{{comic
| number = 2118
| date = March 1, 2019
| title = Normal Distribution
| image = normal_distribution.png
| titletext = It's the NORMAL distribution, not the TANGENT distribution.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by PEOPLE NEW ENOUGH TO STATISTICS TO NOT LEAVE IN ANNOYANCE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In statistics, a {{w|Probability distribution|distribution}} is a representation that can be understood in terms of how much of a sample is expected to fall into either discrete bins or between particular ranges of values. For example, if you wanted to represent an age distribution using bins of ten years (0-9, 10-19, etc.), you could produce a bar chart, one bar for each bin, where the height of each bar represents a count of the portion of the sample matching that bin. To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people, put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow, and then divide each bin count by the total count so that the whole thing added up to 1. It is common to ask how much of the distribution lies between two vertical lines; that would correspond to asking what percent of people are expected to fall between two ages.

Many statistical samplings form a pattern called a "{{w|normal distribution}}". A theoretically perfect normal distribution would have an infinite sample size and infinitely small bins. That would produce a bar chart matching the shape of the curve in the comic.

The area between two vertical lines of the distribution represents the probability that the value is between the x-values of the lines, and the total area is 1. Randall finds the area between two ''horizontal'' lines instead, which, while correct, is not likely to be used for anything meaningful very frequently. The items in one bin are thought of as being identical; there's no reason to put one above another, and the fact that two items happen to fall at the same height horizontally don't mean they have anything in common. The comic explores the humor of annoying people by deliberately misunderstanding their work.

The title text refers to the {{w|Normal (geometry)|normal line}}, which is perpendicular to the {{w|tangent}} line at a given point. The normal line is not at all related to the normal distribution, as the former is a geometry concept and the latter is probability/statistics one. Saying this to a statistician would only annoy the statistician further. This refers to the fact that the diagram attempts to divide the graph with horizontal lines when such a division would usually be done with vertical lines.

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

:[A bell curve of a normal distribution, with the area between two horizontal lines shaded.]

:[The center of the chart is marked between the two lines:]
:Midpoint

:[The distance between the lines is marked to the right of the midpoint, with the label:]
:52.7%

:[A label on the outside of the graph, describing the distance between the two lines:]
:Remember, 50% of the distribution falls between these two lines!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How to annoy a statistician

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

2017-09-30T04:18:50Z

162.158.78.220:

Seems Randall has a cold again, like two years ago... :D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would taking a medication without binding agents be dangerous? Also, would something like a gelcap count as an inactive ingredient? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.153|162.158.62.153]] 13:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
: Yes. If an ingredient is not intended to produce a therapeutic effect on the body, then it is inactive: "Inactive ingredients are components of a drug product that do not increase or affect the therapeutic action of the active ingredient" https://www.google.com/search?q=inactive+ingredient -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
: Binders hold the tablet together, so that instead of taking a powder and possibly missing some grains that fall away or stick to something (which would be dangerous if you need all the medicine for some life threatening condition) you can take the whole tab and get exactly the intended amount of active ingredient. They are also used to make tabs with minuscule quantities of active ingredient larger so that instead of fumbling with an incredibly tiny tablet it is large enough to be easily held and seen, and since the explanation just says "serious problem" not necessarily "dangerous" I could see having to take a single grain of sand sized medicine as being problematic.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.100|108.162.237.100]] 14:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Could this comic be a reference to this image? [[https://i.redd.it/q7jcyf21c8ty.jpg]] It was the first thing I thought about when I saw it.

I don't think the "Opening the box would reveal a mix of various colored powders and no way to ensure you are correctly taking the right dose." part is right- it doesn't say no separation in packaging, just that the medicine itself has no binding ingredients, it's just once you open any particular section it would not encourage anything inside of it to stay together. And an additional thought- powders? Some active ingredients may have forms more inconvenient than powders, I'd expect some would form a film on the packaging or other inconvenient behavior, though someone would more knowledge on medicine could correct me on just what raw active ingredients really would be like.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 04:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

1885: Ensemble Model

2017-09-04T22:46:40Z

162.158.78.220: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1885
| date = September 4, 2017
| title = Ensemble Model
| image = ensemble_model.png
| titletext = I'm in talks with Netflix to produce an alternate-universe crime drama about the world where sliced bread was never re-legalized, but it's going slowly because they keep changing their phone numbers and the door lock codes at their headquarters.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

An {{w|ensemble forecasting|ensemble model}} is a combination of multiple, similar models to show a wider range of possible outcomes. The graphs on the left are tracks of predictions from multiple models. In this comic, Randall starts out describing actual changes that ensemble models show, but sinks into absurdity, describing strange alternate universes and scenarios that likely would not be necessary in an actual model.

The upper graph looks like one plotting global temperatures with time using different scenarios, like this one: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html
The bottom right graph is a typical hurricane path-prediction graphic.

Not all of the outcomes are serious. They are explained below:
;…rain is 0.5% more likely in some areas

;…wind speeds are slightly lower

;…pressure levels are randomly tweaked

;…dogs run slightly faster

;…there is one extra cloud in the Bahamas
This situation is most likely too specific and subtle a difference to be useful to the model.

;…Germany won WWII
"What if Germany won World War II" is a {{w|Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II|very popular}} subject for {{w|alternate history}} stories.

;…snakes are wide instead of long

;…Will Smith took the lead in ''The Matrix'' instead of ''Wild Wild West''
Actor {{w|Will Smith}} famously turned down the lead role of {{w|Neo (The Matrix)|Neo}} in ''{{w|The Matrix}}'', instead taking the role of Captain James T. West in the widely-panned action-comedy ''{{w|Wild Wild West}}''. The role of Neo ultimately went to {{w|Keanu Reeves}}. For a more detailed discuss of how the cinematic world would have been different had Smith taken the role, see [https://moviepilot.com/posts/2481780 "How Will Smith Turned Down "The Matrix" - And Blew A Chance To Change Hollywood Forever."]

;…swimming pools are carbonated
A simple calculation reveals this as a serious {{w|Greenhouse effect|greenhouse}} problem. In the United States there are not less than 5,000,000 private owned pools. Conservatively assumed a volume of 25,000 liters per pool gives 125 billion liters of carbonated soda. According to Wikipedia the U.S. sales reached around 30 billion bottles of water in 2008 (including non carbonated water) which is surely much less than all the pool water. While all those bottles are not considered to have an impact on the green house effect this scenario is getting even worse. Open a bottle of carbonated water and fill the content into glasses. More or less soon the sprinkling is over, meaning you have to open the next bottle and so on. In a pool at the bottom the pressure is high enough to hold the carbon dioxide but on the surface it behaves like the glass. So, while a glass needs new carbonated water every two hours, or ten times per day, let's say it's three times per day for the pool which leads to one thousand times per year. The total number in this scenario would be 125 trillion liters of carbonated soda, ejecting carbon dioxide, per year. But stop: The carbon dioxide used for artificial carbonated water is taken from the air and because of the pressure at the bottom of the pool it doesn't release all back this should have a positive effect. But as Randall has shown in {{what if|88|Soda Sequestration}} this effect would be minimal.

;…sliced bread, after being banned in January 1943, was never re-legalized.
{{w|Sliced bread}} was in fact {{w|Sliced bread#1943 U.S. ban on sliced bread|banned in the US}} for about two months in early 1943, as a supposed wartime conservation measure. The issue was not the bread itself, but that the pre-sliced loaves required a heavier {{w|wax paper}} wrapping to prevent them from drying out too quickly.

The title text suggests that [[Randall]] has been pitching an absurd "alternate-universe crime drama" to {{w|Netflix}}, only that Netflix is uninterested and is attempting to prevent Randall from contacting them (or trespassing into the building).

==Transcript==
:[Inside this single panel comic the header on top reads:]
:In an ''ensemble model'', forecasters run many different versions of a weather model with slightly different initial conditions. This helps account for uncertainty and shows forecasters a spread of possible outcomes.

:[To the left side a picture shows several gray overlapping swirling lines emitted from a point, then gradually diverging rightwards. Below are two smaller pictures; the first shows the lines connected to several loops and in the second it's still a similar figure to the above but moving into the opposite direction with the point emerged to a spiral.]

:[The text right to the pictures reads:]
:'''Members in a typical ensemble:'''
:A universe where…
:…rain is 0.5% more likely in some areas
:…wind speeds are slightly lower
:…pressure levels are randomly tweaked
:…dogs run slightly faster
:…there's one extra cloud in the Bahamas
:…Germany won WWII
:…snakes are wide instead of long
:…Will Smith took the lead in ''The Matrix'' instead of ''Wild Wild West''
:…swimming pools are carbonated
:…sliced bread, after being banned in January 1943, was never re-legalized.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]

1544: Margaret

2017-05-14T23:41:09Z

162.158.78.220:

{{comic
| number = 1544
| date = June 29, 2015
| title = Margaret
| image = margaret.png
| titletext = Otherwise known as Margaret the Destroyer, I will bring pain to the Great One. Then again, maybe I won't.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic uses the starting lines of an innocent children's book and creates irony by delivering a dark message.

In the book ''{{w|Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.}}'' by {{w|Judy Blume}}, the opening lines are "Are you still there, God? It's me, Margaret. I know you're there, God. I know you wouldn't have missed this for anything! Thank you, God. Thanks an awful lot..." These lines describe a prayer, in which Margaret privately speaks to God, expressing gratitude and seeking guidance.

In the second and third panels, Margaret asks God "Are you scared, God?", and states "You should be". This is similar to threats delivered in super violent action movies, such as Taken, in which the protagonist or antagonist speaks directly to their opponent, issuing threats and indicating that they are coming after their opponent. The final panel is a shot of Margaret standing imposingly in a dark landscape, and a caption over the top of the image says "Margaret is coming for you", making this comic reminiscent of an action movie trailer. The irony is that "Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret." is a very innocent book, especially when compared to this type of action movie.

The title text is a mashup of three of Blume's other books: ''{{w|Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great}}'', ''{{w|The Pain and the Great One}}'', and ''{{w|Then Again, Maybe I Won't}}'', and likely the inspiration for the dark lines in the comic.

==Transcript==
:[Margaret, shown in full body, is alone. She is talking while looking out towards the reader.]
:Margaret: Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.
:Margaret: I know you're listening.

:[Zoom in on her face and torso.]
:Margaret: Are you scared, God?
:Margaret: Are you?

:[Zooming so far in that not even her whole face is visible.]
:Margaret: You should be.

:[Zooming far out showing her in a white silhouette against a black sky, standing on the white earth.]
:Margaret: ''Margaret is coming for you''.

==Trivia==
*There seems to be a typo in the title text with double the:
**''I will bring pain to '''the the''' Great One''.
**It could however also be a reference to the book ''The Pain and the Great One'', so this is the "The Great One".
**Maybe it was supposed to be "thee, The Great One".

*There doesn't seem to be a typo if you pause after the first the. '''thee the''' would have been better. Realizing that God is "the Great One" may be the reason for the last part of the title text (Then again, maybe I won't.)
*I know you're listening" may refer to an earlier xkcd comic, [[525: I Know You're Listening]].
*The idea of turning an innocent children's book into a violent movie was previously touched in [[633: Blockbuster Mining]].
*Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret was previously referenced in the title text of [[1354: Heartbleed Explanation]].

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Religion]]