a single page saying all is working fine. Usually, a company will then configure the web server to provide actual meaningful content. It appears that in this case Beret Guy's company kept the page as is, but also trademarked the sentence as the company's motto, and proudly displays it under the company logo.

* "Welcome to a meeting!" The usual way to start a meeting is to welcome the participants by telling them in which meeting they are (e.g. "Welcome to the meeting on ..."). Here, the complete lack of specifics in this sentence is an indication that the meeting has, in fact, no purpose at all, except to be just "A meeting". It could also mean that Beret Guy does not know the proper way to welcome people to a meeting.

* "Just wanna touch bases." Often business professions will contact a customer to "touch base," meaning to check in for a status update. The use of the plural "bases" suggests Beret Guy does not know what this means. This could also be a word play on the expression "Cover some bases".

* "Self-driving car project" Google has been working on self-driving cars, which usually shouldn't be lost track of and found by the police. The statement "by accident during this morning's carpool" implies that the employees all somehow left the car while it was moving, and it kept moving until it somehow stopped (hit something, ran out of fuel, etc.)

* "Sales, any luck figuring out who our customers are?" In the real world, when companies want to find out "who [their] customers are", they are talking about learning more about their existing customers in order to more closely match these customers' needs, and to discover ways to attract more of them. Here, Beret Guy and [[Ponytail]] apparently use the phrase literally. In a normal enterprise, however, money doesn't usually appear from nowhere, and most businesses would be very unsettled if their cash flow was from an unknown source.

* "Cool red beetle in the hallway" Beret Guy might be referring to seeing an insect. But given his continually surreal world, he might have instead seen a red Volkswagen Beetle, meaning there is an actual car in the hallway. This also matches with the "self-driving car project", potentially explaining why the car is inside the building. Randall's all-caps lettering hides the "beetle" versus "Beetle" distinction.

* "Bug tracker" usually refers to systems used to track discovery, analysis, and fixing of software bugs, not the location of actual insects or Volkswagen Beetles which are also called bugs.

* "Web-facing" (title text) usually refers to software or a server that is connected to the internet using a web interface. However, in this case the term is applied to chairs placed in front of a computer with internet browsing capability.

* "White papers" (title text) are usually policy recommendations, but Beret Guy is likely talking about actual (near-worthless) blank white pieces of paper.

* "Main strengths" (title text) typically refer to one's skills, but "we physically cannot die" refers to the fact that incorporated companies are in a sense anthropomorphised—they're legally treated as "persons", with the ability to sue and be sued in civil courts.

"CompanyName.website" ([http://companyname.website which in real life redirects to xkcd.com]) and "If you're reading this, the web server was installed correctly" are both examples of generic placeholder text. However, given the trademark sign, it appears that Beret Guy is using these phrases as his company's legal name and motto, respectively.

There is an alternative explanation for the company portrayed: it is run by computers. This explains the misinterpretations of language, the empty chair, the non-traceable money (perhaps from other computers) and the self-driving car project.

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy is shown in silhouette. Above Beret Guy there is a black sign with white (and grey) text. Above this is his address to those in the meeting:]
:Beret Guy: Welcome to a meeting! I'm almost out of words, so I'll keep this short. Just wanna touch bases.
:[White text in the black sign (''.website'' in grey):]
:CompanyName.website
:''If you're reading this, the web''
:''server was installed correctly.''TM

:[Beret Guy stands in front of an office chair and a table talking]
:Beret Guy: First, a few updates. We've learned from the state police that the self-driving car project we launched by accident during this morning's carpool has come to an end about 90 miles outside of town. :Very exciting!

:[Pony tail sits at the table.]
:Beret Guy [off-panel]: Profits are up. Sales, any luck figuring out who our customers are?
:Ponytail: Nope. Money keeps appearing, but we have no idea how or why.
:Beret Guy [off-panel]: Great!

:[Back to the situation from frame two]
:Beret Guy: Oh, and one last thing— I saw a cool red beetle in the hall. Can someone add it to the bug tracker?
:Ponytail [off-panel]: Just did!
:Beret Guy: Thanks!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Beret Guy’s Business]]

Talk:1270: Functional

2014-11-23T18:58:11Z

108.162.219.148: explanation to the optimization that happens

Am i the only one considering this can be presented also in opposition to Object Oriented Programming, where tail recursion is very difficult to achieve at execution time, and impossible to achieve at compilation time, due to the possibility of method overloading?[[Special:Contributions/193.190.231.132|193.190.231.132]] 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:Since tail recusion is special case of tail call you don't need to know where the last function called goes - you just replace call by jump - if you don't know where by indirect jump. AFAIK both clang and gcc are doing it and in FP this gives the 'continuation passing style' of programming. The problem with it is that you loose the stacktrace so usually it is done only for optimized builds. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.234|199.27.130.234]] 06:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall[sic], because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think {{w|Haskell (programming language)|Hask'''e'''ll}} is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

:Being a mathematician, I can't agree. Even though I would consider myself more an applied mathematician, I find the basic concepts of abstract mathematics quite clear and intuitive (at least to a level which is required to understand functional programming). I do agree that there are many areas of abstract mathematics neither intuitive nor clear ''to me'', but I am quite sure for people working in these areas this is not the case. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::A standard calculator works in degrees and so sine(90°) is exactly 1, while when using {{w|Radian|radians}} sine(pi/2)=1 is correct. But this doesn't matter, it always describes how to invoke a function and get the result.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::However, I don't know any programming languages that use degree instead of radians by default. But that was indeed not my point: The point is that sine is an example of a ''function'' (independent of the programming paradigm used) and not a good example of '''{{w|functional programming}}'''. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 11:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

;There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, I am a real programmer. And so I try to explain the "recursive" issue to NON specialists. We should EXPLAIN but not ENHANCE the comic. My two cents...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, then the question remains if it is not more important to explain functional programming first? Currently, the second paragraph explains the difference between a function and a procedure in imperative programming and then mostly explains recursion for imperative programming (which I doubt will help understanding the comic -- how is it relevant if and where memory is allocated?). In the next paragraph I originally tried to describe how functional programming is different from imperative programming (after some editing there is not much left of it at the moment, it currently again describes more what imperative programming is). I assume there are more people who know recursion but have no idea of functional programming than the other way around. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "which should not work because the return statement is missing" is relevent. In a given language, functions may only return values when a "return" is given (and ''immediately'' that one is given, ending all processing), otherwise giving "undefined", or "void" or the equivalent default state for an explicitly stated return-type. But in others they (in the absence of anything else, like an explicitly terminating "return" well within its own code) will use the bare evaluation of the very last statement within it as the return-value of that function/sub/procedure, if in tested at all by the calling-block (although it's prefereble to "return variable" at the end rather than just put "variable" as the last statement, for readability purposes, especially when it isn't "variable" but something that looks like (or is!) an evaulation/function call in its own right). The above being pseudocode (or "composite relatively common dialect code" not far off various common languages), surely the ''readability'' is the big concern, not the fact that (in certain languages, but not others) should not work. (Basically, have I just spent a paragaph saying "don't add that above statement, just put a 'return' into the pseudocode and everyone should be happy"? Yes. Yes, I believe I might have. Still.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 15:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:This [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] is a valid functional definition of the factorial function. There are no ''statements'' in pure functional programming, especially no return statements. (There are ways to simulate them, but that's beyond this conversation). If everyone thinks that we shall just explain recursion and tail-recursion and avoid talking about functional programming, go ahead and revert it back to before my first attempt to describe functional programming. I agree that functional programming can be hard to get at first, especially to programmers used to imperative programming, but I do think it is worth to know about it. If it is just the brace-less syntax that is confusing, we can use this [http://ideone.com/NYKQeb] alternative (very uncommon in Haskell, but I agree that it's more important to make the code easy to understand). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::Lest I have made myself unclear (and you're replying to me), I'm happy with the code as is. The 'statement' I mentioned, above, was regarding the added explanatory text (not yours) not any code-statement. The other pseudocodes had "return"s in them, however, so for an argument of readability it might be useful to make that "prod" "return prod", although I (especially as a bit of a Perl fanatic) don't mind either way. I can deal with braces substituted by idents, in pseudocode, much as I can read either XML or YAML encoded data, fairly easily. ;) However, we've got quite a technical discussion going which (unlike code, even deliberately obfuscated Perl!) is not so easily untangled into who is replying to which bit and what they are trying to say (and why). Maybe we should switch to Lojban! [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::There is no agreement yet, if and when we should introduce/''explain'' the concept of functional programming. At the moment the transition is very abrupt, partly because someone changed my first functional example to imperative code. The tail recursive example is at this very moment exactly the same as [http://ideone.com/OrCUMp this valid functional code (written in Haskell)]. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I agree, this is still chaos! Please explain "An imperative, recursive (but not tail-recursive) implementation can look like this:", I disagree and there is still no prove helping me or other people to understand. And beside: My first recursive program was to solve a one player game, written in {{w|Turbo Pascal}} in the middle of the eighties of the last century. And it was ''fast'' even at that time. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::I guess you mostly disagree on the non tail-recursiveness? Basically, this can be seen as the recursion can't be replaced by a simple replacement of the return statement with another function call, because after the call another operation (the multiplication by n) needs to be performed before the value can be returned. My original attempt on this article was to switch to functional programming at this point, since it does not make much sense to implement such a simple function recursively in an imperative language (admittedly, the transition to functional programming was way to abrupt). When implementing a function which searches inside a tree it often/usually makes sense to implement it recursively even in imperative languages and with some tricks you can also make this comparatively fast (I assume that was the point of your last two sentences?). To come back to 178.98... My intention was to structure the explanation approximately as follows:
:::::1) Describe the difference between functional and imperative programming (assuming that most readers know what imperative programming is -- if we can't assume that, where shall we start?)
:::::2) Give an example of a simple imperative function (e.g. the factorial function) written with typical imperative constructs (loops, assignments)
:::::3) As this is not possible in functional programming introduce the concept of recursion and define the function recursively (this step was clearly to fast)
:::::4) Explain the benefit of tail-recursion and give an tail-recursive example of factorial (also in functional programming)
:::::5) '''Explain the actual joke!'''
:::::6) Explain remaining parts (title text, ...) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::On your fourth point, the functional programming example is confusing, and strange. Why are you defining two seperate functions, when a single function would do? For example, an easy way to show this is:
factorial[0] = 1
factorial[n] = n * factorial(n - 1)
::::::which, though not valid computer code, is valid mathematical syntax, and shows perfectly what a factorial function, in functional programming, does. The explanation would then be:
factorial[6] = 6 * factorial[6-1] = 6 * 120 = 720
factorial[5] = 5 * factorial[5-1] = 5 * 24 = 120
factorial[4] = 4 * factorial[4-1] = 4 * 6 = 24
factorial[3] = 3 * factorial[3-1] = 3 * 2 = 6
factorial[2] = 2 * factorial[2-1] = 2 * 1 = 2
factorial[1] = 1 * factorial[1-1] = 1 * 1 = 1
factorial[0] = 1
::::::or something similar to that. [[User:GBGamer117|GBGamer117]] ([[User talk:GBGamer117|talk]]) 05:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I would be totally fine (and originally intended) to have this definition at step 3). If you replace your [ ] brackets by ( ) parentheses, or leave them, [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T it is actually valid Haskell code] (and as you point out, [clear and intuitive as] ''valid mathematical syntax''). The evaluation, however would rather go like:
factorial(4) = 4 * factorial(3)
= 4 * ( 3 * factorial (2) )
= 4 * ( 3 * ( 2 * factorial (1) ) )
= 4 * ( 3 * ( 2 * ( 1 * factorial (0) ) ) )
= 4 * ( 3 * ( 2 * ( 1 * 1 ) ) )
= 4 * ( 3 * ( 2 * 1 ) ) = 4 * ( 3 * 2 ) = 4 * 6 = 24
:::::::That would actually give a nice example, why this recursion is less efficient than actual tail recursion: During evaluation, you need to build up an entire expression tree which you don't have to do for the tail-recursive way (it does not really matter for this simple function, though).
factorial(4) = factorial_helper(4, 1) = factorial_helper(3, 4) = factorial_helper(2, 12) = factorial_helper(1, 24) = factorial_helper(0, 24) = 24
:::::::The number of numerical operations is actually the same (I omitted the steps of evaluating the products and differences), but you don't have to build up a large expression, before you can actually start multiplying. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 07:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

;Tail Recursion?

Are we really certain "tail recursion" isn't also an innuendo for ongoing sexual relations? Tail is sometimes used as slang, and if it were received regularly, it would be tail recursion.{{unsigned ip|69.67.112.5}}

;Explain the concept, not the history?

I think that this page would benefit from simplifying the beginning to explain the concept without providing all of the background. Background can be applied later. I would suggest this:

:Recursion is a common programming practice where a function calls itself. This can result in many layers of the function, all of which need to be kept track of until the program can get to the bottom layer. The last step of this process is to return the final value through all of the layers of function calls.

:If there is nothing left for a function to do when the lower level returns, then there is no longer a need to keep track of the state of that layer. Instead of creating a new layer, a compiler that is smart enough can overwrite the existing layer with the new layer. This means that the new layer will pass its results directly to whatever initially called the function and not have to waste time passing the results up the stack of function calls. Making use of this optimization is called ''tail recursion'', and it saves both time and memory requirements.

:Functional programming is a programming language style that appeals to people who spend a lot of time staring at the notation used to describe higher math. This notation commonly uses recursion and formulas that include entire other formulas as variables in a higher level formula. Tail recursion was first introduced as a more efficient manner of handling recursion within functional programming languages, and they are currently the only programming languages that support this optimization.

[[User:Mythobeast|Mythobeast]] ([[User talk:Mythobeast|talk]]) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

:Frankly, I don't think the point here is about what concept it is. Tail recursion is just one of the many peculiar aspects of functional programming that, frankly, does not make that much different in the long run. (Frankly, a loop is about 20 times easier than tail recursion in about 90% of the cases; same for passing functions around). However, those things are rewarding to play with in and of themselves (and who care about the long run anyway? In the long term, we are all dead). At least that how I think of this slide. [[User:magice|magice]] ([[User talk:magice|talk]])

Maybe the long explanation should be a trivia item?[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read all of the explanation and all of the comments as of now. In all of it, I found no mention of explaining what the optimization itself consists of. In case it is one day decided to add that explanation, I want to add my 2 cents and explain it here, as readable to non-programmers as I can:
"Computer programs are like cooking recipes: a ordered list of instructions. Usually, there are groups of instructions that are used regularly. To keep from copying and pasting these groups wherever they are needed, functions were created. When a computer executes a function, it jumps from the instruction it was executing to the first instruction of that function. When the function ends, the computer jumps back to the instruction that called the function (one after actually). Since functions can call other functions, the computer keeps a stack of function calls (and other things) to remember all the jumps it made. Think of it as a stack of heavy objects: usually, you can only move the topmost one. So, when the functions ends, the computer make the backward jumps in the reverse order they were stacked. A recursive function (explained above) may fill up the stack quickly. To avoid that, tail recursive functions (explained above) cause only the first function call to be stacked, no matter how many calls happen afterwards."
Also, out of topic but, with these comments, I found out that the editing box have a limit on how much you can stretch it downwards. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1269: Privacy Opinions

2014-11-05T01:15:54Z

108.162.219.148: my opinion

This comic could be meant to satirize those who trivialize the opinions of privacy advocates. I doubt many reading this comic would assume this is either a fair or exhaustive list of opinions on internet privacy as it is highly unlikely that the reader him/herself would hold any of these opinions. 00:05, 1 October 2013 {{unsigned ip|68.190.213.83}}

Sometimes I think all my burritos are imaginary. [[User:Nathkingcole|Nathkingcole]] ([[User talk:Nathkingcole|talk]]) 11:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Nat.

This may be pointless, but Kudos to 63.85.81.254's edit. [[User:Saibot84|Saibot84]] ([[User talk:Saibot84|talk]]) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:This may be offensive, but Redeemer's edit was both excellent and necessary. [[Special:Contributions/96.254.46.231|96.254.46.231]] 13:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::I wouldn't call it offensive (outside the language); it's simply opinionated. Thanks Saibot84. [[Special:Contributions/63.85.81.254|63.85.81.254]] 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::Fail on both counts, from me (for Redeemer's contribution), as neither excellent ''nor'' necessary. Only in the light of that does 63.etc's edit (who has just ninjaed me with an edit conflict... hi there!) actually make any sort of sense. But what do I know? I'm just an IP, and you can probably find that I'm not even in the US, from that...
:::Redeemer's meta-analysis of Randall, even if false, was still an exemplary display of critical thinking that I've found to be surprisingly lacking with XKCD fans. If Randall is anything like the person I think he is, he would appreciate such an alternative perspective. Additionally, it was an ''absolutely'' necessary defense against a straw man-like simplification of an all too legitimate concern for privacy rights. I will agree that Redeemer's edit would have been more appropriate here as a Discussion item rather than an edit to the Explanation, but this differing viewpoint should still be heard. [[Special:Contributions/96.254.46.231|96.254.46.231]] 15:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::Can we just have a proper explanation, instead, please? Let's say something like: there's those that overthink the situation, those that over-''do'' it, some overestimate the problem, some overestimate ''other'' problems, some enjoy the idea too much and some just enjoy their food more. Eh? Any good for ya? I'm sure it can be tweaked, to taste. [[Special:Contributions/31.109.31.130|31.109.31.130]] 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Done. Or at least a start. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an opinion, but I'm keeping it private for now. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 13:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

One mention of the NSA, one mention of Google. I'm not sure how Randall's politics are relevant, or how he's excusing privacy concerns, and the "explanation" says a lot about the interpretation and US-centric perspective of the poster without adding to the comic. Unless it was a deliberate parody of the conspiracy panel, not appropriate, dude. (And I'm a Brit - I definitely didn't vote for any political party in the states. But hello, Echelon.) [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::The comment was so off the wall I think it pretty much had to be parody, in keeping with panel 3. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why '''some''' Americans consider that '''world-wide''' issues like on-line privacy have to be related '''only''' to U.S. politicians.{{unsigned ip|88.9.73.162}}

I'm pretty sure the explanation of the Nihilist isn't right. In my opinion Randall jokes that if all of your actions are meaningless (the nihilistic way of thought) then the same applies to all your data. [[Special:Contributions/188.174.192.237|188.174.192.237]] 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever classed this place up by deleting that vitriol.{{unsigned ip|50.148.241.3}}

I'm a fan, but I'm disappointed. Don't tell me I didn't "get it" though. I "got it" very well. I love XKCD very much, but not today. I would like to thank Saibot84 and 96.254.46.231 for their heartwarming support. A Reddit post about the edit can be found here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth/comments/1n3rz0/my_protest_against_xkcds_underhanded_defense_of/ My protest against XKCD's underhanded defense of the NSA] -- Yours truly, Redeemer [[Special:Contributions/31.172.30.1|31.172.30.1]] 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::I'm genuinely concerned about internet security issues, and I'm entirely sympathetic to your perspective, Redeemer. But, whatever Randall's background or motivation, this comic stands alone in poking fun at extreme positions on the subject. I don't believe it either trivialises the argument or makes a reasoned statement about an acceptable position - none of the panels show a "normal" perspective. Whether or not Randall intended it to be, there are many more sources of privacy concerns world-wide than the NSA, and many reasons to hold an opinion on NSA network analysis other than support for a political party (which to me rarely means support for every position that they hold). Let's stick to explaining the comic, not meta-analyzing Randall's motivations for posting it. This is not the place, no matter how your perspective may colour your interpretation of the message behind the comic. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])
:::TL;DR, but the current NSA incidents are a source for Randall's ideas here. It should be mentioned. Incomplete done tag by me.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Too impatient, can't be qualified to comment. Randall mentions the NSA in one panel. The issue isn't whether the NSA is a concern, it's that the NSA is not the only source of internet privacy concerns or media scares; if not mentioning it "excuses" the NSA/current US Government, singling it out "excuses" other organizations (other governments and surveillance bodies, Google, Facebook, network operators...) - and Randall himself mentions Google. Don't assume this is just about the NSA. Even if that was Randall's inspiration, it's not the only context for the comic. There have been repeated incidents regarding GCHQ, for example.[[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])

::::You must have some very strict guidelines for TL;DR. It's just a paragraph! [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 05:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

::I also can claim "web scraping, network administration and security <nowiki>[as]</nowiki> my professional area of expertise" (only currently on personal time, hence this pseudo-anonymous IP, which I know wouldn't fool the NSA), but I think you just don't get it, Redeemer. Nor do some of your Reddit contributors. Not wanting to reddit (by a name I'd jump into there with, that is), I won't even attempt to disabuse you of your opinion, however. But you ''do not'' vandalise key areas of wikis with such personal venom. Bad show for doing so, and stick to your blogs. Anyway, for myself: Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2, line 358, second half. [[Special:Contributions/31.109.31.130|31.109.31.130]] 23:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:::"These foils have all a length"?[[Special:Contributions/150.135.210.50|150.135.210.50]] 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::"The rest is silence." according to Shakespeare-navigators.com. Much as I'd love to be educated enough to know that by heart.[[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])

Is it just me, or is it actually Danish instead of Megan in the Nihilist panel? The hair looks too long to be Megan's. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 00:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with "''Since a large percentage of people and companies present in the internet don't have the ability or intention to do strong cryptography''". Strong encryption is extremely available to 100% of people and companies. It is public and free to use. Most significant companies use VPN's and encrypted hard drives. It is just untrue to suggest that strong cryptography is not available to anyone. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:That is the difference between availability and ability. While the necessary software is freely available, people don't understand how to use it (no ability), even don't want to learn how to use it (no intention).
:Also in "strong cryptography" I would require not only algorithms to be strong but also authentication schemes. The current SSL system uses Certificate Authorities, which are broken by design, thus not "strong" in the sense I was meaning it.
:While good companies using VPNs and encrypted hard drives is a good ideal, 90% of the companies do without them to save the money involved (performant hardware + setting up). Additionally they do not use encryption when communicating with others (e.g. their customers). Think of all the websites that cannot be accessed with HTTPS (including this one). -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 10:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::Strong encryption in form of VPN is available to everyone and I believe lot of companies are using it. Also HTTPS is used relatively often, although many sites lack it, only use it for most important areas or only for administration for performance reasons. Thats all. Most importantly, no way of encrypting email is simple enough to be actually used by public, and I seriously doubt that majority of instant messaging is point-to-point encrypted (I know for sure Skype chat aren't - they may be encrypted on wire but keys are available to their servers).
::Note that while centralised solution of Certificate Authorities is less secure that decentralized ones, you can still get usable security in SSL ... unless you need it for HTTPS. The fact that NO HTTPS page is signed by multiple authorities is the real problem. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

At the present moment, what exactly is incomplete in this explanation? When Dgbrt added the incomplete tag, it was because "it should be mentioned that the NSA incidents are a source for Randall's ideas here", however the very first line of the explanation reads "Randall parodies some of the reactions to Edward Snowden's revelations of widespread intrusive surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency" which pretty much covers it. Furthermore, that line was already in place when the incomplete tag was added. Am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/88.9.73.162|88.9.73.162]] 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:Wait, what? That'll teach me to read the comments page rather than checking changes to the explanation. Randall's comic is about reactions to *all* internet privacy concerns. It explicitly mentions Google. Why is everybody assuming that the NSA is the only source of issues here? Sure, there have been recent revelations about the NSA. And GCHQ (indeed, by Snowden). And Google. And Facebook. And every country introducing mandatory network filters. And my employers (and anyone else's with a firewall data sniffer). And quite probably a lot more I don't know about. Can we please stop putting words in Randall's mouth and having a blinkered focus on the NSA as though it's the only source of problems when the comic itself mentions more concerns than that. I didn't think it was my place to remove the incomplete tag, but I now support the assertion that it's inaccurate, rather than incomplete. (Sorry; I was annoyed enough to register here in order to try to balance this bias! Perhaps someone with more seniority can paraphrase?) [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 21:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::NSA is not only source of issues, but it's definitely the most currently debated one. Even mentioned companies are currently debated in context of their collaboration with NSA. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:::The NSA scandal is not the most topical example. Ed Snowden's leaks about the NSA and GCHQ (including GCHQ spying on G20 Summit attendees) happened primarily in May, four months ago. The UK government has been proposing opt-out traffic inspection for porn filtering since July; one of the Australian political parties has made a similar proposal this month. The current Miss Teen USA was the subject of a recent privacy scandal, though webcam related rather than about data inspection. A media watchdog report about Google's expectation of privacy in gmail hit the news in August. Facebook drew criticism for security issues in August, and the inability to manage sex hate issues at the end of May. The NSA relationship with Google, Facebook et al. as part of PRISM is certainly an issue, but not the only, and arguably not greatest, source of concern for many about those companies and other organizations. The Snowden case is, in many places, old news, and - while it may have been reported solely in the context of the NSA in the US, it certainly hasn't been in the UK (other than regarding the issues of his asylum). Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to call out the NSA, and it's not like I avoid Google et al. I just believe that it's blinkered to attribute the comic solely either to the Snowden case in general or to the NSA in particular. I'd be happy with "Randall parodies some extreme reactions to internet security concerns, such as those raised by Edward Snowden's revelations about widespread intrusive surveillance by the NSA and other agencies." Is that reasonable? [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::O.o I'm not sure I entirely agree with the analysis about what Randall wants us to believe (I'm called a "nut" about a number of things without taking offence at any of them, for example), but I'll admit that the current version removes my objection that the explanation was overly-biased in exclusively referring to the NSA. So thank you, Davidy22 (edit war aside), and I'll pick my battles. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 13:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I didn't write that analysis, I just stepped in when another user was autoreverting it for being "too long." It is a pretty good bit of text though. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::Whoops. Thank you *and* 173.72.122.24. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't be the only xkcd reader that's driven crazy by the fact that "data" is used as a singular throughout this, can I? I mean, data isn't imaginary, data '''are''' imaginary!! {{unsigned ip|150.212.131.213}}
:Oh dear. I'll go and get my pedantry circuits checked - I should have noticed that. See how discussing politics and current(ish) affairs contributes to my mental decay? [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

:Unless you talk about {{w|Data_%28Star_Trek%29|Lieutenant Commander Data}}, and I think he would be offended if you call him imaginary. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone photoshop this: ⋈ onto the conspiracist's neck? thanks, [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120|199.27.128.120]] 04:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to over-analyze stuff and I have the opinion that this amount of explanation should exist about everything. However, as a user (even though I dislike that word), that's too much text. There should be a more succinct explanation, and the rest of it hidden somewhere but available by a link, button, tab, etc. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 01:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1256: Questions

2014-11-02T04:20:19Z

108.162.219.148:

Another reason Poseidon is angry with Odysseus - early in the Odyssey, Odysseus blinds a cyclops who happens to be Poseidon's son.

Why did I just type the following in, when doubtless someone else has already done this..?
...a former great post just went to the main page.
They probably need error-checking/rearranging/something. And feel free to delete this entire comment if it becomes superfluous. [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 10:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
:Just copied your comment into the transcript area. [[Special:Contributions/72.246.0.10|72.246.0.10]] 13:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
::I did delete it here, just because it's copied to the main page. Thanks for your great work!--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the LOTR reference, is this really the intent? What is Randall's wife's name? Delete if this is a bridge too far into personal life. --[[Special:Contributions/131.70.204.120|131.70.204.120]] 16:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I answered [http://jlandl.blogspot.se/2013/08/answers-from-top-of-my-head.html all the questions], for my amusement. Feel free to use any answers you deem appropriate or accurate enough for the wiki. [[Special:Contributions/213.66.207.152|213.66.207.152]] 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused that answers are being presented in different formats. Is the hyperlinked transcript a temporary state before answers are transferred to the table? Or is the transcript just a cleaner and more desirable alternative?{{unsigned ip|98.166.43.28}}

All answers here: http://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/1l3na7/questions/cbvigrd -- [[User:Connectink|Connectink]]

Today's XKCD is good but it looks like the omitted the first Google suggestion when you begin to type "Why does " Go to google and begin to search that... Dont' see it in today's comic. {{unsigned|Glitch}}
:Google's suggestions can vary from user to user. At its most benign, this can be location based. For example, in Seattle, when I type "washington", I get suggestions related to Washington state and not the District of Columbia. At its most sinister, these suggestions can be based on what Google perceives your political beliefs to be. Try typing "gun" into Google. Did you get "gun show" or "gun control?"[http://dontbubble.us/ More info here.] --[[User:Rael|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael|talk]]) 14:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
::How odd. I got gunbroker, and then as soon as I typed space, I got gun control as well. [[Special:Contributions/97.87.12.114|97.87.12.114]]
::: WHY do people complain about this? As long as you're going to get into a debate, in an open minded manner, and are going to critically evaluate the strength of arguments presented (regardless of source), then your starting inclinations shouldn't matter!

::: Moreover, the general internet user is only searching for zeitgeist terms so they know what websites to quote on a Facebook status, so that they can pat themselves on the back. Repeat for next topic.

::: Personalised results keep you comfy in your happy bubble.

::: In any case, the "fix" is simple. Enable do-not track requests, private browsing, or connect through proxies (Given the IPv4 saturation, most people are likely configured to have dynamic IP addresses anyway). If you're concerned about geographical location based filtering, just switch the domain name that you search on! [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]]

Why doesn't Queen Anne count as a "woman who reigned as queen in her own right"? --[[User:Nick Douglas|Nick Douglas]] ([[User talk:Nick Douglas|talk]]) 21:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

----
Today's Comic was brought to you by the grep "why"''!'' [[Special:Contributions/98.195.202.130|98.195.202.130]] 18:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Randall is confused about the meaning of life. All the questions he asked begin with why. I like what happens when you type "where is"... I got "where is chuck norris". --[[Special:Contributions/97.87.12.114|97.87.12.114]] 11:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "King Consort" may not have been used in the UK, but i believe it was used before in pre Act of Unification England. When Mary Tudor married Philip II of Spain, he was accepted by Parliament and the court as King of England, but was not granted any power. It may not have been elevated to an official title yet, but he was king consort. [[User:Dr Pepper|Dr Pepper]] ([[User talk:Dr Pepper|talk]]) Dr Pepper

My question is "Why do we need to answer all the questions, when the answers have nothing to do with the comic?". The answers are fun and interesting, but they should be in the trivia section. The comic is explained well without them. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.125|108.162.217.125]] 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
:Maybe because this is a wiki and, as such, ALL information must be present. I'm not certain whether the answers help explain the comic but, as it is, I'm not entirely sure of Randall's objective with this one. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 04:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

1438: Houston

2014-10-24T21:15:33Z

108.162.219.148: /* Explanation */ jury rig corrected to jerry rig

{{comic
| number = 1438
| date = October 24, 2014
| title = Houston
| image = houston.png
| titletext = 'Oh, hey Mom. No, nothing important, just at work.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Incomplete. Why is NASA unengaged in the issue? What is the relevance of prioritizing a call from mom over an exploding manned space ship? Why is the anachronistic monitor present: is NASA less responsive now?}}
NASA mission {{w|Apollo 13}} was intended to be the third manned landing on the moon. On its way there, however, during a routine stirring of the hydrogen and oxygen tanks, an explosion occurred that damaged the craft. Frantic efforts by {{w|Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center}} (located in Houston) resulted in the safe return of all three astronauts to Earth. Immediately following the explosion, astronaut James A. Lovell calmly reported to Mission Control: "Houston, we've had a problem" - a notable understatement which was famously misquoted in the {{w|Apollo 13 (film)|1995 film adaptation of the mission}} as "Houston, we have a problem".

A similar situation is depicted in the this strip (including the design of the spacecraft, the nature of the problem and the famous misquote), except with much less help from Mission Control. Although it's not clear if [[Cueball]] is only one person at mission control, or if he is only one of many, but upon recieving the message from the spacecraft, he seems fairly indifferent. Instead of attempting to resolve the issue, he mocks the crew for not knowing how to stir. He then blows the crew off in favor of a call from his mother.

In reality, Mission Control worked diligently and tirelessly to solve numerous problems such as if and how to adjust the spacecraft's trajectory, how to have the astronauts jerry-rig CO2 removal equipment intended for the command module to work with the lunar module (to which the astronauts had evacuated) using just the equipment on board. and how to power equipment back up within strict limitations.

At first glance, this comic appears to be an "alternate reality" view at what could happen today, given technical customer service lines are notoriously un-helpful and/or staffed by people not well versed in the products they supposedly support. It is meant to contrast history with Cueball's (lack of) action. It leaves implicit the consequences of this inaction, for greater shock. 

The modern type of monitor ({{w|Liquid-crystal display|flat panel LCD}}) in front of which Cueball sits suggests that the author is describing what would happen today. The comic can be read as a commentary about one's favorite objection to how the world has gotten worse:
* NASA's quality issues in recent decades (and/or the funding cuts or direction shift contributing to same)
* the perception view that {{w|millennials}} are less committed to work
* the lack of national commitment to grand projects
* the idea that we are "falling behind" in technical skills, causing Cueball to fail to recognize the seriousness of the problem
* the objections by some to lack of governmental support for those in need
* by others to the lack of individual commitment for the same

Similarly, it can be read as a parody of the idea that you are responsible for fixing your own problems, an old idea that is being used in many contentious contexts today.

In short, it seems a comic designed to provoke legitimate conversation and enjoyable whining.

==Transcript==
{{Incomplete|Name for capsule? Also, descriptions need work.}}
:[The mated Odyssey/Aquarius vehicles in space on their way to the moon with nearby debris in foreground, with the Earth in the background.]
:Lovell: Houston, we have a problem
:[Cueball sitting In front of two monitors wearing a headset.]
:Cueball: Cool.
:Lovell: ...What? Houston, we stirred our O2 tank and it exploded!
:Cueball: Sounds like you suck at stirring.
:[Capsule shown from a greater distance, with Earth beside it.]
:Lovell: ...Houston? Are you-
:Cueball: Listen, I've got another call.
:Cueball: Good luck landing your airplane or whatever.
: *click*

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]