explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2848: Breaker Box

2023-10-31T18:25:17Z

141.101.99.157: Correcting the *two* linking issues in a contributor's post. []-external links are URL<space>TEXT, within. And better to wikilink with template, when you can.

added transcript and got to change the name of the thing that created the explanation incomplete tag WOHOOOOoO [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 02:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: can't help but notice the [[1590]] reference [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 02:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Added explanation! Simple, but it'll do. How do I sign? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.159|172.69.34.159]] 03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: four tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>) [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 03:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:: Thanks. I thought that I had tried it earlier and it hadn't worked, but I guess I was wrong. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.160|172.69.34.160]] 03:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Just added headers, but not good enough with this stuff to add descriptions. go nuts [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 02:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Got a good laugh out of this one. Does anyone have a guess as to whether the "bugs" at the bottom of the second column refers to computer bugs or insects? Also, some self-referential humor going on at the end there. I guess the breaker box which contains all breakers would indeed contain itself. [[User:Jrfarah|Jrfarah]] ([[User talk:Jrfarah|talk]]) 04:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: I thought it was some sort of reference to [[2753]] [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 04:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: It turns off the bunny. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.194|172.69.194.194]] 11:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
: Computer bugs switches actually exist. It's a feature in some emulators to either run an unofficial patched version or to stay true to the original system, for example to allow bug-exploit speedruns. [[User:Shirluban|Shirluban]] [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.70|172.71.130.70]] 13:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

So... discussion about "Hot Water Heater" vs. "Regular Water Heater"... I was assuming this was a joke regarding the redundancy of the term "Hot Water Heater" since "Water Heater" is already making the water hot, so why would you need to heat water that's already hot? Similar to RAS Syndrome, I thought Randall was making fun of that, but the explanation has a different idea... which... kind of makes sense? But... I've never seen anything like what is being described. [[User:AdmiralMemo|Admiral Memo]] ([[User talk:AdmiralMemo|talk]]) 05:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "one surprise mystery outlet", I don't think it's necessary to assume it was wired that way by mistake. When extending the wiring in an existing house, it's not always easy to wire up an extra breaker, or use the most logically labelled one, and there may not be a compelling safety reason to do so. For instance, in my parents house, the original sockets are all wired from the floor, and when an extra one was needed for a boiler control, it was easier to run a conduit ''down'' from the floor above; so that particular socket is on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_circuit ring] marked "Upstairs Sockets" on the consumer unit. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I read the "state/federal law" switches as ''required'' by said laws. i.e. respective building codes require a "foo switch" always to be installed, whether or not a foo is required, reasonable or even practicable. The switches may be left unlinked to anything that is serviced, or run to the household outlet/power-switch with the label plastered over it saying "don't use for anything but the quarter-inch hoojamaflip grinder" (or whatever it is, in the same sort of manner as "Refrigerator, do ''not'' unplug/turn off!" in a communal kitchen.... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.166|141.101.99.166]] 10:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Some laws contain "circuit breaker" provisions, where some action is triggered when a condition reaches a threshold. Maybe that's what state/federal law refers to. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

...in a separate comment, I have a fuse/switch labelled "Do not turn on!" in my house. It was turned on when I moved in, and (barring actually any reason to mess with anything/’get a man in' for any other purpose) I've ''left'' it on. Ditto, for these last six or seven years I've remained ignorant of the purpose of various wall switches (floor-height, one in living room, one at top of stairs, another in a bedroom) that are unlabelled and off (though I ''have'' switched them on... no obvious difference to lighting, alarm system, any other system I can imagine they're wired up into and left it pending some future time when I actually have to do something like strip plaster back and discover which (if any?) run of cable leads from/to them. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.166|141.101.99.166]] 10:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the cryptogram may be an attempt to pun on a "code breaker" as a reference to people who solve ciphers. [[User:Aberdasher|Aberdasher]] ([[User talk:Aberdasher|talk]]) 13:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

After reading "Regular Water Heater", I assumed it was implying that the "Hot Water Heater" was somehow more physically attractive and thus "hotter". --[[User:Galeindfal|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal|talk]]) 14:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Depending on interpretation, "North-facing appliances" could make sense. In my house, I have two main breakers, East and West, each covering (almost) everything in one side of the house. [[User:Ehusmark|EHusmark]] ([[User talk:Ehusmark|talk]]) 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:And, contrary to the "how would the system know?", regarding north-facingness, if you had a ring-main/set of sockets servicing one particular wall (to just one side), there'd be a good chance that anything plugged in there (at least bulky "white goods", even if not smaller things that you might move and turn, like irons and fans) faces away from that particular wall. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.236|172.70.91.236]] 16:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Definite {{w|Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge|Borges}} vibes from the "appliances that face north", "appliances whose names begin with the letter 'F'", "outlets in rooms that it's normal to eat pizza in" section. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.50|172.70.85.50]] 17:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

2845: Extinction Mechanisms

2023-10-24T11:03:31Z

141.101.99.157: /* Transcript */ More of a Transcript

{{comic
| number = 2845
| date = October 23, 2023
| title = Extinction Mechanisms
| image = extinction_mechanisms_2x.png
| imagesize = 307x438px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The Late Heavy Bombardment was followed a few billion years later by the Comparatively Light but Oddly Specific Bombardment.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXTREMELY WELL-AIMED SPACE ROCK - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Around 66 million years ago there was a {{w|Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event|mass extinction event}} responsible for the extinction of all non-avian dinosaurs. This is why there are no more dinosaurs (except for birds! [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1211:_Birds_and_Dinosaurs]) There have been a number of explanations for this, but most currently accepted explanations center on the {{w|Chicxulub crater|Chicxulub impact}}, in which a large asteroid (the comic suggests it was a comet) hit the Earth. The exact mechanism for the extinction caused by this event, however, is not clear. The comic suggests three possibilities: {{w|impact winter}} caused by dust released from the impact, {{w|firestorms}} along with {{w|ocean acidification}} from acids generated by the impact, and the enhanced eruption of volcano(es) in the {{w|Deccan Traps}} region in India. Here all three possibilities have been crossed out and a fourth one, "the rocks hit the dinosaurs," is circled as the correct answer.

The argument is that the comet had a volume of 500 km3 (10 km diameter), or 5×1014 L. Earth has a surface area of around 500 million km2, or 5×1014 m2. The idea is that the comet broke up into liter-sized rocks that were somehow evenly distributed over the Earth's surface, one per square meter, hitting each of the dinosaurs. It is unclear how such a breakup or scattering might have occurred.

The title text refers to a hypothetical event early in Earth's history, ironically known as the Late Heavy Bombardment, in which a number of asteroids struck the Earth and other terrestrial planets around 4 billion years ago. The mass extinction event of 66 million years ago is then referred to as the "Comparatively Light but Oddly Specific Bombardment", presumably because it isn't as heavy as the LHB, but oddly specific in its targets.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A drawing of the Chicxulub meteor]
:Marking to the right: ≈ 500 km3 (5 × 1014 L)
:[Five arrows show individual small rocks coming from the meteor and spreading across the Earth. A sixth arrow provides more elaboration.]
:Marking of the separate rock: 1 liter rocks
:[The rock is shown entering a square marked "1 m2", which has another arrow to a larger grid of squares, before an arrow back to the Earth.]
:Marking near example square meter: >1 rock per m2

:[Four dinosaurs are drawn, including a theropod, what may be a velociraptor, a sauropod, and a triceratops. Each has a small rock falling directly toward it.]

:[List header, underlined:] Comet Extinction Mechanism Ideas
:[The first three list items are crossed out]
:Dust caused impact winter
:Firestorms and ocean acidification
:Triggered Deccan Traps magma
:[The fourth suggestion is circled rather than struck through:]
:The rocks hit the dinosaurs

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Paleontologists are missing the obvious answer.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Talk:1277: Ayn Random

2023-06-21T10:22:39Z

141.101.99.157:

I think that should be /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i.

[[Special:Contributions/173.66.108.213|173.66.108.213]] 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was confused for a while about what the b's were doing.

[[Special:Contributions/99.126.178.56|99.126.178.56]] 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to have an Ayn Rand category? --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to the mathematically challenged *how* the list of names fits the regular expression? [[Special:Contributions/141.2.75.23|141.2.75.23]] 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: Agreed, I would like to understand what the hell is going on with that. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: How specific do you want it? Basically it matches two words consisting of the letters plurandy. The list of names is just a random selection of two part names that only consists of these letters. More specifically it matches: Two groups ({2}), each consisting of a word boundary (\b), followed by a non-empty sequence of the letters plurandy ([plurandy]+), followed by a word boundary (\b), finally followed by an optional space ( ?). [[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Also, the /'s on the end delimit the regex proper, and the `i` on the end denotes case insensitivity. --[[Special:Contributions/75.66.178.177|75.66.178.177]] 09:39, 14 October
2013 (UTC)
:::In the explanation of how the regex works after the explanation "'''the {2} on the end means to repeat the pattern, so it must match exactly twice'''" I think you need an explanation of how the optional space in the middle interacts with the word boundaries. I.e.
::::(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}
:::Expanding:
::::\b[plurandy]+\b ?\b[plurandy]+\b ?
:::Now the optional space at the end is redundant, and the space in the center is not optional, since if there is no space the word boundaries do not exist. If the space is present the word boundaries are redundent because letter space letter sequence always matches them.
::::\b[plurandy]+ [plurandy]+\b ?
:::And this now closely matches the text description "'''Overall, it matches two words separated by a space, composed entirely of the letters in [plurandy], which is what all the names listed have in common.'''" --[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:Some examples
:* "Ru Paul" would match, because it is two sequences, each containing only capital or lowercase versions of the listed letters.
:* "Randall Flagg" would not match, because the letters F and G are not in the bracketed list.
:* "Aura Anaya Adlar" would not match; even though the letters are all in the list, there are more than two sequences.
:Hope this helps!
:[[User:Swartzer|Swartzer]] ([[User talk:Swartzer|talk]]) 20:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/209.132.186.34|209.132.186.34]] 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Randal would make such mistake, he would probably use \< \> anyway... unless, he wants us
to think he did mistake, or that backslash was eliminated in html/javascript... thus poining ut to
source code of the page... is there something interesting?
: I skimmed over the source and didn't see anything unusual. The '\'s are absent from the source too. I think it's just that Randall (or a tool he's using) was so affraid of [[327|Bobby Tables]] that he stripped all backslashes from the alt text. {{unsigned|Jahvascriptmaniac}}
::The title text at xkcd.com now has the missing backslashes. Do you normally update the comic here to reflect updates?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Already updated. You were saying?
::::Hmm, backslashes are still missing for me when viewing the original at xkcd.com (viewing in Chrome) [[User:Brion|Brion]] ([[User talk:Brion|talk]]) 02:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me where "In their view, if some humans are born more capable of satisfying their desires than other people, they deserve to reap greater rewards from life than others" comes from? I'm somewhat familiar with objectivist philosophy and I've never heard this put forward as an actual principle. [[Special:Contributions/50.90.39.56|50.90.39.56]] 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues.{{unsigned ip|37.221.160.203}}
:In fact, this is an imprecise and, therefore, incorrect statement of Objectivist philosophy. A correct and more complete statement can be found under the entry for "Selfishness" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.8|108.162.237.8]] 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Most people would write the regexp as /(\b[adlnpruy]+\b ?){2}/i. Using "plurandy" makes it look like a word, which is more confusing than using the letters' natural order. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be better to identify Alan Alda not for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in MASH, but for his role in The West Wing as Arnold Vinick, a fiscally-conservative Republican presidential candidate? [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:Depends, are we trying to remind him to general audience (I think MASH is more known) or find out why he was included in list? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is probably an additional joke or three in that the regex is the minimum needed to capture the first three names together (hinted at by "plurandy" eg plural rand) , but also captures the others. on top of which all of the listed people are considered "intrinsically better" (by virtue of fame if nothing else)[[Special:Contributions/74.213.201.51|74.213.201.51]] 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan Ladd may have been a founding member of the Secret Council of /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i. [[Special:Contributions/71.190.237.117|71.190.237.117]] 07:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably obvious to most programmers, but is it worth pointing out that part of the pun is that the random number generator function is called rand() in most C-family languages? [[Special:Contributions/130.60.156.183|130.60.156.183]] 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Another member of this secret society is Randall P [[Special:Contributions/79.182.178.53|79.182.178.53]] 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From above: "Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues." OK, but a few comments: All philosophies are inconsistent when looked at closely enough, refer Godel and others. Others do not see the inconsistency in Objectivism quite so plainly as in the quoted comment. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are not "the" basis of libertarian thought, there are far more highly thought of libertarian thinkers, a list of whom should come readily to mind to any of those occupying "the intellectual world" (sic), whether or not they have sympathy with libertarian ideas. It is also unfair to characterise Objectivism as having as its "sole" objective that as stated. Further, as a general principle, one ought not to take someone poking fun at a concept as *proof* that they are quite as opposed to it as you are. Now, whereas I would not categorise myself quite as a fellow traveller, a much fairer view of Objectivism is found at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) [[Special:Contributions/81.135.136.159|81.135.136.159]] 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

::Goedel doesn't say all philosophies are inconsistent. He proved that no mathematical system can be complete. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

:Other philosophies are no more consistent, agreed. But other philosophies do not claim perfect "objective" consistency as their fundamental principle. Attacking Objectivism/Objectivists for lack of internal consistency--or for not recognizing that at some, very fundamental, level it is all stacked on top of some assumptions (just like every other philosophy, and even the scientific method)--is the equivalent of attacking Christianity/Christians for lacking compassion and forgiveness. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Poking fun can indeed fall into the categories of self-irony or goodwill, but in this case Randall quite explicitly accuses the recipient of bias, making his disapproval pretty unequivocal. [[Special:Contributions/199.48.147.40|199.48.147.40]] 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a line about the rational numbers joke; it's definitely there, though I'm not sure if Randall intended it (probably did?). {{unsigned ip|76.124.119.161}}
:Don't think it makes much sense, because a random number generator algorithm of any kind couldn't possibly generate irrational numbers in finite time. [[Special:Contributions/77.244.254.228|77.244.254.228]] 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
: It does make sense, mathematically speaking a random number chosen in any open interval is irrational with probability 1, and yet any open interval contains rational numbers that could, in principal, be chosen due to density of the rationals. The joke is brilliant, if intended. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::Yes but, at that point, all random number generators are biased and not just the Ayn Random number generator. Also, the bias towards rational numbers doesn't seem to be there when your pool of numbers is just the rationals. The whole idea behind the joke seems to be more like Ayn Rand's assumptions of objectivity ending up favoring certain social groups. I dunno, it just seems forced to me. [[Special:Contributions/220.117.150.36|220.117.150.36]] 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Considering real numbers are well-understood mathematically this seems like a shortcoming of implementation, which isn't that interesting... the concept is there. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: The whole idea behind random number generation bias is the bugs they can create within software implementation (for example, weakening cryptography). An hypothetically generated irrational number would have to be truncated at some decimal place (thus making it rational) for it to be usable. Here it's a programming joke, not a math one. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 22:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::::: ...unless interpreted as a math joke. I agree that the joke admits programming interpretation, but I'd never try to exclude other interpretations as well. The math interpretation is valid since one can choose not to get muddled in implementation and to instead envision a hypothetical random number generator not bound by truncation. Randall's comics certainly admit this kind of whimsy. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Well, it says "This Ayn Random number generator you wrote" so I'd take it at face value, but that's just me. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And somehow, no one's mentioned the classic cartoon ''[[221]]:Random Number'', which presents a random number generator which is heavily biased towards one number. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the joke here not along the lines that Ayn Rand's politics, and that of Libertarianism, claim that they are fair and that they treat everyone equally - in that, supposedly, anyone can get what they want and be successful if they work hard - but the reality is that some people will fare better than others due to having certain advantages such as having been born into wealth, knowing the right people, one might even suggest that being white, middle class and male are advantageous. In a random number generator you would expect any number to be as likely to come up as any other. Similarly, Rand supporters would argue that under Objectivism, any person is by default as able to be successful as any other. The fact that some people succeed and others fail is explained as some people being inherently more able to succeed, rather than any bias in the system itself - hence she divides people into 'looters' and 'moochers'; there's also that scene I always remember in Dirty Dancing where the guy chucks a copy of The Fountainhead in Baby's direction and says 'some people count, some people don't'. Randall is mocking the idea of a system that is supposedly inherently fair and yet biases certain classes of people, with the idea of a 'random' number generator that is biased towards certain numbers not because of a problem with the system but because some numbers are supposedly 'inherently better'.[[Special:Contributions/213.86.4.78|213.86.4.78]] 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding rational numbers, p and q are allowed to have a common factor. 3/3 is still rational, just not reduced. Every rational number has an irreducible representation, but it doesn't have to be reduced to be part of the set of rationals. Also, since the definition is otherwise very specific, it could mention that q cannot be 0, which I don't think is mentioned. While that's a neat observation, I agree with the guy above that pointed out that no implementation of a random number generator produces irrational numbers. It isn't simply that the random number generator has to truncate the number, but you cannot fit infinite digits which neither terminate or repeat in a physical computer's finite memory. The random number generator would have to return symbolic results like "sqrt 2" or "e" instead of numerical values, but not returning actual numbers makes the idea of it being a random 'number' generator debatable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.197}}

All numbers are random, but some numbers are more random than others. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:Goddammit Jorgbrown, I was going to say that! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.89|108.162.237.89]] 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Computers don't store any "thing", they store a representation. Therefore, a computer can reference any "thing", because representation "sets" can be swapped out. At any given moment, if the user is aware, "1" could mean a purple flying dog. At any other given moment, "1" could mean a swimming cactus. Therefore, the number of "things" that computers can store representations for is unlimited, even if the "set" of representations it can store at any given time is limited. In our specific example, the computer can store a representation of an irrational number by collapsing the number into a recursive or incremental method of reproducing the number. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:"Although a computer could encode irrationals or generate them randomly if it uses another representation" - however even that is not enough. Whatever format you chooses you can only specify only definable numbers because other are... well cannot be defined. Whatever language you choose as long as you require the description to be finite you can cover only countable many of numbers. To cover all reals - including not only π or e but all of them - you need to have capability of storing infinitely large amount of memory. Similarly incremental method will give you only computable set. Either way you miss significantly large amount of numbers (ℶ₁ vs ℶ₀). This is ignoring that we cannot draw a number from natural numbers with equal probability (we would expect P(3|X) = 1/3 and P(¬3|X) = 2/3 but both sets are equal so we would expect P(3|X) = P(¬3|X)...). That's why we get random numbers for the finite set and normalize according to need. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.227|172.68.142.227]] 07:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So nobody noticed how "this ain't random" seems to be the first thing Cueball says? I think the pun "this Ayn/ain't random" is a big part of the joke. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 07:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
:doesnt add up, sorry. ayn rand's first name is pronounced "ine" (/aɪn/), according to an ipa note on her page on wikipedia. the main part of the joke is that objectivism (ayn rand's main philosophy) claims to distribute resources fairly but does not, hence an "ayn random" number generator claims to distribute probability fairly but does not --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.43|172.70.114.43]] 13:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The explanation of the regular expression doesn't explain what the parentheses do, if it's the \b that signifies "word". [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
:\b isn't a 'word', it's a word boundary. The otherwise unmarked null-space between any word-character (usually defined as <code>[A-Za-z0-9_]</code>, but more on that later) and either a non-word character or either end of the full string. For something like "This 1st-Class example", it should also match with any/all the '''\b'''s in "'''\b'''This'''\b''' '''\b'''1st'''\b'''-'''\b'''Class'''\b''' '''\b'''example'''\b'''".
:The []s (if you're asking about them) groups characters together as an "it's one of these" element. A few particular characters that mean something special... the "-" in [a-z] means all characters from "a" to "z", or [4-6] would be 4, 5 or 6. An initial "^" means everything ''except'' the following provided group, and "\" meta-escapes anything that needs to be, so you could get "-" explicitly by "\-", or specify any of the whitespace class by "\s". But otherwise (and for the comic) it's just a list of characters. Case-sensitive unless the regexp (or a subset of it) is otherwise called with ignore-case instructions.
:The ()s [probably what you meant] are a grouping-method, often used to internally or externally take note of any sub-match (or sub-sub-match, because you can nest them!) to make explicit use of them elsewhere. But here it acts to define the "thing" that the {}s refer to, to make it unnecessary to write it out again (and with a differently contrived flexibility of repetition). There are also various (?...) things to do with ()s, which are oc asiinally useful.
:The {}s ([which you might also have been refering to, but I doubt it]) is described in the article but is commonly used to say "rematch the thing we just had a specific number of times". With "W{3,6}", it would need from three to six 'W's, "X{,6}" is anything up to six 'X's (not all implementations offer this, there are), "Y{3,}" means at least three 'Y's and "Z{5}" is exactly that many. Combined with ()s, "(WXYZ){2}" means "WXYZWXYZ", combined with []s, "[WXYZ]{2}" means "WW", "WX", "WY", "WZ", "XW", "XX", ..., "ZY" ''or'' "ZZ". (There can also be the use of them in things like "\b{wb}", but that's different. And may not exist in all implementations.)
:Using ()s and []s but (instead of {}s) using the a call-back to what was already matched, e.g. "([WXYZ])\1", requires a repeat to match the first match result (not just to be a new attempt to match any of the matchable elements). It would match "WW", "XX", "YY" and "ZZ" only.
:...Randall doesn't invoke much of that, actually. But if you're interested enough to want to know, far be it for me to deny you the information! ;)
:'''TL;DR;''' - work your way through something like [https://perldoc.perl.org/perlre this, for Perl], [https://docs.python.org/3/library/re.html this for Python] or whatever treatment matches any other language/script-dialect you think you might be interested in using that could have inbuilt regexp notation/function to it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.157|141.101.99.157]] 10:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

2245: Edible Arrangements

2023-04-23T19:04:30Z

141.101.99.157: /* Explanation */ As we're spelling it out, have a linkie...

{{comic
| number = 2245
| date = December 23, 2019
| title = Edible Arrangements
| image = edible_arrangements.png
| titletext = Any arrangement is an edible arrangement if you're hungry enough.
}}

==Explanation==
This is the first of two comics in a row about presents, and it is also the last comic released before {{w|Christmas Day}}. This is the first [[:Category:Christmas|Christmas comic]] of 2019, with [[2246: Christmas Presents]] being the second Christmas comic, released on Christmas Day.

{{w|Edible Arrangements}} is a company that sells fruit, and other edible items that have been cut and arranged to look like flower bouquets. They can be ordered and sent to a given recipient for a variety of purposes. Flower arrangements are typically not eaten, as showy flowers are so economically inefficient to mass produce that modern culture has forgotten they are edible.{{fact}}

In the first panel, [[Cueball]] seems to find the concept incongruous, and wonders how it came about. [[Megan]] points out the easy answer: picking out a gift for someone can be difficult, but a tasteful meal is always welcome so long as it's something the recipient can eat safely.

Shortly afterwards, Megan uses the same incongruity of eating a floral arrangement to make puns. '''Vore of the Roses''' is a play on the '''War of the Roses''', either the {{w|Wars of the Roses|English civil war}} or the 1989 [[imdb:tt0098621|movie]] of the same name. 'Vore' is a word part referring to eating, as in carnivore (meat eater), herbivore (plant eater), voracious (hungry or eating a lot), etc. It's also used on the internet to refer to the fetish {{w|vorarephilia}}, in which one gets sexually excited about the idea of eating or being eaten by someone (not in the metaphorical sense of oral sex, but actually consuming someone whole).

Cueball is probably in pain because of the bad pun (or perhaps because he doesn't like the idea of food items desiring to be eaten) and says he will cancel the edible arrangement that he had bought for Megan. She tries to convince him otherwise by providing alternative names, which are evidently not any more to his liking, since he has left Megan before she's finished with her suggestions.

Mouth Blossoms, Juicy Bouquet, and Oral Floral are all combinations referencing the eating of a floral arrangement. In theory, these combinations could be good names for a band, [[1025: Tumblr|or possibly a tumblr blog.]]

The title text also makes reference to the fact that many flowers that are often found in floral arrangements, such as roses, violets, tulips, daisies, lavender and many more, are items that a human can eat. Such flowers are safe to consume but usually unappetizing; Randall makes the point that if a person is sufficiently hungry and thus doesn't care how appetizing their meal is, any floral arrangement can be eaten. Since he doesn't use flower in the title text, he actually says that if you are hungry enough anything can be eaten. The title text may also be an allusion to a Mitch Hedberg joke: "Any book is a children's book if the kid can read!"

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are sitting on opposite sides of a leafless tree. They are silhouetted.]
:Cueball: I don't get how Edible Arrangements is a thing.

:[Zoomed in on Cueball and Megan leaning against the tree]
:Megan: That's easy — picking out presents is hard and fruit is delicious.
:Cueball: Yeah, true.

:[Megan gestures with an open hand]
:Megan: But my question is, why did they call it "Edible Arrangements" and not "Vore of the Roses"?

:[Pan to just Megan. Megan turns to face Cueball]
:Cueball: Just for that, I'm going to cancel the one I got you.
:Megan: Nooo! I want my Mouth Blossoms!
:Megan: My Juicy Bouquet! My Oral Floral!
:Megan: Hey, come back!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Christmas]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Sex]]

Talk:2764: Cosmological Nostalgia Content

2023-04-22T09:23:39Z

141.101.99.157:

When I added the transcript it broke the "Created by a BOT" tag on explanation, even though I didn't touch explanation [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.98|172.71.151.98]] 05:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:No, it was broken before your edit. Someone else changed "BOT" to "Z=90s KID". The equal sign causes problems for mediawiki, but it's been fixed now. --[[User:Orion205|Orion205]] ([[User talk:Orion205|talk]]) 06:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
::For anyone who would benefit from a deeper explanation: 
::In the syntax for templates, equals signs come after parameter names (see [[mw:Help:Templates#Parameters|Help:Templates § Parameters]]). So, <code>Created by a Z</code> was parsed as the name of a nonexistent template parameter, and <code>90s KID - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.</code> was passed in as that parameter's value. 
::That still wouldn't necessarily be a problem. It just also left the first parameter empty. This specific template is programmed to show an error message when that happens. [[User talk:AgentMuffin|~AgentMuffin]] 06:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Two times the red tint around Megan has been mentioned, in explanation and transcript... I cannot see that, no matter how much I zoon in. Is it actually there (can it be measured on the image file?) or is it just someone who wished it was like that? If it can be measrued it should be explained and if not then the mention should be deleted --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:What I meant was that Megan's line art in this comic appeared more brownish/reddish to me than the line art of the other characters. Specifically, the colour hex #472425 using an online colour hex checker. --[[User:Multiuniverse|Multiuniverse]] ([[User talk:Multiuniverse|talk]]) 07:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

:It's definitely there, but I didn't notice it until I saw it mentioned. It's subtle enough that I imagine certain displays or differences in individual color perception could make it harder to see, but trust me, it's certainly there. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.5|162.158.222.5]] 07:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

::Why is everyone so unsure? it's definitely there. [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 09:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

:::Not all monitors have the same quality, I can imagine that on some cheapish laptop screens it can be a lot harder to see -- [[Special:Contributions/172.71.131.134|172.71.131.134]] 12:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:::: On this laptop (Dell Latitude 600 - good for its time, a rather archaic thing now) it shows ''just''. Took the explanation mentioning it for me to notice. (And, yes, I'm using pretty archaic kit, at this moment. Though not my oldest, because I tend not to throw away 'perfectly working' things. That said, when it comes to remembering how the universe is, I'm not ''quite'' in the "I remember when all this was fields" category...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.203|172.71.242.203]] 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

:::For me: {{w|Congenital_red–green_color_blindness|red green color blindness}} [[User:Josot|Josot]] ([[User talk:Josot|talk]]) 12:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

For anybody wondering: the current (accurately measured) {{w|Redshift#Highest_redshifts|Highest redshifts}} is z = 11.1 [[User:Josot|Josot]] ([[User talk:Josot|talk]]) 12:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit ironic that Randall now clearly identifies "Want to feel old" content as clickbait, while I remember that he himself did a number of comics around that topic some years ago? I imagine that he changed his opinion BECAUSE that became such a popular clickbait topic. Could you link to some of these older comics?
("Want to feel old? Randall Munroe did "want to feel old" comics closer to the inception of xkcd than to today.")--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.38|172.71.160.38]] 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
: 😄 --[[User:Catherine|Catherine]] ([[User talk:Catherine|talk]]) 22:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Light's velocity is limited only by the speed of causality. As such, I'd recommend modifying the language about light having a "finite" velocity. Technically speaking, the speed of a photon, from the photon's perspective, is non-existent, and what the photon sees, traveling at the speed of causality, is everything happening all at once across it's path. In other words, from the perspective of the photon, there is no passage of time. However, simultaneity varies based on the perspective of the observer.

;InB4
Before anyone embarrasses themself by asking, "multimanteau" is obviously a portmanteau of "multiple" and "portmanteau". Sheesh, get with the neurolinguistic program. "Phrasemanteau" would also be an acceptable neologism. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not fond of a explanation needing an explanation :/
The first relevant use of "multimanteau" found by Google is this page
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 09:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::Presumably that makes everything else a unimanteau?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.67|172.70.85.67]] 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
:::That word and the first sentence needs to be deleted from the explanation! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

;Inconstant "Constant"
I find it weird that so much professional study still refers to an assumed "cosmological constant", when it is observably ''not'' constant. Feels like we should be calling it "the cosmological value", since expansion has not been occurring uniformly & considerable localized variation in "vacuum energy" seems relatively certain. Parts of the observable universe are considerably older than the "big bang" that so much theory is hung upon; what part of "these laws are localized effects, not unchanging constants" has ''not'' been obvious, for >30 years?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:This may be related to the fact that there are so many actual problems around the cosmological "constant" that noone wants to bother renaming it before getting better idea what it actually is. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
:: I'm in agreement with you,[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]], with a slight change. In most of the sciences we call something that's not constant a "variable". Thus we'd have the "cosmologicial variable". Which admittedly does not roll off the tongue as easily. Maybe "cosmic variable" instead? Which seems too alike a "Cepheid variable" star now. Hmm. Maybe I agree with [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] afterall. 😂 [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 13:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

;Missing comic
It's mid-morning (ET) on Thursday and there's still no new Wednesday comic. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:Very late (definitely Thursday, I think in all time-zones if it isn't even Friday already), but now exists. The interactivity of it might have had to absorb more time to set up in a working manner... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.158|172.70.162.158]] 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
::Wednesday's very late (i.e. Thursday) is followed by also very late Friday (''not yet'' seen on Saturday, UTC or almost all(?) US timezones). Maybe shortly, but if this continues to be A Thing with a Monday->Tuesday delay then... Certainly check whether defacto publication dates/days need to be revised from the traditional expectation (or even the official publication one). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.157|141.101.99.157]] 09:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)