https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=172.69.33.115 2026-06-24T22:26:18Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.30.0 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3012:_The_Future_of_Orion&diff=357301 2024-11-19T10:55:31Z

<p>172.69.33.115: /* Explanation */ Hawaii has a more specific date now, although it is still contested among a minority</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 3012<br /> | date = November 15, 2024<br /> | title = The Future of Orion<br /> | image = the_future_of_orion_2x.png<br /> | imagesize = 740x300px<br /> | noexpand = true<br /> | titletext = Dinosaur Cosmics<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{incomplete|Created by a TYRANNOASTRUS REX - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> Stars in the night sky sometimes change, occasionally varying in brightness, very rarely exploding, and imperceptibly moving. For example, {{w|Betelgeuse}}, a star in the constellation {{w|Orion (constellation)|Orion}}, is expected to explode as a {{w|supernova}} between [https://astrobites.org/2023/07/01/betelgeuse-betelgeuse-betelgeuse-is-it-supernovatime/ tens of] and [https://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/betelgeuse-will-explode-someday/ a thousand] years, and then disappear from the night sky. And all stars move relative to us and each other, which results in apparent movement in the sky called {{w|proper motion}}, a function of a star's relative movement in three dimensions and its distance from us.<br /> <br /> This comic shows changes in Orion from Betelgeuse disappearing and three of its fastest moving stars, and recommends revising the {{w|constellation}} (or creating a new {{w|Asterism (astronomy)|asterism}}) from one which depicts a hunter to another matching a different hunter, the {{w|Tyrannosaurus}} from Ryan North's [https://www.qwantz.com Dinosaur Comics]. It should be noted that {{w|Orion's Sword}} is drawn but does not fit inside the dinosaur. As it does in the original Orion constellation. Thus it seems this has been dropped from the Dinosaur. Saliva or worse...<br /> <br /> The proper motion of {{w|Chi1 Orionis|χ¹ Orionis}} shown near the top at the end of Orion's arm (and the back of the dinosaur's head) is 0.20 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse the depicted angular distance of 0.84 degrees in about 15,000 years. {{w|Pi1 Orionis|π¹ Orionis}} at the top of Orion's bow (and the end of the dinosaur's tail) has a proper motion of 0.14 arcseconds per year, so it will traverse its distance of 0.87° in about 23,000 years. However, with a proper motion of 0.46 as/yr, {{w|Pi3 Orionis|π³ Orionis}}, in the middle of the bow, will take only about 9,600 years to traverse its longer depicted distance of 1.24°. (The angular distances traversed by the stars were measured relative to the distance between Orion's two outermost belt stars, {{w|Alnitak}} and {{w|Mintaka}}, the dinosaur's hips.) Thus, the new constellation won't form until its current name has lasted more than three times as long as it already has.<br /> <br /> [[File:School of Athens Raphael detail 03.jpg|thumb|Hipparchus and Ptolemy compare globes in {{w|Raphael}}'s famous fresco ''{{w|The School of Athens}}''. Ptolemy is shown with a crown because of his erroneous association with the royal house of Ptolemaic Egypt.]]<br /> There are no official constellations depicting dinosaurs. However, {{w|Draco (constellation)|Draco}} represents a mythological reptilian dragon, and the lizard {{w|Lacerta}} was described in 1687. The first fossil to be later identified as a dinosaur was found in 1676, but the term &quot;dinosaur&quot; was not introduced until 1842. The earliest constellations in the northern hemisphere were recognized around 3000 BC. By the 2nd century AD, the Greek mathematician and astronomer {{w|Ptolemy}} listed 48 constellations visible from the northern hemisphere in his ''{{w|Almagest}},'' following the star catalogs and globes made by {{w|Hipparchus}} which have since been lost to history. The remaining modern southern constellations were mostly finalized by {{w|Nicolas Louis de Lacaille}} in 1756. Dozens of {{w|former constellations}} have been recognized, sometimes for hundreds of years, before being disregarded, replaced by others, or because they were only recognized by cultures apart from dominant Western traditions. ({{w|Micronesian navigation#Navigation by the stars|Polynesian navigators}} settled {{w|Polynesian Triangle|a vast expanse of the south Pacific Ocean}} from 26,000 to 950 years ago apparently without naming constellations, but instead [https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/items/f617b33c-531b-41b4-b550-5aec81face2c recording the positions of stars] on {{w|Compass rose#Sidereal|sidereal compass dials}}.) The {{w|International Astronomical Union}} established the current official list of 88 constellations in 1922.<br /> <br /> The title text is another joke regarding Dinosaur Comics, replacing &quot;comics&quot; with &quot;cosmics&quot; because we're talking about a dinosaur in the sky.<br /> <br /> Orion is also mentioned in [[1020: Orion Nebula]]. T-Rex is also featured in [[1452: Jurassic World]]. In 2006, [[Randall]] emulated the style of Dinosaur Comics with [[145: Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics]] and he lists the comic as one of those comics [[Design_of_xkcd.com#Comics_I_enjoy|he enjoys]]. Randall and Ryan North are known to be friends. And on the day Randall posted this comic, Ryan wrote the following in his &quot;[https://web.archive.org/web/20241117023759/https://qwantz.com/ What are the haps my friends]&quot; section beneath his own comic: November 15th, 2024: [https://xkcd.com/3012/ HEY DID YOU SEE XKCD TODAY??]<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Star map of the Orion constellation at present. The stars are connected with the constellation lines. In a frame above the stars there is a label:]<br /> :Orion Today:<br /> <br /> :[In the next panel the same stars are drawn but without the constellation lines. Three of the dots that marks the stars are drawn in red and from them a short red line is going to another gray dot that marks a star. A fourth star has a red cross over it. There are two labels in red. From the upper label goes two long red arrows in opposite directions towards the red stars (two of those are close together beneath the label, one is above). And a small red arrow goes from the other label to the crossed out star. The rest of the stars remain unchanged. In a frame above the stars there is a label:]<br /> :Predicted Changes:<br /> :Upper label: Star movement<br /> :Lower label: Star Death (Betelgeuse)<br /> <br /> :[Star map of the future Orion constellation with one star missing and three having moved noticeably. Different constellation lines are drawn overlaying the new position of stars. A red label is written with a red arrow pointing to the constellation line at the top right. In a frame above the stars there is a label:]<br /> :Orion in the future:<br /> :Label: Suggested lines<br /> <br /> :[In the last panel the same stars with constellation lines are drawn. But the Dinosaur Comics T-rex has been drawn in, in full color, matching the constellation lines. Only Orion's Sword is hanging beneath the dinosaur without any connection to the drawing.]<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Comics with color]]<br /> [[Category:Comics with red annotations]]<br /> [[Category:Astronomy]]<br /> [[Category:Space]]<br /> [[Category:Dinosaurs]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2678:_Wing_Lift&diff=295689 2022-09-30T06:14:11Z

<p>172.69.33.115: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 2678<br /> | date = September 28, 2022<br /> | title = Wing Lift<br /> | image = wing_lift_2x.png<br /> | imagesize = 679x358px<br /> | noexpand = true<br /> | titletext = Once the air from the top passes below the plane of the wing and catches sight of the spooky skulls, it panics, which is the cause of turbulent vortices.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{incomplete|Created by a SPOOKED OUT BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> Wings can produce {{w|Lift (force)|lift}}.&lt;ref name=&quot;Prandtl &amp; Tietjens (1952)&quot;&gt;{{cite book |last1=Prandtl |first1=L |last2=Tietjens |first2=O K G |author-link1=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Prandtl |date=1952 |title=Fundamentals of Hydro- and Aeromechanics |publisher= Dover |isbn=9780486603742}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Three erroneous reasons often given as to why airplane wings produce lift:<br /> * {{w|Bernoulli's principle}} (which is the most frequently cited)<br /> * The airplane wing is angled up at the front so that air hits the bottom and is pushed downwards (The ski effect or {{w|Newton's sine-square law of air resistance}}).<br /> * {{w|Coandă effect}} (The top is curved, so air going over the wing must curve downwards in order to avoid creating a vacuum above the back of the wing, and by Newton's third law, this results in an upwards force on the wing.)<br /> The comic references all three of these reasons. Airflow splitting references Bernoulli's principle, while the air at the bottom being scared and fleeing downwards is similar to the actual effect, which is caused by air hitting the angled bottom of the wing. The air going over the top curving down references the Coandă effect, although the comic claims that this effect is instead caused by the top-air noticing the bottom-air fleeing downward and goes down to investigate why the bottom-air is fleeing. The mention of Newton's third law is indeed correct, even if the movement of the air is for the wrong reasons. In the title text, it additionally suggests that the top-flow also end up glimpsing the printed skulls, causing it to also chaotically flee, generating a wing's classic turbulent wake.<br /> <br /> Randall previously dealt with explanations of wing lift in [[803: Airfoil]].<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> [Caption at the top of the panel:] How a wing produces lift<br /> <br /> [A diagram of the cross-section of a plane wing. It is large and rounded on the left end and flat on the bottom while the top curves down to meet it at a sharp point. There are many small arrows indicating the flow of wind, as well as captions.]<br /> <br /> [The arrows come from the left of the panel, point towards the wing, and then half begin to go over and half begin to go under. A caption in the middle of this flow reads:] Airflow splits around the top and bottom of the wing<br /> <br /> [A circle underneath the diagram is connected to an arrow which points to the underside of the wing. A repeating pattern of small black (simplified) skulls fills the circle and arrow. The caption to the right of this is:] Spooky skulls microprinted on the bottom of the wing frighten the air, which flees away downward<br /> <br /> [The arrows begin to curve downwards after this caption, and are joined by the top arrows which have also begun to curve downward. In these arrows is a caption:] Top air goes to see what's wrong<br /> <br /> [Both streams of arrows have joined and are pointing to the bottom right of the panel. In front of them is a caption:] By Newton's third law, downward deflection of air pushes wing upward<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[category:Engineering]]<br /> [[category:Physics]]<br /> [[category:Aviation]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2664:_Cloud_Swirls&diff=293549 2022-08-27T04:56:33Z

<p>172.69.33.115: /* Transcript */ weather</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 2664<br /> | date = August 26, 2022<br /> | title = Cloud Swirls<br /> | image = cloud_swirls.png<br /> | titletext = 'Why did you get into fluid dynamics?' 'Well, SOME planet has to have the coolest clouds, odds are it's not ours, and rockets are slow.'<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br /> [[Category:Weather]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2664:_Cloud_Swirls&diff=293548 2022-08-27T04:56:09Z

<p>172.69.33.115: /* Transcript */ cat</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 2664<br /> | date = August 26, 2022<br /> | title = Cloud Swirls<br /> | image = cloud_swirls.png<br /> | titletext = 'Why did you get into fluid dynamics?' 'Well, SOME planet has to have the coolest clouds, odds are it's not ours, and rockets are slow.'<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2659:_Unreliable_Connection&diff=292974 2022-08-16T21:24:52Z

<p>172.69.33.115: Reply</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--&gt;<br /> I don’t think this has anything to do with teleconferencing. Am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.81|172.70.214.81]] 22:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> :Yes. The impliction is that people are expecting you to be available for online communications, and you can use the unreliable Internet connection as an excuse to get out of it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> ::I think it's more about communication in general. He doesn't want anybody calling him or sending him emails, so by saying he has an &quot;unreliable&quot; connection people might assume it will be hard to get in touch with him.<br /> :::Back in the day, email was usually configured so that it could easily overcome such unreliability, and it's still doable,[https://discourse.mailinabox.email/t/running-from-home/6459/7] but today email for most people is a web or local client-server app, as opposed to a local mail store in a peer-to-peer app. Even people in urban areas can suffer unreliable internet, when squirrels or backhoes gnaw through data cables, copper theives strike, or 5G mind control base stations are congested. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.143|172.70.210.143]] 23:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> :::This could equally cover other instant communication methods where your availability is advertised (e.g. Whatsapp). It could also be about alleviating the social pressure the subject feels to continuously check and immediately respond to messages (including emails), because the immediacy is already hindered by the spotty connection (cf the standard &quot;I will have limited access to email&quot; out of office line, which gives the account owner psychological permission to check it infrequently). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 09:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> According to a PhET simulator (https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/plinko-probability/latest/plinko-probability_en.html) for this situation, the ideal standard deviation is 1.732 and ideal mean is 6. I don’t feel like doing the calculations :P [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> :If we assume 50-50 for each bounce, the probability that internet is off will be about (11 choose 3)/(2^11), or 8%.--[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 23:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> ::My first thought was, why so complicated? ''If'' each of the twelve switches is equally (and solely) likely to be struck by each ball, it's (100/12)% of the time, or 8⅓%.<br /> ::Although the equal-chance is wrong, so you're definitely doing &quot;end up with exactly 7 bounce rights and 3 bounce lefts, but in any combination&quot; or similar are you? I'd have summed it differently, though. And not sure where the choose ''3'' comes in... Just one bounce left off any row-end pin 11 sends to 11 if all others bounce right. Three bounces left hits switch 9, not eight. If I'm counting correctly. Or am I doing telegraph-poles/wires miscounting?<br /> ::Too early in the morning for me to untangle. The only thing I'm sure about is your division by 2^11 (how many total paths there are to get down). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.78|172.70.91.78]] 05:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> :::Me again. I hadn't checked that the transcript (which said it was switch #8) was correct. Have now, and found it to be wrong. Have hence also just corrected the Transcript. So I'm gonna assume your 11-choose-3 is entirely correct after all. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.78|172.70.91.78]] 05:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> To whomever did [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2659:_Unreliable_Connection&amp;diff=292862&amp;oldid=292861], doesn't [https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2018/8817/pdf/LIPIcs-FUN-2018-26.pdf] prove that symmetrical configurations nearly identical to those shown can produce uniform distributions? They seem to show it's just a matter of horizontal pin spacing. However, I for one can not verify the proof, which uses unusual (novel?) non-Unicode math notation, and a fairly opaque method of proof. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 00:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> :Not sure, but [https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%98%E8%AA%BF%E6%95%B4 this Japanese Wikipedia article] is fascinating. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 01:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> :Please see section 3.5 on pp. 16-18 of the currently first reference [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.05706.pdf]. I am particularly intrigued by, &quot;Open Problem 2: Is every uniform distribution of output probabilities of the form 1/2&lt;sup&gt;k&lt;/sup&gt; constructible by a 50-50 Pachinko?&quot; on p. 18. However I haven't dived in enough to even know where the parentheses are supposed to be in that expression, yet. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 17:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> : Good question! https://ibb.co/sRwGwB9 don't look triangular, but it seems the proof might suggest much more triangular solutions. Worth thinking about! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.115|172.69.33.115]] 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> What is the chance that the ball will bounce off the first pin, go down the outside of the pins and miss all the switches?<br /> :Probably quite high if it's a bouncy ball. With idealized physics though it'd just hit the leftmost/rightmost switch. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.127|172.70.254.127]] 00:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I would describe the device as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.109|172.70.230.109]] 00:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I was watching the photo and hover-over text and the image disappeared and &quot;Unreliable Connection&quot; showed up in its place. I don't know how often this happens.<br /> : Very neat if not a fluke! Can anyone replicate this experience on https://xkcd.com ? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 14:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> &quot;An added source of humour is that Randall could likely achieve the same effect by looking through the router's settings - which most modern ones have a feature to turn on and off at scheduled times - or via purchasing a smart power strip.&quot; But by using these other methods, the connection would still be reliable. If it goes out at regular or pre-scheduled intervals then you know when it will be available or not, hence reliable. I think the joke here is that the contraption does in fact make the connection unreliable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.77|172.70.114.77]] 14:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> : Addressed at [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2659:_Unreliable_Connection&amp;diff=292926&amp;oldid=292924]. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 14:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> :(Edit conflicted by at least the above, but my answer to the same question...) From a user POV, unless they happen to know that at 11:53 each day (and 12:14, 15:02, 15:07, 16:31, etc...) the scheduler disables tracfic for one (or two, or three) minutes, it is still unreliable, if ultimately predictable ''once you know'' the schedule, having seen it go round a few times and taken note. Similarly a timered power-strip could be used (or even several, in serial, the two or three daily interventions by the first also stopping and delaying the subsequent strips' interventions, making their timings uneven, further down the chain) and until you got the pattern it might as well be 'random', not entirely deterministic. (I'm wondering about some OR-gate-like/etc implementation, so power can pass by at least one parallel timer-shut-off to maintain power at the lower levels while ''some'' mid-way timers get depowered and thus 'shuffled' in interesting ways, and the resulting single output is governed by an intricate multi-dependent set of routes, but I bet an electrician would be wary about wiring that up...)<br /> :You could hack (or patch) the management firmware to be a bit more (pseudo)random about it, though it would still be pseudorandom LFSR/Xorshift with a (long) repetition cycle.<br /> :Or make it dependant upon an external factor (if the modulo 12 of the cumulative sum of all observed packet-destination IPs is zero, shut off for the five times the prior modulo 12 test value, in seconds..?), but that's ''practically'' the pachinko solution but with software hacking rather than hardware-making/hacking as per the comic.<br /> :More effort is needed to make it ultimately unpredictable, but it can still be considered unreliable if it goes out just when you 'want' it.... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 15:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> For real though, isn't this kind of a good idea? [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 14:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> :Talk to edtech people in the {{w|MOOC}} space and they will tell you asynchronous is worth it, but talk to people who study educational quality factors like time to receive answers to unanticipated questions, and they will have different ideas. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 14:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=977:_Map_Projections&diff=284438 2022-05-29T23:08:53Z

<p>172.69.33.115: </p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 977<br /> | date = November 14, 2011<br /> | title = Map Projections<br /> | before = [[#Explanation|↓ Skip to explanation ↓]]<br /> | image = map_projections.png<br /> | titletext = What's that? You think I don't like the Peters map because I'm uncomfortable with having my cultural assumptions challenged? Are you sure you're not... ::puts on sunglasses:: ...projecting?<br /> }}<br /> {{TOC}}<br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{w|Map projection}}, or how to represent the spherical Earth surface onto a flat support (paper, screen...) to have a usable map, is a long-time issue with very practical aspects (navigation, geographical shapes and masses visualization, etc.) as well as very scientific/mathematical ones, involving geometry or even abstract algebra among other things. There is no universal solution to this problem: Any 2D map projection will always distort in a way the spherical reality. Many projections have been proposed in various contexts, each intending to minimize distortions for specific uses (for nautical navigation, for aerial navigation, for landmass size comparisons, etc.) but having drawbacks from other points of view. Some of them are more frequently used than others in mass media and therefore more well-known than others, some are purely historical and now deprecated, some are very obscure, etc.<br /> <br /> [[Randall]] suggests here the idea that someone's &quot;favorite&quot; map projection can reveal aspects of their personality, then goes through a series of them to show what they can mean. <br /> <br /> He may actually believe that all map projections are in a way bad. This could be inferred from the fact that he much later began publishing a series of [[:Category:Bad Map Projections|Bad Map Projections]].<br /> ===Mercator===<br /> [[File:MercatorProjection.jpg|frame|The Mercator projection]]<br /> The {{w|Mercator projection}} was introduced by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. The main purpose of this map is to preserve compass bearings; for example 13 degrees east of north will be 13 degrees clockwise from the ray pointing toward the top of the map, at every point. A mathematical consequence is the mapping is conformal, i.e. if two roads meet at a certain angle on the surface of the Earth, they will meet at that same angle on the map. It also follows that at every point the vertical and horizontal scales are the same, so locally i.e. considering only a small part of the map, geographical features (shapes, angles) are well represented, which helps a lot in recognizing them on-the-field, or for local navigation in that small part only. For this reason, that projection (or a close variant) is used in several online mapping services (such as Google Maps), which means that it is frequently encountered by the general public. A straight line on the map corresponds to a course of constant bearing (direction), which was very useful for nautical navigation in the past (and thus made that projection very well-known).<br /> <br /> However, from a global point of view, this projection is radically incorrect in how it shows the size of landmasses (for instance, Antarctica and Greenland seem gigantic), and furthermore, it always excludes a small region around each pole (otherwise the map would be of infinite height), so it doesn't provide a complete solution for the problem of map projection. The comic implies that people who like that projection aren't very interested with map issues, and typically use what they are offered without thinking much about it.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Van der Grinten===<br /> [[File:VanDerGrintenProjection.jpg|frame|The Van der Grinten projection]]<br /> The {{w|Van der Grinten projection}} is not much better than the Mercator. It was adopted by {{w|National Geographic}} in 1922 and was used until they updated to the Robinson projection in 1988.<br /> <br /> The Van der Grinten projection is circular as opposed to the Mercator projection. The fictional person believes a circular map is more fitting to the real Earth's three-dimensional spherical nature because both are round. This belief fails to recognize that a two-dimensional circle has very little in common with the surface of a sphere, and thus this projection still causes a vast distortion of space and area. Because of this, Randall implies the Van der Grinten enthusiast to be optimistic and childishly simple-minded (e.g. &quot;you like circles&quot;).<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Robinson===<br /> [[File:RobinsonProjection.jpg|frame|The Robinson projection]]<br /> The {{w|Robinson projection}} was developed by {{w|Arthur H. Robinson}} as a map that was supposed to look nice and is often used for classroom maps. National Geographic switched to this projection in 1988, and used it for ten years, switching to the {{w|Winkel tripel projection|Winkel-Tripel}} in 1998.<br /> <br /> {{w|The Beatles}} was a rock band that enjoyed great commercial success in the 1960s, and are widely considered the best act ever in the genre of popular music. The Beatles, coffee, and running shoes are all things that are very commonly enjoyed and largely uncontroversial, as well as being comforting. Liking these specific things suggests an ordinary, easygoing lifestyle paralleled by the projection.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Dymaxion===<br /> [[File:DymaxionProjection.jpg|frame|The Dymaxion projection]]<br /> Also called the Fuller Map, the {{w|Dymaxion map}} takes a sphere and projects it onto an icosahedron, that is a polyhedron with 20 triangular faces. It is far easier to unwrap an icosahedron than it is to unwrap a sphere into a 2D object and has very little skewing of the poles. {{w|Buckminster Fuller}} was an eccentric futurist who believed, for example, that world maps should allow no conception of &quot;up&quot; or &quot;down&quot;. He was therefore more than happy to defy people's expectations about maps in the pursuit of mathematical accuracy.<br /> <br /> Randall associates the projection to geek subculture and niche markets:<br /> *{{w|Isaac Asimov}} was an American science-fiction writer, who (as well as publishing many textbooks) is considered the father of the modern concept of robots. He invented the {{w|Three Laws of Robotics}}. He also worked on more than 500 books throughout his career.<br /> *{{w|XML}} is the eXtensible Markup Language. It is used to represent data in a format that machines can read and understand, as well as being human-readable. In practice, XML is cumbersome to read.<br /> *{{w|Vibram FiveFingers|Toed shoes}} are a [[1065: Shoes|favorite]] of Randall's to pick on. In society they are seen as a {{w|geek}} clothing item.<br /> *Brought to the world by {{w|Dean Kamen}}, the {{w|Segway PT}} was supposed to be a device that changed the way cities were built. In reality, most jurisdictions have put in place rules specifically against Segways, making them a frustration to own and use within the law (in some states in Australia, it is illegal to use them on public footpaths or roads). Also, the former owner of {{w|Segway Inc.}}, the late {{w|Jimi Heselden}}, accidentally rode his Segway off a cliff in 2010. Ninebot, then owner of the Segway brand, announced in 2020 that the flagship 2-wheeled self-balancing vehicle would be discontinued.<br /> *At the time of comic release, 3D goggles, nowadays widely known as {{w|Virtual reality headset|VR headsets}}, were considered a gimmick at best. The original idea is as old as 3D graphics, but it never really took off until mid-2010s. Earlier products were very unwieldy and offered poor graphics quality, so no one took this technology seriously.<br /> *{{w|Dvorak Simplified Keyboard|Dvorak}} is an alternate keyboard layout to {{w|QWERTY}}. According to legend, QWERTY was invented to help keep manual typewriters from jamming (by placing the most used keys far from each other) but Dr. {{w|August Dvorak}} performed many studies and found the mathematically optimal keyboard layout to reduce finger travel for right handed typists. While some claim Dvorak is technically better than QWERTY, QWERTY had become the standard. Most keyboards were laid out in QWERTY format, but a lot of software exists to remap the keys to DVORAK for those interested in typing faster. Retraining the brain to use Dvorak takes perhaps a week. It has become a [[:Category:Dvorak|recurrent theme]] on xkcd.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Winkel-Tripel===<br /> [[File:Winkel-TripelProjection.jpg|frame|The Winkel Tripel projection]]<br /> Proposed by Oswald Winkel in 1921, the {{w|Winkel tripel projection}} tried to reduce a set of three (German: Tripel) main problems with map projections: area, direction, and distance. The {{w|Kavrayskiy VII projection|Kavrayskiy projection}} is very similar to the Winkel Tripel and was used by the USSR, but very few in the Western world know of it.<br /> <br /> The comic links this projection to {{w|hipster}} subculture. The hipster stereotype is to avoid conforming to mainstream fashions. &quot;Post-&quot; refers to a variety of musical genres such as {{w|post-punk}}, {{w|post-grunge}}, {{w|post-minimalism}}, {{w|post-rock}}, etc. that branch off of other genres, and are generally considered less accessible than the genres that spawned them. Liking a genre just called &quot;post-&quot; implies that the listener prefers music that is less mainstream, and may have that as the only criterion for listening. <br /> <br /> ;Trivia<br /> *In German &quot;Winkel-Tripel-Projektion&quot; means Winkel's triple projection, and therefore the hyphen shouldn't be there: &quot;Winkel Tripel&quot; or &quot;Winkel tripel&quot;.<br /> *This projection was later used in [[2242: Ground vs Air]].<br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Goode Homolosine===<br /> [[File:GoodeHomolosineProjection.jpg|frame|The Goode Homolosine projection]]<br /> The {{w|Goode homolosine projection}} takes a different approach to skewing a sphere into a roughly circular surface. An orange peel can be taken from an orange and flattened with fair success; this is roughly the procedure that {{w|John Paule Goode}} followed in creating this projection. Randall is suggesting that people who like this map also prefer relatively easy solutions to other things in life, despite those solutions having nuanced problems that are more difficult to address.<br /> <br /> People often make arguments that if normal people ran the United States, then the US wouldn't be in the trouble it is. This is from the belief that career politicians are simply out to make money and will only act in the interest of their constituency when their continued easy life is threatened (usually around election time). While some form of this view is very common and probably pretty much correct, Randall is saying that someone who likes this map may take this to extremes.<br /> <br /> Airline food is another, much maligned, problem. How do you store enough food to feed people on long airplane trips? What kind of food can be served in an enclosed, low-air-pressure environment? The common solution is to use some kind of prepackaged, reheated meal. Randall is saying that the people in favor of the Goode Homolosine wonder why the airlines don't simply order meals from the restaurants in the airport, store that food, and serve it, rather than using bland reheated food. However, this seemingly-obvious solution ignores how being in an airplane dulls your sense of taste. Airplane food is actually over seasoned for eating on the ground, meaning that if airlines switched to restaurant food it would probably taste even blander. There would also be issues with acquiring special meals (for example, vegetarian, Kosher, and Halal meals), especially if suitable restaurants were not in close range to the airport.<br /> <br /> Older cars burned oil like mad fiends, and oil back then would become corrosive to the innards of an engine, so oil had to be changed often. But, with the introduction of synthetic motor oil and better designed engines, new cars only need their oil changed about every 10,000 to 15,000 miles. A common conspiracy theory is that modern automobile oil manufacturers still recommend that car owners change their oil every 3,000-5,000 miles to &quot;drum&quot; up more business, even though that frequency is unnecessary.<br /> <br /> All of these references suggest that people who like the Goode Homolosine projection are fans of easy solutions to problems. However, the solutions would not necessarily work in practice. For instance: the restaurants might have trouble making enough food for the whole plane, and it could get cold before being served; the air conditions [http://www.nbcnews.com/health/one-reason-airline-food-so-bad-your-own-tastebuds-6C10823522 aboard planes] can affect taste, so airlines say they optimize for this; there is no such thing as a &quot;normal&quot; person, and if there were, he/she would have virtually no chance at actually getting into government office and/or may not have prior political experience that would be helpful for congress; and the Goode Homolosine projection, while mostly resembling a flattened orange peel as suggested by the earlier analogy, does indeed cut down on distortion, but also has serious problems of its own, such as leaving huge gaps of nothingness between the continents, making distances across the oceans difficult to visualize.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Hobo–Dyer===<br /> [[File:Hobo-DyerProjection.jpg|frame|The Hobo–Dyer projection]]<br /> The {{w|Hobo–Dyer projection}} was commissioned by Bob Abramms and Howard Bronstein and was drafted by Mick Dyer in 2002. It is a modified {{w|Behrmann projection}}. The goal was to be a more visually pleasing version of the Gall–Peters.<br /> <br /> As is discussed in the Gall–Peters explanation, the Gall–Peters was developed to be equal area, so that economically disadvantaged areas can at least take comfort in the fact that their country is represented correctly by area on maps.<br /> <br /> Randall associates the Hobo–Dyer projection to &quot;crunchy granola&quot; — a stereotype associated with vegetarianism, environmental activism, anti-war activism, liberal political leanings, and some traces of {{w|hippie}} culture.<br /> <br /> With feminism becoming mainstream and alternative genders being more widely accepted, some have begun to invent gender-neutral pronouns so that when referring to a person whose gender is not known they cannot be offended by being referred to by the wrong pronouns. In {{w|Middle English}} 'they' and 'their' were {{w|Singular they|accepted genderless pronouns that could replace 'he', 'she'}} as well as be used to represent a crowd, but this usage is considered by some to be grammatically incorrect because of the plural/singular debate ([https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/the-awkward-case-of-his-or-her stupid Victorian Grammarians!]). There have been {{w|gender-neutral pronoun#Invented pronouns|many attempts at popularizing invented gender-neutral pronouns}} and they are beginning to achieve some degree of success in the mainstream.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Plate Carrée===<br /> [[File:PlateCarreeProjection.jpg|frame|The Plate Carrée projection]]<br /> Also known as the {{w|Equirectangular projection}}, it has apparently been in use since approximately 100 AD. The benefit of this projection is that latitude and longitude can be used as x,y coordinates. This makes it especially easy for computers to graph data on top of it.<br /> <br /> According to the comic, the projection appeals to people who find much beauty in simplicity.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===A Globe!===<br /> [[File:GlobeProjection.jpg|frame|The Globe &quot;projection&quot;]]<br /> In any good discussion there has to be at least one smart-ass.{{Citation needed}} This is a comic about map projections, that is, the science of taking a sphere and flattening it into 2 dimensions. The smart-ass believes that we shouldn't even try: a sphere is, tautologically, the perfect representation of a sphere.<br /> <br /> To quote ''{{w|The Princess Bride}}'': &quot;Yes, you're very smart. Shut up.&quot;<br /> <br /> A globe is, of course, the &quot;map projection&quot; used by {{w|Google Earth}} when zoomed out.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Waterman butterfly===<br /> [[File:WatermanButterflyProjection.jpg|frame|The Waterman Butterfly projection]]<br /> Similar to the Dymaxion, the {{w|Waterman butterfly projection}} turns a sphere into an octahedron, and then unfolds the net of the octahedron, which was devised by mathematician {{w|Waterman polyhedron|Steve Waterman}} based upon the work of {{w|Bernard J.S. Cahill}}.<br /> <br /> Bernard Cahill published a [http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html butterfly map] in 1909. Steve Waterman probably has the only extant &quot;ready to go&quot; map following the same general principles, though Gene Keys may not be far behind. Waterman has a poem with graphics in a similar vein to this xkcd comic that is worth reading.[http://web.archive.org/web/20120118095915/http://watermanpolyhedron.com/worldmap.html]<br /> <br /> [https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/pcr.2016.48.issue-4/pcr-2016-0014/pcr-2016-0014.pdf Polyhedral projections] like Cahill, Dymaxion or Waterman typically offer better accuracy of size, shape and area than flat projections, at the expense of compass directionality, connectedness, and other complications.<br /> <br /> The joke is that the person responding deeply understands map projections; anyone who knows of this projection is a person that Randall would like to get to know.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Peirce quincuncial===<br /> [[File:PeirceQuincuncialProjection.jpg|frame|The Peirce Quincuncial projection]]<br /> The {{w|Peirce quincuncial projection}} was devised by {{w|Charles Sanders Peirce}} in 1879 and uses {{w|complex analysis}} to make a {{w|conformal mapping}} of the Earth, that conforms except for four points which would make up the midpoints of sides and lie on equator (the equator is represented by a square and the corners connect the sides in the middle.)<br /> <br /> {{w|Inception}} was a 2010 movie about {{w|meta}} {{w|lucid dream}}ing. It has a complex story that is difficult to follow and leaves the viewer with many questions at the end, and almost always needs to be watched multiple times to be understood.<br /> <br /> The human brain is not well developed to deal with oddly obvious things. One example is that everyone has a skeleton, but everyone is surprised to see a part of their body represented by an X-ray. Another is the fascinating complexity of the human hand, a machine which is amazingly complex, driven by a complex interplay of electrical and chemical signals; yet is the size of the hand and so useful. A fascination with or fixation on {{tvtropes|ContemplatingYourHands|such thoughts}} is often associated with an altered state of mind brought on by marijuana consumption. Therefore, Randall may be implying that this map would appeal to stoners.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Gall–Peters===<br /> [[File:Gall-PetersProjection.jpg|frame|The Gall–Peters projection]]<br /> The {{w|Gall–Peters projection}} is mired in controversy, surprisingly for a map. {{w|James Gall}}, a 19th-century clergyman, presented this projection in 1855 before the {{w|British Association for the Advancement of Science}}. In 1967, the filmmaker {{w|Arno Peters}} created the same projection and presented it to the world as a &quot;new invention&quot; that put poorer, less powerful countries into their rightful proportions (as opposed to the Mercator). Peters played the marketing game and got quite a few followers of his map by saying it had &quot;absolute angle conformality,&quot; &quot;no extreme distortions of form,&quot; and was &quot;totally distance-factual&quot; in an age when society was very concerned about social justice. All of these claims were in fact false. The Mercator projection distorts size in favor of shape, and Gall-Peters distorts shape in favor of size, being especially inaccurate at the equator and the poles.<br /> <br /> The implication is that the fans of this map are pompously concerned with social justice, and willing either to lie or convey marketing mistruths to promote that cause. Alternatively Randall just dislikes this map projection so much due to the above mentioned inaccuracies, that he hates anyone who likes it.<br /> <br /> {{clear}}<br /> <br /> ===Title text===<br /> The title text makes a joke that goes to the familiar meme from ''{{w|CSI: Miami}}'', in which the star, David Caruso starts a sentence, then puts on his sunglasses and ends the sentence with a corny pun. In this case, the pun is on {{w|map projection}} and {{w|projection (psychology)|projection}} in psychology. Psychological projection is an unconscious defense mechanism wherein a person who is uncomfortable with their own impulses denies having them and attributes them to other people, and blames these people for these impulses. The Sunglasses internet meme has been used [[:Category:Puts on sunglasses|in other comics]] as well.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :What your favorite<br /> :'''Map Projection'''<br /> :says about you<br /> :[All of these are organized as Title, a copy of the particular projection underneath, and what it says about you under that.]<br /> <br /> :*Mercator<br /> :**You're not really into maps.<br /> :*Van der Grinten<br /> :**You're not a complicated person. You love the Mercator projection; you just wish it weren't square. The Earth's not a square, it's a circle. You like circles. Today is gonna be a good day!<br /> :*Robinson<br /> :**You have a comfortable pair of running shoes that you wear everywhere. You like coffee and enjoy The Beatles. You think the Robinson is the best-looking projection, hands down.<br /> :*Dymaxion<br /> :**You like Isaac Asimov, XML, and shoes with toes. You think the Segway got a bad rap. You own 3D goggles, which you use to view rotating models of better 3D goggles. You type in Dvorak.<br /> :*Winkel-Tripel<br /> :**National Geographic adopted the Winkel-Tripel in 1998, but you've been a W-T fan since ''long'' before &quot;Nat Geo&quot; showed up. You're worried it's getting played out, and are thinking of switching to the Kavrayskiy. You once left a party in disgust when a guest showed up wearing shoes with toes. Your favorite musical genre is &quot;Post–&quot;.<br /> :*Goode Homolosine<br /> :**They say mapping the Earth on a 2D surface is like flattening an orange peel, which seems enough to you. You like easy solutions.You think we wouldn't have so many problems if we'd just elect ''normal'' people to Congress instead of Politicians. You think airlines should just buy food from the restaurants near the gates and serve ''that'' on board. You change your car's oil, but secretly wonder if you really ''need'' to.<br /> :*Hobo-Dyer<br /> :**You want to avoid cultural imperialism, but you've heard bad things about Gall-Peters. You're conflict-averse and buy organic. You use a recently-invented set of gender-neutral pronouns and think that what the world needs is a revolution in consciousness.<br /> :*Plate Carrée &lt;small&gt;(Equirectangular)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :**You think this one is fine. You like how X and Y map to latitude and longitude. The other projections overcomplicate things. You want me to stop asking about maps so you can enjoy dinner.<br /> :*A Globe!<br /> :**Yes, you're very clever.<br /> :*Waterman Butterfly<br /> :**Really? You know the Waterman? Have you seen the 1909 Cahill Map it's based— ...You have a framed reproduction at home?! Whoa. ...Listen, forget these questions. Are you doing anything tonight?<br /> :*Peirce Quincuncial<br /> :**You think that when we look at a map, what we really see is ourselves. After you first saw ''Inception'', you sat silent in the theater for six hours. It freaks you out to realize that everyone around you has a skeleton inside them. You ''have'' really looked at your hands.<br /> :*Gall-Peters<br /> :**I ''hate'' you.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Maps‏‎]]<br /> [[Category:Dvorak]]<br /> [[Category:Puts on sunglasses]]<br /> [[Category:Puns]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1807:_Listening&diff=265321 2022-05-10T04:42:15Z

<p>172.69.33.115: removed vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;br&gt;{{comic<br /> | number = 1807<br /> | date = March 6, 2017<br /> | title = Listening<br /> | image = listening.png<br /> | titletext = Sure, you could just ask, but this also takes care of the host gift thing.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> This comic depicts [[Cueball]] and [[Ponytail]] welcoming [[Black Hat]] and [[Danish]] to their house. Black Hat immediately talks to {{w|Amazon Alexa}} to order two tons of {{w|creamed corn}}. This would be quite expensive (around $10,000), and the hosts would be charged because it was ordered on their {{w|Amazon Echo}} device. It would also be a serious inconvenience, as the purchase would be quite bulky and useless, seeing as an average person would have very little use for two tons of creamed corn.{{Citation needed}}<br /> <br /> The caption claims that this is an effort to find systems recording conversations, such as Alexa or {{w|Google Home}}, for the security of the ''guests'', so they aren't being monitored by an always-on listening device without their consent (at least not without any consequences). However, because Black Hat is the one coming up with this it's more likely his motives are on the sadistic side, and it's more likely a warning for the hosts to turn off any voice-activated systems before having guests come over, so that the guests don't take advantage of them. (It should also be noted that such purchasing services encourage the user to set up a PIN code to stem off such exploits.)<br /> <br /> A concerned &quot;visitor&quot; may also want to test for voice-activated systems when near any persons carrying an iPhone or Android mobile device, because these are also always-on listening devices. &quot;Hey Siri&quot; and &quot;Ok Google&quot; voice activation use the same technology as &quot;Alexa&quot; and &quot;Echo&quot; detection.<br /> <br /> The title text says that this takes care of the &quot;host gift thing&quot;, referring to the custom where house guests give a gift to the hosts. However, Black Hat is making the hosts pay for it, so it can be as expensive as he wants, thus making this yet another example of his being a [[classhole]]. For more examples of this, see the [[#Trivia|trivia]] below.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Black Hat and Danish enter Cueball and Ponytail's house. They have hardly passed the door mat, with the door still open showing the road and another house outside.]<br /> :Ponytail: Hello, welcome to our house!<br /> :Black Hat: Thanks for inviting us!<br /> :Black Hat: Alexa, order two tons of creamed corn.<br /> :Black Hat: Alexa, confirm purchase.<br /> <br /> :[Caption below the frame:]<br /> :When visiting a new house, it's good to check whether they have an always-on device transmitting your conversations somewhere.<br /> <br /> ==Trivia==<br /> *In a previous comic, [[1559: Driving]], Black Hat took also took advantage of a cutting-edge AI&amp;mdash;there, a self-driving car&amp;mdash;by making it drive across the country without its owner or any passenger. And already back in [[596: Latitude]] he took advantage (of course) of people who constantly kept programs running on their phones that could track their movements.<br /> *Another comic about testing if someone is listening is [[525: I Know You're Listening]]. Just as Black Hat may just speak without knowing for sure that there is an active Alexa, Cueball in the old comic also just speaks out in case there is someone listening. In that case, it was addressed to real surveillance, but as can be seen in the entries below, Alexa may just end up being used like that later.<br /> *Usually Cueball is paired with [[Megan]], but since Black Hat's girlfriend Danish looks like Megan but with longer hair, this makes it sensible to choose Ponytail as Cueball's partner here. They were also partnered in the next comic [[1808: Hacking]].<br /> *Assuming a standard can of 14.75 oz (418 g) and Black Hat's order was in short tons the order would consist of 4339 cans. Consuming one per day it would last for approx. twelve years. But it's doubtful that the expiration date would be that long.<br /> *In a recent [http://www.npr.org/2016/12/31/507670072/amazon-echo-murder-case-renews-privacy-questions-prompted-by-our-digital-footprints court case] authorities believed that an Amazon Echo may have recorded the identity of a murder suspect, leading to a debate about the privacy and safety implications of such devices.<br /> *Another recent [http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/7/14200210/amazon-alexa-tech-news-anchor-order-dollhouse event] resulted in Alexa ordering several people unwanted doll houses.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]<br /> [[Category:Food]]<br /> [[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]<br /> [[Category:Virtual Assistants]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2180:_Spreadsheets&diff=231965 2022-05-03T03:37:49Z

<p>172.69.33.115: balls</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 2180<br /> | date = July 24, 2019<br /> | title = Spreadsheets<br /> | image = spreadsheets.png<br /> | titletext = My brother once asked me if there was a function to produce a calendar grid from a list of dates in Google Sheets. I replied with a single-cell formula that took in a list of dates and outputted a calendar. It used SEQUENCE(), REGEXMATCH(), and a double-nested ARRAYFORMULA(), and it locked up the browser for 15 seconds every time it ran. I think he learned a lot about asking me things.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> [[Cueball]] is doing some task on his computer, with an {{w|Shoulder angel|angel and devil on either side of him}}, trying to influence his work. The angel is telling him to do things the &quot;right&quot; way, while the devil is telling him to do his work using a {{w|spreadsheet}}, which is considered by professional software engineers to be a shortcut or a hack. <br /> <br /> Spreadsheets provide an array of cells, which can contain information or instructions. Spreadsheets are a common {{w|end-user development}} tool, allowing non-developers to easily create code. However they can be hard to maintain, thus they are often mocked by developers as a wrong approach to programming. Although it is not clear from the cartoon that this is meant, the &quot;right&quot; alternative to using a spreadsheet for some tasks may involve a database or a more general programming language.<br /> <br /> The punch line comes when the angel becomes so intrigued by the spreadsheet functions, Google Sheets in particular, that it gives up trying to dissuade Cueball, and asks for more information from the devil.<br /> <br /> In the title text, Randall mentions a time when he created my balls in Google Sheets using a list of dates. This is described as being done in a &quot;single-cell formula&quot;, and taking a long time to run. This shows the power and complexity of spreadsheets. The procedure taking a long time to run, and freezing up the computer for 15 seconds every time it ran, was probably not what Randall's brother had in mind when he requested help. His brother learned he might need to be wary about what he gets back when asking Randall for assistance.<br /> <br /> All functions mentioned in this comic can be found in {{w|Google Sheets}}, but functions similar to some of them can be found in most modern spreadsheet applications.<br /> <br /> '''[https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3098245?hl=en REGEXREPLACE](text, regular_expression, replacement)''' &amp;rArr; Replaces part of a text string with a different text string using {{w|Regular expression|regular expressions}}.<br /> <br /> '''[https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093275?hl=en ARRAYFORMULA](array_formula)''' &amp;rArr; Enables the display of values returned from an array formula into multiple rows and/or columns and the use of non-array functions with arrays.<br /> <br /> '''[https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093343?hl=en QUERY](data, query, [headers])''' &amp;rArr; Runs a [https://developers.google.com/chart/interactive/docs/querylanguage Google Visualization API Query Language] query across data.<br /> <br /> '''[https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093339?hl=en IMPORTHTML](url, query, index)''' &amp;rArr; Imports data from a table or list within an HTML page.<br /> <br /> '''[https://support.google.com/docs/answer/9368244?hl=en SEQUENCE](rows, columns, start, step)''' &amp;rArr; Returns an array of sequential numbers, such as 1, 2, 3, 4.<br /> <br /> '''[https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3098292?hl=en REGEXMATCH](text, regular_expression)''' &amp;rArr; Whether a piece of text matches a regular expression.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> <br /> [Cueball is at his computer. In the air on either side of him are an angel version of Cueball, with a halo and wings, and a devil version of Cueball, with horns and a pitchfork.]<br /> [The angel's dialogue appears in regular print, while the devil's dialogue appears in white print in black speech balloons.]<br /> :Angel: Don't use a spreadsheet! Do it '''''right'''''.<br /> :Devil: But a spreadsheet would be so '''''easy'''''.<br /> :Angel: In the long run you'll regret it!<br /> <br /> [Closeup on Cueball, the angel, and the devil.]<br /> :Angel: Take the time to write ''real'' code.<br /> :Devil: Just paste the data! Tinker until it works!<br /> :Devil: Build a labyrinth of REGEXREPLACE() and ARRAYFORMULA()!<br /> :Devil: ''Feel the power!''<br /> <br /> [Closeup on the devil.]<br /> :Angel (off-panel): Fight the temptation!<br /> :Devil: Ever tried QUERY() in Google Sheets? It lets you treat a block of cells like a database and run SQL queries on them.<br /> <br /> [Another shot of Cueball at his computer with the angel and devil at either side.]<br /> :Angel: Don't listen to--<br /> :Angel: ... wait, really?<br /> :Devil: Yes, and let me tell you about IMPORTHTML() ...<br /> :Angel: ''Oooh...''<br /> <br /> ==Trivia==<br /> <br /> Spreadsheets used for complex tasks and evolving into complex algorithms was also the punchline of [[1667: Algorithms]].<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]<br /> [[Category:Computers]]<br /> [[Category:Spreadsheets]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2610:_Assigning_Numbers&diff=231453 2022-04-29T18:09:59Z

<p>172.69.33.115: /* Paradoxicality argument */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--&gt;<br /> Does this imply that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem] isn't correct? And that it's method is bunk? Please help! -Seer [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.230|162.158.107.230]] 02:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> I believe the intention is that the theorem is not part of the set of bad data science, just that they share this one feature.<br /> <br /> Isn't the Gödel number for a theorem calculated by multiplying the numbers of the components together, so complicated theorems would have larger numbers? If so, the current explanation that this isn't a good way to judge fields is wrong. I'm not too sure though. [[User:MrCandela|MrCandela]] ([[User talk:MrCandela|talk]]) 05:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I do not believe that the title suggests renumbering theorems with Gödel numbers, but averaging the existing theorem numbers. Or otherwise, MrCandela's suggestion would be the way to go: Complicated Theorems have larger numbers. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.133|172.68.110.133]] 08:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Yeah a quick look at some magazines like [https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-incompleteness-theorems-work-20200714/#jump2/ this one] and I think Randall has a point [[User:MrCandela|MrCandela]] ([[User talk:MrCandela|talk]]) 09:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I wish I'd started the explanation off when I first saw it (somone posted the first Transcript whilst I was pondering, so I left off). I think there's some serious re-editing to be done, but basically it points to someone (Cueball, a dabbling armchair mathematician faced with some not directly mathematically-based problem) thinking that 'all' it takes is to encode the whatever-it-is, arbitrarily, and then with a few easy equations something useful cannbe derived. When, in reality, even if this is possible (ignoring the &quot;takes the age of the universe to permute things to find the right answer&quot; sort of sticking-block) it depends upon a ''good'' numerical encoding (enough attention to detail, but not too much, and in the right sort of way) and possibly quite a lot of data-demunging and filtration (again, just the right amount and in the correct manner) to pop out the &quot;answer&quot; being looked for. For some things, this can be easy, though there are always statistical pitfalls/etc. For others (&quot;life, the universe and everything&quot;, say) the task is far more complex and the result (&quot;42&quot;?) might not seem to be a very useful result for various reasons. And, on top this, there's Gödel. But that's an additional punchline, not the whole scope of the original joke. ...Anyway, this long comment is why I held back from writing the original Explanation, but I might yet wrangle my thoughts into what's since been put there. While trying not to tread upon too many toes and alternate explanations. Which is the hardest bit, I think... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 15:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Just a comment about the technicalities of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem: The 'third' possibility presented [http://dstoner.net/Math_Science/godel.html here] misunderstands the term 'true but unprovable'. When mathematicians say 'true but unprovable' in the context of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, what they mean is 'true in the standard model but unprovable in the formal system'. The Gödel sentence is certainly true for the standard natural numbers, by contradiction: assume that the Gödel sentence is false for the standard naturals, which means that there exists a standard natural number which is the Gödel number for the proof of the Gödel sentence. Then we could decode the Gödel number into a proof (of the formal system) proving the Gödel sentence true; a contradiction. (Note that the preceding proof by contradiction can be formalised in ZFC, but not in the formal system under study.) The reason why the Gödel sentence is unprovable in the formal system is because, from the point of view of the formal system, there might be a non-standard natural number which is the Gödel number for the proof of the Gödel sentence (and non-standard numbers cannot be decoded into a proof); or there might not be. --[[User:Underbase|Underbase]] ([[User talk:Underbase|talk]]) 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Regarding this, I know that the policy on this site is to include every possible interpretation, but the page mentioned is an html page (and not a [https://xkcd.com/2304/ pdf]) that was not [https://xkcd.com/1847/ peer reviewed] (thus not recognized by the community), and as mentioned by the user above it fails understand the concepts it is talking about. I do not think this site should be spreading this kind of idea. I believe Randall Monroe himself would be against this. <br /> <br /> ::I also believe the current explanation is both incorrect about explaining the seeming paradox of the Gödel conjecture, &amp; therefore somewhat incorrect about this joke. It is surely the transition from abstract to quantized - the act of applying limited formal numbering to potentially unbounded or otherwise non-standard terms - which incurs incompleteness? Within the constraints of a formal system of standard natural numbers, true≠provable, &amp; therein lies the internal (but not total) contradiction. ''That's'' the contradiction, right? &amp; the joke is that numbering theorems by their complexity, is not generally a productive approach for 'doing math' on them, in any sense but an abstract analytical one? <br /> ::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC) <br /> <br /> :I do not believe the Title Text calls for &quot;calculating the average of all the fields' theorems' Gödel numbers&quot;. It asks for 'the lowest average theorem number'. The average of all, is not the average of each. The Title Text wants the average of ''each of'' the fields' theorems' Gödel numbers. <br /> :[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Today's [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/derivative Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal] is slightly related.<br /> <br /> == Paradoxicality argument ==<br /> <br /> I think that revision [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2610:_Assigning_Numbers&amp;oldid=231000 231000] should be removed. My explanation of what's wrong with the linked site is as follows:<br /> <br /> Up until the section &quot;Gödel's String&quot;, nothing is incorrect. Furthermore, the first wrong line is numbered (49), and says that Gödel's statement is equivalent to &quot;This statement is not a theorem (of any formal system).&quot; This is where he goes wrong, for writing down a formula for &quot;n proves m&quot; requires inclusion of the formal system in which this proof happens. As such, the correct translation of Gödel's statement is &quot;This statement is not a theorem of [system]&quot;, which it indeed is not. Then he says that &quot;We have decided that Gödel's string cannot be a theorem and neither can its negation&quot; (true, after Rosser's trick) and therefore that this gives us &quot;~&lt;G∨~G&gt;&quot; (which is false). He has commited the sin of confusing truth and provability here.<br /> <br /> His discussion of the Epimenides string (&quot;This statement is not true&quot;) is accurate, except for the claim that the truth predicate is &quot;as valid an extension to [PA] as [the provability and quining] extensions were&quot;. This is false. The provability and quining predicates can be constructed in PA and thus are not &quot;extensions&quot; so much as &quot;shorthand&quot;; this was Gödel's contribution: to see that PA can talk about provability of statements in any fixed formal system. The truth predicate is not definable in PA, as he quite ably proves (suppose it was definable, then you could write down the Epimenides sentence in PA, and thereby prove false).<br /> <br /> The section &quot;Gödel's Error&quot; is just plain silly.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.147|172.70.114.147]] 19:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> What if we just change it to say something along the lines of &quot;Certain logical systems allow values to be 'not false' without being necessarily 'true'; Godel's theorem is based on an axiomatic assumption that every statement is either true or false.&quot;?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.163|108.162.221.163]] 06:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Is it just me, or is the given argument gibberish? Replacing the terms with more graspable ones, it seems to be saying: &quot;1. Assume that bananas can be grown from banana-trees (why is this a reasonable assumption? Is it also a reasonable assumption to make about pear trees?). 2. Banana-trees exist. 3. Therefore, the statement that bananas cannot be grown from the trees is true (HOW is this a reasonable conclusion to leap to from the preceding points? By what bizarre leap of elided logic?). 4. This is a contradiction, therefore our initial assumption must be wrong (No, clearly the conclusion in 3 is wrong). Therefore, the statement is true (which statement are you even talking about here?).&quot; Any chance someone could clarify that passage by including the missing steps in the logic? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.159|172.69.70.159]] 19:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :It's not missing any steps. The argument really is that simple. Maybe I didn't write it clearly enough... Anyway to address your specific points, I would first recommend you read {{w|Reductio ad absurdum}}, but if you don't have time (Because let's be real, nobody has enough time for reading Wikipedia articles), I'll break it down. 1. Assume the opposite of the statement (This is not a reasonable assumption almost by definition; the whole point is to disprove it, after all) using the Law of Assumption, which states that we can assume absolutely anything we want in a logical proof, so long as we keep track of what's been derived from it. 2 Assume anything else relevant 3. Follow the assumptions through to their conclusions, and find that the valid reasoning has led to an unsound result, such as a statement directly contradicting the assumption in 1. 4. One of the assumptions must be wrong in order to maintain consistency. Choose the assumption which was made for the purpose of disproving it to be the one we deem untrue, which means its opposite is true. Unfortunately these sorts of arguments don't really lend themselves to analogies with 'more graspable' statements.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.193|108.162.221.193]] 02:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hello,<br /> 1) Why couldn't Gödel's string be paradoxical? It is certainly A) self-referencing and B) Self-negating. Even &quot;This Statement is True&quot; causes trouble.<br /> 2) Where did Gödel even consider paradox to be a possibility? If he didn't, his argument is &quot;incomplete&quot; (just like its conclusion implies it might very well be anyway).<br /> 3) Has anyone here bothered to prove that his string is not actually paradoxical?<br /> - Don Stoner (nobody in particular -- just a senile wimpy old nerd)<br /> <br /> Hi again,<br /> Here's a fun one:<br /> &quot;This statement is paradoxical&quot;<br /> 1) It certainly is paradoxical (provably so)<br /> 2) It even says it's paradoxical (echoing Gödel)<br /> 3) Therefore, it must be &quot;true&quot; (echoing Gödel) <br /> 4) But (this time) this means it's simply &quot;false&quot;<br /> 5) Etc.<br /> - Don (nobody in particular)<br /> <br /> :1) I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;paradoxical&quot;. If you mean something like &quot;true and false&quot; or &quot;neither true nor false&quot;, that fails classical logic. Gödel (with a bit of help from Rosser) proved that we can write down a sentence G of Peano arithmetic, then prove (in PA) that G is equivalent to &quot;no integer encodes a proof in PA of G unless a smaller one encodes a proof in PA of not G&quot;. He then pointed out that if G was provable in PA, there was also a proof of not G (basically, work out what integer encodes that proof of G, then for each smaller integer, try to decode it into a proof of not G; if you succeed, you have a proof of not G; if you fail for all, you have proved by exhaustion that your integer encodes a proof of G and no smaller integer encodes a proof of not G; all this is a proof of not G). Thus, if PA is consistent, there is no proof in PA of G. Now assume there is a proof in PA of not G. Encode this proof into an integer N. We shall now prove either G or &quot;every integer less than N does not encode a proof in PA of G&quot;. We thus work through every integer less than N, checking to see if it encodes a proof in PA of G. If it does we have proved G; if no integers less than N encode a proof of G then we have proved &quot;for all n &lt; N, n does not encode a proof in PA of G&quot;. In the latter case, we have proved that every integer encoding a proof in PA of G is greater than N, which is an integer encoding a proof in PA of not G; this implies G! As such, we started with a proof in PA of not G (NOTE: THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM MERELY ASSUMING not G), and produced a proof in PA of G. So if PA is consistent, there is no proof in PA of not G either. Hence PA is either inconsistent (as if PA proves either G or not G, it proves the other and hence false) or incomplete (proving neither).<br /> <br /> :2) He proved that either PA proves false, or there is a statement such that PA proves neither the statement nor its negation. The first includes paradoxicality. (His second incompleteness theorem was essentially: &quot;By the argument above, PA proves that if PA is consistent then G has no proof in PA, which easily implies that PA proves &quot;If PA is consistent, then G&quot;. Now suppose PA proves that PA is consistent. Then by modus ponens, PA proves G, and therefore PA is inconsistent. So if PA proves that PA is consistent, then PA is inconsistent.&quot;) (It ''is'' possible for a consistent system to prove its own inconsistency.)<br /> <br /> :3) Most mathematicians assume that ZFC is consistent, even augmented by some pretty strong large cardinal hypotheses. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.72|172.70.35.72]] 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The short answer to your questions is that Godel's method was rigorous. Godel numbering is much more precise than natural language ever could be. The longer answer is that there's a reason Godel's theorem is considered a work of genius; though the overall concept is fairly easy to grasp intuitively, making it into an actual theorem takes a lot of work and cleverness. There are multiple long Wikipedia pages about it just outlining the generals. The proof itself is rock solid, but far beyond the scope of this page. And the pithy answer is &quot;Do you really think you're the first person to think of that? Mathematicians spent decades analyzing the theorems with uncharitable eyes.&quot;[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.119|108.162.221.119]] 04:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: I am certain I am not the only person to notice his error because I have been contacted by others who noticed it independently. (None of us were sufficiently arrogant to presume we were first.) Further, we have all spent a great deal more time investigating this than you presume. Gödel's numbering was indeed rigorous and precise, but in spite of his genius, he simply failed to consider the possibility of paradox (incompleteness). If I am wrong about this, it would be would be a simple matter to show me where he addressed this. - Don Stoner (n.i.p.)<br /> <br /> <br /> I'm going to remove the section stating that Godel's theorem is self-negating (it's not) and that his methodology was incomplete. And before anyone re-adds it, I simply ask that you please please PLEASE actually read up on the subject (and I don't mean from random html pages). Mathematicians have been actively trying to find a flaw in Godel's proof since before it was published; I promise you that whatever clever paradoxicality argument you've come up with has already been considered and eliminated by the professionals.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.81|108.162.221.81]] 21:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : Your parting shot kind of reminds me of Junior high school. Specifically, I was one nerd being confronted by a few dozen &quot;normal&quot; kids. I was outnumbered, but there was really only room for one kid to get in my face at a time. As I told each of those kids (one at a time), &quot;Your buddies aren't here right now. It's just you and me.&quot; So, unless you can talk one of those &quot;professionals&quot; (who actually understands Gödel's proof) into joining us here, you need to explain to me where Gödel addressed the possibility of paradox (he didn't). His methodology was incomplete. You also need to explain to me why you assert that &quot;This statement cannot...&quot; is not self-negating (it is). Further, since &quot;the policy on this site is to include every possible interpretation&quot; you also need to explain to me why you have taken it upon yourself to override Randal's authority. - Don Stoner (n.i.p.)<br /> :: I can't even be bothered to work out who is saying what. Don, if you're interested in site policy, use the proper &lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt; signature (get an account in your name, if you want to be named), and possibly chill out a bit too. If someone is arguing (can't be bothered to check the edit history/diffs) then they need to use a .sig too. And colon-indents per level of reply is useful. But don't mind me, it looks like you're having fun either on your own or as a pair (or more). Just sayin'... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.71|162.158.159.71]] 17:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> ::: Thanks! (I'm a retired robotics-embedded-system programmer, but I'm not much of an end used. I need help to use my cellphone.) - Don --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.10|172.69.34.10]] 19:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> ::: Oops, sorry, I didn't properly sign my comment. Normally I'm pretty diligent about it, so looking back at this I didn't even recognize my own writing for a few seconds (insert laughing emoji). I'll go back and add a signature now. The time stamp will be wrong, but I don't know a way around that.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.81|108.162.221.81]] 21:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> :To clarify, I removed the section because it stated as fact that the incompleteness theorem is wrong. If you don't like the theorem, that's fine, but the consensus view is that the proof is sound. I did add a sentence to the effect of 'it's always possible we're wrong about things' to hopefully reflect the point of view that had been stated with unwarranted confidence. If that's not an acceptable compromise to people, you're welcome to counter propose.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.81|108.162.221.81]] 22:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> ::If my memory serves correctly, what you removed was:<br /> :::&quot;Either that, or Gödel used an &quot;inconsistent&quot; or &quot;incomplete&quot; system to produce his result. Any &quot;complete and consistent&quot; system would recognize a self-referencing and self-negating statement to be a form of the 'liar's paradox' ('This statement is false').&quot; Gödel did not examine that as a possibility (incomplete methodology).<br /> ::1) Gödel himself demonstrated that his (or any) formal system was either &quot;inconsistent&quot; or &quot;incomplete.&quot; This much is both ironical and obviously true.<br /> ::2) It is observable fact that Gödel did not consider paradox as a possibility. This makes his theorem &quot;incomplete.&quot; This is observable fact, not a false claim.<br /> ::Censoring my opinion is not a legitimate &quot;compromise.&quot; I recommend that you attempt to refute (or at least counter) my opinion instead. - Don --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8|172.70.207.8]] 22:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> ::I tried a cropped (and less controversial) version of my original statement, to see what you thought about it.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.229|162.158.78.229]] 02:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> :::I'm not entirely sure what you mean by &quot;paradox&quot;; to my knowledge, that word doesn't have a formal mathematical definition. I assume you mean a non-true non-false statement? (feel free to correct me) In which case, Gödel did not consider this because he was working within classical logic, wherein statements can either be &quot;true&quot; or &quot;false&quot; and there is no third value. The reason he chose classical logic is because mathematics is currently performed using classical logic. And although most proofs of &quot;the Gödel sentence is true&quot; are a bit wishy-woshy, you can actually formalise a proof within ZFC set theory (a theory based on classical logic) that the Gödel sentence is true for the standard natural numbers (see my comment above). Of course, you could reject ZFC (and base mathematics on something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic paraconsistent logic]) but you'll probably have a hard time convincing mathematicians. Regardless, was more concerned with the incompleteness of the system than with the truth of the Gödel sentence, and doesn't mention truth at all in Theorem VI (the First Incompleteness Theorem) of his original paper.--[[User:Underbase|Underbase]] ([[User talk:Underbase|talk]]) 10:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)<br /> ::::I won't argue with that. (I'll also back off to &quot;non-true non-false,&quot; since I'm unsure how to understand other definitions.). &quot;Incompleteness&quot; (rather than &quot;inconsistency&quot;) is still the missing piece. One claim in the above explanation: &quot;David Hilbert's famous proclamation &quot;We must know, we will know&quot; is simply incorrect,&quot; Ignores this qualification -- making it a misapplication of what Gödel actually proved. Maybe we can eventually know truth -- but the limited tools constituting Gödel's proof were simply not up to that task.--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 20:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC) -edited --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.81|172.70.214.81]] 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=189:_Exercise&diff=231279 2022-04-27T16:33:07Z

<p>172.69.33.115: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 189<br /> | date = November 27, 2006<br /> | title = Exercise<br /> | image = exercise.png<br /> | titletext = I haven't had the patience for RPGs in a long time.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{w|Role-playing_game|Role-playing games}} (RPGs) are a pastime commonly associated with {{w|Geek|geeks}} in which players assume the role of a fictional character in a fantasy world. In many RPGs, character evolution and advancement is represented by &quot;leveling up.&quot; Through winning battles and, less frequently, completing tasks or missions, characters are awarded experience points (XP), which can be spent on increasing their ratings in attributes (such as strength or speed) or skills (such as bow-hunting or computer hacking). The number of XP awarded is generally proportional to the difficulty of the task completed.<br /> <br /> [[Cueball]] is doing {{w|Chin-up|chin-ups}}, a strength-training exercise that targets the latissimus dorsi and biceps. Repeating this exercise over time will improve his ability to do more chin-ups in one go - in other words, he will become stronger. In doing so, he is effectively leveling up his STR (strength) attribute in real life. While doing his chin-ups, he comments that he will soon switch to running - an aerobic exercise that improves endurance - in order to build up his CON (constitution) attribute. Cueball is treating his gym session like an RPG, and observes that, as a self-confessed geek, he would not be as interested in exercising without that link.<br /> <br /> The title text implies that since [[Randall]] has lost his patience and ability to play RPG games, likely due to the connection to exercise.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :Like many geeks, I got a lot more interested in exercise once I made the connection to leveling up.<br /> :[Cueball is doing pull-ups on a bar in a doorframe.]<br /> :Cueball: One more point to STR, then I'll run to work on CON.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Video games]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2338:_Faraday_Tour&diff=195259 2020-07-28T01:10:04Z

<p>172.69.33.115: /* Explanation */ [foo] -&gt; like</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 2338<br /> | date = July 28, 2020<br /> | title = Faraday Tour<br /> | image = faraday_tour.png<br /> | titletext = I asked them if it was safe to be running tours during the pandemic. They said, &quot;During the what?&quot;<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{incomplete|Created by a FARADAY SUPERFAN. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> [[Hairy]], addressing an unseen camera (possibly the reader's POV) welcomes viewers to a {{w|Live streaming|livecast}} walk through &quot;the world's largest {{w|Faraday cage}}.&quot; A Faraday cage blocks {{w|Electromagnetic field|electromagnetic transmission}} into and out of the cage area. Attempting to broadcast a walk through such a cage with any medium that uses radio waves would (theoretically, at least) cause the transmitter's signal to drop out completely, resulting in the loading wheel shown in panels three and four. Faraday cages do not necessarily have to be dark inside, as this one appears to be, but the darkness visually aligns with the concept of {{w|communications blackout}}, which is what Hairy's viewers experience while Harry is in the cage.<br /> <br /> &quot;Smash that like (or subscribe, etc.) button&quot; is a typical command given by YouTubers to watchers, asking to like the video or subscribe to their channel if they liked the video, ultimately to boost the creator's popularity.<br /> <br /> The title text refers to COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. The joke is that as they don’t get cell service in the cage, the owners would be unaware of global events. This implies for comedic effect that the owners and workers solely live inside the Faraday Cage.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Close-up on streamer]<br /> :Streamer: Hey there superfans, welcome to the livecast!<br /> :[Streamer walks toward an opening in a large building]<br /> :Streamer: Got a real treat for you today: a tour of the world's largest Faraday cage! C'mon, let's check it-<br /> :[two panels of a &quot;loading&quot; spinner]<br /> :[Streamer exits the building]<br /> :Streamer: -was ''so cool!'' Wow!! Thanks for coming along, and don't forget to smash that like button!<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:COVID-19]]</div>

172.69.33.115 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2338:_Faraday_Tour&diff=195258 2020-07-28T01:09:33Z

<p>172.69.33.115: /* Explanation */ it wasn't just a stupid assumption, it was a joke</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 2338<br /> | date = July 28, 2020<br /> | title = Faraday Tour<br /> | image = faraday_tour.png<br /> | titletext = I asked them if it was safe to be running tours during the pandemic. They said, &quot;During the what?&quot;<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{incomplete|Created by a FARADAY SUPERFAN. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br /> <br /> [[Hairy]], addressing an unseen camera (possibly the reader's POV) welcomes viewers to a {{w|Live streaming|livecast}} walk through &quot;the world's largest {{w|Faraday cage}}.&quot; A Faraday cage blocks {{w|Electromagnetic field|electromagnetic transmission}} into and out of the cage area. Attempting to broadcast a walk through such a cage with any medium that uses radio waves would (theoretically, at least) cause the transmitter's signal to drop out completely, resulting in the loading wheel shown in panels three and four. Faraday cages do not necessarily have to be dark inside, as this one appears to be, but the darkness visually aligns with the concept of {{w|communications blackout}}, which is what Hairy's viewers experience while Harry is in the cage.<br /> <br /> &quot;Smash that [foo] button&quot; is a typical command given by YouTubers to watchers, asking to like the video or subscribe to their channel if they liked the video, ultimately to boost the creator's popularity.<br /> <br /> The title text refers to COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. The joke is that as they don’t get cell service in the cage, the owners would be unaware of global events. This implies for comedic effect that the owners and workers solely live inside the Faraday Cage.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Close-up on streamer]<br /> :Streamer: Hey there superfans, welcome to the livecast!<br /> :[Streamer walks toward an opening in a large building]<br /> :Streamer: Got a real treat for you today: a tour of the world's largest Faraday cage! C'mon, let's check it-<br /> :[two panels of a &quot;loading&quot; spinner]<br /> :[Streamer exits the building]<br /> :Streamer: -was ''so cool!'' Wow!! Thanks for coming along, and don't forget to smash that like button!<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:COVID-19]]</div>

172.69.33.115