explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

The Rise of Open Access

2020-04-13T21:54:21Z

162.158.187.25:

{{comic
| date = October 4, 2013
| title = The Rise of Open Access
| image = the_rise_of_open_access.jpg
| before = The accelerating pace of scientific publishing and the rise of open access, as depicted by xkcd.com cartoonist Randall Munroe.
| ldomain = sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/58.full#
| extra = yes
}}

The comic above is from the article "[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/58.full The Rise of Open Access]" in Science. A much larger version of this image can be found by clicking the image in the article or [http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/scicomm/infographic.jpg here]. The picture is also available on [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/4/48/20150825153049%21the_rise_of_open_access.jpg this wiki].

==Explanation==
This comic is a one-off exclusive created for the journal {{w|Science (journal)|Science}} by [[Randall Munroe]].It shows how much "Science" there is and how much of it will be Open access. It is not part of the main comic series.

It shows how much Science is there by showing how many papers have been published. It states that there can be 140 citations per page. On a Word document with a narrow margin and regular font you could fit about 140 citations on one page with a word size of 6. It then states that we can fit 1000 pages per book. 1000 pages is a lot for children's books{{Citation needed}} and even larger fiction books such the Harry Potter series have about 600 pages. However, many reference books and dictionaries have over 1000 pages. For a size reference, picture Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 1.3 times larger. We then start stacking books, each one having 140,000 citations in them.

The comic then says that a list of papers published in 1880 will have 100 pages, or 14,000 citations - not even one book. By 1920 the pile will be growing at 500 pages per year. This means that if it were linear, there will be 50 books, or 50,000 pages, in 2020. However, this growth is clearly exponential, as shown by the 1975 volume alone taking up four books. At the time this comic was published there were five books each year and growing.

The comic then shows a timeline, featuring [[Cueball]], [[Megan]] and [[Ponytail]]. From 1880 to 1900 there are barely any books; at 1900 there are three books; this drops back to one until 1920, where there are four; at 1930 there are nine; and at 1940 there are a whopping 14. It is further shown at the second timeline that the number continues to grow exponentially. Along the timeline there are random bits of trivia.

The second part of the comic shows how much of all that information is, or will be, open access or available to the public without many copyright restrictions. For example, xkcd is open access because it is licensed to be viewed and copied for non-profit means. As the comic states, the advent of the web has facilitated more science becoming open access. The second picture is another timeline featuring Cueball, Megan, [[Black Hat]], and [[Danish]] in an area labeled Open Access. The various milestones depicted demonstrate how the proportion of information available as open access has now reached more then half, and is continuing to grow.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|needs more}}

:'''How much science is there?'''

:Scientific publication has been accelerating--a new paper is published roughly every 20 seconds. Let's imagine a bibliography listing ''every'' scholarly paper ever written. How long would it be?

:If we can fit 140 citations per page... [image of page] > [image of stack of pages] > ...1000 pages per book... [image of book labeled "All of Botany" "Volume VII"] > ...and then we start stacking books... [image of stack of books]

:[The books in the stack are the aforementioned "All of Botany Volume VII", "Math (100000? papers)", "Applied Psych 1-17?", and "Weird Science 1984".]

:A list of papers published in 1880 would fill 100 pages.
:By 1920, the list would be growing by 500 pages a year.
:The 1975 section would fill four huge volumes.
:Today we're up to 15 volumes per year--a page every 45 minutes.

:'''...This is what the full list would look like:'''

:[Chart below showing the approximate number of volumes per year. On the right end, starting around 1990, a bubble with the words "Moved to open access" points upward to a different chart under the header "How open is it?" Under the cloud is a header "Traditional Publication", referring to the volumes in the chart. There is a box around approximately 2000-2010, with a note underneath saying detail. The years 1999 to 2014 are in a separate chart below.]

:Cueball: All scholarly articles from before 1880 fit in just a few volumes.

:[The rest are notes added to various points on the graph.]

:{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Note
|-
| 1869 || First issue of ''Nature''
|-
| 1880 || ''Science'' founded
|-
| 1987-89 || First online journals appear
|-
| 1991 || Paul Ginsparg launches ARXIV for physics preprints
|-
| 1999 || NIH director proposes an archive of free biomed papers
|-
| 2000 || Pubmed Central debuts Plos founded
|-
| 2001 || 30,000 scientists call for a boycott of journals that don't allow free access on Pubmed within 6 months
|-
| 2002 || Biomed central begins charging $500 author fee HHMI agrees to pay author feeds for open-access publication
|-
| 2003 || ''PLOS Biology'' launches, charges $1500 author's fee
|-
| 2006 || U.K. medical research council mandates free access within 6 months PLOS raises top author fee to $2500, launches ''PLOS One'', which reviews for scientific rigor, not importance
|-
| 2008 || NIH requires that papers it funds be made free within 12 months Harvard faculty agree to post papers in university repository
|-
| 2010 || PLOS becomes profitable ''PLOS One'' becomes world's biggest scientific publisher by volume
|-
| 2013 || White House orders all scientific agencies to plan to make papers free within 12 months
|-
| 2014 || European Commission will require free access within 6-12 months
|}

:[The following publications are also noted in speech bubbles in bibliography form, but are cut off by the edges of the bubbles.]

:{{w|Albert Einstein|Einstein, A.}} "{{w|Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen}}." (1905)
:Einstein, A. "On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light." (1905) 
:Einstein, A. "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper." (1905)
:Einstein, A. "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" (1905)

:{{w|Edwin Hubble|Hubble, E.}} "Effects on Red Shifts on the Distribution of Nebulae." Proceedings by the National Academy of Sciences Volume 22 Number 11 (1936)"

:{{w|Hans Bethe|Bethe, H.}}, {{w|Ralph Alpher|Alpher, R.A.}}, and {{w|George Gamow|Gamow, G.}} "{{w|Alpher–Bethe–Gamow_paper|The Origin of Chemical Elements}}." Physical Review Volume 73 Number 7 (1948)
:(Although all other names are listed in a lastName, firstInitial format, Randall put "G. Gamow" instead of "Gamow, G.".)

:(The author listed (Watson, J.D.) did not write the article (Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids) but he did write another paper on DNA that was published in the same article of ''Nature''.)
:{{w|James Watson|Watson, J.D.}} and {{w|Francis Crick|Crick, F.H.C.}} "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" Nature 171, 737-738 (1953)
:{{w|Maurice Wilkins|Wilkins, M.H.F.}}, Stokes, A.R. & Wilson, H.R. "Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids" Nature 171, 738-740 (1953)

:{{w|Kurt Godel|Godel, Kurt}}, B. Meltzer, {{w|Richard Schlegel|Schlegel, Richard}} "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems." Physics Today Volume 17 Issue 1 (1964)
:(Again Randall switches the order of last name / first name and puts "Richard Schlegel".)

:'''How open is it?'''

:Since the advent of the web, much of scientific publishing has been moving to ''open access.'' According to Science-Metrix, open access reached a "tipping point" around 2011: more than 50% of new research is now made available free online.

:[The following text is inside a cloud shaped bubble.]

:'''Open access papers'''

:Megan: As journals move to open access and digitize their archives, old papers from every period move here...
:Cueball: ...In addition to the flood of new papers being published here directly.
:Black Hat: 25% of open-access papers are freely available on publication. The rest becomes free within 12 months on journal websites or other repositories.

:[Next to Cueball, Danish fishes a book out of a pile of volumes with a fishing rod.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Large drawings]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]
[[Category:Research Papers]]
[[Category:No title text]]

Prescriptions

2020-04-13T21:51:57Z

162.158.187.25:

{{comic
| date = August 11, 2009
| title = Prescriptions
| image = prescriptions.png
| before = Original blog post on ''Building a Smarter Planet'': http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2009/08/1998.html
| lappend = asmarterplanet/
| extra = yes
}}

==Explanation==
Two special [[:Category:A Smarter Planet|A Smarter Planet]] comics were created by [[Randall]] after a special request from {{w|IBM}}'s blog [http://asmarterplanet.com/ A Smarter Planet]. They are not part of the regular numbered series of comics for xkcd's home site. But they are featured (both of them at the same page) on xkcd under [http://www.xkcd.com/asmarterplanet// asmarterplanet]. Each comic links to their respective posts on the A Smarter Planet blog. The other Smarter Planet comic is [[Conservation]].

This comic references to the stereotype of doctors' handwriting being illegible, which is a very bad thing when you need a very specific medication and your pharmacy clerk can't read the numbers. Cueball is eager for his doctor to start signing his prescription digitally, as it means less paperwork and faster response time, but his enthusiasm fades when the doctor somehow manages to ''type'' in illegible handwriting. This could theoretically be done with a bad handwriting font, though most computerized forms don't allow you to change their font, and even if they did, one would not use such a horrible font. {{Citation needed}} The type of code that they used is known as a "public key fingerprint" (or an RSA fingerprint), used as a code to shorten the length of a longer code number.
The prescription number is given as "{{w|THX1138}}", the first film directed by {{w|George Lucas}}.

==Transcript==
:[A caption above the first panel to the left:]
:Good news: Doctors are finally learning to use modern security tools.
:[Beneath the caption is a panel where a bald doctor with a forehead mirror is handing a piece of paper to Cueball who is reaching for it. The doctor speaks although there is no speech line from him to the text above the two.]
:Doctor: No need for phone verification. I've digitally signed it.

:[A caption above the first panel to the left:]
:Bad news: They've somehow learned to ''type'' with terrible handwriting.
:[Beneath the caption is a panel with a close up of the top left of the paper handed over by the doctor, which turns out to be a prescription for Cueball. The two first lines of text are clearly readable printed text, but the actual code message from the doctor is written in almost unreadable computer font, below given as best as can be interpreted.]
:Prescription THX1138
:RSA fingerprint:
:<code>''5e:2c:eb:ea:cc:1e:1b:ed:5f:96''</code>

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:A Smarter Planet]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:No title text]]

Blue Eyes

2020-04-13T21:49:55Z

162.158.187.25:

{{comic
| date = October 11, 2006
| title = Blue Eyes
| image = Blue Eyes.jpg
| before = The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World
| lappend = blue_eyes.html
| extra = yes
}}
{{TOC}}
==Explanation==
XKCD's [http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html Blue Eyes] puzzle is a logic puzzle posted around the same time as comic [[169: Words that End in GRY]]. [[Randall]] calls it "The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World" on its page; whether or not it really is the hardest is up to speculation.

The page contains two comics. On the top is [[82: Frame]], and at the bottom is [[37: Hyphen]]. These particular comics may have been chosen intentionally, as 82 involves a mind screw (and formal logic can be pretty mind-screwy to the uninitiated) and 37 involves linguistic ambiguity, which Randall has explicitly gone out of his way to avoid (interestingly, [[169]] involves the infuriating ambiguity caused by misquoting riddles). That said, Randall could have simply picked those comics out of a hat to plug for his comic (which he also does explicitly), and the date of release could also be completely random.

Randall cites "some dude on the streets in Boston named Joel" as his source for the comic idea (although he's rewritten it).

==The Puzzle==

A group of people with assorted eye colors live on an island. They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. Any islanders who have figured out the color of their own eyes then leave the island, and the rest stay. Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. Everyone on the island knows all the rules in this paragraph.

On this island there are 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru (she happens to have green eyes). So any given blue-eyed person can see 100 people with brown eyes and 99 people with blue eyes (and one with green), but that does not tell him his own eye color; as far as he knows the totals could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and he could have red eyes.

The Guru is allowed to speak once (let's say at noon), on one day in all their endless years on the island. Standing before the islanders, she says the following:

"I can see someone who has blue eyes."

Who leaves the island, and on what night?

==Solution==

Randal's solution is at [http://xkcd.com/solution.html xkcd.com/solution.html].

Here are some observations that help simplify the problem.

No one without blue eyes will ever leave the island, because they are given no information that can allow them to determine which non-blue eye color they have. The presence of the non-blue-eyed people is not relevant at all. We can ignore them. All that matters is when the blue eyed people learn that they actually are blue-eyed.

There are two ways in which blue-eyed people might leave the island. A lone blue-eyed person might leave on the first night because she can see that no one else has blue eyes, so the guru must have been talking about her. Or an accompanied blue-eyed person can leave on a later night, after noticing that other blue-eyed people have behaved in a way that indicates that they have noticed that her eyes are blue too.

The problem is symmetrical for all blue-eyed people, so this means they will either all leave at once or all stay forever.

'''Theorem:''' If there are N blue-eyed people, they will all leave on the Nth night.

'''Dual Logic.'''

Blue eyed people leave on the 100th night.

If you (the person) have blue eyes then you can see 99 blue eyed and 100 brown eyed people (and one green eyed, the Guru).
If 99 blue eyed people don't leave on the 99th night then you know you have blue eyes and you will leave on the 100th night knowing so.

'''Intuitive Proof.'''

Imagine a simpler version of the puzzle in which, on day #1 the guru announces that she can see at least 1 blue-eyed person, on day #2 she announces that she can see at least 2 blue eyed people, and so on until the blue-eyed people leave.

So long as the guru's count of blue-eyed people doesn't exceed your own, then her announcement won't prompt you to leave. But as soon as the guru announces having seen more blue-eyed people than you've seen yourself, then you'll know your eyes must be blue too, so you'll leave that night, as will all the other blue-eyed people. Hence our theorem obviously holds in this simpler puzzle.

But this "simpler" puzzle is actually perfectly equivalent to the original puzzle. If there were just one blue-eyed person, she would leave on the first night, so if nobody leaves on the first night, then everybody will know there are at least two blue-eyed people, so there's no need for the guru to announce this on the second day. Similarly, if there were just two blue-eyed people, they'd then recognize this and leave on the second night, so if nobody leaves on the second night, then there must be a third blue-eyed person inspiring them to stay, so there's no need for the guru to announce this on the third day. And so on... The guru's announcements on the later days just tell people things they already could have figured out on their own.

It's obvious that our theorem holds for the "simpler" puzzle, and this "simpler" puzzle is perfectly equivalent to the original puzzle, so our theorem must hold for the original puzzle too.

Another way of looking at it is to use selective attention. Although each blue-eyed person can see each other blue-eyed person on the island, she doesn't need to. The only thing she needs to know in order to determine whether to leave on night N is whether or not she can see an Nth person with blue-eyes. On night 1, she only needs to see 1 other blue-eyed person to not leave; on night 2, she can see 2 other blue-eyed people, so she doesn't leave; and so on and so on until night 100 when she can't see a 100th blue-eyed person, and then leaves.

'''Formal Proof.'''

To prove this more formally, we can use mathematical induction. To do that, we'll need to show that our theorem holds for the base case of N=1, and we'll need to show that, for any given X, *if* we assume that the theorem holds for any value of N less than X, then it will also hold for N=X. If we can show both these things, then we'll know the theorem is true for N=1 (the base case), for N=2 (using the inductive step once), for N=3 (using the inductive step a second time) and so on, for whatever value of N you want.

Base case: N=1. If there is just one blue-eyed person, she will see that no one else has blue eyes, know that the guru was talking about her, and leave on the first night.

Inductive step: Here we assume that the theorem holds for any value of N less than some arbitrary X (integer greater than 1), and we need to show that it would then hold for N=X too. If there are X blue-eyed people, then each will reason as follows: "I can see that X-1 other people have blue eyes, so either just those X-1 people have blue eyes, or X people do (them plus me). If there are just X-1 people with blue eyes, then by our assumption, they'll all leave on night number X-1. If they don't all leave on night number X-1, then that means that there is an Xth blue-eyed person in addition to the X-1 that I can see, namely me. So if they all stay past night number X-1, then I'll know I have blue eyes, so I'll leave on night number X. Of course, they'll also be in exactly the same circumstance as me, so they'll leave on night number X too."

This suffices to prove our theorem. The base case tells us the theorem holds for N=1. That together with the inductive step tells us that it therefore holds for N=2, and that together with the inductive step again tells us that it holds for N=3, and so on... In particular, it holds for the case the original puzzle asked about, N=100, so we get the conclusion that the 100 blue-eyed people will leave on the 100th night.

==Randall's thought-provoking questions==

After giving his solution, Randall posed three questions for further thought about the puzzle. (I'll answer them in a different order than he asked.)

'' '''Question 2.''' Each person knows, from the beginning, that there are no less than 99 blue-eyed people on the island. How, then, is considering the 1 and 2-person cases relevant, if they can all rule them out immediately as possibilities?''

Blue-eyed people can't see their own faces, so blue-eyed people can see one less blue-eyed face than non-blue-eyed people can. Even though I can see that there are at least 99 blue-eyed people, I don't know that they can see that, so I need to imagine people who see only 98, who would base their actions in part by imagining people who can see only 97 who would base their actions in part by imagining people who can see only 96, and so on... All the levels are relevant. (It's like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0 the Princess Bride scene] where Vizzini is trying to think about what Wesley would choose in part based upon Wesley thinking about what Vizzini would choose in part based upon... "So clearly I cannot choose the one in front of me!") Each layer of thinking about what someone else might be thinking about can decrement by 1 the number of blue-eyed people visible to the lattermost imagined person, so it turns out that even the base case with N=1 blue-eyed person is relevant. As the days go by, some of the more far-fetched "he might be thinking that I might be thinking that he might be thinking that I might be thinking that..." hypotheses get ruled out. But it's only after night N-1 that the blue-eyed people rule out all the possibilities in which they have brown eyes, whereas the brown-eyed people only learn on night number N that they don't have blue eyes.

It might help to think of all the different situations people might be in. (Remember brown-eyed people always are situated where they can see one more blue-eyed face than blue-eyed people can.)

'''Situation 0.''' If I see 0 blue-eyed people, I can leave right after the announcement on night 1.
'''Situation 1.''' If I see 1 blue-eyed person, then she might be in situation 0 and about to leave on night 1; or else she might be in situation 1 just like me, in which case we'll both leave together on night 2.
'''Situation 2.''' If I see 2 blue-eyed people, they might each be in situation 1 watching to see whether anyone in situation 0 leaves the first night (I know nobody will leave that night, but they wouldn't know this), in which case they would leave together on night 2; or else they might be in situation 2 just like me, in which case we'll all leave together on night 3.

:
:
:
'''Situation N.''' If I see N blue-eyed people, they might be in situation N-1 watching to see whether any people in situation N-2 leave on night N-1 (I know nobody will leave that night, but they wouldn't know this), in which case they would leave together on night N; or else they might be in situation N just like me, in which case we'll all leave together on night N+1.
:
:

Even though I start out in situation 99, I need to worry that the blue-eyed people might be in situation 98, so I need to wait long enough for people in situation 98 to figure out what's going on, and then see whether they act like they are indeed in situation 98. But if they're in situation 98, then they're worrying about whether all the blue-eyed people might be in situation 97, so they're going to need to wait long enough for people in situation 97 to figure out what's going on. Of course, that requires waiting long enough for people in situation 96 to figure out what's going on, and so on, down all the way to situation 0. All the levels are relevant, and it takes a separate day to eliminate each level, which is why the whole process takes N days.

'' '''Question 3.''' Why do they have to wait 99 nights if, on the first 98 or so of these nights, they're simply verifying something that they already know?
''

Consider an analogy. I've heard that miners used to take canaries down into mines because canaries pass out more quickly in poor air than miners do. Suppose you know the canary will do fine for 98 or so seconds, and then pass out if the air is bad. As you watch the canary for those 98 seconds, there's a sense in which you're just verifying something you already know (it'll do fine), but it seems more accurate to say that your best detector for the quality of the air takes 98 seconds to give you a reading, and you're waiting 98 seconds to see what that reading is.

When the blue-eyed people wait 98 or so days to leave, that's because their best available detector of their own eye-color takes 98 or so days to give a reading. (This detector involves watching what the other blue-eyed people do, and of course they themselves are waiting on a detector that takes 97 or so days to yield its result...) There's a sense in which they're "simply verifying something that they already know", but it seems more accurate to say that they're waiting for their best available detector of their own eye-color to deliver its reading.

'' '''Question 1.''' What is the quantified piece of information that the Guru provides that each person did not already have?''

Before the Guru speaks, the hypothetical chain of A imagining B imaging C imagining D...imagining Z seeing N blue eyed people cannot terminate uniquely. Z seeing no blue eyed people can consider whether or not they are blue eyed. This means it is not {{w|Common knowledge (logic)|common knowledge}} that there are blue eyes. Once the guru makes their pronouncement it is common knowledge and every chain of reasoning must terminate at 1 blue eyed person and Z above would have to conclude that they had blue eyes. From then on every midnight the common knowledge that there are N blue eyed people increments by 1 as everyone sees nobody leaving on the ferry.

Stated another way, there's only one stable set of beliefs for the blue eyed people that would allow them to have so many exist on the island indefinitely. That is if each blue eyed person believed not only that they have brown eyes, but also that every other blue-eyed person believed, incorrectly, that they had brown eyes. Logic reduces this to "all blue-eyes believe that all blues-eyes have brown eyes". The Guru eliminates that particular possibility.

Another simple way to understand why the Guru's information is important is thus. Each blue-eyed person knows two sets of information: what the actual situation is on the island (both now and in the past), and what would happen in a hypothetical situation. Each blue-eyed person then needs only to compare the actual situation to a known hypothetical one, and if it matches up, then they take the corresponding action. Consider this: If there were only one blue-eyed person, and the guru never made the announcement, she would not leave on day 1 because she would not know that N is greater than or equal to 1. Now let's add a 2nd blue-eyed person. Blue-eyes 2 would not be able to inductively determine whether or not to leave on night 2, because blue-eyes 2's knowledge of whether or not to leave on night 2 is dependent on what blue-eyes 1 does on night 1 if and only if blue-eyes 1 knows what to do on night 1. If blue-eyes 1 doesn't know that N is greater than or equal to 1, then blue-eyes 1 doesn't know what to do on night 1, so her lack of leaving gives blue-eyes 2 no new information, since it was an uninformed action and blue-eyes 2's inductive reasoning was dependent on blue-eyes 1 knowing what to do, and so the inductive process never takes off for the hypothetical situation. This means a hypothetical situation for N people cannot be induced. As such, blue-eyes 100 does not have certain knowledge of the hypothetical situation that would occur on nights 99 and 100, and so even though she knows N = either 99 or 100, she can't take action on either of those nights, because she has no certain hypothetical situation to compare reality to, and as such cannot have certainty about the actions she should take.

==Trivia==
*The web page which contains the puzzle has no {{w|CSS|style sheet}}. The font size of the heading and subheading is increased with deprecated HTML tags, rather than the heading tags. The way the page is displayed therefore depends on the browser's settings. Despite this fact, due to a similarity of default settings between computers, most computers will by default display the page similarly to the way it is displayed in this page's screenshot, with a white background, black text and the {{w|Times New Roman}} font or a similar one. However, it has two line breaks after every paragraph instead of HTML paragraph breaks, meaning that paragraph spacing will not vary between browsers, relative to the font size.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:My Hobby]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:No title text]]

Conservation

2020-04-13T21:46:44Z

162.158.187.25:

{{comic
| date = June 17, 2009
| title = Conservation
| image = conservation.png
| before = Original blog post on ''Building a Smarter Planet'': http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2009/06/building-a-smarter-planet-for-squirrels.html
| lappend = asmarterplanet/
| extra = yes
}}

==Explanation==
Two special [[:Category:A Smarter Planet|A Smarter Planet]] comics were created by [[Randall]] after a special request from {{w|IBM}}'s blog [http://asmarterplanet.com/ A Smarter Planet]. They are not part of the regular numbered series of comics for xkcd's home site. But they are featured (both of them at the same page) on xkcd under [http://www.xkcd.com/asmarterplanet// asmarterplanet]. Each comic links to their respective posts on the A Smarter Planet blog. The other Smarter Planet comic is [[Prescriptions]].

It was once said that America's forests were so dense and continuous that "a squirrel could go from the Atlantic to the Mississippi without touching the ground." As this is no longer true, anyone mentioning this today would use the phrase to highlight the fact that deforestation is such a problem that this once common aphorism is anachronistic. Cueball, however, interprets this literally to mean that squirrels not being able to travel without touching the ground is a problem - rather than the more general problem the aphorism was meant to illustrate. As a result of his misinterpretation, he invents the Aerial Squirrel Transit Pod, which technically solves the problem of squirrel transportation, but does nothing to solve the problem of deforestation.{{Citation needed}} Obviously, the people at the conference are surprised by this, and ask Cueball to back up. This is yet another instance of people announcing odd things at conferences, a recurring theme in xkcd.

==Transcript==
:[A forest consisting of (at least 13) Spruce trees. In the middle of the panel a squirrel can be seen hanging in the air as it jumps in-between two tall trees from right to left. Above the trees are narrating, that turns out to be from Cueball as seen in the second panel.]
:Cueball (narrating off-panel): They say that 400 years ago a squirrel could go from the Atlantic to the Mississippi without touching the ground.

:[Cueball, holding a microphone to his mouth and a pointing stick down in his other hand, is speaking from a podium to a large audience (consisting of lots of Cueball-like heads, with a two fully drawn Cueball-like guys sitting in the front row. Above him and across the audience hangs a banner with a large text in two lines:]
:<big>Conservation</big>
::society
:Cueball: I dream of bringing back those days.

:[Cueball is seen from the front of the podium as the audience would see him. He is using the pointing stick to indicate a large poster to the left with a drawing of a very small helicopter-like device which is shown flying over the rooftops of tall buildings in a city while carrying a squirrel beneath it. The squirrel is almost as long (from tail to nose) as the helicopter. The helicopter has the normal rotor on top, but then also has another similar rotor pointing straight back, not like the small tail rotor usually found on the tails of real helicopters. A member in the audience interrupts Cueball.]
:Cueball: Which is why I've developed the aerial squirrel transit pod.
:Audience member (Off-panel): Okay, back up.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:A Smarter Planet]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Squirrels]]
[[Category:Public speaking]]
[[Category:No title text]]

169: Words that End in GRY

2020-04-13T21:43:00Z

162.158.187.25:

{{comic
| number = 169
| date = October 11, 2006
| title = Words that End in GRY
| image = words_that_end_in_gry.png
| titletext = The fifth panel also applies to postmodernists.
}}

==Explanation==
This is a reference to a famous {{w|-gry puzzle#Alternative versions|joke}} (see the first of the meta versions under the wiki link), mistold in the above comic.

The original, correct telling of the joke is:
:''Think of words ending in "-gry". "Angry" and "Hungry" are two of them. There are only three words in the English language. What is the third word? Hint: The word is something that everyone uses every day. If you have listened carefully, I have already told you what it is.''
Phrased this way, the answer is "language" because "There are only three words in (the phrase)'' 'the English language' ''."

Cueball tells this joke, unfortunately, by poorly phrasing the original riddle. By instead saying, "There are three words in the English language that end in '-gry,'" the teller of the joke has actually removed any chance of the listener determining the correct answer. As such, when [[Cueball]] attempts to say the answer is "language" and act smugly about it, [[Black Hat]] is unimpressed and cuts off Cueball's hand, explaining that communicating badly is not the same as cleverness.

Black Hat's point about bad communication may be directed at Cueball's botching of the joke, but he could also be talking about the riddle in general, properly told or not. The riddle's "cleverness" depends on misleadingly implying that "three words" refers to words ending in "-gry," rather than the phrase "the English language." Black Hat does not seem to agree that this riddle is clever.

In this interview, Randall states that his point applies to the joke, no matter how is it phrased. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95uxPO4Vk4]

In any case, no matter how annoying Cueball's smugness, Black Hat's response, cutting off Cueball's hand, is a comical overreaction (while his calm demeanor in doing so is a comical underreaction). Additionally, his calmly-made point about the riddle is likely not to be understood by Cueball, who can only focus on his debilitating injury. Black Hat has, ironically, failed to communicate his point about proper communication, although given Black Hat's personality he likely doesn't care, and may even have intended the irony.

As Black Hat mentioned in the comic, if you count obscure and archaic words, there are additional English words that end with "-gry." Some are listed [http://www.snopes.com/language/puzzlers/gry.asp here].

The title text refers to {{w|postmodernism}}, a philosophy and corresponding art movement. Postmodern music is often {{w|minimalist}}, as exemplified by the weird sounds of {{w|Philip Glass}} and {{w|Steve Reich}}, and {{w|Postmodern art#Movements in postmodern art|postmodern visual art}} saw trends such as lowbrow and installation art gain attention. Apart from a rejection of modernism, however, it is difficult to outline postmodernism to justify the strange works of art. {{w|Deconstruction}} is another important concept, but it is difficult to describe the process. In short, postmodernists make art that no one understands and may act smugly about it, but they do not adequately explain what their art means, or it doesn't really mean anything. In other words, there is nothing to understand. Thus, Black Hat's statement, ''that such practice is not "cleverness,"'' applies to them as well.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat and Cueball are standing next to each other.]
:Cueball: There are three words in the English language that end in "gry". "Angry" and "Hungry" are two. What's the third?

:Black Hat: I don't think there is one, unless you count really obscure words.
:Cueball: Ha! It's "language"! I said there are three words in "the English--" Hey!
:''GRAB''
:[Black Hat grabs Cueball's hand, with a knife in hand.]

:Cueball: What th--AAAAAAAAAA
:''SLICE''
:[Black Hat slices off Cueball's hand with the knife.]

:[Cueball is bleeding profusely.]
:Black Hat: Ok, listen carefully.
:Cueball: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

:Black Hat: Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness.
:Cueball: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

:Black Hat: I hope we've learned something today.
:Cueball: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

==Trivia==
Around the time this comic was posted, Randall also posted [[Blue Eyes]]: The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World. He apparently took his own advice to heart as he explicitly states he has gone over the wording of the puzzle several times before publishing it to make it as unambiguous as possible.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Social interactions]]
[[Category:Comics with blood]]

2293: RIP John Conway

2020-04-13T21:39:35Z

162.158.187.25:

{{comic
| number = 2293
| date = April 13, 2020
| title = RIP John Conway
| image = rip_john_conway.gif
| titletext = 1937-2020
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GLIDER. Needs more in-depth explanation of how the Game Evolves, possibly with stills from the GIF. Should also expand more on why Conway is a person of note. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|John Horton Conway|John Conway}}, an English mathematician, passed away of {{w|COVID-19}} two days before this comic's release. As such, [[Randall]] created this memorial comic. One of Conway's most famous creations was {{w|Conway's Game of Life}}, which consists of an infinite square grid and rules of how it changes over time. Although the rules are simple, the system supports immense complexity.

The Game of Life proceeds in a series of generations, with ''live'' and ''dead'' cells in each generation obeying these rules:
*Any live cell (dark colored) with two or three live neighbors survives to the next generation.
*Any dead cell (white) with three live neighbors becomes a live cell in the next generation.
*All other live cells die in the next generation. Similarly, all other dead cells stay dead.

This comic begins with the shape of a stick figure as the starting configuration, which then evolves according to the rules of the Game of Life. The pattern breaks into three parts, two of which stay at the same level as the original figure's feet before rapidly melting away, and a third (called a "glider") that ascends up and to the right. Randall may be suggesting a soul breaking away from the rapidly disintegrating corporeal remains here.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A pixelated image of a stick figure. The image is animated, with the pixels changing according to the rules of Conway's Game of Life. The figure splits into two groups, one of which dissipates. The other becomes a 'glider' and moves off to the top-right corner of the image and out of frame. The animation then repeats.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tribute]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Comics with animation]]
[[Category:COVID-19]]

2251: Alignment Chart Alignment Chart

2020-01-06T16:49:58Z

162.158.187.25: Refined the example of a "chaotic neutral" character

{{comic
| number = 2251
| date = January 6, 2020
| title = Alignment Chart Alignment Chart
| image = alignment_chart_alignment_chart.png
| titletext = I would describe my personal alignment as "lawful heterozygous silty liquid."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created using the [[User:DgbrtBOT|BOT template]]. Needs explanations of each alignment chart, and probably some editing for clarity.}}

"Alignment" and "alignment charts" come from the the tabletop game ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons}}''. Every character has an {{w|Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)|alignment}}, which is a sort of a personality archetype or general description of morality. The most widely used alignment system was introduced in the ''{{w|Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set}}'' in 1977 and has been reused in many (but not all) subsequent editions of the game. This system uses two perpendicular axes, each axis having three words; the alignment of a particular character is a combination of one word from each axis (for a total of nine categories). The two axes are:
* Lawful/neutral/chaotic: this axis says whether a character is strongly devoted to, indifferent about, or categorically opposed to following the rule of the law.
* Good/neutral/evil: this axis says whether a character is generally inclined to commit good deeds or evil deeds.
For example, a character's alignment can be "chaotic neutral". Being classified as "chaotic" means they're very prone to acting on emotions, they don't care what is allowed and what is prohibited, and their actions often go against things like tradition and chain of command. Being classified as "neutral" (on the second axis) means that their deeds and character are not strongly good nor evil; either they have a balance of both, or they rarely do anything that can be clearly labelled as one or the other. There are nine possible alignments - any combination of the two axes is allowed. A character with the "neutral neutral" alignment is called a true neutral.

The use of the term chaotic in a personality alignment context is different to the term in a physics concept. In physics, {{w|chaos theory|chaos}} refers to unpredictable outcomes following emergent behaviours that are sensitive to small changes in underlying conditions. Similarly, lawful can be considered to follow deterministic physical behaviours. Hitting pool balls with a pool cue is deterministic, it follows the deterministic Newtonian laws of motion. Hitting your opponent with a pool cue is chaotic, the end state of the ensuing brawl is unpredictable.

An alignment chart is a grid that divides the alignments, usually for the purpose of putting descriptions or particular characters on it. Alignment charts are frequently used as a [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mcdonalds-alignment-chart meme template], where humorous or absurdist things are organized into different alignments. In addition to the "classic" Dungeons and Dragons alignment chart, there are a number of variant alignment charts in use as meme templates. Many keep the three-by-three grid structure but replace the lawful-neutral-chaotic and good-neutral-evil axes with others, such as [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gay-bi-lesbian-distinguished-functional-disaster distinguished-functional-disaster vs. gay-bi-lesbian] and [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/edgy-depressed-dumbass-bitch-thot-bastard edgy-depressed-dumbass vs. bitch-thot-bastard]. Some alignment charts use other systems of classification, like the [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mcdonalds-alignment-chart McDonald's alignment chart], which is a {{w|Ternary_plot|ternary diagram}}, a way of plotting data points by the relative proportions of three components in them on a triangular plot.

This comic claims to be a meta-alignment chart, where nine "alignment charts" are themselves sorted into the nine Dungeons and Dragons alignments, following the use of alignment charts to humorously classify abstract concepts. However, these "alignment charts" are mostly diagrams used in academic classifications, which are being treated as if they were blank meme templates. There are two levels of absurdity here: first, the idea of using these technical scientific diagrams to classify things they were never intended to, like fictional characters or how people bag their bread, and second, the conflation of chaos as a physics concept and an assigned moral weights as it applies to each of these classification systems.

{| class="wikitable"
!Alignment
!Chart
!Explanation
|-
|Lawful Good
|{{w|Soil texture|Soil chart}}
|This chart shows the USDA classification of soil types by their relative proportions of sand, clay and silt. The chart is a ternary diagram (very common in geology), so soils with more clay plot towards the upper corner, soils with more sand to the bottom left, and soils with more silt to the bottom right. This chart has been used humorously as an alignment chart ([https://www.reddit.com/r/PrequelMemes/comments/8wakd4/anakin_soil_reference_chart/ for example]) and may have been the inspiration for Randall to use scientific diagrams as alignment charts. In addition to being Lawful Good, this grid cell is also the upper left cell of the chart and will be read first, making it a good place to put this chart as a "jumping off point".
|-
|Neutral Good
|{{w|Punnett square}}
| (quote from wikipedia article, but should have been obvious. Oh, yeah - we're all tech nerds, not biologists!) "The Punnett square is a square diagram that is used to predict the genotypes of a particular cross or breeding experiment. It is named after Reginald C. Punnett, who devised the approach. The diagram is used by biologists to determine the probability of an offspring having a particular genotype. The Punnett square is a tabular summary of possible combinations of maternal alleles with paternal alleles.[1] These tables can be used to examine the genotypical outcome probabilities of the offspring of a single trait (allele), or when crossing multiple traits from the parents. The Punnett square is a visual representation of Mendelian inheritance. It is important to understand the terms "heterozygous", "homozygous" …” These refer to the pairs of alleles in an organism’s genotype, indicating mixed or same alleles, respectively. Randall later uses “heterozygous” in the title text. Note that it is possible for a phenotype to be expressed the same between some heterozygotes and homozygotes, e.g., persons with genotypes heterozygous ”Ao” and homozygous “AA” will both express blood type A.
So, the Punnett Square is a good chart because it is both a simple and true geometric predictor of inheritance, but it tends to neutral because of complicating factors such as polygenic inheritance; these and other factors will cause genotypic frequency to deviate from expected 1:2:1 patterns.
|
|-
|Chaotic Good
|{{w|IPA vowel chart with audio|IPA vowel chart }}
|This chart shows the relationship between different vowels according to the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet}}. As different vowel sounds are created by changes in different parts of the mouth, it can be considered chaotic.
|-
|Lawful Neutral
|Phase diagram
|A {{w|phase diagram}} shows the temperature and pressure points where a material changes phase. The diagram included is the phase diagram for water, which exists in three phases (ice, liquid water, steam) depending on its temperature and pressure. Phase diagrams are useful as the relationship is not always linear. For example, the air pressure of Mars is such that there is no temperature at which liquid water can exist. Water exists as ice until the temperature reaches a point where it sublimates directly into steam.

Phase diagrams follow the laws of physics, so are inherently lawful.
|-
|True Neutral
|Alignment chart
|All alignment charts are neutral unless humans contaminate them.
|-
|Chaotic Neutral
|CIE chromacity diagram
|The {{w|chromacity}} diagram is typically used to help determine a color temperature given the typical RGB intensities of light. Low color temperatures tend to be associated with 'softer' lights that are easier on the eyes, whereas 'higher' color temperatures are associated with 'harder' light that are perceived as brighter. Given that color temperature as defined by the chromacity diagram has nothing to do with the actual color temperature of a blackbody as defined by Physics, it is chaotic. Also, the official specification for CIE is behind a paywall and defined by private organizations, making it more chaotic.
|
|-
|Lawful Evil
|Political compass
|Political Compass [https://www.politicalcompass.org/] separates out left-right thinking into economic and social political thought. For example, Gandhi and Stalin supposedly both had similar economic perspectives (collectivist) but radically different social perspectives (authoritarian vs libertarian).

As politicians make the laws, this is inherently lawful. Attempting to represent all politics in terms of two very general axes is a gross oversimplification, which is likely why it is listed as evil.

Like the USDA soil chart, the political compass has actually been [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/political-compass used as an alignment chart], largely as a mockery of it.
|-
|Neutral Evil
|{{w|QAPF diagram|QAPF rock diagram}}
|This diagram is used to classify coarse-grained felsic (low magnesium and iron) igneous rocks by the relative volumes of the minerals quartz, alkali feldspars, plagioclase feldspars, and feldspathoids in the rock. It consists of two ternary diagrams - quartz and feldspathoid minerals cannot coexist (they will react to form feldspars) so only three of these components will be in any given rock. Rocks in the upper triangle of the diagram contain quartz, with rocks with more quartz plotting closer to the top, while rocks in the lower triangle contain feldspathoids, with rocks with more feldspathoids plotting lower. Rocks closer to the left corner of the diagram contain more alkali feldspar and rocks closer to the right corner contain more plagioclase feldspar. The field on the diagram for granite is labeled in the comic, but each area outlined on the diagram has it's own rock name (monzonite, syenite, granodiorite, etc.). All the rocks that the QAPF diagram is used to classify look superficially like granite, but their chemistry, mineralogy, and origin differ.
The QAPF diagram and the names of the more obscure rock types on it can be somewhat arcane, which may be why it is considered evil here.
|-
|Chaotic Evil
|Omnispace classifier
|The other eight diagrams shown in this comic, squished together into one, with the shapes of the diagrams corresponding to those of the originals. Probably self-referential humour, in that the diagram created for this comic is considered to be chaotically evil.
|}

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

{{comic discussion}}



[[Category:Charts]]

936: Password Strength

2019-01-23T18:57:23Z

162.158.187.25: /* Explanation */ you are calculating entropy from the 65000 dictionary. The 65000 itself is not the entropy

{{comic
| number = 936
| date = August 10, 2011
| title = Password Strength
| image = password strength.png
| titletext = To anyone who understands information theory and security and is in an infuriating argument with someone who does not (possibly involving mixed case), I sincerely apologize.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic says that a password such as "Tr0ub4dor&3" is bad because it is easy for password cracking software and hard for humans to remember, leading to insecure practices like writing the password down on a post-it attached to the monitor. On the other hand, a password such as "correcthorsebatterystaple" is hard for computers to guess due to having more entropy but quite easy for humans to remember.

In simple cases the {{w|Entropy (information theory)|entropy}} of a password is calculated as ''a^b'' where ''a'' is the number of allowed symbols and ''b'' is its length. A dictionary word (however long) has an password space of around 65000, i.e. 16 bits. A truly random string of length 11 (not like "Tr0ub4dor&3", but more like "J4I/tyJ&Acy") has 94^11 = 72.1 bits. However the comic shows that "Tr0ub4dor&3" has only 28 bits of entropy. Another way of selecting a password is to have 2048 "symbols" (common words) and select only 4 of those symbols. 2048^4 = 44 bits, much better than 28. Using such symbols was again visited in one of the tips in [[1820: Security Advice]].

It is absolutely true that people make passwords hard to remember because they think they are "safer", and it is certainly true that length, all other things being equal, tends to make for very strong passwords and this can confirmed by using [http://rumkin.com/tools/password/passchk.php rumkin.com's password strength checker]. Even if the individual characters are all limited to [a-z], the exponent implied in "we added another lowercase character, so multiply by 26 again" tends to dominate the results.

In addition to being easier to remember, long strings of lowercase characters are also easier to type on smartphones and {{w|Virtual keyboard|soft keyboards}}.

xkcd's password generation scheme requires the user to have a list of 2048 common words (log2(2048) = 11). For any attack we must assume that the attacker knows our password generation algorithm, but not the exact password. In this case the attacker knows the 2048 words, and knows that we selected 4 words, but not which words. The number of combinations of 4 words from this list of words is (211)4 = 244 bits. For comparison, the [http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#calculatingentropy entropy offered by Diceware's 7776 word list is 13 bits per word]. If the attacker doesn't know the algorithm used, and only knows that lowercase letters are selected, the "common words" password would take even longer to crack than depicted. 25 ''random'' lowercase characters would have [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2%2826^25%29 117 bits of entropy], vs 44 bits for the common words list.

;Example
Below there is a detailed example which shows how different rules of complexity work to generate a password with supposed 44 bits of entropy. The examples of expected passwords were generated in random.org.(*)

If ''n'' is the number of symbols and ''L'' is the length of the password, then ''L'' = 44 / log2(n).

{|class="wikitable"
!Symbols
!Number of symbols
!Minimum length
!colspan="2"|Examples of expected passwords
!Example of an actual password
!Actual bits of entropy
!Comment
|-
|a||26||9.3||mdniclapwz||jxtvesveiv||troubadorx||16+4.7 = 20.7||Extra letter to meet length requirement; log2(26) = 4.7
|-
|rowspan="2"|a 9
|rowspan="2"|36
|rowspan="2"|8.5
|rowspan="2"|qih7cbrmd
|rowspan="2"|ewpltiayq
|tr0ub4d0r||16+3=19||3 = common substitutions in the comic
|-
|troubador1||16+3.3=19.3||log2(10) = 3.3
|-
|a A||52||7.7||jAwwBYne||NeTvgcrq||Troubador||16+1=17||1 = caps? in the comic
|-
|a &||58||7.5||j.h?nv),||c/~/fg\:||troubador&||16+4=20||4 = punctuation in the comic
|-
|a A 9||62||7.3||cDe8CgAf||RONygLMi||Tr0ub4d0r||16+1+3=20||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions
|-
|a 9 &||68||7.2||_@~"#^.2||un$l|!f]||tr0ub4d0r&||16+3+4=23||3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|a A 9 &||94||6.7||Re-:aRo||^$rV{3?||Tr0ub4d0r&||16+1+3+4=24||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|rowspan="2"|common words
|rowspan="2"|2048
|rowspan="2"|4
|rowspan="2"|reasonableretailsometimespossibly
|rowspan="2"|constantyieldspecifypriority||reasonableretailsometimespossibly||11×4=44||Go to random.org and select 4 random integers between 1 and 2048; then go to your list of common words
|-
|correcthorsebatterystaple
|0
|Because of this comic, this password has no entropy
|}

:a = lowercase letters
:A = uppercase letters
:9 = digits
:& = the 32 special characters in an American keyboard; Randall assumes only the 16 most common characters are used in practice (4 bits)

:(*) The use of random.org explains why <code>jAwwBYne</code> has two consecutive w's, why <code>Re-:aRo</code> has two R's, why <code>_@~"#^.2</code> has no letters, why <code>ewpltiayq</code> has no numbers, why "constant yield" is part of a password, etc. A human would have attempted at passwords that looked random.

==People who don't understand information theory and security==

The title text likely refers to the fact that this comic could cause people who understand information theory and agree with the message of the comic to get into an infuriating argument with people who do not — and disagree with the comic.

If you're confused, don't worry; you're in good company; even security "experts" don't understand the comic:

* Bruce Schneier thinks that dictionary attacks make this method "obsolete", despite the comic ''assuming'' perfect knowledge of the user's dictionary from the get-go. He advocates his own low-entropy "first letters of common plain English phrases" method instead: [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/choosing_secure_1.html#!s!xkcd Schneier original article] and rebuttals: [http://robinmessage.com/2014/03/why-bruce-schneier-is-wrong-about-passwords/ 1] [http://security.stackexchange.com/a/62881/10616 2] [http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1yxgqo/bruce_schneier_on_choosing_a_secure_password/cfp2z9k 3] [http://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgte7lp 4] [http://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgszp62 5] [http://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/232uch/ysk_how_to_properly_choose_a_secure_password_the/cgt6ohq 6]
* Steve Gibson basically gets it, but calculates entropy incorrectly in order to promote his own method and upper-bound password-checking tool: [https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-313.htm#!s!math%20is%20wrong Steve Gibson Security Now transcript] and [https://subrabbit.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/how-much-entropy-in-that-password/ rebuttal]
* Computer security consultant Mark Burnett ''almost'' understands the comic, but then advocates adding numerals and other crud to make passphrases less memorable, missing the point: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150319220514/https://xato.net/passwords/analyzing-the-xkcd-comic/ Analyzing the XKCD Passphrase Comic]
* Ken Grady incorrectly thinks that user-selected sentences like "I have really bright children" have the same entropy as randomly-selected words: [http://blog.hellersearch.com/Blog/bid/141527/Is-Your-Password-Policy-Stupid Is Your Password Policy Stupid?]
* Diogo Mónica doesn't understand that the words have to be truly random, not user-selected, like "let me in facebook": [https://diogomonica.com/posts/password-security-why-the-horse-battery-staple-is-not-correct/ Password Security: Why the horse battery staple is not correct]

Sigh.

==Transcript==
:The comic illustrates the relative strength of passwords assuming basic knowledge of the system used to generate them.
:A set of boxes is used to indicate how many bits of entropy a section of the password provides.
:The comic is laid out with 6 panels arranged in a 3x2 grid.
:On each row, the first panel explains the breakdown of a password, the second panel shows how long it would take for a computer to guess, and the third panel provides an example scene showing someone trying to remember the password.

:[The password "Tr0ub4dor&3" is shown in the center of the panel. A line from each annotation indicates the word section the comment applies to.]

:Uncommon (non-gibberish) base word
:[Highlighting the base word - 16 bits of entropy.]
:Caps?
:[Highlighting the first letter - 1 bit of entropy.]
:Common Substitutions
:[Highlighting the letters 'a' (substituted by '4') and both 'o's (the first of which is substituted by '0') - 3 bits of entropy.]
:Punctuation
:[Highlighting the symbol appended to the word - 4 bits of entropy.]
:Numeral
:[Highlighting the number appended to the word - 3 bits of entropy.]
:Order unknown
:[Highlighting the appended characters - 1 bit of entropy.]
:(You can add a few more bits to account for the fact that this is only one of a few common formats.)

:~28 bits of entropy
:228 = 3 days at 1000 guesses/sec
:(Plausible attack on a weak remote web service. Yes, cracking a stolen hash is faster, but it's not what the average user should worry about.)
:Difficulty to guess: Easy

:[Cueball stands scratching his head trying to remember the password.]
:Cueball: Was it trombone? No, Troubador. And one of the O's was a zero?
:Cueball: And there was some symbol...
:Difficulty to remember: Hard

:[The passphrase "correct horse battery staple" is shown in the center of the panel.]
:Four random common words {Each word has 11 bits of entropy.}

:~44 bits of entropy
:244 = 550 years at 1000 guesses/sec
:Difficulty to guess: Hard

:[Cueball is thinking, in his thought bubble a horse is standing to one side talking to an off-screen observer. An arrow points to a staple attached to the side of a battery.]
:Horse: That's a battery staple.
:Observer: Correct!
:Difficulty to remember: You've already memorized it

:Through 20 years of effort, we've successfully trained everyone to use passwords that are hard for humans to remember, but easy for computers to guess.

==External links==
*Some info was used from the highest voted answer given to the question of "how accurate is this XKCD comic" at StackExchange [http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6095/xkcd-936-short-complex-password-or-long-dictionary-passphrase].
*Similarly, a question of "how right this comic is" was made at AskMetaFilter [http://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so] and [[Randall]] responded [http://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so#2779020 there].
*Also the Wikipedia article on '{{w|Passphrase}}' is useful.
*In case you missed it in the explanation, GRC's Steve Gibson has a fantastic page [https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm] about this (and may have prompted this comic, as his podcast [http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-303.htm] about this was posted the month before this comic).
* This comic inspired [http://blog.acolyer.org/2015/10/29/how-to-memorize-a-random-60-bit-string/ How to memorize a random 60-bit string] scientific paper (link is to the article about paper, wth paper itself linked)
* [https://github.com/dropbox/zxcvbn zxcvbn password strength estimator] thanks this comic for the inspiration in acknowledgements.
* CMU paper: [http://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2012/proceedings/a7_Shay.pdf Correct horse battery staple: Exploring the usability of system-assigned passphrases]
* [http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/265143/Microsoft_Password_Guidance.pdf Microsoft Password Guidance] (page 8)
* [http://gizmodo.com/the-guy-who-invented-those-annoying-password-rules-now-1797643987 The Guy Who Invented Those Annoying Password Rules Now Regrets Wasting Your Time], August 8, 2017 (this comic is reproduced in the article).

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:2094: Short Selling

2019-01-07T19:11:47Z

162.158.187.25:

It's like he's doing that on purpose to make it extra difficult for this site to explain his comics. :D I at least understood nothing. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
:@Fabian42, Ha! Yes, I'm in the same boat with you, It's almost like he follows this formula: 1. Pick a topic that very few understand. 2. Make an analogy that is more complicated than a straightforward explanation. 3. Profit.
:I've been reading a page on short selling, it's like they're speaking a foreign language. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.47|172.69.70.47]] 16:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC) sam
::It makes sense from what I remember from economics in high school: you buy stocks in advance for significantly above asking price hoping they gain more value before the deal happens, so let's say 1 share of company X is worth 20$ right now. Now I can offer you a contract that I'll buy this share from you for 50$, but on the condition that the deal happens in a week. If the value of the company stays the same, I make a loss; but if the value rises within that week and one share is suddenly worth, let's say 2000$, I make an immense profit. (divide each value I gave by ten and you have the bean/witch/child analogy from the comic) It's basically gambling on the hope that the value of stock rises. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.118|172.68.50.118]] 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
:::How are stock markets even still legal? This is insane! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
::::what would be insane would be trying to outlaw stock markets. They’ve been around for hundreds of years; business people are going to find ways to trade.{{unsigned|172.68.65.6}}
::::If you think short-selling shouldn't be legal, you should look into {{w|Quantitative easing}} and {{w|Fractional-reserve banking}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 18:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
:::What you (and Ponytail, FWIW, given how muddled the analogy is of course) describe sounds more like selling put options than short selling. [[User:Stannius|Stannius]] ([[User talk:Stannius|talk]]) 19:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
:::You don't actually buy the shares beforehand. What happens is that if you think a stock is overvalued, you can borrow some shares of it from a broker and sell them at the current price. You then owe the broker those shares that you hope to repay by purchasing it at a lower price in the future, but if the stock instead goes up, you may be squeezed into shelling out money for the higher price. Why is this useful to the market? I recommend reading <cite>The Blind Side</cite> for a good example. Market prices tell us a lot of information about what a great deal of people think about the value of things. This information is a lot more accurate when those who think something is overvalued have as much of a say as those who think it's undervalued. Asset bubbles would happen a lot more often otherwise. [[User:PerfectlyGoodInk|PerfectlyGoodInk]] ([[User talk:PerfectlyGoodInk|talk]]) 18:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
::It is not that hard to understand. Imagine you own 100 apple-shares and do not plan to sell them for the near future. You lend me these 100-shares for 2 weeks. I sell the 100 shares immediately. Now I have 2 weeks to re-buy them. If I’m lucky the price for these 100 shares will decrease somewhen during this 2 weeks. Imaging that I sold the shares for 200$ each, and could re-buy them for 170$: Then I made 30*100$=3000$. Of course you will get a fee for the borrowing. The 3000$-fee are my profit.
::The risk here is of course that the shares could increase in price during the 2 weeks – then I would be forced to rebuy them for more that I got AND have to pay you the fee. That’s the reason shorts are more dangerous then longs. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 17:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
:::You sell something that you borrowed? Why would that be allowed? It's not yours! And what happens if you can't buy it back? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
::::It’s totally legal to sell something that you borrow. If I could not buy it back you and I will have a problem – so you do this kind of business only with people/firms with money.
::::But to show you something that IS crazy, there is also ''Naked short selling'' – that’s like short-selling on speed. With this kind of short-selling, I do not borrow anything. It works in this way: Today I sell you 100 apple-shares, which I do not have, for 200$. You have to pay me immediately, so I collect 100*200$=20,000$. I will deliver these shares when I have to, which is 1 or 2 days from now (depending on the market-place). So if I’m lucky and the price drops the next 1 or 2 days, then I make profit. For example if the apple-shares decrease again to 170$, then I make 100*(200$-170$)=3000$ profit. Some countries (but not the US AFAIK) forbid these kind of short-selling, after the last financial crisis. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 20:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Shares are fungible, like money, so it makes perfect sense. If I borrow a £10 note from you, there's no expectation that I'll keep it safe and return the exact same £10 note to you; I'm probably borrowing it to spend it. But you don't care as long as I return £10 to you at the end of the loan. Every pound is interchangeable with every other pound; and it's the same with shares of a given type. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.116|162.158.155.116]] 16:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Short selling doesn't seem all that complicated. It's the night before black friday, and your friend has [hot new amazing toy] that they picked up a few months ago before it got popular. You ask if you can borrow it for a week. Then you go out the next morning and scalp it to a frustrated parent that is desperate to get it for their kid but the store is sold out. A week goes by, and you head to the store and pick one up now that they are back in stock and on sale, and give it back to your friend. Your friend has a toy, even if it's not exactly the same one, and the price difference between what you sold it for and what you paid for the new one gave you a bit of holiday spending money. The danger is if the toy doesn't get back in stock or the price goes up due to demand and you have to buy it for more than you sold it. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like the title text implies there are multiple witches involved. This should perhaps be mentioned in the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.202|108.162.241.202]] 18:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
:I’m confused... which which is which?[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.6|172.68.65.6]] 05:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

:I believe the pun is related to how multiple people promising to win the auction is going to drive prices higher. If this is somehow related to some story with multiple witches, it's beyond my knowledge. It's entirely possible the witches are there only to connect the title text with the comic dialog. Also, I find it interesting that Cueball didn't actually ask Ponytail for her wisdom - he only made a comment which she then answered. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 19:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
::The title text definitely says "witches" not "the witch", so it does appear to be a bevy (I'd say coven but that would seem to imply they belong to the same group, which may not be the case here) of witches it's talking about. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

someone takes !-> they believe !-> their strategy; 1 != 2; will (optative) -> shall (future); he -> who; witches -> witch's; would (desiderative) -> should (conditional) [[User:Lysdexia|Lysdexia]] ([[User talk:Lysdexia|talk]]) 02:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What about that word "squeeze" in the title text? We need an explanation. There is a page {{w|Short_squeeze}} on Wikipedia which is surely relevant, but I don't understand it enough to explain it here. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.178|141.101.98.178]] 12:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

:Off the top of my head, when a short seller borrows shares and sells them, they essentially have a margin loan. The cash from the short sale is their collateral, which has a fixed value. The value of their loan fluctuates with the price of the stock that they sold. The broker wants to make sure they get paid, so if the stock price goes too high, the broker can make a margin call to the short seller, telling them they need to pay back the borrowed shares before its stock price gets any higher. This forces them to buy the stock at the higher price for a loss. Since buying a stock increases the demand and thus creates an upward pressure on the price (all else remaining equal), one tactic for those holding the stock and wishing for the price to go up is to buy a bunch more shares to drive up the price to the point where this happens, betting on that the price will then go up even more. This tactic is called a short squeeze.[[User:PerfectlyGoodInk|PerfectlyGoodInk]] ([[User talk:PerfectlyGoodInk|talk]]) 19:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an element of fighting the Witch - when a short seller is set to lose they do all they can to undermine the company. Elon vs. Short Sellers as case in point.

Why assume that the first born child is not yet born? I've had one of those for decades. How many magic beans am I offered? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 16:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
:Because a child already born has a more settled value. in Ponytail's story the seller is assuming they'll have a rotten 2 bean kid, and basically betting the witch that the kid will be worth 5 beans tops. In your case a trade would be more like a normal sale than a "short sale".[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.25|162.158.187.25]] 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

2079: Alpha Centauri

2018-11-30T21:15:54Z

162.158.187.25: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2079
| date = November 30, 2018
| title = Alpha Centauri
| image = alpha_centauri.png
| titletext = And let's be honest, it's more like two and a half stars. Proxima is barely a star and barely bound to the system.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SOLAR SAIL. It would be good to enumerate similar projects. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Alpha Centauri}} is the closest star system to our solar system, being 4.37 {{w|light-year}}s away. As such, there are numerous ongoing plans and projects to journey to, and explore the star system, especially since {{w|Proxima Centauri b}} was found in 2016 to likely have liquid water oceans and a very thin atmosphere. Ponytail announces such a project using a {{w|Voyager program|Voyager}}-like probe.

However, the offscreen person is against her idea, for the strange logic that "Alpha Centauri sucks". He says that he looked "online" and that the system "only has three stars". This is a pun regarding online reviews. Online rating systems, such as {{w|Yelp}}, often use {{w|Star (classification)|star rating system}}, with more stars indicating higher quality, up to an arbitrary maximum, such as five stars to indicate the best rating. Thus 3 stars out of 5 stars in a 5-star rating system would theoretically be a "middling" rating, equating to a C grade, whereas in a 10-star rating system 3 stars out of 10 stars would be very poor quality. The Alpha Centauri star system has 3 ''physical'' {{w|star}}s: Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B, and Proxima Centauri. The offscreen person has misconstrued this fact of the system as some kind of review.

A previous comic, [[1098: Star Ratings]], points out that star ratings below 4 out of 5 tend to be seen as "crap".

The title text furthers the pun. Some online star rating systems also allow partial stars, such as a half-star, to allow more precision in rating (i.e. rating 2.5 stars instead of forced to chose 3 stars or 2 stars). Alpha Centauri's "half star" refers to Proxima Centauri, a {{w|red dwarf}}, which is a type of low-mass star. According to the offscreen person, this barely qualifies it to be a star. Furthermore, Proxima Centauri is nearly 13,000 AU (0.21 light years) away from the other 2 stars in the system, so it was long unknown whether Proxima Centauri was gravitationally bound to the Alpha Centauri star system or not.

===Calculations===
All numbers are rounded after subsequent calculations.

4.367 light years / 35 years = 0.12477 light years/year

0.12477 light years/year * 5.879e+12 miles/light year = 733,484,000,000 miles/year

733,484,000,000 miles/year / 365 days/year / 24 hours/day = 83,000,000 Miles/hour / 1.60934 miles/kilometer = 134,000,000 Kilometers/hour

According to [https://www.space.com/41447-parker-solar-probe-fastest-spacecraft-ever.html space.com] the fastest spacecraft ever will be the Parker Solar Probe which will reach 430,000 mph (692,000 km/h) as it reaches its closest point orbiting the sun. This is just over half of 1% of the needed speed of the Alpha Centauri vehicle proposed in the comic. The Voyager 1 spacecraft, launched in 1977, is currently traveling at about 38,000 mph (61,000 km/h).

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail stands on a podium giving a presentation in front of a slide with an image of a [https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1 Voyager-like] satellite.]
:Ponytail: Our probe can reach Alpha Centauri in under 35 years.
:Offscreen voice: We should go somewhere else. Alpha Centauri sucks.
:Ponytail: Huh? It's the closest, most convenient system!
:Offscreen: Yeah, but I checked online and it only has three stars.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2079: Alpha Centauri

2018-11-30T21:06:28Z

162.158.187.25: woah proxima centauri has an earth-like planet and mark zuckerberg plans to get there

Possible concept projects he's referencing: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2069_Alpha_Centauri_mission
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot 
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.150|172.68.65.150]] 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 
: Breakthrough Starshot sounds relevent enough to mention in the article. In 2016 an earth-like planet was discovered orbiting Proxima Centauri, which is the closest star in the universe to our sun. Other destinations are considered for the project, but the plan is to visit this planet. Expected velocity is 37,300 km/s. Estimated departure date is 2036, arriving by 2066. Significant funding exists. But some of the technologies do not quite yet. (for those who don't want to click the link) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.25|162.158.187.25]] 21:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Alpha century does have 3 stars: Alpha Centauri A (also named Rigil Kentaurus[15]), Alpha Centauri B (also named Toliman), and a small and faint red dwarf (Class M), Alpha Centauri C (also named Proxima Centauri[15])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri 
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.150|172.68.65.150]] 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 
I don't know what the (voices off) is complaining about. We only have one star! So Alpha Centauti is an upgrade ;-) [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
:But if your going to upgrade, go all the way at least. (Definitely not an excuse I use to buy better PC hardware)[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

2027: Lightning Distance

2018-09-24T15:07:48Z

162.158.187.25: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2027
| date = August 1, 2018
| title = Lightning Distance
| image = lightning_distance.png
| titletext = The index of radio refraction does have a lot of variation, which might throw off your calculations, so you can also look at the difference in brightness between the visible flash and more-attenuated UV and x-rays.
}}

==Explanation==
The usual trick for determining the distance to a {{w|lightning}} flash is to count the seconds from when you see the flash until when you hear {{w|thunder}}, and divide by five to get miles (or three to get kilometers). This works because the {{w|speed of light|transmission of light}} is essentially instantaneous over the relevant distances, while the {{w|speed of sound}} is 331.2 m/s (1,087 ft/s, 1,192 km/h, or 741 mph, varying a bit based on temperature), or about 1/5 mile per second (1/3 kilometer per second).

This comic subverts the usual trick by having Megan describe a highly impractical alternative method. Megan's method is based on the fact that the speed of electromagnetic radiation, which includes light and radio waves, is not truly fixed and varies by wavelength in a refractive medium.(Consider the classic case of visible light in a prism.) The radiation produced by lightning on Earth also has to travel through air, which changes its speed in a fashion which depends on its frequency.

According to {{w|List_of_refractive_indices|Wikipedia}} and [https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MayaBarsky.shtml other sources], refractive index of air at 0°C is about 1.000277, which equates to a speed of light around 299709.4 km/s (186230.8 miles/s). According to [https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig_2002/Js28/JS28_rueger.pdf this paper] (table on page 8), refractive index for radio waves in similar conditions is 1.000315, which equates to a speed around 299698.1 km/s (186223.7 miles/s). This means that to get the distance, the time difference in seconds between visible flash and radio burst should be multiplied by about 4.9 billion for miles, or about 7.9 billion for kilometers. More details for the calculations are in the comments below.

Using a setup similar to that used for [https://hackaday.com/2015/06/05/building-your-own-sdr-based-passive-radar-on-a-shoestring/ passive radar], it would theoretically be possible to use this effect to determine the distance to a source of extremely short bursts of visible light and radio waves. The joke is that it is impractical for most people, both because we can't measure such small time intervals (one nanosecond for every 4.9 miles or 7.9 kilometers of atmosphere) and because we can't detect radiation outside the visible spectrum without buying a $20 radio dongle.

Although {{w|Lightning|lightning lasts about 60 to 70 microseconds}}, during which time the signals we receive would rise and fall somewhat erratically, a software-defined radio can sample the phase and strength of the signal in detail during this time and provide a record of it for comparison with a recording at a different frequency. A more expensive radio would make life easier, as a sampling rate of at least a few GHz would allow for the time discrepency to be measured directly using the onset of the signal, rather than inferred from phase differences at different frequencies.

For the purpose of the joke, the "5 billion" value used in the comic is a fair estimate which also references the original rule of 5 seconds per mile nicely, though the result can have a huge margin of error depending on actual conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.), as the title text suggests ("the index of radio refraction does have a lot of variation").

Even if lightning was farther away, for example, if we were observing another planet, the time difference still would not be substantial, because the visible and radio waves travel at essential the same speed as each other in the vacuum of space (the difference in speed discussed above applies only to travel through air).

The title text suggests another method of calculating distance to lightning. Since the absorption of light is also different in different wavelengths, it would be possible to calculate the difference by comparing the brightness instead of delays. This would, however, require the knowledge about prior relative brightness of lightning, i.e. the spectrum, in the compared wavelengths.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan stand on either side of a window, observing a bolt of lightning in a dark sky.]
:Cueball: What's that trick for telling how many miles away lightning is?
:Megan: Just count the seconds between the visible flash and the radio wave burst, then multiply by 5 billion.
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

Talk:2032: Word Puzzles

2018-08-14T16:44:49Z

162.158.187.25:

;Is it a real word puzzle?
Who wants to labouriously check if he's double-bluffed and used an actual word puzzle for this comic? :D [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.181|162.158.154.181]] 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"Jeopardy" is misspelled in the description. Can someone who is logged in please fix?
Many of the "clue" words can also be rearranged, anagram-wise, to form new words, e.g., parts ≈ strap. {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.243}}

Most words have 2, 3, 4 or 5 characters. I do not believe, it is a simple crossword puzzle, otherwise he would not fool people. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.4|172.68.110.4]] 18:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

;Some thoughts:
*Cueball is messing with Megan and not presenting an answer what the "reminiscent of Jeopardy answers" would imply.
*{{w|Lance Ito}} is a judge well known for the O. J. Simpson murder case.
*{{w|Brian Eno}} is an English musician, composer, record producer, singer, writer, and visual artist. Read the Wiki article to learn more.
*No idea what "Ohio's AirAsia Arena" could imply.
--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
::Almost all the words in the alt-text / title-text are open to multiple pronunciations from a phonetic standpoint. Often they're placed next to a word containing the same sound with a different spelling, or the same spelling with a different sound.
::Once again Randall is creeping me out with this, as yesterday I complained about the spelling of "tear" with a comment including this line:
::tire tier tear tear tare tar ... teer?
::Randall so often does comics that feel intimately in touch with what I'm doing or saying the day before that it's almost spooky. If I weren't an outlier in so ''many'' scatter plots I might almost begin to feel "ordinary".
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

;Moved from the explanation (discussion goes here)
The kind of puzzle that Megan thinks she is solving is called a "Cryptic", which has markedly different rules than ordinary crosswords. If Cueball's statement had been "Part of this aria is an Indian garment" the answer would have been "sari", because a part of the phrase "this aria" is the sequence "sari", which in turn is an Indian garment. Cueball's actual statement contains quite a few familiar cryptic puzzle triggers. The word "composed" can be a hint of a preceding or following anagram, in this case of "this aria" or of "by Brian" or of even longer adjacent strings. Although "opera star" could be a famous singer, say "Caruso", it might also be the name of an opera followed by the name of an astronomical star. "Au pair" could be any of its ordinary meanings, say "nanny", but might also be "earrings" (because AU is the chemical symbol for gold, and a gold pair could be earrings). The word "start" is often a hint to take just the beginning of a word, so "the start" would be "t", or "start of his" would be "h" or "hi". The New York Times runs a cryptic crossword as its "second Sunday puzzle" every other month or so, and there are other regular cryptic crossword venues. In case you are interested, there are various guides on the web for solving cryptics, such as this one at The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/puzzclue.htm. (-- John?)
:This sounds like the most correct explanation to me so far, much moreso than the strictly crossword-based interpretation. I think this ''should'' be in the explanation.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
: Why was this moved from the explanation? This is a far better explanation then what remains there. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.172|162.158.38.172]] 07:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
::I've moved this because it's written like a comment (including the sign). And I think at first we should focus on the ''My Hobby'' thing, Cueball is messing with someone. If you're also ''sure'', like Megan is, that there is a puzzle to solve then Cueball is probably messing you too. Nevertheless all mentioned items and persons have to be explained. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Although Randall says he is messing with us, the fact that he is so much cleverer than any of the rest of us means that Cueball's statement might even be a legitimate cryptic clue. --John [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.214|108.162.219.214]] 18:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has an account on https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/, that community might be able to figure out if it's a legit puzzle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.64|162.158.142.64]] 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
:I just asked at puzzling.stackexchange: https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/69502/is-this-a-puzzle-if-so-what-is-the-solution. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.209|141.101.96.209]] 02:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
::One answer supports my statement above: "I see no reason to believe this is a puzzle: it's simply a bunch of words that commonly appear in crosswords." Just sayin. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Two words: [[Nerd Sniping]] [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

:"opera star" = "au pair a[t the] star[t]"? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.230|162.158.88.230]] 07:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

When I first read this sentence, I thought he just wanted to be needlessly verbose for a simple joke, like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE5KkmDAcDs here]. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In the explanation, I think there's a misunderstanding of "post-live". Death is "post-life", while "post-live" is the period after an artist stops performing live (in rock conerts, on stage, etc.). The artist may still be alive, and even produce studio albums. So, according to the comic, Brian Eno has stopped performing on-stage, but has still continued to create music (e.g. compose an aria). - Assaf {{unsigned ip|141.101.107.30}}
: My thoughts exactly - post-live does not mean after death! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks for mentioning this. The phrase is still incorrect so I'll do an update. BTW: Is the concert on this album {{w|June 1, 1974}} the last or maybe even the only live performance Eno has done? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I arranged all the important words in the main text on a Scrabble board. The total score of all the letters is 69. The total from my arrangement is 116. {{unsigned|Misterblue28}}

Reminiscent of the alliterations in BoJack Horseman.
:"Are you still looking for a star for your Transgender Teddy Roosevelt Planes Trains and Automobiles reboot, Plans, Trans, A Canal, Panama?"

:"You know the actress Courtney Portnoy? She portrayed the formerly portly consort in the seaport resort. Courtly roles like the formerly portly consort are Courtney Portnoy's forte. This was supposed to be Courtney's crossover coronation. But that's sorta been thwarted unfortunately 'cause Courtney's purportedly falling short of shoring up fourth quadrant support."

:"But Courtney, more importantly, audiences are going to adore your tour de force performance as the forceful denim-clad court reporter in "The Court Reporter Sported Jorts", the jet-setting jort-sporting court reporter story."

:[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.154|162.158.63.154]] Steve

Would it make more sense to interpret "Brian Eno's opera star au pair" as "Brian Eno's au pair, who is an opera star" rather than "an au pair to an opera star which belonged to Eno"? It seems to make more sense, and there isn't anything that I can see that necessarily divides "opera star" and "au pair" into two separate clauses (such as "opera star's au pair").[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.25|162.158.187.25]] 16:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

2032: Word Puzzles

2018-08-13T17:47:16Z

162.158.187.25:

{{comic
| number = 2032
| date = August 13, 2018
| title = Word Puzzles
| image = word_puzzles.png
| titletext = Eno's storied aria was once soloed by Judge Lance Ito on the alto oboe at Ohio's AirAsia Arena.
}}

The dialog, caption, and title text contain many
words that appear frequently in crossword puzzle
answers because they fit well with intersecting
words, in part because they have a high density
of vowels. In addition, it is reminiscent of Jeopary answers simply because Cueball's trivia fluxuates between high and low specificity, which is the way Jeopardy hints at an answer.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Cueball: ''"Parts of this aria were composed by Brian Eno's Opera Star au pair at the start of his post-live era."''

:Megan (thinking): "...parts...start...eno...aria..."

:My hobby: messing with word game enthusiasts by using words that make them '''''sure''''' there's a puzzle to solve

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Music]]