explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2500: Global Temperature Over My Lifetime

2021-08-09T23:50:51Z

141.101.104.52: /* Explanation */ Made several links better. (Wiki files can always be 'w|...|...'ed, non-wiki ones shouldn't be left as Ref-types.)

{{comic
| number = 2500
| date = August 9, 2021
| title = Global Temperature Over My Lifetime
| image = global temperature over my lifetime.png
| titletext = I was really impressed by the accuracy of some of the report's predictions about fossil fuel consumption. Then I realized, oh, right, of course.
| imagesize =
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by EXXON MOBIL STANDING AROUND AWKWARDLY IN ITS FIRST MIDDLE SCHOOL DANCE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

===No-Joke Monday===
If you came here wondering what the joke is in this cartoon, expecting that we would explain the joke to you -- sorry! This is Randall Munroe in his role as meticulous, conscientious presenter of scientific data. The activities shown in Randall's lifeline, whether learning to ride a bike or even getting married, pale into insignificance when the consequences of unprecedented global average temperature rise are understood and accepted. The Wikipedia article {{w|Global_temperature_record|Global Temperature Record}} has some telling graphs to supplement Randall's. This one: {{w|File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg|Global Average Temperature}} is the global average temperature change for the modern era, since data started being collected regularly in 1850. This one: {{w|File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png|2000 Year Temperature Comparison}} reconstructs 2000 years of temperatures. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The comic itself links to [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2 the referenced Exxon document about CO2 emissions].

The comic was published on the same day that the {{w|Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change|U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change}} released its [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ 2021 Assessment Report]

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|}}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Climate change]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe]]

2499: Abandonment Function

2021-08-07T22:11:35Z

141.101.104.52: Added note re Migratory Drone Treaty Act

{{comic
| number = 2499
| date = August 6, 2021
| title = Abandonment Function
| image = abandonment function 2x.png
| titletext = Remember to only adopt domesticated drones that specifically request it. It's illegal to collect wild ones under the Migratory Drone Treaty Act.
| imagesize =
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HUMAN BEING because the bot didn't. What else needs to happen when a new page is made?

I'm on mobile so editing is pretty hard <a href="https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/285:_Wikipedian_Protester">[citation needed]</a> but I started it!

Does anyone have editing privileges to add a link to dgbrt's bot to maybe the bottom of the discussion template, or anywhere people will see repeatedly, so everybody learns how to make new pages when needed?}}

{{W|abandoned_pets|Pet abandonment}} is a situation of concern among biological pets, and is part of the reason there are animal rescue organisations providing for adoption in most regions. Since drones are automated, they can be programmed to have an automatic abandonment function.

With the drone responsible for finding its own new owner, one can imagine it becoming more and more fervent as its charge runs down, to prevent the accumulation of derelict drones in the streets.

Triggering abandonment based on extended close proximity to the device's own controller could produce issues such as accidental activition, or malicious activation by a party who could send the proximity signal from a great distance, possibly to many drones at once, via {{W|software defined radio}}.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete|transcript is incomplete}}

{{comic discussion}}
The Migratory Drone Treaty Act is presumably a reference to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes it a federal crime to take birds or bird parts, including feathers, or to kill birds without special permission from the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA also prohibits any person from using bait to take migratory birds, or for someone to hunt in areas they know or reasonably should know are baited. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52|141.101.104.52]] 22:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC) dww

Talk:2498: Forest Walk

2021-08-05T07:51:38Z

141.101.104.52:

Have just added a transcript. Hope I did good! :) -Lance ([[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.211|172.70.126.211]] 02:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC))

Wonder what Beret Guy would do if Cooper said, "I don't have it any more," since some of the money was discovered, badly deteriorated and partially buried, along the banks of the Columbia River back in 1980, as verified by serial numbers on the found currency. Given the absence of any other evidence, it was assumed that the hijacker had gotten separated from the money either during or right after the jump, the found currency had been deposited as flotsam at its discovery point through the actions of the river itself, and the rest of the money was still somewhere in the Pacific Northwest awaiting similar discovery, [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 04:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If it can be considered that the comic is a reference to random walk (in a forest), can it also be considered a reference to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_forest random forests] ? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.73|141.101.68.73]] 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like there should be a D.B. Cooper category at this point. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52|141.101.104.52]] 07:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

1711: Snapchat

2016-07-27T09:07:45Z

141.101.104.52: /* Explanation */ minor change

{{comic
| number = 1711
| date = July 25, 2016
| title = Snapchat
| image = snapchat.png
| titletext = For obvious reasons, the prize is awarded at a different time of year from the others, while it's still fresh in the committee's memory.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|Snapchat}}'' is a photo-sending app that allows the receiving user to only view the photo (known as a "snap") within 24 hours of its posting, and for only 10 seconds before it is deleted. The {{w|Pulitzer Prize}} is famously awarded for exceptional journalism and photojournalism (there are many categories; see {{w|Pulitzer Prize#Categories|here}}).

[[Cueball]] reads that the ''Snapchat Pulitzer Prize'' has just been awarded but then, when [[Megan]] states that she heard the picture was really good, Cueball becomes disappointed because he realises he has already missed out on the chance to see the prize winning entry due to the temporary nature of Snapchat. Note that Megan also missed the opportunity to see the snap.

A given snap can be sent to a semi-public "Story" and the user decides how long any user can see the snap in a range from {{w|Snapchat#Core_functionality|1-10 s}}. In principle, any specific snap is only accessible for {{w|Snapchat#Stories_and_Discover|24 hours}} even if it is a story. A committee of users could have more than 10 seconds to access the snap, by viewing in sequence. Given the time it might take for a committee to decide which snap wins the prize, it is realistic that Cueball learns about the winner after the 24 hours is up; Thus even a user following the outcome might not be able to see the winning entry after that time. In practice it is possible to circumvent the Snapchat rule and {{w|Snapchat#Screenshots_and_FTC|take a screen shot}} or in other ways save the content of the snap. In the case of a Pulitzer Prize winning photo, someone would probably have saved it, if it was in real life. On the other hand, the only way for the photo to be recognised as a snap, eligible to win the prize, would be if no one could see it for more than 10 seconds. So one of the possible rules might be that any picture which was saved would not be able to win the prize. (This would be effectively impossible to enforce.)

The title text extends this ephemeral nature of Snapchat's content to the prize awarded for it: The other Pulitzer prizes are announced annually in April and awarded in May (except for 2016, the centennial year, when an awards dinner will be held in October). The Snapchat Pulitzer Prize alone must be awarded as quickly as possible after the winner has been decided, before the prize committee forgets what the winning picture looked like. This of course underlines how silly this idea is, because only images seen during the assembly of the prize committee can be seen and remembered, and it is not possible to arrange this based on any knowledge of when a Pulitzer Prize "worthy" snap will be released.

[[Randall]] could be making fun of Snapchat (see the title), and the idea that you cannot save the images for later; As mentioned regarding screenshots, it is actually very easy to save pictures from Snapchat. (To many a user's regret after having sent something very personal, such as naked pictures of themselves.) The comic could also be seen as mocking the Pulitzer Prize for having too broad a spectrum of categories. Alongside the (photo)journalistic and prose awards, the Pulitzers also honor a variety of artistic pursuits, including Poetry, Drama and Music.

The new medium of Snapchat is certainly a hybrid form of art and information/opinion dispersal, both at its best and at its worst, but arguably its popularity may be too short lived to make the awarding of prizes bear any ongoing noteworthiness whatsoever.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan standing together. He holds a smartphone in his left hand and looks at it.]
:Cueball: Oh, the Pulitzer Prize for Snapchat was just awarded.
:Megan: Yeah.
:Megan: I hear the photo was really good.
:Cueball: Aw, ''maaaan''...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

Talk:1478: P-Values

2015-01-28T13:36:01Z

141.101.104.52:

IMHO the current explanation is misleading. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value p-value] describes how well the experiment output fits hypothesis. The hypothesis can be that the experiment output is random.
The low p-values point out that the experiment output fits well with behavior predicted by the hypothesis. The higher the p-value the more the observed and predicted values differ.[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 08:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
: High p-values do not signify that the results differ from what was predicted, they simply indicate that there are not enough results for a conclusion. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.113|108.162.230.113]] 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I read this comic as a bit of a jab at either scientists or media commentators who want the experiments to show a particular result. As the significance decreases, first they re-do the calculations either in the hope that result might have been erroneous and would be re-classified as significant, or intentionally fudge the numbers to increase the significance. The next step is to start clutching at straws, admitting that while the result isn't ''[[Technically]]'' significant, it is very close to being significant. After that, changing the language to 'suggestive' may convince the general public that the result is actually more significant than it is, while also changing the parameters of the 'significance' value allows it to be classified as significant. Finally, they give up on the overall results, and start pointing out small sections which may by chance show some interesting features.

All of these subversive efforts could come about because of scientists who want their experiment to match their hypothesis, journalists who need a story, researchers who have to justify further funding etc etc. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:I like how you have two separate categories - "scientists" and "researchers" with each having two different goals :) [[User:Nyq|Nyq]] ([[User talk:Nyq|talk]]) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
: As a reporter, I can assure you that journalists are not redoing calculations on studies. Journalists are notorious for their innumeracy; the average reporter can barely figure the tip on her dinner check. Most of us don't know p-values from pea soup.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.78|108.162.216.78]] 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This one resembles [https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/ this interesting blog post] very much.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.222|141.101.96.222]] 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[[File:null_hypothesis.png]] 
[[User:Sten|'''STEN''']] ([[User talk:Sten|talk]]) 13:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:Heh. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.189|173.245.56.189]] 20:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

See http://xkcd.com/882/ for using a subgroup to improve your p value. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:I agree. The part about p >= 0.1 reminded me of that comic. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 01:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This comic may be ridiculing the arbitrariness of the .05 significance cutoff and alluding to the "new statistics" being discussed in psychology.[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/march-14/theres-life-beyond-05.html] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.163|108.162.219.163]] 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The "redo calculations" part could just mean "redo calculations with more significant figures" (i.e. to see whether this 0.050 value is actually 0.0498 or 0.0503). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52|141.101.104.52]] 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

1459: Documents

2014-12-12T11:19:05Z

141.101.104.52:

{{comic
| number = 1459
| date = December 12, 2014
| title = Documents
| image = documents.png
| titletext = Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Untitled.doc
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|WIP}}

The comic portrays the type of naming conventions used by some people (in this case, [[White Hat]]). When saving documents, the user is typically prompted to choose a filename, which may seem like a trivial choice. However, the filename is often the primary way of identifying the document you are looking for, and a descriptive title is of huge benefit when trying to find a certain document. Those who are too rushed or too lazy to create a useful filename, or those who don't understand what constitutes a useful filename are setting themselves up for future frustration.

When a user creates a new copy of a file in the same directory, the operating system may automatically append "copy" to the filename. Subsequent copies of the file have "copy 2", "copy 3" etc appended. When searching documents later, the user may struggle to remember which copy is the correct one to use.

[[Cueball]] has a severe distaste for these types of saved documents and hence provides a protip to never look in someone else's documents folder for the fear of finding these irritating details.

The .doc and .docx extensions are given to documents created in Microsoft Word, with .docx being the default option from Microsoft Office 2007 onwards. When first saving a document, the default filename is the first sentence of the document. It is also possible to set a different default filename, though this is a feature that few people are aware of or use. It would seem that White Hat has initially chosen to name a file "untitled.doc", and subsequently created hundreds of copies from that file.

In some cases he has added a minimal amount of detail to the filename, though hasn't removed the redundant "untitled copy" portion, which probably only adds to Cueball's frustration, as it demonstrates that White Hat does have at least a basic understanding of the importance of meaningful filenames, but still hasn't made any attempt to address the systemic problem.

==Transcript==

[White Hat browsing Documents folder]

Cueball: Oh my god.

Protip: Never look in someone else's documents folder.

{{comic discussion}}

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