explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews

2017-09-27T19:54:04Z

162.158.79.71:

Why not use Heliologist? :~) [[User:DarkJMKnight|DarkJMKnight]] ([[User talk:DarkJMKnight|talk]]) 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If the sun is local breaking news, could be an impending dark age (solar activity destroying all technology) or a dark age (solar implosion/explosion/death). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.5|162.158.79.5]] 15:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Marine biologist is probably about oil spills or coral reefs/fish dying etc, rather than invasive species --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.209|141.101.99.209]] 16:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The explanation for "ornithologist" uses "avian dinosaurs" instead of "birds." There's a link to the wikipedia page for birds, but it's still a potentially confusing inside joke. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.106|172.68.54.106]] 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So, wait: worried about what the hell is so wrong with interviewers for them to actually want to talk to these kinds of researchers; or about what is happening to the world are we all going to die is it the end times? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.71|162.158.79.71]] 19:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:776: Still No Sleep

2017-09-27T00:39:52Z

162.158.79.71:

I think the squirrel did not mean not to worry about his hallucination. The squirrel's comment is a joke that cueball should not consider the possibility that he is totally sane. He is not sane and this is obvious even to the hallucinated squirrel.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.225|141.101.97.225]] 11:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What if the squirrel is the one hallucinating? {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.151}}

I believe that the squirrel was telling him not to worry about "that" in particular, and that he has *bigger* problems. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.71|162.158.79.71]] 00:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1619: Watson Medical Algorithm

2017-09-17T02:52:34Z

162.158.79.71:

Build environment is still insane since comic #371. {{unsigned ip|162.158.2.139}}

(Above poster please sign comments with four tildes)

I'm trying to picture Baymax using this algorithm. {{unsigned|International Space Station}}

:"OK, who swapped out Baymax's programming card with a Doomba AI?" [[User:VectorLightning|VectorLightning]] ([[User talk:VectorLightning|talk]]) 08:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
::I hope it's ok that I deleted the part of the explanation saying that Watson's behaviour in this comic is comparable to Baymax, since it's really... not. :P [[User:Berets|Berets]] ([[User talk:Berets|talk]]) 22:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least the autoconfig isn't as threatening as #416.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.179|108.162.245.179]] 07:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the extra limbs should be removed when there are 100+ and Vitamin D levels checked when the nmbr of limbs is in an acceptable range... does IBM use a ticketing system? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.194|162.158.91.194]] 08:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: Unfortunately the algorithm as shown in the cartoon has the conditions for those two steps exactly the other way around, making even less sense medically. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 14:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems a normal patient would end up mostly unscathed and in an infinite loop in the lower right corner. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 09:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:Uhm no. You would normally have an oxygen level above 50% of what is expected. (It should be close to 100% if I understand [http://www.nonin.com/Normal-Oxygen-Level this correctly], which I may not...). This means you have had your skeleton removed. If you survived this you are squeezed until fluid comes out. (Probably not necessary after the skelerectomy). But then you end up in the lower right corner. Of course you can also get there after just getting an oxygen injection, but only directly if you are not comforted when the program tries. If you where comforted you will lose some limbs. And then end up in the lower right corner. No matter what if you are still OK (could be possible) when reaching here, you will be asked about your pain level. And even if you start by saying 0-8 many many times, getting as many scalp massages, you will just get the same question, until you say 10 then your eyes will be removed. But no matter what, if you are asked such a stupid question enough times you will surely at some point say something else than 0-10, and then you will die, as this answer will take you down the last path of the program (and only exit of the cycle according the to glitch mentioned in the title text), and this will end up with the program performing an autopsy on you, thus cutting you up and removing all organs etc. So no you will not be able to go unscathed infinitely, and even if you kept saying 0-8 you would eventually die from thirst. ;) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, normal oxygen saturation is 98-100% in air. If it drops below 95% you will be in trouble, if it drops below 85% you're likely dead. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 09:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
::: Actually you can go a lot lower than 85% and still recover. You lose consciousness at about 55% on average, so you could dip below 50% for maybe a minute and still recover with appropriate treatment. It is unclear exactly what "inject oxygen" means, it could mean intubate and actively ventilate with oxygen (appropriate) or it might mean use a syringe & needle to literally inject an oxygen embolus (which would do more harm than good). It could even mean a blood transfusion, because there is oxygen carried by the red blood cells (appropriate). [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This might also partially be a reference to machine learning, which Watson apparently uses: badly designed ML systems often build models which produce the expected results for the training data, but do something unexpected or wrong with real data. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting#Machine_learning]. That said ... 'dissect doctor for parts' doesn't seem like a reasonable response to any training input ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.39.208|162.158.39.208]] 10:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The noted "unrelated actions" aren't all entirely unrelated. The coughing blood one is interpreting backwards (so "is patient not coughing up blood because the patient is not here to do so?"), the vitamin D one is somewhat logical (vit D is part of the chain that converts calcium to bone, low vit D can cause bone loss, but high vit D is basically harmless), and the green fluid is slightly sane but too vague (logic appears to be that green fluid indicates severely infected and/or necrotic tissue, for which cauterizing might be a valid treatment step in extreme situations). Weirdly specific might be a better header? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.197|141.101.106.197]] 11:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So what happens if the skeleton has exactly the right number of bones? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.153.71|162.158.153.71]] 12:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: Indeed this case is not covered, thus making the algorithm faulty even on an abstract logical level. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 14:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: What is the "right" number anyway? The number of bones in a normal human is not constant: it changes from 270 at birth to 206 as an adult. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:: {{w|Human_skeleton}} : "It is composed of 270 bones at birth – this total decreases to 206 bones by adulthood after some bones have fused together" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.46|162.158.255.46]] 22:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

the Request organ donation/Remove organs part reminds me of Live Organ Transplants segment in ''{{w|Monty Python's The Meaning of Life}}''. --[[User:Valepert|valepert]] ([[User talk:Valepert|talk]]) 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

100 could be a reference to 4 in binary (4+ limbs / less than 4 limbs) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.39|141.101.99.39]] 12:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:I believe you're correct. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:: The binary explanation does make more sense than a human centipede. Although, given the general grossness of the comic, I'm not going to completely rule out the human centipede idea. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think GlaDOS is a descendent from this Watson. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The part about squeezing and looking for the color of the ooze seems to reference Humorism. The colors match the four humors. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.188|162.158.91.188]] 15:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: No it does not match -- the colors would be red-black-yellow-'''blue''' (not green) -- the blue is for water [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Humorism.svg/1022px-Humorism.svg.png like in this diagram] --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.46|162.158.255.46]] 14:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:: The red-black-yellow-green matches the Rastafarian colors [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.46|162.158.255.46]] 15:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised he didn't make a Dr Watson joke/reference.--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 17:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This algorithm certainly does not exit without the death of the patient, however, such a death can result from old age as long as the patient can make it to the bottom right infinite loop and continuously reports a number from 0-9 for pain. It IS possible to make it to that loop alive. Extremely low blood oxygen levels have been recorded in healthy Everest climbers, but the article I read gave the results in kilopascals, not in % so I don't know how that converts. However, repeatedly reporting a pain level of 0-8 would result in continuous scalp massages, which may actually be considered pleasant. [[User:Kashim|Kashim]] ([[User talk:Kashim|talk]]) 20:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: I get the feeling that even if people can survive at low oxygen levels at a decent level for a time, it's not going to be either healthy or prolonged. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 04:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:: I think I found a major fault in the diagram -- The algo will loop indefinitely removing eyes with laser surgery as long as the pain-level is 10 -- since most people only have two eyes, the algo may seg-fault after the second eye is removed and the paitent may leave alive at that point [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.46|162.158.255.46]] 15:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this may be the least undesirable path through the flowchart:
START > Draw blood (enough to lower oxygen saturation to 49%) > Record name > Measure height and weight > Measured height/weight happens to match standard chart exactly > No surgery needed > Not coughing up blood > Still here > Record pulse rate > No screaming (unconscious due to low O2 saturation) > O2 saturation below 50% > Inject oxygen > Comforting succesful > Review medical history > Skin grafts > Fewer than 100 limbs > Good vitamin D > Check build environment > Rinse with saline > Phone battery level is high > Sync photos > General anesthesia > Discharge [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:Nope, that path doesn't work. First, injecting oxygen may do more harm than good, as previously mentioned. Second, you'll be unconscious, so comforting will be unsuccessful. Third, having fewer than 100 limbs actually leads to the path where some are removed (possibly an error in the chart?). Fourth, due to the bug, discharge leads to hunting you down and capturing you again. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 01:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::First, it may or it may not... I'm hoping not! (see above for discussion of possible ways to "inject" oxygen) Second, I'll be conscious again because my oxygen saturation has now been restored, so comforting is possible. Third, please look at the updated version of the flowchart, fewer than 100 leads to measuring Vitamin D. Fourth, there is no pathway shown from discharge to hunting down and capturing: I assume that START is admission to the hospital, therefore once discharged from hospital I have escaped Watson's clutches. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 04:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, Randall fixed the bone count decision, but perhaps you missed the 'minor glitch' described in the mouseover text... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 04:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Dammit. Yes I missed that. I have doomed myself to infinite skin grafts. The glitch means the only end point is autopsy. Which is less undesirable, infinite skin grafts or autopsy? [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 05:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::No luck on getting infinite skin grafts, I'm afraid. Watson won't draw blood again, so you won't be able to keep failing the oxygen saturation test. Besides, keeping oxygen perpetually under 50% would be fatal in itself. Maybe that's the best way to go: blacking out from oxygen deprivation. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

ALERT!!! The comic has been updated since this explanation was first posted: the decisions for number of limbs have been swapped. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 04:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether Randall took some inspiration from [http://buttersafe.com/2015/10/15/a-serious-case-of-spookiness/ Buttersafe]? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 04:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
: entirely possible, Randall does list Buttersafe as a web comic he enjoys. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Man I liked the original limb count decision better.... [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 04:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, there was a delicious craziness about it. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::Ah, so it ''did'' change. (SFAICT, usually when the comic changes between publication and the present, the changes are noted somewhere in the explanation. It seems the explanation has been made to match the current version but doesn't have any reference to the original.) IMO, also, the original was funnier for the 'bad AI' (i.e. either evil or just incompetent) quality to that section. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.227|162.158.152.227]] 09:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Another infinite loop is in the upper right; if the patient's phone battery is low, defibrillate, then check phone battery condition again. Since defibrillating the patient is not going to improve teh patient's phone battery charge level, this will repeat infinitely, unless the battery is being charged by some external force (or, perhaps, by the electric charge from the defibrillator?) [[User:Swordsmith|Swordsmith]] ([[User talk:Swordsmith|talk]]) 12:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't help feeling some of the information on this page are meant as jokes, like "disect the doctor for parts" being "may be considered ethically dubious". Is there someone who can clarify these? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.72.191|162.158.72.191]] 19:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:I believe the author of the information is giving the robot the benefit of the doubt. After all, some of these may very well be acceptable under the right circumstances, and you know what they say about those who assume! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.11|108.162.221.11]] 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What could happen if I rate my pain level as 10 three times? There is no more eye left to remove, so would the algorithm crash? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.18|162.158.83.18]] 00:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Squeezing the patient again if yellow liquid comes out until another color comes out could be popping a pimple or other pustule until it instead starts bleeding (if red is what then comes out). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.7|108.162.215.7]] 22:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"comforting unsuccesful" Dammit, Randall, how did you mess that up? And how did no one else spot that? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.71|162.158.79.71]] 02:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

1596: Launch Status Check

2017-09-13T20:26:46Z

162.158.79.71: /* Explanation */ Added a [citation needed] marker, for the lulz.

{{comic
| number = 1596
| date = October 28, 2015
| title = Launch Status Check
| image = launch status check.png
| titletext = Visual checks suggest the cool bird has exited the launch zone. Tip the rocket sideways and resume the countdown--we're gonna go find it!
}}

==Explanation==
The first panel shows a {{w|Rocket launch|rocket launch}}, which is a critical point in any {{w|Spaceflight|space mission}}. Before this moment, there are years of hard work from a large technical staff, and all that work (and even lives) could be destroyed in a second if anything {{w|List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents|goes wrong during the launch}}. ''{{w|Countdown|T-Minus}} 2 minutes'' means that there are only two minutes left before the rocket is actually launched, so at this moment everybody is very nervous and worried about the launch going wrong. Other texts from the panel refer to the usual checks before the launch, whose end is to ensure everything is ready.

In the second panel, one of the people controlling the launch sees a "cool bird" on the {{w|Closed-circuit television|live feed}} from the cameras controlling the operation. This should be of no importance at all, given the relatively much more serious matter of having years of work and possibly human lives at stake. However, the technical staff starts commenting on this cool bird and aborts the launch procedure as they are interested in the bird. This behavior would be absurd in real life.{{Citation needed}}

In the third panel, the two controllers attempt to identify the bird; the one on the right guesses maybe it is a {{w|Hawk|hawk}}. Since the habitat of hawks and {{w|Vulture|vultures}} overlap almost entirely, a birdwatcher is almost certain to accidentally confuse the two in their lifetime of birdwatching. Obviously having this knowledge of the habitat overlap, the controller on the left asks if the bird was a vulture. The controller on the right accurately notes that it probably was not a vulture since it is commonly known to ornithologists that vultures "hold their wings slightly raised in a "V" when seen head on."[http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Turkey_Vulture/id]. However, this demands that the original sighting of the bird must have included a flight pattern in which the bird not only "flew past the tower" as stated, but also flew towards the tower... even cooler!

The title text goes on with the same absurd behavior: the crew restarts the countdown to launch the rocket, but only to follow the bird and get a closer look at it. The original space mission the rocket was designed for is completely ignored. This is even more absurd than the initial interest in the bird, given that a rocket designed to enter outer space is ill equipped to try to follow a bird and maneuver at the low elevation and at the relatively slow speed of a bird.

This could also be a joke in the well known fanaticism of ''serious'' bird watchers, who think nothing of spur of the moment day long road trips (or flights!) in order to get to view an unusual bird.

The vehicle pictured is not clearly identified, and it could also be totally fictional. It could be the {{w|Atlas V}} or the {{w|Ariane 4}} launch vehicle. It also shows some similarity with the {{w|Falcon_Heavy|SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy}} launch vehicle (albeit with stubbier strap-on boosters), named after the {{w|Falcon}}, another bird of prey. This would increase the absurdity of the situation.

The bird being referred to by the launch-crew features as a mere mark on the comic-strip, consistent with scale against the rocket, but they are obviously trying to start to identify the rough species or group it belongs to from the {{w|Bird_flight#Wing_shape_and_flight|wing geometry}}, the effortlessly soaring carrion-seeking vulture and the hawk that often uses a swooping attack upon its prey typically having very different wing configurations as matches their evolved lifestyle.

==Transcript==
:[A rocket is about to launch. A small object is near the top of the rocket.]
:Countdown: ''T-Minus 2 minutes''
:Offscreen Voice 1: Tank and booster are go for launch.
:Offscreen Voice 2: Safety console?
:Offscreen Voice 3: Check. Safety-
:Offscreen Voice 4: Wait.

:[The small object moves to further to the right.]
:Offscreen Voice 1: What is it?
:Offscreen Voice 2: On the live feed- a cool bird just flew past the tower!

:[The launch scene now a background silhouette, the small object of everyone's attention is no longer on-panel.]
:Offscreen Voice 1: Whoa, what kind?
:Offscreen Voice 2: Like a hawk, maybe!
:Offscreen Voice 1: Could it be a vulture?
:Offscreen Voice 2: I doubt it. The wings were flat, not in a "V".
:Offscreen Voice 3: It could be an eagle!
:Offscreen Voice 2: Ooh!

:[The scene is returns to full contrast, with at least a token attention being paid to it, once more.]
:Offscreen Voice 1: This is launch control. We have a possible sighting of a cool bird. Halt the countdown.
:Offscreen Voice 2: Someone get some binoculars up here!
:Offscreen Voice 3: I want to see!

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

Talk:1775: Things You Learn

2017-09-11T23:55:40Z

162.158.79.71:

But if you don't clean the lint trap then you did start the fire.

Sorry, I'll get my coat.

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.183|141.101.98.183]] 16:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, we put your coat in the dryer, and it was lost in the fire we didn't start. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.17|108.162.238.17]] 17:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)



This explains why my dryer keeps bursting into flames.
And why no insurance agencies will even consider letting me get homeowner's. [[User:Fox Holmes|While most people have mass on Saturday, I have mine relative to my inertia]] ([[User talk:Fox Holmes|talk]]) 16:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor objection with the comic, but in my experience, it's easier to grow up without knowing about taxes than stop, drop and roll. My 5 year old has learned stop, drop and roll in kindergarten, but nothing about taxes. I have a similar recollection of my childhood. It wasn't until my first job as a teenager that I paid any attention to it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.94|162.158.214.94]] 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

* Your 5-year-old hasn't finished growing up, and arguably when you got your first job "as a teenager" you hadn't finished growing up either. The question is whether it's harder to reach adulthood without encountering the concept of "stop, drop and roll" or without encountering the concept that "you have to pay taxes". (Which would include sales taxes.) I could easily see people who are homeschooled not being exposed to "stop, drop and roll", but if they're not exposed to taxes, then after failing to file they'll learn! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.34|108.162.241.34]] 22:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

<blockquote>"Most residents of most countries are legally obligated to pay, '''or at least file''', their taxes annually"</blockquote>

This note is quite US centric, as I don't believe this is true of most countries. At the very least, this is certainly not the case in most of Europe - taxes are not filed manually if you're a standard employee and not the owner of your own business, in which case it would be perfectly possible to grow up without ever learning how to do this. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.64|162.158.38.64]] 17:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
:Indeed in countries that use such PAYE systems, it's not that harmful to not know either. You just get paid less than you might have thought if you just looked at the gross salary [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.132|141.101.98.132]] 18:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

More of an informational comment....I'm a veterinarian, and I know of at least two colleagues who have been exposed to rabies via litters of kittens, only a few weeks old. If you are bitten by a dog or cat which has not been vaccinated, then the standard around here (legal requirement) is that the critter be kept under quarantine at an animal hospital or government shelter with a vet on premises every day, for ten days, being examined for any sign of rabies at the start and end of the quarantine period. A dog or cat can be transmitting rabies before they show definite signs, but if they were infected at the time of the bite, they'll be showing signs by the end of the ten days. The only other way to be sure they weren't rabid is to microscopically examine their brain, and that can only be done if they're not using it any more (note that freezing makes it untestable). In other words, I'm very glad that the kitten is fine, and I really really hope that it continues to do fine for another ten days, and that the doc who saw Randall knew what needs to be done. [[User:CritterKeeper|CritterKeeper]] ([[User talk:CritterKeeper|talk]]) 19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Could we have some info on cat bites. The fear seemed dubious to me, but I'm no expert. UK's NHS [[http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02February/Pages/Dangers-of-cat-bites-overstated-by-media.aspx seems]] to imply a misinterpretation of facts --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.100|162.158.150.100]] 23:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I'm 32 and I STILL don't know the words to The Twelve Days of Christmas because IT'S DIFFERENT EVERY TIME I HEAR THEM FROM A DIFFERENT PERSON! - [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.58|162.158.214.58]] 08:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
:Twelve drummers drumming
:Eleven pipers piping
:Ten lords a leaping
:Nine ladies dancing
:Eight maids a milking
:Seven swans a swimming
:Six geese a laying
:FIVE GOLDEN RINGS
:Four calling birds
:Three french hens
:Two turtle doves
:And a partriiidge in a peear treeeee
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Days_of_Christmas_(song) [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 04:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop, Drop, Roll might be a US thing - grown up in the UK and I've never heard that until today. Do kids tend to catch fire a lot over there? I have to say, barring Claudia Winkleman's daughter, I can't remember much press ever about children getting burnt, and even then the issues always seem to have focused around the quality of the fabric and regulating the fire-retardant properties of children's clothes (e.g. BS 5722 for nightwear)? Has there been some historic media hysteria on this subject in the US? {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.59}}
: Was thinking the same. Never heard of "Stop, Drop and Roll" either (growing up in Germany). Never had been taught to "Duck and Cover", either. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.100|162.158.202.100]] 12:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

: America is safety conscious in the weirdest ways. E. G., we teach stop drop and roll, but not a more practical explanation of how to really prevent home fires (the only fire prevention stuff I can remember as a kid is how to prevent forest fires). I work in a school, and parents threw a hiss fit when the front doors weren't locked and thus they worried about their child's safety. The doors are glass.
What I'm essentially trying to say is America makes no sense. [[User:Fox Holmes|While most people have mass on Saturday, I have mine relative to my inertia]] ([[User talk:Fox Holmes|talk]]) 12:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

::It's from a series of PSAs they did back in the late 80s, early 90s I think, but has gotten to be a sort-of easy thing to teach to little kids in general. <Teacher> 'What do you do if your clothes catch on fire?' <Class> 'Stop, Drop, and Roll!' -Graptor [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.112|162.158.75.112]] 16:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised that hiding under your school desk if there is an atomic bomb attack wasn't included somewhere. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]])

:They don't teach that anymore.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.53|108.162.246.53]] 04:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

12 Days of Christmas is wrong, nobody remembers the nine ladies dancing [citation needed] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.17|108.162.238.17]] 14:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

So wait, does the comic refer to how difficult it is to grow up while avoiding something (as in it's basically everywhere and you'd have to be *really* ignorant to not notice it), or how difficult it is to live a normal life without knowing a required skill (as in you're just screwed)?
Or something.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.71|162.158.79.71]] 23:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1201: Integration by Parts

2017-09-04T04:19:05Z

162.158.79.71: I have no idea what you just said, but nonetheless: please sign your comments.

I think the joke is that's not the full explanation.
--[[Special:Contributions/128.113.151.84|128.113.151.84]] 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
: Exactly; he omits the final step part of the process: ∫udv= uv - ∫vdu. This is only helpful if you can easily obtain v from ∫dv and can integrate ∫vdu . The key trick is picking u and dv properly; it's rarely as easy as saying u = f(x) and v=g(x)dx. So the joke is that he's treating integration by parts as if it's a "magic rule" on the order of the product rule for differentiation, when it's not. [[Special:Contributions/66.202.132.250|66.202.132.250]] 21:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I think this is it. It's funny because the described conversation happens universally every time someone who's not a full-blown math teacher tries to explain IBP to someone else. You just sort of hit this humiliating brick wall if you haven't comprehensively studied it. I'd also like to point out if u = v = x then dv = dx, f(x) = x, g(x) = 1 and your original integral was just ∫x dx to begin with (you wouldn't need IBP in the first place). [[User:Echo Seven|Echo Seven]] ([[User talk:Echo Seven|talk]]) 01:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the joke that it's only PART of a guide to integration by parts? Ergo, integration by parts by parts? {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.134}}

Not the full explanation?But what exactly is the joke here?It takes a lot of practice to be able to do integration sums correctly.[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 05:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the joke is rather “which definitely looks easier” — that’s how mathematics is generally perceived by non-mathematicians: You rewrite something, state that it looks easier / more beautiful / more elegant — which the non-mathematician usually perceives differently — and even if it does, you’re not a tad nearer to the answer. --[[Special:Contributions/84.191.162.248|84.191.162.248]] 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic integration ALWAYS require experience and trial-and-error, which is flustrating given that the reverse process - derivation - can be described with simple alghorithm and done mechanically. I heart that derivation is easy as geting toothpaste out of tube and integration is reverse process ... meaning its as hard as puting the toothpaste back into tube. The reason is that there is simple rule for derivation of product, whereas integration of product is usually done by GUESSING the product which will derivate into given integral (which is what integration by parts actually is, only reformulated to sound little easier). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

: By using the term ''derivation'', you mean it as the same as the term ''differentiation'', correct? I've never used the term derivation before. I like it, it's shorter. If so, YES, integration of products is WAY harder. 'u' substitutions alone are a pain - having a 'v' substitution as well requires a lot of hard work and trial and error... {{unsigned|Dangerkeith3000}}

::Ummm ... the term is shorter but I'm not sure if it's correct, I'm not native english speaker. Wikipedia redirects {{w|Differentiation_(mathematics)|differentiation to derivative}} and there is {{w|Partial_derivative|partial derivative}}, but {{w|Derivation_(abstract_algebra)|derivation}} may have little different meaning in english. What I meant was the process of finding partial derivative (compared to {{w|Symbolic_integration|symbolic integration}}, to have the exact definitions complete ... assuming the wikipedia itself have it correct). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

''Oh, and add a '+C' or you'll get yelled at.''
Best part. This is something I experienced many times in my first semester of mathematics for scientists.
The joke seems to me to be the presentation of the idea accurately; after the initial step, there's no real advice to give. Good luck is the best you can hope for. [[Special:Contributions/49.176.36.57|49.176.36.57]] 12:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Cripes, to do something by parts means to do something without enthusiasm or leave something incomplete. The joke is that he didn't complete the explanation! [[Special:Contributions/124.189.64.231|124.189.64.231]]

The title text refers to a ridiculously specific case (integrating x), which would not normally be done using integration by parts. This suggests that the narrator is pretending to know more about integration by parts than he actually does, which would explain why he left in such a hurry. [[User:Concomitant|Concomitant]] ([[User talk:Concomitant|talk]]) 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

: "''If you can manage to choose u and v such that u = v = x, then ...''"
It seems to me the problem here is in making such a choice. Suppose f(''x'') = ''x''^2, and g(''x'') = sin(''x''). How to split that?

Not only did he not complete the explanation -- he didn't really start it! All he did was describe how to convert from one of the *notation* systems for differential calculus, to the other. [[Special:Contributions/184.144.110.31|184.144.110.31]] 01:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I would prefer the more sophmoric answer of (1/2)x^2 - C. After all the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, correct? [[Special:Contributions/66.88.136.254|66.88.136.254]] 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:I personally prefer (1/2)x^2 - C^2 because we can use the difference of squares factorization. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Sure, but if you square the (variable) constant, then any result like (1/2)x^2+2 is impossible. Unless you really like complex numbers, of course - but most integration is done for functions which have "real" x. So the variant "(1/2)x^2-C" is "more correct" for the majority of people ;-) {{unsigned ip|91.89.211.18}}
::How about (1/2)x^2 - C^10497 then? --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 19:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

:as an altruistic individual, for everyone learning integration by parts, please look up both LIATE and tabular integration. You'll thank me later. [[Special:Contributions/99.20.64.64|99.20.64.64]] 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
::Is is ILATE,(as I learned it).[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 12:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I just finished a summer Calculus I course. You have no idea how it felt to actually recognize what Randall was doing for the first time. Wow. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 00:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(u)n (d)ia (v)i (u)n(v)aliente (S)oldado (v)estido (d)e (u)niforme {{unsigned ip|198.41.226.160}}

1684: Rainbow

2017-09-03T23:34:17Z

162.158.79.71: /* Explanation */ Clarification on the Earth-fire event. Plus, [citation needed].

{{comic
| number = 1684
| date = May 23, 2016
| title = Rainbow
| image = rainbow.png
| titletext = Listen, in a few thousand years you'll invent a game called 'SimCity' which has a 'disaster' button, and then you'll understand.
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic the patriarch {{w|Noah}}, from the {{w|Abrahamic religions}} represented by [[Cueball]], talks to {{w|God}} after {{w|Genesis flood narrative|the biblical flood}}. He asks what the coloured band across the sky is, and God tells him it is a {{w|rainbow}}. According to the Book of Genesis, God placed {{w|Rainbows in mythology|a rainbow}} in the sky, giving it significance for the first time, as a promise to humanity that he would never again make a flood to cleanse the world of sin ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%209:2-9:17&version=KJV Genesis 9:2–17]). A {{w|rainbow}} is an {{w|optical phenomena|optical phenomenon}} caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a {{w|spectrum}} of light appearing in the sky, one of many light phenomena caused by sunlight and precipitation.

Then Noah notices a {{w|Rainbow#Variations|double rainbow}} outside the original ''promise rainbow''. Secondary rainbows are caused by double reflection of sunlight inside the raindrops. When asked about this God seems to falter, but recovers and claims he made it to show that he will never again set the Earth on fire, an event which apparently happened long ago and for which God apologizes. This may refer to the early Earth being a liquid ball of molten rock (the {{w|Hadean|Hadean period}}), or later global fire catastrophes caused by asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions. That God promises to never again burn the earth goes against the idea of {{w|Armageddon}} where everything will be destroyed in fire etc.

Noah begins to notice some other optical phenomena as he next spots a bow near the sun. God promptly claims 'that' bow is a promise to never again make {{w|raccoons}} {{w|Immortality|immortal}} as it destroyed the Earth's {{w|ecosystem}}. Although today these animals can be a pest, see [[1565: Back Seat]], they are luckily not immortal.{{Citation needed] [[Randall]] is likely referring to an unkillable form of immortality rather than {{w|biological immortality}}, as, while that would likely cause some issues, the raccoons could still fall prey to predation and disease. Should raccoons have been rendered unkillable by predation or disease as well as by {{w|Senescence|aging}}, then the combination of an average gestational period of 65 days, a litter size of 2-5 individuals, and an omnivorous appetite makes for a creature that could easily dominate any and all ecological niches.

If Noah can see it with his naked eyes it is most likely that the "third bow" is a {{w|Halo (optical phenomenon)|halo}}. Halos can appear in the direction of the Sun (as is the case with the bow here, and opposed to the two rainbows mentioned above) or the Moon. A typical person is most likely to notice the {{w|22° halo|circular 22° halo}}, which is a halo forming a circle with a radius of approximately 22° around the Sun, or occasionally the Moon.

It could also be that Noah has spotted a tertiary rainbow or even a higher order rainbow which are very faint rainbows circling the sun. These bows are discussed in the ''what If?'' released the same day. But they are very faint rainbows circling the sun and usually obscured by its glare, and only recently have they been photographed. Knowing Randall the joke could be inspired by this not well known fact (there are at least 5 observable orders of rainbow), and each could potentially represent a promise from God regarding a disaster.

Noah continues by noticing two {{w|sun dogs}} (or parahelia) which often co-occur with the 22° halo. These consist of a pair of bright spots either side on the Sun, intersected by the halo, thus making it most obvious that the third bow was indeed a halo, not a hard to see rainbow.

God gets tired of this and tries to stop Noah by saying that he has said sorry, and asks him to drop the subject. That is probably sensible because there are 23 different {{w|Optical_phenomena#Atmospheric_optical_phenomena|atmospheric optical phenomena}} listed on Wikipedia alone. Following the logic of the comic and the evasive answer of God, it could mean that there are some more skeletons in the closet.

The title text is a continuation where God tells Noah that in the future humanity will invent a game called {{w|SimCity}}. This is a strategy computer game in which the player creates and manages an environment wherein ''sims'' autonomously build a city (or in later versions a country, or a planet). The sims are simple AI processes that "build" residential, commercial and industrial structures within the game space, according to the topography and zoning choices made by the player, then use them to create more wealth to expand their city. The sims have to contend with traffic jams, social problems, and ecological impacts of their own activity, and occasional natural disasters ranging from earthquakes to Godzilla.

The player has God-like control of the world, including a [http://www.ign.com/wikis/simcity/Disasters disaster button], for when the player doesn't want to wait for a disaster to happen by chance. God suggests that it is too tempting to push the disaster button once a civilization has been built up, if just to see what happens. This can also be interpreted as a reference to the {{w|Simulation Hypothesis}}, which states that there's a high likelihood of us living in a simulated universe, with a falliable "God" who's simulating our Universe purely for his own entertainment/educational purposes.

Overall the comic pokes fun at the idea of explaining natural phenomena as messages from a deity.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball looks up on a rainbow band going through the top right corner of the panel. A black blob in the bottom of the panel right of Cueball with white text inside shows the reply from God to the questions. The blobs continue through the rest of the comic.]
:Cueball: Wow, God- What's that band of color?
:God: A ''rainbow''.
:God: It is a sign of my promise that I will never again flood the Earth.

:[A frameless panel.]
:Cueball: Oh, good! Hey, what about that second bow above the first one?
:God: Oh, uh, sign of my promise not to set the earth on fire.
:God: Sorry for doing that a while back.

:[Cueball points left.]
:Cueball: What about that third faint bow near the sun?
:God: My promise to never again destroy Earth's ecosystem by making raccoons immortal.

:[Cueball points even higher up towards left.]
:Cueball: And the little rainbow clouds on either side of-
:God: Look, I ''said'' I'm sorry. Can we just drop it?

==Trivia==
*This comic about {{w|rainbows}} coincided with the first release of a [[what if?]] in almost two months. It was called ''{{what if|150|Tatooine Rainbow}}'' about rainbows if Earth had two suns like the fictive planet {{w|Tatooine}} from Star Wars.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Video games]]
[[Category:Animals]]

1824: Identification Chart

2017-04-14T04:12:08Z

162.158.79.71: changed bird and insect text to just read animal

{{comic
| number = 1824
| date = April 14, 2017
| title = Identification Chart
| image = identification_chart.png
| titletext = Be careful-it's breeding season, and some of these can be *extremely* defensive of their nests.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Commonly, aircraft are named after {{w|bird of prey|birds of prey}}. This comic presents an "identification guide" of silhouettes, each with the {{w|fuselage}} of an aircraft and the wings of the animal from which the aircraft gets its name.

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

{{comic discussion}}

1824: Identification Chart

2017-04-14T04:09:00Z

162.158.79.71: fixed broken characters in alt text

{{comic
| number = 1824
| date = April 14, 2017
| title = Identification Chart
| image = identification_chart.png
| titletext = Be careful-it's breeding season, and some of these can be *extremely* defensive of their nests.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Commonly, aircraft are named after {{w|bird of prey|birds of prey}}. This comic presents an "identification guide" of silhouettes, each with the {{w|fuselage}} of an aircraft and the wings of the bird from which the aircraft gets its name.

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

{{comic discussion}}