explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1573: Cyberintelligence

2015-09-04T23:00:34Z

141.101.98.201:

No one has used the prefix "cyber-" in over a decade? I guess the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman Cybermen] are pretty disappointed to hear that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.217|162.158.114.217]] 06:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
: You could argue it's a "historical" term. It's have been almost 50 years since the term was formed. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
: And, at least in Germany, broadcasting of CSI Cyber starts these days. -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.56|141.101.105.56]] 07:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
:: CSI Cyber -- is an other example of a government organization named by senior exec who probably are old men [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 13:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
: The Dr Who Cybermen originated in the 1960s. -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.56|141.101.105.56]] 07:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think "cyber intelligence" is referring to computer spying and security, not artificial intelligence. As in "our cyber intelligence operatives have located the suspect." If you google "cyber intelligence," the results are definitely more geared towards security than AI. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.105|108.162.245.105]] 07:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

: I see and agree. I (as a German) always tend to forget that "intelligence" can be used as a term for other things, esp. espionage stuff (or "gaining information" or similar). The German word "Intelligenz" is only related cognitive abilities, as in AI, IQ etc... Or - rarely - as a synonym for {{w|Intelligentsia}} or intellectuals [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, in Greece, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Crime_Unit_(Hellenic_Police) Cybercrime] unit has never used the Greek word "Cyber" in its local name - possibly because it would be misunderstood to mean "Government Crime" [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 19:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Munroe himself uses the prefix "cyber" in the title text to xkcd 1084. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 23:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-03T20:57:12Z

141.101.98.201: variation

I think Randall missed a trick here.. He should have had Black Hat offer to leave the lever (killing the 5) if Cueball was the 1 person on the other track, for $1 of course. That way Cueball is put in a situation of moral contradiction: The utilitarian in him says save the 5 (sacrifice self), self interest says save yourself (thereby killing 5). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Randall had to make a choice between your scenario and Black Hat interrupting Cueball to emphasise BH's lack of care for the people on the track. As he chose the latter, BH didn't know there was a person on the second track, so couldn't have offered your scenario. -- [[User:Notso|Notso]] ([[User talk:Notso|talk]]) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good point, I hadn't noticed that BH was never aware of the single person. That makes BH an even less moral person than I'd realised! As far as he knows, he could save 5 lives with no consequences, but that means standing up.... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I think Randall made the morally correct choice there, don't you? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Thats the thing with morals, something is only 'morally correct' if I subscribe to your moral viewpoint. While not such a popular view, some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events, or some other reason). While most would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human, as you start changing the circumstances, it become difficult to stick to hard and fast rules. What about abortion of a foetus, abortion where a life-limiting condition is detected, use of condoms, the death penalty, euthanasia? I would really recommend anyone to run through some of the [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ Philosophy Experiments], it certainly made me examine my own morals, which previously I thought were well defined and logical. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::"''some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events''"
::::If you base morality on what choices are made, rather than what actions are taken, then '''failing''' to intervene, choosing not to take action, would be morally wrong. Basing morals on actions suggests someone could stand by and always do nothing and remain moral. A position I don't think anyone could seriously defend. But you're absolutely right that "morals" are never well defined or logical. An example can always be found to put someone's strong moral stance in an immoral position. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Hat first sells his hypothetical decision for $1, which can be seen as a cheap bargain for one's life; but how probable is this concrete situation with these exact persons to come true, except we are speaking of Black Hat here. $5 still is for a hypothetical, but more probable scenario given Black Hat's attitude; agreeing to pay would make Cueball open for further blackmailing in general and so be imprudent, but even for that counter-argument Black Hat has an even more expensive solution. Black Hat goes more and more meta and counters arguments bringing the concrete decision from hypothesis to reality and earning money on the way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Or one can treat this like Captain Kirk did with the infamous "Kobayashi Maru" problem and cheat, and say that they would throw the lever after the lead wheels have cleared the switch. This would divert the trailing wheels onto the other track which would cause the trolley to derail and thus save all six.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:And kill everyone on board! Its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. To me its more interesting to examine and challenge the thought process involved in making a decision where the answer isn't necessarily 'correct'. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Nowhere does it say there are people on the trolley. You are assuming that there are. I am assuming the opposite — that it is a runaway and no one is aboard; otherwise someone would be able to apply the brakes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::My response was an off the cuff joke, it doesn't matter whether there are people on board, whether they would survive, whether they could pull the brakes on, if the brakes have failed, whether you could fire an orange portal in front of the 5 people and a blue one after them, etc etc etc. The importants part is the second half of my statement, that its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. Once you accept the hypothetical limits of the situation, that is where the interesting philosophical questions lie. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::The correct answer is to have a moral trolley company that trains its workers to OSHA rules; thus the correct answer would be to throw the lever to head towards the worker, confident that the worker has been trained to listen to the "singing of the rails" indicating an approaching vehicle and will jump out of the way. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::In the original problem, all 6 potential victims are bound and helpless and none of them are "workers". [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::If the trolley is a runaway trolley, then it's a good chance that all on board (if anyone) would die anyway, so may as well save all six people on the track. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.131|108.162.217.131]] 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The explanation is missing that Black Hat doesn't offer to press the lever for $1. He offers to promise to press the lever for $1. [[User:Hsdgsgh|Hsdgsgh]] ([[User talk:Hsdgsgh|talk]]) 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends - are any/all of those five people Hitler? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.48|108.162.215.48]] 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The tiered levels appear similar to kickstarter campaigns. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]]

The trolley problem continues: The trolley is under control, but heading towards a bend. If the driver brakes now, then the five people hidden round the corner will survive. You could certainly make the driver brake by pushing someone onto the track. If you would divert the trolley in the original scenario, would you also push a random stranger into the path of an oncoming train, and if not, why not. Does the more visceral act of pushing someone onto a track make this morally different? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:505: A Bunch of Rocks

2014-11-26T12:42:33Z

141.101.98.201: ir not thinking clearly

;Weird thing with lines in it
probably has something to do with relativity -- two objects moving, arriving at different points at the same time, or maybe a diagram of spacetime. [[Special:Contributions/66.202.132.250|66.202.132.250]] 16:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram Feynman Diagram] [[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 19:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Toby Ovod-Everett

:I did add the incomplete tag because this comic and also the explain is still really complex. More important: People without a proper physics background never will understand. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a short story called "SOLE SOLUTION" by Eric Frank Russell which is quite similar to the one in the story. Just in case that matters.{{unsigned|Maob}}

Re Rule 34 - the point is that this comic _is_ cellular automaton porn (as are the YouTube videos of Minecraft calculators and the like). Rule 34 works, bitches! {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.241}}

Not sure what's incomplete about the explain. [[User:MrGameZone|0100011101100001011011010110010101011010011011110110111001100101]] ([[User talk:MrGameZone|talk page]]) 22:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yo ''calculus'' is the latin word for pebble! I learned this and had to come straight to this page! ahhh connections! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] Sawyer Biddle

As it turns out, Rule 110 seems to be a ''really bad'' way to simulate a universe- you would be much better off using a {{w|Tag_system|Cyclic tag system}}, since Rule 110 takes dozens of generations and potentially hundreds of cells to simulate one step in such a system, or a more sophisticated cellular automaton, such as {{w|Wireworld.}} --[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 05:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To whoever objected to panel number references, does what I did with first words fix that? {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.99}}

Well, that's a pretty unfair comparison in the last panel, the protag is immortal after all, if I'm immortal I might do the same thing, but hey we got a much shorter life to live {{unsigned ip|103.22.201.168}}

The diagram to the right of the Epitaph of Stevinus looks like a system of coupled pendula, often used in math physics courses to illustrate Lagrangian mechanics. Also may relate to elasticity theory. See for example here: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ThreePendulumsConnectedByTwoSprings. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.96|108.162.221.96]] 03:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
:If this is true (which seems like the most probable solution so far) then what do the symbols inside the boxes represent?{{unsigned ip|108.162.216.209}}
:: Spring constants, masses, lengths, etc [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.220|108.162.221.220]] 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The bigger picture that's missing on this explains it that this comic seems to suggest that Cueball is God, as in being stuck in Eternity who happened to build a simulated universe, which we all live in. Seeing how he addresses the reader "So if you see a mote of dust vanish from your vision in a little flash or something I'm sorry. I must have misplaced a rock sometime in the last few billions and billions of millennia." {{[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.238|141.101.105.238]] 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)}}
: I understand that English might not be your first language, but please clarify. The explanation covers Cueball being godlike. How can we add something that is already covered? Do you require further detail? Are you disagreeing with this assessment? Are you considering this observation irrelevant as your summary for your first comment "added not about Cueball being God" seems to imply? If so why?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
:: nm. I blatantly overlooked the exisiting sentence in the explanation. i blame the layout of this page. inline text that spans the whole available screen width is not pleasant to read on large displays ;) ...as for my English... the confusion stems from my bad keyboard/typing. it was meant to read "added notE about Cueball" for instance, or "as in A being stuck". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.233|141.101.105.233]] 08:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
:::you could shrink your window and display narrower lines of text(?) -- I guess it comes down to preference for masochism(?)... idunno. I think one of the most confusing parts of your question (and which may have contributed most to the ESL idea) is "missing on this explains it that...". Also, "as in being stuck" makes more sense than "as in a being stuck", though it seems you're suggesting otherwise (?) and I don't see any text mentioning added not(E) about Cueball) -- oh wait; is this a troll? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Who or what is Nugui and why is it relivent.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

is randall not assuming that his universe (and by implication ours) is finite? if not, one iteration of the machine would still take infinite time. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

384: The Drake Equation

2014-11-23T18:52:24Z

141.101.98.201: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 384
| date = February 15, 2008
| title = The Drake Equation
| image = the_drake_equation.png
| titletext = But seriously, there's loads of intelligent life. It's just not screaming constantly in all directions on the handful of frequencies we search.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is multi-layered, and seems to be [[Randall]]'s take on the {{w|Fermi paradox}}.

For starters, the {{w|Drake equation}} is a model for estimating the number of communicating life forms in our galaxy.

Even if there is life on other planets, most life forms will not establish civilizations. However, if there are any communicating civilizations, their messages would have to travel for hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years to reach us, and then our response would take an equivalent amount of time, leaving them waiting for a doubled time of years according to their distance in light years for a response.

That is the reason why Randall also added the factor for the "Amount of bullshit you're willing to buy from Frank Drake". All the factors are difficult to measure or estimate, no number is determined with sufficient accuracy, so the equation is a guideline for a thought experiment at best, and just "bullshit" at worst.

The title text makes fun of the {{w|SETI|Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI)}} project, which searches for intelligent life on other planets by looking for radio communications, and the intelligence of their researchers. Nearly nothing, if not nothing, restricts potential extraterrestrial communications to the frequencies that SETI searches at any given moment. Even if another civilization communicated on one of SETI's search frequencies, they would most likely live extremely far away. Additionally, an extraterrestrial source that doesn't know we're here would have to send a constant and powerful signal in all directions for us to notice it.

The SETI project is searching at the 21 cm {{w|Hydrogen line}}, which, although considered a favorable frequency by potential extraterrestrial civilizations, is not used by humans. Therefore, a SETI-like organization would have a hard time finding earth.

The title text suggests Randall does not think Drake is a nutjob; he just has a more conservative expectation of discovering extraterrestrial life.

==Transcript==
:The Drake Equation:
:N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L Bs
:N: Number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy
:ne: Number of life-supporting planets per solar system
:fi: Probability that life on a planet becomes intelligent
:Bs: Amount of bullshit you're willing to buy from Frank Drake

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Science]]