explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2502: Every Data Table

2021-08-13T23:12:36Z

108.162.221.133: what comes after the asterisk and the dagger

{{comic
| number = 2502
| date =
| title = Every Data Table
| image = every data table.png
| titletext = "I'm hoping 2022 is relatively normal because I don't know what symbol comes after the asterisk and the dagger."
| imagesize =
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by ASTERIX and OBELIX. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is part of a series of comics about the COVID pandemic

The COVID pandemic has had a large impact on the entire world and one way this can be seen is through strange stats resulting from the effects of the pandemic.

Sometimes punctuation such as an asterisk (*) or a dagger (†, also called an obelisk) is used to denote an unusual entry in a table to be explained in a footnote with a matching symbol. Common symbols that are used if the first two are taken include multiple asterisks (such as ** or ***), a double dagger (‡), and a section symbol (§).

== Transcript ==

:2017....... (scribble)
:2018....... (scribble)
:2019....... (scribble)
:2020*...... (scribble)
:2021†...... (scribble)
:2022....... (scribble)
:2023....... (scribble)
:2024....... (scribble)

Every data table from now on

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:COVID-19]]

Talk:2501: Average Familiarity

2021-08-13T17:20:12Z

108.162.221.133:

I've never even ''heard'' of olivine. I think most people have heard of quartz (it's the crystal in most electronic watches, and it's pretty), and I suspect feldspar is somewhere in between. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:If you find a hard white rock, it's probably quartz; very common where I live. Decorative white pebbles? Quartz. Clear, pretty crystals might be the same compound, but they had to be pure to start with and they had to cool really slowly. (Unsigned by 162.158.167.245)
:Well, it helps if you play [https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Stone#DF_Geology_and_Geology_in_Real_Life Dwarf Fortress]. Olivine is one of the green stones (that only really has use as building material/decoration, but makes an impressive megaconstruction mayerial if you find enough of it to make that worthwhile), unlike quartz which features as raw 'gem clusters' more typically cut for decoration of mugs, crossbow bolts, etc. Of course, IRL, quartzes are ''so'' ever-present that they are very easy to forget ''except'' as fancy crystals (either for timekeeping in watches or timewasting in crystal healing) and as such you can actually find them almost anywhere (if you're not stuck on a desert island). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.20|162.158.111.20]] 12:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I resemble this comic ... I specialize in probability. Does everyone know that probability=1 means 'certain'? ... I'm not certain ... (Unsigned by 162.158.167.245)
:: In a general probability distribution, a probability of 1 means an event happens "almost surely" rather than "certainly" (see definition [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely here]). I know the distinction isn't important if one considers only finite sample spaces, but I think it's a cool enough concept that the nitpicking might be interesting to someone.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.14|172.69.63.14]] 05:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:: People who went through at least the first half of the math undergraduate program will most likely understand. In the general population, I guess, saying '100 % probability' would work much better than 'probability 1', but still people can get quite upset when something with 99 % probability of success fails, not understanding that 99 % (or even 85 %) does not mean guaranteed success (see for example 14:46 of this video about randomness in video-game design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwI5b-wRLic). [[User:CryptoNut1269|CryptoNut1269]] ([[User talk:CryptoNut1269|talk]]) 11:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As a chemist, I heard of all of them but, fun fact, there is a mnemonic in the german language known by at least all of the elderly generation: "Feldspat, Quarz und Glimmer - die drei vergess´ ich nimmer!" thats "feldspar quartz and mica - i will never forget the three". These three are the main compunds of granite and obviously this was stuff they had to learn at school. If, in a group of silverheads, start the phrase "Feldspat Quarz und Glimmer ..." and there will always be someone to finish the sentence. --[[User:Pauliprinzip|Pauliprinzip]] ([[User talk:Pauliprinzip|talk]]) 05:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

:''and may not even know the definition of "feldspar" beyond "a rock".'' Ironically, I think the person writing this may have overstated the "average Joe"'s familiarity with the word "feldspar", since I couldn't have defined it if you'd asked me. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|Enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I got the idea that ''both'' Cueball and Ponytail were geochemists, rather than Cueball being just an average adult. [[User:OblateSpheroid|OblateSpheroid]] ([[User talk:OblateSpheroid|talk]]) 20:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:Seconded. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 20:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Seemed like the examples of substances the average person might reasonably know the chemical formula for should include a mineral. Halite seems likely (though that name is probably less familiar than table salt). Diamond and graphite were the only other minerals that I could think of that many would know the formulas for (C). Chalk (calcite) seems possible, but less likely. Any other suggestions (or even better, any citations to research)? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.5|108.162.245.5]] 21:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:technically water in the form of ice is a mineral. But including salt is a good idea. And I'll look for citations. [[User:Curiouscat|Curiouscat]] ([[User talk:Curiouscat|talk]]) 21:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:I would expect lot of people would be able to name "formula" for more than several elements, along with having some idea how they look OR where they are used. Not as common knowledge as water and salt, but assuming they had SOME chemistry in school, this would be more likely to be remembered than compounds. Also, speaking about diamond, I suppose average people would claim that formula for coal is C, although I suspect that chemists would say that's not correct. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
::I probably wouldn't have been able to tell you the chemical formula for salt off the top of my head, unless you prompted me with "sodium chloride" (but even then, it's a toss-up as to whether I'd get the elements right). I studied chemistry for five years at secondary school and got good grades, but you'd be amazed at how little sticks when you have absolutely no need for it in day-to-day life. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Friendly local geologist here, I made some changes especially to the third paragraph because a lot of the science was confusingly written and not really correct (desert islands tend to be made up of primarily silicates? Even volcanic ones. Basaltic rocks have silica in them too, that's what olivine is) I wasn't sure what to do with the second paragraph. It seems a bit unnecessary to talk about quartz so much, since it isn't that relevant to the comic. I was thinking it might be good to have an explanation of the difference between sili'''con''' the element, sili'''ca''' the mineral structure, and what all these minerals actually are might be more relevant? Or at least we could put up what some of the chemical formulas are for quartz and olivine and maybe like albite, anorthite, microcline to represent the feldspars. [[User:Curiouscat|Curiouscat]] ([[User talk:Curiouscat|talk]]) 21:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
:I thought (in a prior edit, by someone, may have lost its clarity in subsequent edits by others but I don't have the patience to cross-compare it all) the point was that coral-sands are not silicates, so your classic "lump of 'sand' poking out of the sea" is sparse of the stuff you might want to thrown your rock at. And any suitable rocks, unless you go diving down in the surrounding oceon to rumage beyond the living coral to the seamount/extinct-and-eroded-volcano it has been growing upon. That said, there's a lot of variation out there, so maybe I'm thinking of a too-narrow subset of examples. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.250|162.158.158.250]] 00:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

;Replaced "average Joe" with "average person"
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terms_related_to_an_average_person this term is specific to the US, and introduces specificity unrelated to the comic. {{unsigned ip|141.101.76.239}}
:It's pretty common on this wiki for explanations to throw English expressions like this at the reader and expect the, ah, average Joe to understand.
:Also, how does one use [[Template:Unsigned]]? I've definitely misused it once or twice, but reading documentations for it isn't helping (and unfortunately this is not a script; reading the src doesn't help either). [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 05:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
::I'm afraid I don't know, but can I say how cool your signature is??
::Also, thanks to the person at the top who replaced "average Joe", as that did bother me too. --[[User:Enchantedsleeper|enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 08:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:::The unsigned template should used like this: <nowiki>{{unsigned ip|141.101.76.239}}</nowiki>, see above for result, except if by a known user, then <nowiki>{{unsigned|Kynde}}</nowiki> should be used, which would produce this (which I leave as my signature now) {{unsigned|Kynde}}
::::You can also add the time/date: <nowiki>{{unsigned|Lupo|13:27, 13 August 2021}}</nowiki> for this result: {{unsigned|Lupo|13:27, 13 August 2021}}

I knew quartz (SiO2) and I recognize the other two, all from having an interest in rocks (and having a little kids-oriented geology book decades ago when I was a wee lass). But beyond quartz, water, and salt, the only other chemical formula that come to mind are acids: H2SO4 and HCl. Mostly from the old rhyme: Jonny was a chemist's son / but Jonny is no more / What Jonny thought was H2O / was H2SO4. :p

Oh, also FOOF ( https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.109|172.70.130.109]] 12:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The explanation mentions carbonates as a notable exception to silicates, but sulfate minerals are widespread and economically important (and therefore ubiquitous in their finished forms -- e.g., gypsum -> plaster or drywall). Might deserve a mention? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 17:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

2498: Forest Walk

2021-08-05T17:21:58Z

108.162.221.133: /* Transcript */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2498
| date = August 4, 2021
| title = Forest Walk
| image = forest_walk.png
| titletext = The only other person to walk by was a linguist back in the 80s, but she just spent a while dissecting the phrase 'help me down' before getting distracted by a squirrel and wandering off.
}}

==Explanation==

Megan is walking in a forest with Beret Guy who owns a big part of it. Megan is surprised that he owns such a big property, however, Beret Guy is known for his inexplicable businesses such as in [[1493: Meeting]] and from [[1032: Networking]]; we know he probably has enough resources to be able to buy it. Alternatively, he might have simply inherited it from his mom [[502: Dark Flow]].

They meet a rather disheveled-looking bearded man hanging from a parachute caught in a tree. The man shakes a stick at them and demands to be helped down to the ground. Beret Guy simply addresses him as "Mister Cooper" and asks if he promises to return the money he took. The man angrily refuses, and Beret Guy casually says he'll see him again tomorrow, suggesting that this conversation has become a daily routine.

Megan asks if the man was D. B. Cooper. Beret Guy confirms that he is. He then comments on an owl nest as another bit of "neat stuff" found on his land, suggesting that he finds Cooper's presence to be moderately interesting but not really remarkable.

{{w|D. B. Cooper}} is the identity given to a man who hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft in 1971. He collected a $200,000 ransom (equivalent to $1,250,000 in 2020) and famously donned a parachute and jumped from the plane over the state of Washington. Even after lengthy FBI investigations, it is still unknown who he was, or what ever became of him. The only things known about him are a police composite drawing and the name "Dan Cooper", under which he had purchased his airline ticket. The name D. B. Cooper came about as a result of a miscommunication with the media. The comic is insinuating that, after leaping from the plane, he got entangled in a tree and has somehow been there ever since. As mentioned in [[1400: D.B. Cooper]], Cooper was also known for ambiguous, possibly affected speaking style and use of unusual phrases such as 'negotiable American currency', he seems to hold to this habit and instead of much more common 'Help me right now!' or 'Put me down immediately!' he used rather unlikely combination of words 'You help me down this instant!'.

D. B. Cooper was already referenced by Randall in [[1400: D.B. Cooper]], [[1501: Mysteries]] and [[2452: Aviation Firsts]].

Uncanny situations are nothing new to Beret Guy as he himself possesses many [[Category:Strange_powers_of_Beret_Guy|strange powers]]. Because of this he seems to be unable to differentiate between something normal but interesting, such as an owl nest in a forest, and something as outright impossible{{Citation needed}} as a famous criminal hanging from a tree, otherwise unnoticed for decades and somehow still thriving - though clearly aged.

The issues of food, water and other necessities are unaddressed, but this individual has at least obtained what seemingly could be a walking-stick, to accompany his age-acquired frailty. In some ways this is unexceptional, as the one resource (other than rain, possibly) that he has easiest access to are tree branches, but then the question is whether it can be considered a walking stick if he has not actually walked (or stood, or anything but dangled) for however long he has possessed it. There is a clearly broken branch-stump at roughly his height upon the tree trunk, possibly the remains of an earlier attempt to gain support enough to become disentangled, and perhaps he had the presence of mind (or was stubborn enough) not to drop the part that unfortunately snapped off in his hand in the attempt.

The title text may reference to the linguist from [[2390: Linguists]] who is more interested in the linguistic nuances that people use than in actually responding to their call for assistance. It is not known how many others have walked through Beret Guy's land, in the interim, or whether it is their own nature or the general auea from Beret Guy, but the linguist clearly did not much more than ponder the phrase "help me down". Megan also seems in no particular hurry to intervene.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Beret Guy are walking through a landscape with spread out trees and grass and puddles on the ground.]
:Megan: Wow, this is all yours?
:Beret Guy: Yeah! All the way back to the river!
:Beret Guy: I walk here every day.

:[Megan still walks towards Beret Guy who has now stopped and is looking up while speaking to a man hanging in a tree in front of them. The man has long wild hair and a large beard. He hangs from his parachute which has been folded around a large branch sticking out from beneath the top of the tree. He is holding a long stick of some sort, seemingly attempting to threaten Beret Guy, as the stick and his legs are vibrating as indicated with small lines.]
:Beret Guy: Morning, Mister Cooper!
:Cooper: You help me down '''''this instant!'''''

:[Pan down to show only Beret Buy and nothing else. Cooper replies from off-panel from the top corner.]
:Beret Guy: Do you promise to give back all the money you took?
:Cooper [off-panel]: '''''Never!'''''
:Beret Guy: Okay! See you tomorrow!

:[Megan and Beret Guy continue walking through the landscape with three small trees behind them, as well as grass, rocks and a small puddle. Megan looks back over her shoulder towards where Cooper is hanging.]
:Megan: Was that D.B. Cooper?
:Beret Guy: Yeah, and up ahead there's an owl nest!
:Beret Guy: There's so much neat stuff here.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring D. B. Cooper]]
[[Category:Animals]] 
[[Category:Squirrels]] 
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:1562: I in Team

2015-08-11T04:42:04Z

108.162.221.133:

There is no I in team, but there is an M and an E.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.56.215|162.158.56.215]] 08:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
: Ha, yes -- but they are backwards [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Check it out! there's "l" in "vowels"! --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.222|141.101.89.222]] 08:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

<sarcasm>There is an (annagram of) Randal in "People who don't understand how a proverb works" </sarcasm> No, seriously this is just cueball being a smart-ass. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.230|162.158.91.230]] 08:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no I in team, but there is an I in pie; there's an I in meat pie and meat is an anagram of team, so... {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.82}}

:There's a 999999 in pi. {{unsigned ip|198.41.239.32}}

:: Doesn't pi contain every possible number sequence though? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.235|162.158.91.235]] 11:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

::: No. There is no evidence that pi includes an offset of pi.
:::There is no I in team, but there is meat... blessed meat :::Simpson drool:: {{unsigned|Cwallenpoole}}

:::: ''finite'' sequence. the kate bush conjecture is unproven. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.34}}

The arbitrariness of this saying was demonstrated considerably more elegantly in Jeffrey Rowland's Wigu: "There is no I in 'team', but there is in 'family'." [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.93|198.41.242.93]] 11:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This joke is not self-referential, it's metalingual. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobson%27s_functions_of_language [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

[http://rlv.zcache.com/i_in_team_there_it_is_hidden_in_the_a_hole_tshirt-r0aff1796c915419aaa4c3f9c73794dcf_f0yq2_1024.jpg There is]. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.185|141.101.98.185]] 16:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

: That's deep. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.188|108.162.229.188]] 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.76|108.162.225.76]] 19:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC) It is interesting that Randall worded Cueball's dialogue as "There is a 'U' in People who apparently don't understand...". There is just that one 'U', in "understand". If he'd said instead something like "There is a 'U' in People who apparently don't get...", the reference to Hairy through 'U'/you would've been entirely allusional!
- Vik [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.76|108.162.225.76]] 19:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This comment is my way of noting and speculating that it makes sense that the origin of "No I in Team" is from baseball pitchers: They're the only team sport player I know of who is regularly replaced mid-game for reasons besides injury. If a pitcher thinks he's on a hot streak, but the coach replaces him because reasons, a phrase like like "No I in Team" may be needed to smooth over the resulting disagreement, regardless of whether the coach or the pitcher has their respective heads up their asses or not. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.53|199.27.133.53]] 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

But there IS an I in team! http://i.imgur.com/prPC7BX.jpg [[Special:Contributions/141.101.85.151|141.101.85.151]] 02:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that there is exactly one "u" in "People who apparently don't understand the relationship between orthography and meaning", which has 76 letters. "U" isn't a terribly infrequent letter. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 04:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1505: Ontological Argument

2015-03-31T07:22:40Z

108.162.221.133:

Reminds me some kind of the [http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Babel_Fish#Philosophical_implications Babel Fish]... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:Isn't the greatest fallacy of ontological argument the fact that the set of entities may not be well-ordered by "greatest" or "goodness"? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

::That's a great point, and (IMHO) a truly serious problem in these attempts to "order" gods (maybe it stems from being tied down to monotheistic thinking?). But it's not really a "fallacy," properly speaking. Not all flaws in reasoning are fallacies... {{unsigned ip|108.162.210.39}}

::I think that (using this argument) the first flaw arises when defining the "set of entities". How can we define it and make sure that it is indeed a set? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 14:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

::I think the greatest fallacy is that they start with the conclusion that the fantasy that God exists isn't a fantasy, and then try to "reason" their way into finding support for that conclusion. IOW, claiming to apply reason while working in exactly the opposite way that true reasoning demands. I realize ontological arguments, as the explanation currently says, "seek to prove that God exists using only premises about the nature of existence and logical deductions from them. This is '''in contrast to arguments that are based on observations of the world'''". But you don't get to reject the logical scientific method (marshal the facts and '''THEN''' draw conclusions from them) and then claim you're being logical. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120|199.27.128.120]] 15:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

::I find some humor in that 'A god who could find a flaw in the ontological argument' could easily be accomplished by a being who met and/or exceeded the original premise of being 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. Some of the more obvious logical flaws are pointed out in this thread, and proving the thought process wrong doesn't really affect its overall truthiness in either direction. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 07:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yay a potential large, all-encompassing argument about religion waiting to happen. Oh glory day. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 13:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Any chance this is really about an omnipotence paradox? Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Is he so powerful that he can find a flaw in any argument that proves he exists? {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.186}}

:I think it's analogous and worth mentioning. Added it. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 15:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the William Lane Craig section in there? If there are dozens of versions of the ontological argument on wikipedia, it makes sense to list the original (Anselm), the most famous critique of it (Dawkins), and then refer the reader to wikipedia for more information. The Craig variant is not explained here and seems cherry-picked out of the long list on wikipedia for no clear reason. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:The text I replaced claimed that ontological arguments for the existence of God are based on the idea that a God that exists is greater than a God that does not exist. I changed it to say that Anselm's version says that and there are other ontological arguments that don't say that. I used William Lane Craig as the clearest and easiest to understand example from the Wikipedia article for which that is not the case. That said, I like how people have edited it since better than what I wrote. [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 00:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Super ultra chocolate fudge cookies mega sundae (from here on refered to as "happy happy") is by definition the best ice cream imaginable, meaning we can't concieve of a better ice cream. but, if the happy happy exists solely in your mind as an idea, than surely you can concieve of a better happy happy, that is, the one that is sitting on a desk in front of you. Therefore, the happy happy must be the one that exists right in front of you. now, where's my ice cream?? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244|141.101.98.244]] 16:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:Someone should put a happy happy on 141.101.98.244's desk when he isn't looking.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.185|199.27.128.185]] 00:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ontological arguments, in general, are arguments that attempt to prove a point by involving a "higher reason" or purpose for the point. " These are teleological arguments, not ontological. {{unsigned|Atnorman}}

I noticed by pure coincidence that Megan and Cueball are posed exactly as they were in [[1315: Questions for God]]. Is that the only time they were posed like that while posing a theological question, or is this a broader pattern? I haven't found any others, offhand. Also noticed that the Ontological argument came up very subtly in [[1052: Every Major's Terrible]]. [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 21:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

: [[1052: Every Major's Terrible]] does not reference the ontological argument. X therefore X exists is not the argument.{{Atnorman|Atnorman}}

Talk:1312: Haskell

2015-03-04T05:15:57Z

108.162.221.133:

"Thus, it is possible to have a variable representing the entire infinite list of Fibonacci numbers."
Except that Haskell has no variables- nothing is mutable, as they say. You could certainly write a function that generates an infinite list of Fibonacci numbers when called (and lazily evaluated later), but it won't be bound to a variable. If it was, then the list would take up an infinite amount of memory, and lazy evaluation would be pointless.

I will, however, leave the above word "variable" in the explanation, because I can't come up with a concise way of explaining the above.
--[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 09:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:"Expression?" I don't know Haskel, but that's what I would call it in another functional language. --[[User:Rael|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael|talk]]) 16:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
::In my day, we only had methods. (Hint: I use Java) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133|108.162.221.133]] 05:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::That's a little imprecise, as it doesn't capture the idea of binding a value to a single symbol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.13|108.162.231.13]] 17:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:The sentence you quote is entirely correct... but might itself require further explanation!
:*Haskell variables aren't mutable, but they are nonetheless referred to as "variables". It's an appeal to the (earlier, after all) use of the word in maths, rather than in imperative programming languages. (No shortage of variables in algebra, geometry, calculus, topology... And no mutation involved.) One might equally say "symbol", "constant", or indeed "symbolic constant".
:*One can bind the fibonaccis to a variable (... constant, 0-place definition, etc) quite happily. In fact, that's the idiomatic way to do it, as it avoids the degenerate complexity of a naive recursive function. It's still evaluated lazily, all the same. (Meaning that it will take an infinite amount of memory... if you run it for an infinite amount of time, and never "consume" the result in any way.)
:*Equally, one can regard such top-level symbol definitions as functions with no arguments, if that's more helpful. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.13|108.162.231.13]] 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:::Shows what I know about Haskell jargon, even if I do know something about the language. I see what you're saying, though.
:::In any case, here's some Haskell code that does indeed generate an infinite list of Fibonacci numbers. It's not fast, and there's almost certainly more efficient ways to do it, but it's simple enough that people unacquainted with the language should be able to figure it out.
<nowiki>fibonaccis :: [Integer] --Indicates that the function returns a list of arbitrary-length integers
fibonaccis = map fib [0..] --Converts the infinite list [0,1,2,3,4...] into a list of Fibonaccis
where fib n --Defines a helper function that returns the nth Fibonacci number
|n == 0 = 1 --The zeroth and first Fibonaccis are 1
|n == 1 = 1
|otherwise = (fib (n - 1)) + (fib (n - 2)) --And the rest are the sum of the previous two.</nowiki>
:::--[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

::::And here's one which is closer to what an Haskeller would write (if he ever needed to compute Fibonacci numbers and couldn't bother using one of the good (non-linear) algorithms) :
<nowiki>fibs :: [Integer]
fibs = 0 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)</nowiki>
::::The first two numbers are 0, 1 and you get the rest by adding fibs and tail fibs (fibs offset by 1 element) (zipping them together with +).
::::The surprising part is that fibs is used in its own computation but that's no problem since each needed element can be computed by the time you need it (we "primed the pump" with the first two elements) and Haskell has lazy evaluation (sometimes named "call-by-need").
::::Note that this version only compute each element once, contrary to the previous one (which is horrendous since it does the whole inefficient (O(fib n)) Fibonacci computation for each element).
::::--[[User:Jedaï|Jedaï]] ([[User talk:Jedaï|talk]]) 00:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a clue what the Incomplete flag refers to? This seems like a pretty good explanation to me. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 11:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Example programs written in Haskell are: pandoc, universal markup converter; git-annex, tool to manage large files in git DVCS. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 11:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

: You can add xmonad (tiling window manager) to the list, as well as darcs for a time (though git has thoroughly dominated this field by now...), you can also use Hakyll to generate your static blog (which presents some advantage in performance and safety), hoodle is a good free pen note taking program, hledger is a ledger handling program with several backends. The game Nikki and the robots is written in Haskell. --[[User:Jedaï|Jedaï]] ([[User talk:Jedaï|talk]]) 00:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

: I think the person [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] who updated the incomplete tag to say "'' Add examples of popular Haskell programs''" is boarderline trolling if not full on trolling -- Explanation looks pretty complete to me and I vote to remove the ''incomplete'' tag. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"thus Haskell may have value but no one has either invoked it to get that value or requested such a language." The point of the title text is (a joke that) programmers of Haskell are lazy, but no one tells them so. The point is not that no one uses Haskell. That is the point of the comic itself. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.202}}
: It's a lot more likely to be a joke about Haskell's lazy evaluation. And why can't the point of the title text complement the point of the comic? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.145|103.22.201.145]] 13:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

... I am confused by the description. Is it possible that someone can put this into "plain language" that a non-programmer and a non-mathematician can understand? (Go ahead and add "slow" to that description, too, if you so choose...) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.54|173.245.54.54]] 09:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
: Functional programming languages are many -- explaining the difference to a non-programmer can be hard, but typically Lisp as the grandfather and related languages such a Scheme, Haskell [ {{w|List_of_programming_languages_by_category#Functional_languages|list here}} ] are considered {{w|functional programming}} languages, where Java, C, Basic, Fortan etc typically depending on changing state of variables and are called {{w|Procedural_programming|Procedural}} or {{w|Imperative programming}} programming languages -- The best advice for futher explanation is to read the wikipedia links. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 18:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1454: Done

2014-12-01T08:34:33Z

108.162.221.133: /* Explanation */ No, scams are not referenced here at all. That explanation was interesting, but it belongs to the comments.

{{comic
| number = 1454
| date = December 1, 2014
| title = Done
| image = done.png
| titletext = I'm sorry, but the author of this Facebook comment clearly believes you were.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Rough draft, needs editing and expanding.}}

The comic opens with a girl typing a message to someone. Over the course of the next few panels it becomes clear that the recipient is someone the girl deeply cares about, as she is planning on saving enough money to have the person flown to the United States from "half a world away." It is also evident that this person was found after a significant amount of searching by the writer. The writer finishes her message with a promise to communicate daily until the recipient is able to meet with her.

Upon attempting to send the message, however, the writer discovers that she is unable to send the message because she does not have a connection to the Internet. Ponytail enters the comic at this point an explains that someone had commented,"That's it. We're done. We can shut down the internet now."
The comment is an internet meme in which users will post comments in response to content found humorous or clever. While most statements are normally disregarded an insincere, somehow this comment set into motion the complete shutdown of the internet. The comic contrasts the legitimate, intimate impact the internet can have with the simple entertainment value that some people can see as its only or primary use.

The title text simply serves as another mention to the mysterious commentator on Facebook who caused the demise of the internet.

==Transcript==
Girl (typing): I had started to think I was asking too much, that I needed to settle. And then I found you half a world away.

Girl (typing): I've been saving money. Six months from now, I'll be able to fly you here and support us for a while.

Girl (typing): It's a long wait, but we'll talk every day until then. Maybe this won't work out, but I want to try. What do you think?

Computer: '''ERROR''': Your message could not be sent.

''[Refresh]''

Computer: '''ERROR''': No connection.

Girl: ??

Girl: Why can't I connect?

Ponytail: Someone saw a ridiculous video and said "That's it. Shut down the internet. We're done." So they did.

Girl: ... But... I wasn't done.

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