explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2707: Astronomy Numbers

2022-12-06T04:06:03Z

172.69.22.146: revise and extend opinion

First time I've ever seen a completely blank page. [[User:IJustWantToEditStuff|IJustWantToEditStuff]] ([[User talk:IJustWantToEditStuff|talk]]) 20:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:Everyone's enthralled by ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.35|172.69.22.35]] 04:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's also notable that something weighting 12 solar masses will collapse into black hole on it's own, unless it resist collapse through thermal pressure like stars. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Earth moves relative to the sun at 66,000 MPH. In what frame of reference is it 65 MPH? It isn't like Randall to get a number wrong. Maybe the magnitude of the distance from Earth to Sun changes at a closer rate, but even this is nearly 180 MPH if I'm calculating correctly. [[User:Mannerisky|Mannerisky]] ([[User talk:Mannerisky|talk]]) 21:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
: You're thinking orbital speed, she's talking orbital oscillation. That is, the speed at which the distance between earth and sun changes. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.240|198.41.242.240]] 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC) ADDITION: Orbital oscillation has both a mean/average factor and a current factor (which is at it slowest while at the apsides, and given the context the one being calculated) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.85|198.41.242.85]] 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I get the sense that the thing that they're planning for January 1st is a precisely-timed new year's party and nothing to do with space exploration. {{unsigned|172.71.242.156}}

; Obligatory ChatGPT explanation

:'''Me:''' The following is a transcript from the latest xkcd comic. Please write an explanation of the comic: ''[transcript copied verbatim from [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2707:_Astronomy_Numbers&oldid=300614#Transcript its current state] omitted]''

:'''ChatGPT:''' In the xkcd comic, Ponytail and Cueball are discussing Earth's orbit around the sun. Ponytail notes that Earth will be approaching the sun at a rate of 65 miles per hour on January 1st. Cueball responds, "Weird?" Ponytail explains that they usually see only complex and incomprehensible numbers in astronomy, and seeing a "normal" number like 65 miles per hour feels wrong to them. This reflects the common perception that numbers in the sciences, especially astronomy, are often complex and difficult to understand. Earlier in the comic, Ponytail also expresses skepticism at a "normal" number when Megan in coat tells them that their cat weighs 12 lbs. Ponytail suggests that it must actually weigh either 10-20 or 1040 instead. Megan responds by saying that the cat's weight is actually 3x10-30 solar masses, which Ponytail finds more acceptable.

I wish superscipts would survive copy-paste, but I have to admit it's better than the esoterica-laden verbosity that's up now. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 03:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-25T22:51:30Z

172.69.22.146: /* Explanation */ spurious ''

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

A scientific paper usually present a hypothesis and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers also have titles which describe the content of the papers. Or [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper|should do]].

But [[Cueball]] is writing his title in {{w|clickbait}} format as ''Check out this cool microbe we found''. [[Megan]] asks him if science isn't supposed to be about formulating a thesis and testing it? (It is!<sup>No citation needed</sup>). Cueball seems caught off guard but realizes she is correct and thus changes the title to ''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''. But that is still in click-bait format. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd and last it was the subject it was also in regards to using it in science with [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

''Empirical investigations'' and ''analysis papers'' state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''literature reviews,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''meta-analyses,'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports,'' which present data and a chronicle of its collection without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''conference papers,'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways in previous work; ''syntheses,'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''comparative studies,'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''interpretive papers,'' showing a different perspective of previous work; ''technical reports,'' which present information on a specific procedural topic; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. [[Cueball]] seems to want to author an observational report, but [[Megan]] would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because observational reports are more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published.

In the title text Cueball's CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT is written: ''The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.'' Again a strange way to write about such things. Their conflict with the data is that they only hope their result is correct because they wish to look cool. They are thus not really interested in testing if they are correct, cause if they are not they would not be cool.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

Talk:2293: RIP John Conway

2020-04-17T00:04:34Z

172.69.22.146: didn't like it

This is really very impressive. The design of the stick figure to allow it to release a glider that ascends upwards (the "soul" rising to "heaven" or whatever) with the body decaying - that's a hard thing to get right using just the Game of Life rules. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.175|172.69.68.175]] 17:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
:Although Randall is clever, the Game of Life has been studied for so long that I'm sure this is a well-known animation. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
:: I played with the game a bunch in the past, but I've only done a bit of research after this appeared. I don't immediately find any previous report of this starting arrangement
:: This is unlikely, as the Game of Life has an uncountable number of patterns of this size, some of which are still being discovered. The pattern above is 7 cells wide by 9 cells tall - the number of distinct patterns that can be drawn in that box nears 2 --> 60 --> 1 (2^60). It's most likely that patterns such as this one are commonplace, and Randall just fiddled around until he reached one that he desired. The pattern itself, however, has likely never been discovered before. (As a fun postscript, [http://catagolue.appspot.com/object/xp16_0c2w3vz33032988/b3s23 a notable 8-cell wide, 9-cell tall pattern oscillating at period 16], just slightly larger than the one above, was discovered in February 2020.)[[User:Hdjensofjfnen|Hdjensofjfnen]] ([[User talk:Hdjensofjfnen|talk]]) 21:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I suspect it's probably more likely that he worked it out backwards, rather than "just fiddled with it." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.244|108.162.216.244]] 04:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::::AFAIK, many CAs such as Life have the property of being irreversible, which is the entire point for various pattern search efforts.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.54|162.158.92.54]] 07:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::He probably started with the floater, and adjusted the rest so it wouldn't interfere. Most figures decay in the game of life (I learned when playing with it, decades ago) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.79|162.158.111.79]] 10:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::The Game of Life has been researched a lot. One sub-problem is finding an arrangement of cells that cannot be produced by a prior arrangement of cells. They are called Garden of Eden patterns, and the known ones are not small. Glider generators are rather common, so it is most likely that the initial pattern was created by working backward from an existing glider generator.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.125|173.245.54.125]] 17:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

was there a placeholder comic posted before the gif went live?

:I am certain there was one with "uh oh one of the lights went out" "that's not supposed to happen" and a picture of a pattern that I did not recognise, which I found to be quite sad. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.54|162.158.92.54]] 10:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

::This was SMBC, and the pattern is a glider generator. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.211|188.114.111.211]] 12:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this is second animated comic in xkcd, besides 1116(though 1190 could be possibly counted together) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.190.16|172.69.190.16]] 19:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
:Uh, [[1331: Frequency]] and [[1264: Slideshow]] immediately come to mind, and then I remember about [[961: Eternal Flame]]. There's a lot more than two. [[User:Volleo6144|Volleo6144]] ([[User talk:Volleo6144|talk]]) 19:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
::[[:Category:Comics with animation]]; just added it. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 20:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The explanation says that the simulation is run on an infinite grid, but even when the grid is calculated out beyond the border of the viewable area, bounding errors & boundary formations can occur. I've never seen ''any'' implementation that actually produces an infinite, nor even ''practically'' infinite grid. (In fact, wasn't there a Minecraft mod that runs until it lags out the engine?) Can anybody point me to a truly infinite grid implementation? Conway's ''definitely'' was not infinite, he even commented at length about the boundary formations that show up at the grid edges (which are among the most subjectively beautiful, incidentally). I think the explanation needs correction?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
: The explanation is describing Conway's game of life, not any particular implementation IMHO. No change needed IMHOA. Also, the previous post was not signed properly. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.167|162.158.107.167]] 21:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
::Except many of Conway's observations about the "game" & even ''his initial description'' of it explicitly state & indeed hinge upon the fact that it's not (& thus far ''cannot'' be) implemented as an "infinite" grid. Part of the whole point of his experiment with it & the various demonstrations is to illustrate edge effects resulting from a finite range of calculations. '''It's extremely relevant that it's''' '''''not''''' '''infinite.''' It's actually kinda the whole point of his creating it, much the same way people working with fractals likewise tend to become very interested in bounding errors. The boundaries are where the interesting work is done. Apparently someone agreed with me at least in part, because they edited the wording. Thanks... Brian? I think we should actually '''add''' to the description of the "game" info highlighting the edge effects, because that's the primary focus of the project & its outgrowths in the first place. (We can't adequately simulate infinity & that's a big part of the interest in it.) Also, I frequently have to submit & then refresh & sign afterward because of the device I'm on. In this case I'm glad I did, because I saw your reply & the other new stuff!
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
:Golly uses a grid of arbitrary size by default. It can very easily be verified to at least ±2<sup>10000</sup>. (Note that it also includes finite rectangular and toroidal grids.) [[User:LegionMammal978|LegionMammal978]] ([[User talk:LegionMammal978|talk]]) 01:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No computer [Citation Needed] can run an ''actual'' infinite grid, but with some intelligent bounding you can mitigate early signs of problems by maintaining "bubbles" of cells with offsets. You get into problems once you start machine-gunning out gliders (offsets will eventually overflow or awkwardly lose precision, depending on the var-types used; and maintaining a longer and longer bubble, or more and more bubbles just above glider-sized, is probably your other challenge) but it's probably good enough for most purposes. If you somehow have finite patterns that move out in huge (wasteless) cycles from the 'origin' and hold that path until enacting hugely-delayed doglegs (mathematically, it must be a point no further away than can be reasonably enumerated by the bits of information contained within each formation, and significantly less as it'd be a far less efficient count-down cycler than any folded LFSR, but it's ''imaginable'') to meet again at some arbitrary (though deterministic and replicable) distance out in the far far reaches of your abstracted bubble-land then it's possible you could ''pretend'' you have infinite space. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.101|162.158.91.101]] 22:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]], do you have a source for your claim that the main point of Conway's creation of Life was to study the edge effects? [https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life The page for Life on its own wiki] describes the Life grid as "infinite" and only mentions edge effects as inaccuracies to be avoided, and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Plq-D1gEk this Conway interview about Life's creation] doesn't mention edges at all.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.24|108.162.241.24]] 23:34, 13 April 2020‎ (UTC)
:First of all, as a tip, reply directly to the comment when you want to talk with someone. Secondly, yeah, I'm pretty sure that person's just blasting ass ham. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.28|172.69.69.28]] 02:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly worth noting is the bit of artistry in the rendering. Munroe alters the step period of the iterations so that the deconstruction of the humanoid shape happens more quickly, with the stepping of the glider translating away occurring more slowly. [[User:Fixer|Fixer]] ([[User talk:Fixer|talk]]) 21:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I like the comic very much, and I'm afraid to say I hadn't heard of his death in amongst... well, everything else. RIP.
While I'm here, though, I'm a bit concerned about the current cell generation cycle explanation, as it feels awkward. Currently it is (paraphrased) "live cells survive if just enough neighbours / dead cells come to life with exactly enough neighbours / any other dies or stays dead". I'd prefer something that more delineates it as birth (dead to live, by propogation from the right number of live neighbours), death (live to dead due to ''either'' isolation ''or'' overcrowding) and continuation of state in all other cases. Can't work out a good phrasing yet, but ''may'' try it out later. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.101|162.158.91.101]] 22:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
: Agreed 100%. I believe the problem lies in the confusion between "cell as in biology" versus "cell as in jail". It would be better to avoid the word "cell" and describe a grid with squares that are either inhabited or empty; inhabitants with two or three neighbours survive to the next generation, otherwise they die (square becomes empty the next generation); exactly three neighbours to an empty square will give birth (become inhabited) in the next generation; and any other empty square stays empty.

Given the cause of death, should this comic be listed among the Covid-19 series? [[User:Momerath|Momerath]] ([[User talk:Momerath|talk]]) 05:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:Yes.--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:No. This is about John Conway. It would have presumably run regardless of the cause of death.

Interesting to see if the next comic is also a Covid-19 comic, because then it will be the 19th covid-19 comic... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I really think this should not be regarded as a Covid-19 comic, since it's a memorial one and the cause of death is not important for this comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.105|162.158.93.105]] 14:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:Agree with the others, this is a memorial comic, NOT a COVID-19 comic. I feel like too many comics are being forced into the COVID-19 theme, when they have little to no relation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.62|172.69.22.62]] 16:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::Covid-19 is obviously not directly the topic of the comic, but it is related quite close. So I vote to re-add it to the category, but to put the mention of the connection with the other comics not into the explanation, or on its bottom. If this is acceptable, [[961: Eternal Flame]] should also be included to [[:Category:Cancer]]. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Of course this is one in the Covid series. Randall very rarely makes tributes and it has been 5 year since the last. Conway is not very famous, and had he died a year ago, chances are Randall would not have made this comic. But because he died of Covid while all Randall's comics is about Covid he makes a tribute now. For the same reason I do not think that Eternal flame has anything with the cancer category. Because this was a tribute Randall made without any connection to a series of cancer comics. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Thanks for correcting my spelling errors :D all of that is speculation. How do you know, that Randall is not a huge Conway fan? seems to play exactly into his geekynes. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::I also disagree that Randall is not a huge Conway fan. I believe he would be familiar and interested in the Game of Life automata, as a nerd/geek. It was previously mentioned over 10 years ago in [[696: Strip Games]]. I agree with Lupo's suggestions for this comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.44|172.69.34.44]] 17:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

== Is this original? ==

It would seem remarkable if Randall was able to create this starting pattern at such short notice. If it's copied from somewhere, we should provide that detail. [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 03:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
:I do not know if it is taken from another place or a common/known pattern (the comments above seem to suggest otherwise), but it is not uncommon to have an obituary / memorial in stock for elderly persons of relevance. So it might be possible, that e.g. Randall played around with putting stick figures into a simulation, and accidently found this, deciding to keep it somewehere in his archive for this occasion. The seperation of the decaying body and the everlasting part going upward is actually obvious enough to connect with the idea to use it for this occasion. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

== First popularized? ==

The game's popularization "to the general public" in Windows 3.1 really depends on your definition of popular - how many members of the general public had PCs then? I mention this to point out that it was really Martin Gardner's article in SciAm in October 1970 that showed the game to a pretty wide public, although admittedly few people were in a position to program it at the time. As I maintained the University of Cambridge's version on the PDP-7 (then their only computer with a graphics display) in 1971-72 I'm still astonished at how early this publication was. Gardner then did the same for the Mandelbrot Set (which originated in the Other Cambridge...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.74|162.158.78.74]] 04:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

== Leaving the grid ==
<blockquote>"However, any given Game of Life is on a finite grid, so once the glider leaves the grid, it has ceased to exist."</blockquote>

Maybe a philosophical nitpick, but I'd like to dispute this. I submit that it is not possible for anything to "leave the grid". A glider can certainly hit the boundary of a bounded grid, but at that point boundary conditions disrupt the pattern and it ''ceases to be a glider''; thus, gliders cannot leave the grid.

Additionally, the grid can be finite and yet still have no boundary; it is quite common for Life grids to wrap one side of the screen to the other. On such a grid, the glider would in fact persist indefinitely. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 09:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:Also we don't know if the grid maybe is larger than the screen shown in the comic. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

== Triple whammy ==
FYI: Richard Guy, who found the glider first, and is coauthor of Winning Ways with Conway, already died this March. In the biblical age of 103, so possibly nobody even bothered to check for the cause. (The third author, Elwyn Berlekamp, died a year ago.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.32|141.101.77.32]] 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

== Conway was not a fan of his fame for Life ==

" He’d like to remembered for any of his accomplishments except the Game of Life. He once said he checked the index of every book and if it listed the Game of Life he would refuse to read it." -- https://twitter.com/standupmaths/status/1249105201992171522 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.146|172.69.22.146]] 00:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2294: Coronavirus Charts

2020-04-16T23:59:48Z

172.69.22.146: https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/severity/global_cfr_estimates.html

It must be because there aren't any numbers along the axes [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.104|172.69.34.104]] 23:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to know if this is a random sketch with silly labels, or if Randall looked up actual data to plot it. It seems to be a combination of 4 metrics which might be reported somewhere (search popularity, death rate, total reported cases, and number of tests performed). I suspect there aren't many countries/regions for which all 4 are available, but it's conceivable that someone's published enough stats to draw this crazy plot. ¬[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 01:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:What would negative results in a google search be? How do you make them a graph axis? I think its just random labels on graphs. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::It doesn't say negative test results for a google search. It's the number of people who've tested negative for the disease, divided by the number of people who've searched google for it. I'm moderately surprised that nobody's yet started a list of links to various data soources that could be used to plot this graph. Does Google provide per-country search frequencies? ¬[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 09:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:::[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore/GEO_MAP/1587034200?hl=en-US&tz=420&date=today+3-m&q=covid&sni=3 Google Trends] is always normalized so that the data returned is in [0, 100], and denormalizing out of relative values back to raw numbers is almost impossible. The best you can do is get a unitless proportion by comparing to a second search term chosen as one which doesn't vary much over time. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.203|172.68.142.203]] 10:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
::::From the docs, looks like that data is simply scaled. "A value of 50 means that the term is half as popular [as its most popular day]". Using that 0-100 number as if it were an actual number of people should give the same graph, just with the units on the X-axis offset by some value. Positioning the graphs relative to each other would be harder, as the "Interest by region" chart doesn't follow the same rules; we're lacking good data for the ratio between one country and another. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 13:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the y-axis ''(death_today + cases_aweekago)/capita'' or ''death_today + (cases_aweekago/capita)''? This would hugely effect the weighting of the two terms. (Parentheses in second interpretation are for clarity only, I know they change nothing mathematically.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.9|172.69.54.9]] 09:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:Perhaps it is intentionally ambiguous to support the main point about bad charts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.203|172.68.142.203]] 10:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:I assumed the latter; but the page here seems to assume the former. Either way, one of the results will dwarf the other. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 13:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The 19th COVID19 comic... :-) almost in a row. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried my hand at graphing the data for the United States, in this spreadsheet here: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W1ttxu9Dths5uOLOzk7VHd78hXG0EgeMkW5TCtdgtqw/edit?usp=sharing]. If anybody is motivated enough to add data from other countries, go ahead. As it is, this data doesn't really look anything like what Randall graphed, making me think that he just made up the lines. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.82|172.68.174.82]] 16:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:[https://imgur.com/a/hHc1j7S OH NO!] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.96|172.68.143.96]] 18:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
:: Well, since the x axis doesn't graph time, there's no reason for the trend lines to be functions of x— he just chose to draw them that way. Both x and y are independent functions of t. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.70|172.68.174.70]] 19:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I suddenly wondered if the graph means negative test results to date; or the new ones returned today. Same for the Google results, I guess. The Y-axis explicitly says it's talking about the total number of cases and today's death count, but the X-axis doesn't say for either of its values. And then that gave me the idea that "total" on the Y axis might actually mean "worldwide". So now I'm reading the Y-axis label as being (today's deaths in $country)+(worldwide infection count/population of $country). Maybe that makes the graph more useful. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 22:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

So did this comic not come out on 4/15 or is that just me? It seemed like all of yesterday was still the Conway Memorial comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.167|172.69.63.167]] 22:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Acolyte
:i thought so too! is this the first time in ages that randall missed a day? maybe someone wants to add this to a trivia section. [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 23:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the remark that logarithmic scale axes "would not have evenly spaced ticks as shown", as it is incorrect. when the marks are 10, 100, 1000, ... the marks are evenly spaced. [[User:Gir|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir|talk]]) 23:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

For those of you interested in the difficulties experienced by epidemiology under the embarrassment of riches allowed by contemporary big data, please see [https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/severity/global_cfr_estimates.html this working draft on the sufficiency of testing.] [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.146|172.69.22.146]] 23:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

2293: RIP John Conway

2020-04-13T17:29:59Z

172.69.22.146: /* Explanation */

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

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GLIDER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|John Conway}}, an English Mathematician, passed away of {{w|COVID-19}} two days before this comic's release. One of his most famous creations was {{w|Conway's Game of Life}}, which consists of an infinite square grid and rules of how it changes over time. This comic begins with the shape of a stick figure as the starting configuration, which then evolves according to the rules of the Game of Life.

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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tribute]]

2293: RIP John Conway

2020-04-13T17:29:30Z

172.69.22.146: /* Explanation */

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

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GLIDER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|John Conway}}, an English Mathematician, passed away of {{w|COVID-19}} two days before this comic's release. One of his most famous creations was {{w|the Game of Life}}, which consists of an infinite square grid and rules of how it changes over time. This comic begins with the shape of a stick figure as the starting configuration, which then evolves according to the rules of the Game of Life.

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

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tribute]]

Talk:2288: Collector's Edition

2020-04-03T05:10:40Z

172.69.22.146: Not visible on desktop but still up on mobile

... is this going to be like [[1190: Time]]? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.63|162.158.74.63]] 04:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
: I hope so, otherwise I don't get the joke [[User:Forresthopkinsa|Forresthopkinsa]] ([[User talk:Forresthopkinsa|talk]]) 04:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
: The page just went down for me so maybe what we've seen isn't what it's supposed to be? [[User:Avi m|avis_magpie]] ([[User talk:Avi m|talk]]) 04:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the whole comic was just taken down. [[User:Parzivail|Parzivail]] ([[User talk:Parzivail|talk]]) 04:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
: Can confirm - the most recent comic is Pathogen again [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.207|162.158.187.207]] 04:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It is still up on the mobile website, but only if you directly go to comic page https://m.xkcd.com/2288 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.146|172.69.22.146]] 05:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1925: Self-Driving Car Milestones

2017-12-06T23:19:09Z

172.69.22.146:

This page is, without offense to the creator, a mess. We're gonna need a table for this. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.78|172.68.47.78]] 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
* Or at least a list. I have created one, but it could use fleshing out.[[User:WingedCat|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat|talk]]) 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go with a [citation needed] on that "sex in a self-driving car has probably already happened." Are there stats suggesting the amount of coitus per vehicle in the relevant counties?

"This a joke about Boolean satisfiability, as evaluating an arbitrarily complex bumper sticker and determining whether to honk is NP-complete." What? Determining whether to honk has nothing to do with the satisfiability problem; this is more of a joke about getting a computer to evaluate the truth of Boolean expressions that it may have no information about. [[User:Checkmate|Checkmate]] ([[User talk:Checkmate|talk]]) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Checkmate

I believe the "Autonomous canyon jumping" is related to the self-loathing; a self-loathing car is likely to autonomously jump off a cliff. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.179|108.162.212.179]] 22:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"As of 2017, self-driving cars require a human to be able to take over just in case, but any such trip where the human never actually took control would qualify for this milestone."
I seems like not all places require a human backup driver: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.146|172.69.22.146]] 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1925: Self-Driving Car Milestones

2017-12-06T23:16:22Z

172.69.22.146:

This page is, without offense to the creator, a mess. We're gonna need a table for this. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.78|172.68.47.78]] 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
* Or at least a list. I have created one, but it could use fleshing out.[[User:WingedCat|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat|talk]]) 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go with a [citation needed] on that "sex in a self-driving car has probably already happened." Are there stats suggesting the amount of coitus per vehicle in the relevant counties?

"This a joke about Boolean satisfiability, as evaluating an arbitrarily complex bumper sticker and determining whether to honk is NP-complete." What? Determining whether to honk has nothing to do with the satisfiability problem; this is more of a joke about getting a computer to evaluate the truth of Boolean expressions that it may have no information about. [[User:Checkmate|Checkmate]] ([[User talk:Checkmate|talk]]) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Checkmate

I believe the "Autonomous canyon jumping" is related to the self-loathing; a self-loathing car is likely to autonomously jump off a cliff. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.179|108.162.212.179]] 22:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

> As of 2017, self-driving cars require a human to be able to take over just in case, but any such trip where the human never actually took control would qualify for this milestone.
I seems like not all places require a human backup driver: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous