explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1775: Things You Learn

2018-09-03T19:24:55Z

172.68.59.24: /* Explanation */ Fix: transporation -> transportation

{{comic
| number = 1775
| date = December 21, 2016
| title = Things You Learn
| image = things_you_learn.png
| titletext = Guess who has two thumbs and spent the night in an ER after trying to rescue a kitten that ran under his car at a stoplight and climbed up into the engine compartment? And, thanks to antibiotics, will continue having two thumbs? THIS GUY. (P.S. kitten is safe!)
}}

==Explanation==
This graph shows various items of information plotted by two criteria: a horizontal "How Bad Is It If You Don't Know [THING]" axis and a vertical "How Easy It Is To Grow Up Without Learning [THING]" axis. Specifically, the vertical axis measures roughly how likely the average person is to remain ignorant of a particular item. The horizontal axis measures the likelihood and severity of bad consequences arising from such ignorance.

The title text describes an encounter Randall had where a cat climbed into the engine compartment of his car. It probably serves as an explanation for the seemingly out of place point on the graph about how serious cat bites are. The "two thumbs" is a reference to a well known type of jokes among English speakers. One of the most frequent forms is one person interrupting another mid-speech and asking "what has two thumbs and doesn't give a f*ck? THIS GUY!", before pointing to themselves with their thumbs. The idea is that you only direct the attention to your thumbs so that they can point back to you, though mentioning the thumbs was not actually required except as a topic change. Randall plays on an inversion of this joke as he (presumably) was bitten on the thumb might have {{w|Amputation|lost a thumb}} or perhaps not have been able to make it at all without the intervention of the ER people. So here the "who has two thumbs", is not a deceiving distraction out of a boring conversation, and the thumbs are actually the focus of the phrase.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Ignorance is Bad !! Ignorance is Easy !! Information !! Comments
|-
| not bad || (very, very) easy || 100 digits of {{w|pi}} || Most people know pi to only a few digits (3.14 or 3.1416). The latter is accurate to almost one part in half a million, which is close enough for almost any practical purpose.
|-
| not bad || (very) easy || Lyrics to "{{w|We Didn't Start the Fire}}" || "We Didn't Start the Fire" is a 1989 hit song by Billy Joel. Its lyrics include brief, rapid-fire allusions to more than 100 headline events between 1949, the year of Joel's birth, and 1989. While the chorus is memorable, the verses of the song are just a list of people, events and random things from popular culture. The average person is somewhat more likely to know the lyrics to Billy Joel's 1989 hit song than 100 digits of pi, but not knowing them doesn't really have any serious consequences. This song was again the pun in the title text of [[1794: Fire]], which was a follow up to comic #4 in [[821: Five-Minute Comics: Part 3]].
|-
| (very) bad || (very) easy || That cat bites are really serious and if bitten you need to wash the bite and call a doctor immediately || Most people assume that a cat bite is just a minor injury. In fact, it carries a fairly high risk of infection, which can be dangerous if not treated (by cleaning the bite to reduce the risk, and having a doctor examine the bite victim and apply additional treatments such as antibiotics if needed). At the same time, cat bites are quite rare, as cats default to their claws rather than their teeth when they need to attack something (not that cat claws are bacteria-free zones either, quite the opposite), so most people simply don't have to deal with many cat bites.
|-
| (very, very) bad || (very) easy || The red flags for an abusive relationship || It is fairly easy for someone to fall into a pattern of accepting abuse (particularly if the abuser is skilled at emotional manipulation) without realizing it, and the consequences can be mentally and physically devastating.
|-
| (very, very) bad || easy || The {{w|Stroke#Signs_and_symptoms|signs of a stroke}} || The symptoms of a {{w|stroke}} are somewhat variable, including facial drooping, arm weakness and slurred speech, depending on what areas of the brain are affected, and can be mistaken for other conditions. Identifying a stroke quickly and seeking treatment can make the difference between life and death, or between full recovery and permanent impairment.
|-
| bad || easy || Cough into your elbow, not your hand || Covering a cough with the inside of your elbow helps prevent spreading airborne germs and is generally recommended by medical organisations. Coughing into your hand deposits them onto your hand, where they are much more likely to be spread to another person (via handshake, food preparation, shared objects, etc)
|-
| not (too) bad || hard || How to ride a bike || Most children, especially in the United States[http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/participation-statistics#youth], learn to ride a bike at a fairly young age. While this is a useful skill to know for both entertainment and transportation, it would generally not be terrible to not learn this skill, particularly if other forms of transportation are readily available.
|-
| not bad (at all) || hard || How to escape movie {{w|quicksand}} || Quicksand in movies is a common trope, and while its physics often differ from real quicksand, escaping from it is commonly done using similar methods (e.g., not struggling, which increases the quicksand's viscosity). Knowing how to escape from quicksand is important if you sink into it, which is a situation most people are very unlikely to encounter in real life. It is much more likely for characters in movies and TV shows, especially in the 1960s, to encounter and become mired in quicksand than for a real individual to do so as real quicksand is a rare occurrence in most climates on Earth.
|-
| not bad (at all) || (very) hard || Lyrics to "{{w|The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)|12 Days of Christmas}}" || Hearing the same Christmas songs over and over each year makes it hard not to learn the lyrics over time. However, the consequences of not doing so are minimal; at most, ignorance of popular culture may leave your friends [[1769|a bit surprised and dismayed]]. Note that this only refers to learning the lyrics of the "Twelve Days of Christmas," not learning all the lyrics. Most people do not know many of the combination once one gets substantially past five. It is very hard to avoid learning some of the lyrics (especially One and Five), but easy to not know many of the later random ones (such as Eight or Eleven).
|-
| not bad (at all) || (very, very) hard || {{w|Theme music|TV theme songs}} || Most children in developed countries grow up watching at least some television. Many of these television shows play the same theme song before the show starts, and many of these have catchy lyrics. Therefore, by repetition, most children will learn at least one of these growing up, and often many.
|-
| bad || hard || That you have to empty the dryer lint trap || A {{w|clothes dryer}} resembles a washing machine, using hot air to heat clothes so that the water evaporates more quickly.

The dryer's air exhaust and air filter get gradually covered with {{w|lint (material)|lint}} (a kind of dust composed mainly of fiber) and must be cleaned regularly. Failing to remove the lint can cause the dryer to stop working effectively, introduce lint back onto your clothes, or (in extreme cases) start a fire.
|-
| (very) bad || (very) hard || {{w|Stop, drop and roll}} || This is a technique to extinguish a fire on one's own clothing, and is frequently taught to children for safety. Not knowing it (or forgetting it in a panic when the situation arises) can result in severe burns that could have been avoided by following the recommendation.
|-
| (very) bad || (very) hard || That you have to pay taxes || Most residents of most countries are legally obligated to pay taxes to their government. Penalties for not doing so often include large fines, and possibly prison sentences. Fortunately, it is something that children hear about quite a bit so it is very difficult to grow up without learning that it must be done.
|-
|}

==Rankings==

100% not bad: not bad at all . . . 100%>not-badness≥50%: not bad . . . 50%>not-badness≥0%: not too bad

100% very bad: very, very bad . . . 100%>very badness≥50%: very bad . . . 50%>very badness>0%: bad

100% hard: very, very hard . . . 100%>hardness≥50%: very hard . . . 50%>hardness>0%: hard

100% easy: very, very easy . . . 100%>easiness≥50%: very easy . . . 50%>easiness≥0%: easy

==Transcript==
:[A simple X and Y graph, with the X labeled "how bad it is if you don't know {thing}" and ranging from "not bad" to "very bad", and Y labeled "how easy it is to grow up without learning {thing}" and ranging from "easy" to "hard" from top to bottom.]

:[Points on graph from top to bottom on the left side of the Y-axis:]

:100 digits of pi
:Lyrics to ''We Didn't Start the Fire''
:How to ride a bike
:How to escape movie quicksand
:Lyrics to ''12 Days of Christmas''
:TV theme songs

:[Points on graph from top to bottom on the right side of the Y-axis:]

:That cat bites are really serious and if bitten you should wash the bite and call a doctor immediately
:Red flags for an abusive relationship
:Signs for a stroke
:Cough into your elbow, not your hand
:That you have to empty the dryer lint trap
:Stop, drop, and roll
:That you have to pay taxes

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:2030: Voting Software

2018-08-11T14:41:48Z

172.68.59.24:

I think this comic is referencing [https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1026603800365330432 this twitter thread] and the controversy behind it.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.190.4|172.69.190.4]] 17:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
: The [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/experts-criticize-west-virginias-plan-for-smartphone-voting/ Experts criticize West Virginia’s plan for smartphone voting] article on ArsTechnica has more information (as much as possible when the company in question does not provide any details (note that it is about overseas voting). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 19:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Is he saying it's weird that we're so sophisticated in other areas of computer science but so far behind in voting technology, or is he making fun of the idea that electronic voting is somehow inherently unsafe?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.106|108.162.216.106]] 18:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
: No i think he is saying computer science is a mess and we should not trust it with voting(he is not making fun of the idea of it being unsafe, he is pressing on the point of it being unsafe[saying that all experts agree on that])18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

: I think he's commenting on how in most fields, the experts are very sure that they do their job well, and all the angles have been tried and tested, but in computer science the experts are more certain than anyone that there is ''absolutely no way'' for a person to actually build a complex software system with no flaws or vulnerabilities, even if they controlled every aspect of the system. in practice of course they control very little of the system and understand even less of it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.88|172.68.34.88]] 18:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

: He's saying that software development is a terribly buggy process, most likely because the majority of software out there can have bugs without very dire real-world consequences (unlike aircraft or elevators).

::Not to mention the fact that there are incredibly smart people with great interest in undoing the work that software developers do, whereas that isn't at all the case with airplanes or elevators. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.214|108.162.219.214]] 18:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:: Plus there's the general issue that the public as a whole takes the view that "Computers are majykal" (misspelling deliberate) and therefore somehow automatically safe & infallible, despite experts trying very hard to disillusion people about...pretty much all of that. Compare that to the common assumptions about aircraft and elevators--people need the safety verified, instead of assuming it like they do with computers. [[User:Werhdnt|Werhdnt]] ([[User talk:Werhdnt|talk]]) 19:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:::There's a logical fallacy here. To compare airplaneS and elevatorS to a voting system program is comparing plural to singular. There would be significant opportunity to break/modify a single instance of those objects, although without the relative anonymity of electronic access involved. Once a computer system is infiltrated, the break-in can be replicated to all instances of that program relatively instantaneously, assuming communication pathways are available.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.130|162.158.75.130]] 19:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

::::No logical fallacy; there have been ''multiple'' attempts to get people to accept a voting system program, and the 'done by a computer=infallible' problem is '''''not''''' unique to voting programs. Mr. Babbage was being confused by people who were thinking it was possible to get the correct answers from a computer despite putting the wrong data in back in the 1860s (at least!), and the computer at the time was not much more than a fancy calculator. [[User:Werhdnt|Werhdnt]] ([[User talk:Werhdnt|talk]]) 20:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A blockchain node doesn't technically need to be connected to the internet in order to function. It needs to have some method for receiving messages from other nodes on the blockchain network, and most blockchain nodes do indeed get these messages via the internet, but some magic beans nodes (for example) get updates about new blocks and new transactions from the Blockstream satellite. An internet connection is therefore not intrinsically necessary for a blockchain to work, it's just the most convenient way to do it.

:::: The blockstream satellite is an internet, just a different media. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 14:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that this comic had anything to do with the debacle in Johnson County, KS last night? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.231|162.158.62.231]] 19:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The comic ignores the fact that modern airplanes are heavily utilizing software of all kinds. A software failure in an aircraft could easily be fatal (and have been so various times in history already, while the consequences of a voting software working incorrect are ''relatively'' harmless), and still airplanes remain safe, as the comic recognizes. --[[User:YMS|YMS]] ([[User talk:YMS|talk]]) 21:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:Airplanes are not connected to internet and reasonably well protected from people putting their USB devices in their control system. Also, they are NOT build by lowest bid contractor. There ARE people now capable of building offline voting machine which would be reasonable secure. They are working in banks and stock exchanges and at those companies providing switches for internet backbone, are extremely well paid and wouldn't ever promise they will get the machine finished in single year. Noone asks THEM to make the voting machines. Voting over internet? With consumer-grade devices? Impossible. (I'm also working in IT, although not on mentioned high-security systems.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

::Note that she is talking to aircraft designers, not to software engineers working on fly-by-wire systems (back when I took software engineering you got an answer similar to the one about voting machines when discussing fly-by-wire). I took this more as the aircraft designers glossing over the problems caused by software engineering. A voting system which uses paper ballots, with perhaps computer systems used for some stages of counting would be a reasonable analogy to the redundant systems used in aircraft. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.228|162.158.106.228]] 23:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that the last panel references the E.T for Atari Desert Burial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial), perhaps to draw some analogy as to the potential quality or likelihood of success of a Block-chain solution as compared to the ill-fated video game. Anyone think that's worth explaining? [[User:Da_NKP|Da_NKP]] 10:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Da_NKP

What motive is there to "mine DemocracyCoin"? Who evaluates this blockchain? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.100|162.158.150.100]] 22:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
:That's simple, ideally it would be a private blockchain, and the evaluators would just be every voting computer in existence (They'd all be active for a similar fairly short time period). Presumably the evaluations would be ongoing during the voting process, then could be stopped once voting was complete. The last few votes of the night may not wind up being evaluated. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.225|162.158.74.225]]
::"The last few votes of the night may not wind up being evaluated" Thats horrifying. That alone should prove how terrible of an idea this is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.181|162.158.154.181]] 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to run said blockchain on one's personal computer, instead of running on a voting machine? and you could compile open source software yourself to perform the voting. That sounds like a solid enough way to keep security fine to me, but if I'm missing something, please tell me. [[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 03:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
:The bigger challenge in a voting system isn't making sure someone doesn't modify the record, it's making sure that each person only votes once and only for themselves -- think about past internet voting campaigns: Justin Bieber wasn't sent to North Korea by *changed* votes, but rather by flooding the system with *bogus* votes. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.47|172.68.132.47]] 06:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
::To be a bit clearer, magic beans (for example), doesn't and can't enforce that wallets correspond one-to-one with people -- multiple people can share a wallet (if they all know the private key), and one person can have multiple wallets. If you want to guarantee one-to-one correspondence, you have to validate identities and issue unique, signed keys at some prior point. Leaving aside whether or not it's possible to do this part securely and without error (and how big of a target the root signing key would be), you then have millions of people doing their own key management, just like you do with magic beans. When magic beans wallets are stolen en masse by key compromises (which does happen), only the wallet owners (who were ostensibly using poor security practices which allowed the compromise) suffer, so the harm is limited. If voting system keys were stolen en masse, but the votes still counted, society as a whole would likely suffer. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.47|172.68.132.47]] 07:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think a problem that lies within voting machines is that a single flaw can and will be exploited along all machines.
You wouldn't enter a plane if one plane crashing means that all other planes will crash too.

I am not American and not so inside American politics and its system, but I think there right now is (or just was) some kind of vote in Ohio? Randalls other comic about voting machines, ([[463]])references Ohio directly as well. Even if not, that comic should definitely be referenced here. If no one else does I will in a few hours when I come home from work. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
:There was a special election for Ohio's 12th Congressional District on Tuesday to fill in a vacant spot in the US House of Representatives, yes. I hadn't heard anything specifically about any issues with Ohio's voting machines, though I do somewhat vaguely remember Randall making a comic that expressed horror at the fact that a voting machine needed anti-virus software in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.154|162.158.63.154]] 12:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess this may be of interest for reasons why not to have electroni voting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.13|162.158.154.13]]

Wait, so I'm not into this *at all*, but a bunch of you seem to be, so:
paper ballot voting works because we can assume the humans we choose to count oue votes to be trustworthy. Imagine that as the digital voting device, we use a cheapo Chinaphone. We remove any parts needed for wireless connection, and all USB ports and AUX ports (which are the only ports on such a device) are filled with hot glue (so, destroyed). Some of them are designed in an awkward way where you have to take the backside off in order to access the SD card, which normally is disadvantageous, but now it means that you can use a sort of sturdy phone cover with a physical lock to make the SD card inaccessible to anyone not owning the key. The key is with the trustworthy human that would otherwise hold the key for the box the paper votes go in. You could glue or screw the charger to it, so it was always full and you couldn't put a USB stick into that port without breaking the actual thing - and the trustworthy voting office humans would notice that. If it saves all votes on some SD card, the humans we trust to work for the voting can take the SD cards out, and bring them to a central computer that also has no wireless parts, and some trustworthy humans watching the SD ports. That central computer saves all the votes and counts them.
If you doctor with paper votes, then you'd have to destroy them or there'd be evidence against you. Destroying them is not safe to do.
If something seems fishy, then paper votes can be recounted.
If you have a voting machine that only a trustworthy person has access to, then that means that this trustworthy person has to build every part of the machine from the smallest transistor on and also has to guard the machine the whole time. Because otherwise you could manipulate the machine in a way to count the votes wrong, but show correct results when you test it. Since this is completely unpractical in the end you'd have to count by hand anyway.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.251|162.158.91.251]] 12:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
:Or just use paper ballots. They have been a perfectly adequate solution for centuries, and will continue to do so forever (and no, the paper usage for voting is not really significant, compared to the paper usage overall). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.64|162.158.202.64]] 20:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
If also we delete any and all software and firmware on the phones and central computer, and replace it by a piece of software that can literally only show you a multiple choice screen with names of candidates and save what you clicked, that sounds quite safe.
Carrying the SD cards to the central computer would still take time, but we're carrying much smaller things so it might speed up somewhat (less stuff to haul around), and the voting can be done nearly as fast as the central computer can read in the SD cards.
No strange SD cards go into the central machine since they're carried by the same trustworthy human that counts the paper votes.

What things will go wrong? Zillions, I'm sure. But what zillions? I'm curious!

You could all reference Brazil for how an electronic voting system works. It changed in the late 90s after a major country-wide voting fraud scandal that revealed that most of the vote counters in the whole country were unreliable, partisan, bribed or all three; to the point any recount would bring a vastly different result. The Brazilian public lost all faith in the paper ballots and the Federal Electoral Tribunal had to implement an electronic voting system to reacquire voter trust in the voting system.

Twenty years later the public in general still trust the system more than the paper ballot but the losing side in presidential elections always cry afoul about the machines being tampered with (Even though the political parties that complained about fraud for losing the presidential election ended up winning the majority of the seats in both congress and senate, as well as state governships. But, you see, for those elections the system is foolproof, even though they're all done at the same time in the same voting machines.)
: Please sign your comments. The issue is a reduction of points of failure. In a paper ballot system, you have tens of thousands of humans being observed by each other and representatives of interested parties and judges doing the counting. A single malicious person would have to go to incredible effort to hide their miscountings, and then would only be able to change a hundred votes or so. In an electronic voting system, all it takes is one person to do an SD card swap and boom: tens of thousands of votes are changed. One person can change the code on the central counting system that reads the SD cards, and boom: millions of votes are changed. The fact that so much effort would be needed to change the result in a paper ballot system is a security feature. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.231|162.158.62.231]] 12:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
::And anyway, you're describing more or less [https://app.chicagoelections.com/documents/Judge-Handbook/EJ_Handbook_P2018_ch7.pdf what already happens] in an election. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.11|172.68.58.11]] 13:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2031: Pie Charts

2018-08-11T14:35:26Z

172.68.59.24:

I wonder if it is a coincidence that this came out the same week as Android Pie [[User:Zachweix|Zachweix]] ([[User talk:Zachweix|talk]]) 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

[[User:Zachweix|Zachweix]] [[Special:Diff/161046|seems]] to want to share this link: [https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/FOX-News-Chart-Fails-Math-73711092.html Fox News] --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 16:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
:What's wrong with the link? The link in that page is exactly the type of pie chart to which he is referring [[User:Zachweix|Zachweix]] ([[User talk:Zachweix|talk]]) 16:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

:: But that's the wrong place to put it. I'm not even sure that it fits anywhere in the article, but it ''definitely'' doesn't fit in the "who created this page" part of the "this page is incomplete" tag. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 17:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

::: Wrong just in the sense that it's a temporary place, but I think it adds to the humor of referring to Fox News in the "who created this page" piece. It might be appropriate to add it to a section of real world examples of published pie charts that fail the "mostly 100%" test (aside from trivial rounding errors). [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not a hyperbolic plane. It's more like a cone, but with more than 360 degrees instead of less. I don't know the proper term for it. It has curvature zero everywhere except the center, which is a singularity. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Any explanation of the title text? An example of the clipart would be great. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.54|172.68.47.54]] 00:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is a method to the madness guys, it looks like he just took an editor's warp tool and held it in place. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 14:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2029: Disaster Movie

2018-08-06T20:12:32Z

172.68.59.24:

s
DATASETS is one word.

2021: Software Development

2018-07-18T15:41:30Z

172.68.59.24: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2021
| date = July 18, 2018
| title = Software Development
| image = software_development.png
| titletext = Update: It turns out the cannon has a motorized base, and can make holes just fine using the barrel itself as a battering ram. But due to design constraints it won't work without a projectile loaded in, so we still need those drills.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an AUTOMATIC DRILL CANNON - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Software development is characterized by a lot of back and forth on requirements. Here, the requirement is to drill 500 holes in a wall. The software engineer (Cueball) has created a precision drill (some elegant software). As soon as he hands it off to Operations (Hairy), it gets deployed to the wall 500 times via a cannon. Part of the joke here is that they are making holes with drills by using them as bullets, rather than as, say for example, drills.

The casual disregard for the software itself is reminiscent of the idea of [https://devops.stackexchange.com/questions/653/what-is-the-definition-of-cattle-not-pets cattle not pets] when deploying to servers.

The title text is a joke about how often in software the best solution to a problem is a general one, rather than a specific one. See for example developers using Ruby on Rails (a full web framework with support for emails, templating, and web sockets) for a simple API-only service. They only need a very small part of rails (the hole drilling part), but end up with the whole framework anyway due to design limitations.

==Transcript==

'''[[Cueball]]:''' We need to make 500 holes in that wall, so I've built this automatic drill. It uses elegant precision gears to continually adjust its torque and speed as needed.

'''[[Hairy]]:''' Great, it's the perfect weight! We'll load 500 of them into the cannon we made and shoot them at the wall.

'''Caption:''' How Software Development Works

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Programming]]

Talk:2014: JWST Delays

2018-07-03T13:54:12Z

172.68.59.24:

Haha - I made this same graph 2 weeks ago! [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest the last sentence be made more general: "The title text refers to a fundamental question of the Big Bang Theory; will the universe expand forever, or will is collapse back on itself? The likely answer to this question has changed over the decades as new measurements have been made, and new theories such as dark matter and dark energy developed to explain the new measurements. Apparently, and for an analogous reason, between 2018 and 2020 the likely answer to the fundamental JWST question will change." [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
:I agree to the current sentence saying "and compares the universe’s accelerating expansion to the apparently ever-delaying schedule" but were the hell comes the conclusion that "the JWST will have enough delays to fill a universe"? This does not make any sense. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Does today's prediction of 2026 count? If that is included in the data set, it would then skew the best-fit line to be steeper. If a new prediction is made using that new best-fit line, that would further skew the line, and so on, causing the acceleration the title text anticipates between 2018 and 2020.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.88|162.158.63.88]] 20:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

> Until the slope of the line becomes more than one and the prediction goes to the past, right? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.16|108.162.216.16]] 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

:No, it doesn't count, because it's just '''prediction''', while the data set is of (official) '''planned launch dates'''. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

[[wikipedia:Heinz von Foerster#Doomsday equation|Von Foersters's doomsday]] is Friday 13th of November 2026. (cue Twilight Zone intro) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.175|162.158.89.175]] 21:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why does he keep saying it's 2021? Is he trying to skip Trump's term or what? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.10|172.68.211.10]] 00:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the same chart for the new airport in Berlin. Sadly its slope is not less than one, it is indeed accelerating... 
2006     2011 
2010     2012 
2012     2013 
2013     2014 
2014     2016 
2015     2018 
2016     2018 
2017     2022 
[[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 07:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel a quadratic regression would be needed to determine acceleration / deceleration [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.24|172.68.59.24]] 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)