explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2225: Voting Referendum

2019-11-07T14:53:42Z

162.158.234.94:

OK, I just created a massive edit conflict, I see. Will move my content into the appropriate parts of the template already in place. [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 20:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If there is disagreement about which edits are better, we should vote on it. Which system of voting would be best for that? [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone (IP-User) just added the following:
Additionally, in election of multiple candidates across a country (or region etc.), first past the post does not lead to a distribution of elected representatives proportional to the total number of votes, only electing the lead candidate in each case. For example, imagine a country with 100 representatives to be elected, with each seat having the same distribution as described in the example above. Under first past the post, 100 representatives will be elected representing part A, and none for party B or C.
Unless there is some example where this is used (multiple seats given only to the winner of a first past the post) I'd vote for removing this statement. As I do not know all (or even many) democratic systems worldwide, I am not sure if it might be relevant somewhere. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
:That's how the US Electoral College works: in each state, all elector seats go to the party that obtained the majority of votes.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.94|162.158.234.94]] 14:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

== Louisiana Primary ==
I didn't know - WikiP: The so-called Louisiana primary is the common term for the Louisiana general election for local, state, and congressional offices.[1] On election day, all candidates for the same office appear together on the ballot, often including several candidates from each major party. The candidate who receives a simple majority is elected. If no candidate wins a simple majority in the first round, there is a runoff one month later between the top two candidates to determine the winner. This system is also used for United States Senate special elections in Mississippi and Texas, and all special elections for partisan offices in Georgia.[2][[User:Afbach|Afbach]] ([[User talk:Afbach|talk]])

This is also known as a "Jungle Primary" and is also done in Washington state and California. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


I had to resolve an editing conflict in the first paragraph with another editor, but please feel free to further resolve our differing edits. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

== Single Transferable Vote ==
The text says "100%/(k+1)". Surely this should be "100%/k + 1", or "100%/k, plus one person"? Say k is 4. The current text implies that only 20% is required, when it should be 25%, plus one person. [[User:John.Adriaan|John.Adriaan]] ([[User talk:John.Adriaan|talk]]) 01:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
:Setting a quota at 25% plus one person would only allow 3 people to be elected, as once that happens there would be less than 25% of the vote left to count which wouldn't be enough to elect anyone else. Setting the quota at 100%/(k+1) means that k people can be elected before the remaining vote isn't enough to elect anyone else (setting the quota at exactly 100%/k, by the way, has also been used and is known as the {{w|Hare quota}}). [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 02:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
:Say k is 4. Then 100%/(4+1) = 20%. So, yes, it's possible that you could end up with 5 people all getting exactly 20%. But a perfect 5-way tie like that would be extremely unlikely. Other than that very improbable result, only 4 people could get elected, as is desired. Imagine, for example, one person gets ''juuust'' over 20% of the vote. Even just that little bit over means there's '''less than''' 80% of the vote left for the other four. Which means only 3 of the remaining 4 people could get over the 20% threshold.
::Of course the correct formula should be "100%/(k+1)+1". -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Talk:2220: Imagine Going Back in Time/Ads}}

Talk:2217: 53 Cards

2019-10-19T10:11:57Z

162.158.234.94:

"This page was last edited [tomorrow]." Okay, good to know. Tomorrow starts three hours from now, my time. This comic reminded me of this article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/corkscrewing-bouncy-ion-drive-would-provide-thrust-in-different-universe/ [[Special:Contributions/172.68.38.88|172.68.38.88]] 00:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I can do this, but my flowchart would be different and involve secretly inserting a joker, using the shuffling as cover for the move.
Collect a deck of 52 cards and have a spectator count the cards. - Secretly hide a joker from the deck in your off-hand (the one without the deck). - Shuffle the cards, letting the hidden card drop on top of the deck. - Keep shuffling, so the inserted joker is well mixed into the deck. - Have a spectator count the cards, looking only at the backs. - 53.
[[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 04:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually this is also what encryption scientists have to face talking to not so few encryption enthusiasts who just invented their own encryption method[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.112|162.158.234.112]] 07:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait, isn't perpetual motion (w.r.t. a inertial reference frame) possible, at least according to Newtonian mechanics? Just launch something into space at high enough speed and "watch" it wander away forever. Extracting (an unbounded amount of) energy from that object is a totally different story... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.94|162.158.234.94]] 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2214: Chemistry Nobel

2019-10-17T06:52:56Z

162.158.234.94: /* Explanation */ the gaps that have been filled are at the bottom, not the top like the rest of the text explains

{{comic
| number = 2214
| date = October 11, 2019
| title = Chemistry Nobel
| image = chemistry nobel.png
| titletext = Most chemists thought the lanthanides and actinides could be inserted in the sixth and seventh rows, but no, they're just floating down at the bottom with lots more undiscovered elements all around them.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by THE SOCIETY OF ANNOYING MENDELEEV. Standard wait time in progress.}}

The {{w|Periodic table|periodic table of the elements}} is a display which arranges all of the 118 (currently) known chemical elements by atomic number and sorts them into columns such that each column contains a group of elements displaying similar chemical properties. The original version of this table was developed by Russian chemist {{w|Dmitri Mendeleev}} in 1869, when he realized that certain properties repeated periodically as elements became more massive. Notably, this system left obvious gaps at the bottom of the table. Mendeleev correctly predicted that some of these gaps represented elements that had not been discovered yet, and even predicted their properties based on the patterns in the table. The later discovery of those elements (including germanium and gallium) helped validate Mendeleev's work. Other gaps, however, were not due to undiscovered elements, but merely resulted from the properties of electron {{w|orbitals}} in atoms: upper rows of the table represent orbitals with fewer possible electrons and hence fewer elements, so displaying the lower rows properly below the upper ones leaves gaps in the upper rows. In other words, elements could not actually exist in these spaces, spaces which only existed in the realm of human bookkeeping. The joke of this comic is that it treats these gaps as if they represented elements that hadn't been discovered yet. Ponytail and her team have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry merely by looking for and finding these elements. She expresses surprise that no one else had thought of such a simple direction for research.

The lanthanides and actinides mentioned in the title text are series of elements with higher atomic numbers that have electrons in orbitals that no previous elements have, and thus occupy columns of the periodic table that don't exist for lower-numbered elements. Sometimes these elements are [https://42796r1ctbz645bo223zkcdl-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Figure-2.-The-32-column-version-of-the-periodic-table-published-by-IUPAC.png displayed in the table], a format that corresponds with their actual orbital structure; this format is too wide for most display media, thus the lanthanides and actinides are separated out and displayed "floating" beneath the rest of the periodic table. The title text jokes that these floating series of elements are actually surrounded by actual elements.

In real life, the 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/press-release/ John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham, and Akira Yoshino] for their work in the development of lithium-ion batteries; it was announced on October 9, just a few days before this comic was published, so the chemistry Nobel Prize was in the news.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail stands in front of an image with a white section in the shape of the 7 rows of the periodic table of the elements, but without the two rows usually shown beneath with the lanthanides and actinides. The “empty” sections at the top of the table are filled with three rows of dotted boxes, 16 boxes in the top row and two rows with 10 boxes each, shifted one right from the top row. Ponytail points to this area with a pointer while she looks and gestures towards an off-panel audience.]
:Ponytail: I don't know why no one else thought to look here.

:[Caption below the panel]:
:The 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to the team that discovered the elements in the big gap at the top of the periodic table.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

1877: Eclipse Science

2017-08-17T21:59:07Z

162.158.234.94: /* Transcript */ fix a typo

{{comic
| number = 1877
| date = August 16, 2017
| title = Eclipse Science
| image = eclipse_science.png
| titletext = I was thinking of observing stars to verify Einstein's theory of relativity again, but I gotta say, that thing is looking pretty solid at this point.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More on eclipses (links). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The second solar eclipse related comic in a row, the previous being [[1876: Eclipse Searches]]. Released only five days before the {{w|Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017|August 21, 2017}} eclipse in the United States.

This comic reflects on various reasons scientists have for being interested in a total solar eclipse. An eclipse is an astronomical event, which most laypeople associate with science and thus might assume would be of interest to scientists. However, when the reporter probes Megan on scientific interest on the eclipse, Megan gives short and sarcastic answers, downplaying any experimental significance of the phenomenon and indicating that her only interest is in spectacle rather than science. She also makes the point that science is no more involved in an eclipse than any other spectator event, and does not work to observe phenomenon without any interest in discovery. Eclipses are well-understood events and there is no lack of models for explaining the physics behind them; the alignment of bodies in space is a result of orbital mechanics which are present at all times, making the whole event only significant to the observer.

While some astronomers might be testing elaborate hypotheses during an eclipse, for other scientists (eg. organic chemists and herpetologists) it is just a once in a long time (maybe even once in a lifetime) event which is visually interesting.

Megan's point is that in 2017 (and for several decades/centuries previous) eclipses are thoroughly understood. Wikipedia has a listing of {{w|List_of_solar_eclipses_in_the_21st_century|every eclipse that will occur in the 21st Century}}, to include the coordinates and time of greatest eclipse. While eclipses offer a unique opportunity for ground based observation of the Sun's outer layers the majority of the study of the sun is done by satellites that do not require an eclipse to take readings.

The title text refers to a {{w|Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun|1919 experiment during an eclipse}} to observe gravitational deflection of light waves. The 1919 experiment was the first strong experimental confirmation of Einstein's then-new theory. One century later, general relativity {{w|Tests_of_general_relativity|has been tested and confirmed in so many different ways}} that 'pretty solid' is a vast understatement.

==Transcript==
:[Hairy is speaking into a microphone while interviewing Megan.]
:Hairy: Tell us, are you scientists excited for the eclipse?
:Megan: Sure, lots of people are!

:[Zoom in on Megans head.]
:Hairy (off-panel): Is this a big moment for science?
:Megan: It's a big moment for the sky.

:[Same setting as first panel in a wider panel.]
:Hairy: Are people really excited enough about science to travel to see it?
:Megan: Honestly, it's not that scientific. I mean, it's cool if you're into astronomy, but it's also cool if you're, like, aware of the sun.

:[Same setting.]
:Hairy: But there's lots of science involved.
:Megan: I guess? There's lots of science involved in the Olympics, but you don't need to be a scientist to watch.

:[Megan holds a hand out towards Hairy.]
:Megan: It's not like the concept is all that arcane or mathematical. It's a thing going in front of another thing.

:[Zoom in on Megan holding both arms out.]
:Hairy (off-panel): Then why are you so excited?
:Megan: I'm excited because it's a nearly once-in-a-lifetime chance to watch the sun go dark, hear birds freak out, and see a glowing ring appear in the sky with a sunset on every horizon.

:[Back to same setting as in the first panel.]
:Hairy : Will you be making any scientific observations?
:Megan: I will be, like, "Holy shit, look at the sky."
:Megan: Maybe also "This is so cool."
:Megan: We'll see!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] 
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Physics]]