explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

769: War

2020-08-29T01:09:40Z

108.162.237.76: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 769
| date = July 21, 2010
| title = War
| image = war.png
| titletext =They offered to make me a green beret, but I liked my regular one. Although it gets kind of squashed under my helmet.
}}

==Explanation==
Today's comic seems to be a parable about the perils of love during wartime. Our protagonist is seen here leaning against his pack behind a low wall, surely a good hiding spot for any gentleman with a rifle and scope. Judging by the letter he's in the midst of writing, he has a complex relationship with Cordelia. On the one hand, she's attractive. On the other hand, she's a hostile combatant, as evidenced by the shots fired mid-missive. Cordelia's fire works against her, though, as her volley of shots has revealed her own position atop the maintenance shed. We can presume that in a matter of minutes, this love affair will go sour as the love letter is wrapped around a live grenade and "delivered," so to speak. War is indeed hell.

As to the title text, the green berets are worn only by Special Forces soldiers. It takes a lot of training to become a green beret, and as evidenced by our protagonist's clever use of decoys to outwit a sniper, he may be qualified for the honor. However, evidence for his naiveté is given immediately thereafter, as he confesses that he wears a beret under his helmet — thus revealing our protagonist's true identity (and explaining how he fell in love with an enemy soldier actively trying to kill him): [[Beret Guy]]. Then again, he does not have a choice, since [[291: Dignified|he has stapled the beret on his head.]]

"Cordelia" is possibly a reference to [http://atoracle.wikidot.com/en-cordelia-rosalind Cordelia Rosalind]—the sniper from the {{w|Miniature wargaming|miniature game}} ''{{w|Anima: Beyond Fantasy#Anima: Tactics|Anima: Tactics}}''. Alternatively, it may be a reference to Cordelia Naismith from Lois McMaster Bujold's ''Shards of Honor''. In the book, Cordelia Naismith and Lord Aral Vorkosigan are on opposite sides of the Beta-Barrayar war, and fall in love while forced to spend a week in each other's company on an unpopulated planet. This may be further corroborated by the green color of Beret Guy's uniform, which is very similar to the color used for the uniforms of the Barrayan Imperial Service.

==Transcript==
:[A soldier is sitting on the ground behind a low wall, leaning against his pack and writing a letter.]
:My Dearest Cordelia,
:it has been far too long since I last gazed
:upon your lithe and supple body through my
:telescopic sights, and I fear you may have
:found a superior vantage poin—

:''BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!''

:—a splendid effort, my love, but your shots
:find only a decoy, and reveal your position atop
:the maintenance shed.

:I pray this missive and my grenades find you well.

:War is hell.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

1720: Horses

2020-08-26T01:58:04Z

108.162.237.76: /* Explanation */ Removed pedantics + the off-topic theorizing.

{{comic
| number = 1720
| date = August 15, 2016
| title = Horses
| image = horses.png
| titletext = This car has 240% of a horse's decision-making ability and produces only 30% as much poop.
}}

==Explanation==
[https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/10/are-consumers-automakers-and-insurers-really-ready-for-self-driving-cars/ The programming] of {{w|self-driving cars}} has been in the news lately, as engineers and philosophers debate what rules the cars should follow in dangerous situations (for instance, what to do when forced to choose between hitting a pedestrian or swerving into oncoming traffic). [[Ponytail]] suggests one approach for solving this problem: to think of the car as behaving like a horse, using its own intelligence and ignoring dangerous commands in the interests of self-preservation.

The comic begins with Ponytail claiming that in the old days, riding a horse or driving a horse drawn vehicle while drunk was less dangerous than {{w|drunk driving}} today. Given the higher speed and the denser traffic today this might seem plausible. On the other hand, modern cars have seat belts, airbags, and other features designed to save lives when crashes do occur; horses and horse-drawn vehicles lacked these safety features. However, if you do fall asleep on a horse, it will not suddenly walk into a tree or other obstacle, and it may actually just stop walking while you sleep.

Ponytail expands the argument by stating the horse itself will be acting in the interest of its own self-preservation. She finally states that in a comparison of the ability of self-driving cars, we should forget humans, and instead it should be the ability of horses that should be the benchmark that the self-driving cars should be judged against.

This segues into a scene in the near future where [[White Hat]] is bragging to Cueball and Megan about the features of a car (in order to sell the car to them) by comparing the features to those of horses. Car engines are traditionally measured in {{w|horsepower}}, which (roughly) compares the power output of the engine to that of a horse. White Hat goes a step further, claiming that the car (which is presumably self-driving) has an onboard computer with driving abilities equivalent to 3.5 horses, comparing the car's ability to mitigate for a drunk driver and/or avoid obstacles to that of a horse. White Hat has been [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/9/9f/lorenz_-_sale_2.png depicted as a salesman] before in [[1350: Lorenz]] and similarly earlier in [[260: The Glass Necklace]].

The title text features more comparisons of the car to horses. In the text, Randall states that the car has 240% of a horse's decision-making ability and produces only 30% as much poop as a horse. This statement is absurd because it claims that the self-driving car will be producing poop. It also suggests that even with 3.5 times as much horse-intelligence as a horse, the car may only have 2.4 times the decision-making ability.

Note that riding a horse while drunk is in fact still dangerous and illegal in many places (for example, {{w|Licensing Act 1872|the UK and Ireland}}). A badly-driven horse can throw off its owner, trample passersby, fall on bad surfaces, and destroy any wagon or carriage it's pulling. A self-driving car should be able to understand road rules, which a horse will not - which is presumably why the cars in the comic and the title text are both specified as being more intelligent than a horse.

In [[887: Future Timeline]] dogs driving cars are mentioned. Self-driving cars is a [[:Category:Self-driving cars|recurring topic]] on xkcd. In [[1461: Payloads]] spacecraft mass is measured in horses.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail walks right with Cueball.]
:Ponytail: Drunk driving was less of a problem before cars. If you got on your horse drunk and fell asleep, it could just walk home.

:[Zoom in on Ponytail's torso; she holds up a palm to proffer an idea.]
:Ponytail: And if you tried to ride into a tree, the horse could be like "No."
:Ponytail: Forget human drivers – ''that's'' the benchmark we should be judging self-driving cars against.

:[The front end of a car, with the bottom of the windshield and the right side mirror just inside the panel is parked before White Hat. He is holding his hand, palm up, out to the left towards the car as he brags about it to Megan and Cueball standing in front of him admiring the car. At the top left of the panel a small frame with a caption is placed over the panels frame:]
:Soon:
:White Hat: This baby has 200 horses under the hood and 3.5 in the computer.
:Megan and Cueball: Ooooh!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Self-driving cars]]

2076: Horror Movies 2

2018-11-24T02:04:07Z

108.162.237.76: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2076
| date = November 23, 2018
| title = Horror Movies 2
| image = horror_movies_2.png
| titletext = When I was a kid, someone told me the end of The Giver was ambiguous, which surprised me. I had just assumed Jonah died--because the book had a medal on the cover, and I knew grown-ups liked stories where sad stuff happens at the end for no reason.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROLLERCOASTER OF HAPPY ROMANTIC DISCOVERIES. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a follow-up to [[2056: Horror Movies]] released a month earlier. While the first Horror Movies comic was about giving voice to Randall's inability to enjoy horror movies, this comic takes Randall's previous position and exaggerates it.

White Hat and Cueball discuss the appeal of horror movies and tragic plots. Cueball expresses his dissatisfaction with stories that focus on evoking negative feelings. As an example he mentions how he disliked the ending of ''{{w|Titanic (1997 film)|Titanic}}'' where Jack sacrifices his life in order to save Rose. White Hat does not seem to share Cueball's point of view on successful storytelling and sarcastically promises to send feedback to the movie director {{w|James Cameron}} as well as the 16th century playwright {{w|William Shakespeare}}.

In the title text Cueball (Randall?) discusses the ending of the science fiction novel {{w|The Giver}} where the fate of the main character Jonas [sic, [[2076: Horror Movies 2#Trivia|see Trivia]]] had been left ambiguous. The joke is a reference to the stereotype that the Newbery Medal award is only given to books with tragic endings.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[White Hat and Cueball are walking.]
:White Hat: So you don't like '''''any''''' horror movies?
:Cueball: Spooky stuff is neat but I hate jump scares and watching people get murdered.
:Cueball: Why would you '''''want''''' to see that?

:White Hat: It's like roller coasters. People like experiencing powerful feelings in a safe, controlled setting.
:Cueball: But why not '''''good''''' feelings?

:White Hat: We've always been into tragic stories. Romeo and Juliet, Titanic...
:Cueball: See, that's another thing I don't get!

:Cueball: I loved ''Titanic'' because Rose and Jack found each other and seemed so happy! I just hated the ending.
:White Hat: I'll be sure to give James Cameron and Shakespeare your feedback.

==Trivia==
In the original (current) title-text, there is a typo where the protagonist of ''The Giver'' is referred to as "Jonah" instead of "Jonas."

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1657: Insanity

2016-03-19T11:52:32Z

108.162.237.76:

And we are back to White Hat being the "fall" guy, which he was not in his last discussion with Cueball in [[1640: Super Bowl Context]]. It was so rare that it was mentioned at the bottom of the explanation for that comic ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone quotes a mathematician's definition of insanity instead of, say, a paychologist's. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.69|108.162.238.69]] 17:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think checking various sources fills the requirements for this definition of insanity, as one may find what they are looking for eventually. It is conceivable that some dictionary may include the quote as a definition sometime in the future. A person would have to look up the definition of insanity in the same book, where the text will not change, repeatedly to fulfill this definition. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.64|173.245.55.64]] 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If Randall DID find the definition of insanity in the DSM-V that correlates to the definition, or in some random dictionary, would that still make him insane, or would it enter a Catch-22 scenario in which he is both insane and sane? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.184.125|162.158.184.125]] 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Re "switch from Roman numerals to decimal digits," decimal makes more sense, but I still think of our numerals as "Arabic." [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 22:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of another recent one, though I can't figure out which. Suggestions? It was the same form where White Hat said something common, and Cueball turned it around [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 01:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Cueball's response raises a pertinent query. The above-mentioned axiom does not take into account the fact that an action can only be so precisely measured and these micromeasures are going to differ each time. Depending on the values changed, there will be a different result that may be big enough to be noticeable.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 08:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the DSM-5 has had a fairly strong negative response, and made a number of controversial changes. So in some ways you may find what you're looking for in DSM-5. Of course, the direction of movement is such that if a definition of insane had been in DSM-IV it likely wouldn't be in DSM-5. Its also worth noting that Insanity is at its heart a legal definition and not a medical one.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.76|108.162.237.76]] 11:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1543: Team Effort

2016-03-06T02:36:18Z

108.162.237.76:

Bah, my first draft was conflicted yet again! Here's my draft - anyone feel free to re-merge any or part herein.
:When people receive a major award, like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awards|Academy Award] (or an "Oscar"), they give an acceptance speech which traditionally begins with the recipient thanking people who have helped them achieve the honour. Sometimes when a number of people are mentioned, the recipient will say that it was a team effort - a comment which elevates the "helpers" to virtually the same level as the recipient.
:This comic takes things one step further and attributes assistance in winning the award to a normal bodily function - the bacteria in short-haired-girls gut. This bacteria is largely what makes digestion possible, and without it she would die - and not be able to win the award.
[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
:Please wait for the BOT [[User:dgbrtBOT|dgbrtBOT]] to create and edit all the necessary content here. So please wait for the BOT and edit only existing pages. Since xkcd is running in a cloud it can happen that my BOT sees updates later than you. So please be patient. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In the scenario suggested (already tending towards a hypothetical quantification, and not regulated by a Weights And Measures authority), I'm not sure about either the accuracy ''or'' precision points currently in th explanation. Randall/Megan may differ but, in my ''personal'' dialect, it's perfectly legitimate to say this for "one ''to'' two pints" with context suggesting whether this is some set (by whole/half/etc pints) or a continuity. And rarely would it mean to six significant figures (it would be lower ''precision'', regardless of any implied discrete ''accuracy''). The unvoiced error-margins in precision around a pint and a couple of pints (although not invoked here, see also [[1070]]!) could quite eaily overlap, in this scenario, to smudge even the 'set of two' together, and to either side. IMO.

Also, I immediately saw (probably wrongly) an echo of recent strips [[1541]] and [[1528]], among others, with the scenario of a singled corpus being shared and thus influenced (willingly or otherwise!) by multiple entities. (If apparently-Randall does any more along these lines... well, maybe ''he'''s trying to tell us something!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.30|141.101.98.30]] 16:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if this sticks; I'm testing people to see how well they can negotiate contextual common sense when critically applied to neurotic debate over minutia. Regarding: the explanation in the 15:40 27 June 2015 revision, even though it has been edited out, but because there's a fascinating bit of didactic assertion that doesn't appear to pay heed to standard practice in speaking, and a full postmodern style deconstruction is something I'm in a ridiculously misplaced mood to go about doing. In the interest of being needlessly pedantic in an anonymous online discussion, I feel it sensible to point out that "one to two" (of something) to indicate a continuously differentiable value range, is rarely if ever used in colloquial English, (especially when the something in question, here being "pints" which is almost always referring to fluid volume, is readily divisible and not necessarily allotted in integer amounts.) In spoken English, the parsing "[x amount] to [y amount]," is usually only utilized when those amounts differ by greater than one. For example, "ideally we would have a team of four to eight people working on this project." One might use the phrase, "I would like it if two or three people could help me move this couch," to mean ''exactly'' two or ''exactly'' three people, and it scans this way primarily because people, as a unit of measurement, cannot be sensibly subdivided. Contrarily, when the parsing "[n] or [n+1]" is coupled to a unit that is readily divisible, common usage will scan to most speakers in a way that could more precisely be stated as, "a range centered on [n+0.5] [units] with a standard deviation slightly greater than [1 unit]."

For example I might say, "there are like, three or four dozen geese over there," and I would be daft to expect someone to interpret that to mean, "I estimate there are exactly 36 or exactly 48 geese over there," but have every expectation that most people might (however generally) hear that to mean something close to, "I have made a quick ballpark estimate of between 36 and 48 geese from my imprecise observations, and would not be surprised if the exactly value were as low as 32 or as high as 52." (I cannot rapidly count geese in quantities larger than about a dozen, and for each additional dozen of geese beyond the first, I expect my ability to make rapid estimations, in the same span of time it would otherwise take me to count a dozen geese, quickly deteriorates with at best a linear increase in margin of error and likely much worse than that. Which is to say, if I am able to wholly observe a number of geese (such that they are all within my field of view and none are obstructed by obstacles or other geese) between, say, 50 and 200, any estimates made in the same amount of time it would take me to individually count up to twelve of those geese, would probably be faulty to an order of several dozen geese. I don't know to what particular extent this is true; it would be a curious thing to test. I do however anticipate that a similar faultiness of measurement would exist for the average person estimating fluid volumes in the range of whole pints, especially in non-standard containers (for example, the human gut.))

All of this is further supported by the syntactical parsing of Megan's statement. The stated value distribution, "one or two pints," is immediately preceded by, "I mean, there's like." The phrase, "there's like," concisely indicates a vague or hasty approximation will follow, while the preamble, "I mean," has become trendy in informal speech to prime listeners for upcoming dialogue with a tone indicative of range of qualifiers potentially including personal bias, wide margins of error, unsubstantiated or inflated sense of certainty, but overall a sense that exacting precision will be less semantically relevant to the content than the relational posturing of the salient concepts. In a tautological sense, this is quite literally stated; "I mean," clearly indicates that what one will be explicating on has to do directly with meaning, rather than measurement, hypothetical abstraction or inquisitive positing, vague social hints, or any of a range of things one might attempt to convey linguistically. The listener is then ready to grapple with Megan's summary, "their cells outnumber mine," in a way that directs their apprehension to the contextual significance of the phrase, rather than the isolated absolute value of it. This allows the listener to link the practical value of the whole sentence to the preceding one. Since Megan opens by thanking a list of people which could be seen as comprising individuals, it makes sense to interpret the second sentence as denoting a significance in the sum of bacteria as individuals, and that there is a remarkable (hence her remarking on it) meaning in the concept of there being more ''individual'' bacteria encompassed within Megan's person than she has in total ''parts'' (for some interpretations of the concept of "parts.")

The summary conceptual meaning of Megan's statements (punctuated entirely by the concise notion of "team effort,") renders fully moot any utility in determining the precise volume of bacteria, and urges the use of the most efficient uttering possible to indicate the volume without being wholly arbitrary; whatever the exact amount, it is likely to be within an order of magnitude of a pint, a pint is an intuitively imaginable (and for many beer drinkers and Ben and Jerry's ice cream eaters, personally poignant) volumetric unit of measurement, a pint of anything that is usually functionally invisible has immediate sensational potency, and that all amounts to a very large number of bacteria and indicates little if anything important about how much of a space that number of bacteria fit into. (How Randall came up with a volume figure for gut bacteria is beyond me; any quick searches I've done seem to indicate information about bacteria in terms of quantity or weight, and conversions to volume seem tremendously speculative and subject to conditional factors.) 10:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bodies-have-more-bacteria-than-human-cells-1.19136 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.76|108.162.237.76]] 02:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)