explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1531: The BDLPSWDKS Effect

2015-05-30T08:18:53Z

173.245.48.29:

{{comic
| number = 1531
| date = May 29, 2015
| title = The BDLPSWDKS Effect
| image = the bdlpswdks effect.png
| titletext = This well-known effect has of course been replicated in countless experiments.
}}

==Explanation==

The BDLPSWDKS Effect in the title is an {{w|acronym}} for Bernoulli-Doppler-Leidenfrost-Peltzman-Sapir-Whorf-Dunning-Kruger-Stroop Effect, as explained by [[Ponytail]] in the comic. She stands in front of a slide that shows [[Cueball]] being subjected to this effect.

The effect mentioned appears to be a mashup of seven scientific principles (with nine scientists names included) from different scientific fields, with elements from each principle appearing in the resulting description of the effect:

*{{w|Bernoulli's principle}} in fluid dynamics (also mentioned in [[803: Airfoil]]) states that an increase in the speed of a fluid with certain properties occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid's potential energy.
** This is referenced by the firetruck lifting off and hurtling.
*The {{w|Doppler effect}} in physics refers to the change in a wave's frequency for an observer moving relative to its source. Sound from the oncoming firetruck increases in pitch.
**This is referenced by Cueball reacting faster if the shouting is in a non-tonal language than a tonal language. In tonal languages, changes in pitch change the meaning, thus tonal langauges may suffer more from Doppler distortion than non-tonal ones.
*The {{w|Leidenfrost effect}} refers to how liquid will produce an insulating vapor layer when in near contact with an extremely hot surface, causing it to hover over said surface.
**This is referenced by the firetruck lifting off on a layer of superheated gas.
*The {{w|Peltzman effect}} refers to how regulations intended to increase safety are ineffective or counterproductive because people, feeling safer, will engage in riskier behaviours.
**This is referenced by the firefighter speeding due to the feeling of safety he/she has in a modern firetruck, subsequently creating a hazardous situation and reducing the safety of the pedestrian.
*The {{w|Sapir–Whorf hypothesis}} states that a person's world view and cognitive processes are affected by the structure of the language the person speaks.
**This is referenced by languages with a word for "firefighter" giving a quicker reaction. If Cueball speaks (or is currently thinking in) a language without a word for "firefighter", he might be slower to recognize the role and authority of the driver warning him, and thus slower to react to the danger.
*The {{w|Dunning–Kruger effect}} refers to unskilled people mistakenly perceiving themselves as more skilled than they really are, while skilled people underestimate their own abilities.
**This is referenced by the tonal language being a language Cueball thinks he is fluent in but isn't.
*The {{w|Stroop effect}} refers to the phenomenon in which it is easier to name the color of the ink in which a word is written when the word refers to the same color as the ink than when the word refers to a different color.
**This is referenced by Cueball diving out faster if the driver screams "red!" than if the driver screams "green!", as the firetruck is red and therefore it may create a moment of confusion for Cueball if the driver shouts "green!".

The punchline is how utterly inconsequential the tested variable (exact content of a shouted warning) might seem in light of the severity of the situation (the driver is warning someone who is about to be run over by a speeding vehicle), as well as the implicitly-convoluted thought process that would have gone into even wanting to test the variable.

Usually, for an effect to be considered real, the scientific method requires the effect to be replicated by different experimenters in different times and places. It is hard to imagine several scientists in different parts of the world creating the setup to replicate this effect; however the title text mentions (maybe {{w|Sarcasm|sarcastically}}) it has been done countless times.

Furthermore, the opportunity of publishing this comic strip may (or may not) be related to the recently issued sequels of franchises such as `Mad Max` and `Carmageddon`, where it's not unusual to find heavy wheeled vehicles trampling pedestrians for fun, or simply because the drivers do not care.

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail stands next to a screen displaying a firetruck hurtling toward Cueball on what appears to be a layer of gas.]

:Ponytail: The Bernoulli-Doppler-Leidenfrost-Peltzman-Sapir-Whorf-Dunning-Kruger-Stroop Effect states that if a speeding fire truck lifts off and hurtles towards you on a layer of superheated gas, you'll dive out of the way faster if the driver screams '''''"red!"''''' in a '''''non'''''-tonal language that '''''has''''' a word for "firefighter" than if they scream '''''"green!"''''' in a '''''tonal''''' language with '''''no''''' word for "firefighter" which you '''''think''''' you're fluent in but '''''aren't'''''.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Science]]

1524: Dimensions

2015-05-29T06:17:07Z

173.245.48.29:

{{comic
| number = 1524
| date = May 13, 2015
| title = Dimensions
| image = dimensions.png
| titletext = I would say time is definitely one of my top three favorite dimensions.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Too much like a discussion. Needs a rewrite.}}
Our world is {{w|Dimension|3-dimensional}} (like in a box; length, width and height.) But in modern {{w|physics}}, {{w|space}} and {{w|time}} are unified in a four-dimensional continuum called {{w|Spacetime|spacetime}} where time becomes the fourth dimension.

It is to this 4-dimensional spacetime that [[Cueball]] refers in his monologue to [[Megan]], while he is philosophizing about his life in these four dimensions.

What Cueball comments on is that whereas we can, to some extent, determine in which direction we wish to move (at least on the surface of the Earth) in the three dimensions of space (up-down, left-right, forward-backward), we cannot help but being pushed ''inexorably forward'' through time. So it is quite lucky for Cueball that he thinks this is OK.

Being pushed constantly in one of the other directions would very soon be lethal. Suddenly if you where pushed over a cliff or in front of a truck, or also if you were pushed hard enough {{w|Between a Rock and a Hard Place|against a rock}}. But even if you avoided any of these you would die soon enough if it was some constant direction, because then you would soon leave the Earth if you travel in a tangent to the surface, as the Earth is approximately spherical. (see [[1376: Jump]] especially the title text). Also because of all the movements the Earth undergoes, (spinning and orbiting the sun, that orbits the galaxy that moves toward Andromeda) we are already constantly being pushed in several directions at once, without realizing it. But it is always changing directions, as opposed to times, which we always move forward through.

Moving forward in time will also eventually be lethal by causing old age. It also may place you in dangerous times when natural or man-made disasters have happened (or placing you in the path of a moving truck), but it is only possible to avoid these dangers by sidestepping them in one of the three spatial dimensions.

All of this amounts to an unusually erudite way for Cueball to say he feels content with how his life has turned out, despite the natural doubts one has as they get older.

In the title text Cueball then continues to muse about his favorite dimensions and places time in his top three dimensions. This initially seems to mean that one of the three space dimensions must be his least favorite. But since in space there is no difference between the three dimensions, it's not obvious why any one would be preferred over another. And if that was the case, then time would have to be his favorite dimension. Radial and cylindrical coordinate systems describe 3d worlds with vastly differing dimensionalities.

There are, though, a couple of other ways to think about this:

#Cueball could be referring to a naive view of three spatial dimensions in a fixed reference system (like on earth), where the three directions can be different. In a {{W|Cartesian coordinate system}}, as often seen in geometry textbooks, two axes form a horizontal plane and the third axis is the vertical one. In this case, perhaps his two other top three "dimensions" could be those in the plane (along the surface of the Earth) as he could easily move along these two axes, but moving along the third axis (e.g. flying away from ground - or falling down a cliff) requires special arrangements or is outright dangerous.
#If Cueball is not supposed to represent a real person (like for instance [[Randall]] himself, as he often does in this type of comic) then he may be viewed as a "real" comic strip character, thus always living in a two dimensional world. This view offers another explanation, which may be that since he only exists in two spatial dimensions, these are his "favorite" ones along with time (or "movement" from panel to panel, see wired comic mentioned below), with the third spatial dimension being outside his experience. Since Cueball specifically mentions the four dimensions in the comic, and makes it clear that he '''could''' have been pushed through any of them (but has been subject only to a push through time), this may not be such a likely explanation.
#It's a rephrasal of the statement "time isn't the worst", meaning that it isn't hist most hated, i.e. fourth favourite dimension

In {{W|M-theory}}, a conjectured theory that unifies all consistent versions of {{w|superstring theory}}, spacetime is eleven-dimensional, which would make a place in the top three a somewhat more interesting position. However, these extra dimensions are not currently detectable.

Interestingly, [[Randall]] has already, back in the December 2014 issue of Wired magazine, published the [http://www.wired.com/2014/11/xkcd-guide-to-dimensions/ xkcd guide to dimensions] where the main part of this comic was already used in panel 9 out of 20. This issue of Wired magazine was about multiple dimensions, and Randall's section is about imagining higher dimension. The article is a mix of xkcd-style comics and captions explaining them. The panel in question show Cueball saying, "Of '''all the''' dimensions I could have spent my life being pushed inexorably through, I guess "time" isn't the worst." (the only difference being that "all the" has been changed to "the four" in this comic). In panel 15 of the Wired comic series, Randall considers how dimensions can be represented in a two-dimensional comic strip: a character moving within a panel represents movement in space but movement from panel to panel represents movement in time.

Previously Randall has made a comic about a man who was pushed sideways (although that was by the gravity which affected him wrongly) - so he was pushed both through time and fell sideways: [[417: The Man Who Fell Sideways]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting up against a tree, Megan lies with her hands behind her neck in front him under the foliage of the tree.]
:Cueball: Of the four dimensions I could have spent my life being pushed inexorably forward through, I guess "time" isn't the worst.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Time]]

1520: Degree-Off

2015-05-13T20:31:27Z

173.245.48.29: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1520
| date = May 4, 2015
| title = Degree-Off
| image = degree off.png
| titletext = I'M SORRY, FROM YOUR YEARS OF CONDESCENDING TOWARD THE 'SQUISHY SCIENCES', I ASSUMED YOU'D BE A LITTLE HARDER.
}}
==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] (physics), [[Hair Bun Girl]] (biology), and [[Megan]] (chemistry) appear to be on a talk show called Degree-Off, hosted by [[Hairy]], where representatives of different fields, try to explain why their field is the best and why to get a degree in their field. The title "Degree-Off" is a portmanteau of "{{w|Academic degree|degree}}", as in the recognized completion of studies at a school or university, and "{{w|face-off}}", a direct confrontation between two people or groups. Since there are three participants, this is not a true face-off, unless Megan, who does not speak, is not counted.

The host asks the physicist Cueball to go first. He light-heartedly begins to tell what appears to be long story, beginning with a {{w|Richard Feynman}} anecdote. During the {{w|Manhattan Project}} in Los Alamos, Richard Feynman got bored because of the isolation and started learning {{w|lock picking}} on the secret documents safes. Using these new skills, he played lots of pranks on his colleagues, like leaving notes and spooking them into believing there was a spy among them (which, of course, {{w|Klaus_Fuchs|there was}}). He finishes his case with [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford a quote] from {{w|Ernest Rutherford}}, implying that his speech was quite long and winding. The quote communicates the idea that physics is the only fundamental framework, so that the job of chemists, biologists and other scientist simply is to catalog and systematize observations ("collect stamps") on phenomena too complicated to presently be fully described in terms of physics. This idea was earlier lampooned by [[Randall]] in [[435: Purity]] (and is also stated in the title text of [[1158: Rubber Sheet]]).

The biologist, Hair Bun Girl, goes next, showing with a graph (see below) that the field of biology has helped reduce disease. She then goes on to claim that the heroes in biology (the part known as Medicine) has even "slain" one of the {{w|Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse}}. Popular culture often names the Horsemen "War", "Famine", "Pestilence", and "Death" (the first three names are completely erroneous compared to the Biblical canon, although the errors are irrelevant to the punchline) - Hair Bun Girl implies that the field of biology has almost eliminated {{w|Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse#As_infectious_disease|Pestilence}}. (The imagery of Pestilence being thwarted by modern medicine was also used in the book {{w|Good Omens}}, by {{w|Terry Pratchett}} (of whom Randall is a fan, see [[1498: Terry Pratchett]]) and {{w|Neil Gaiman}}, where Pestilence has retired after the discovery of {{w|Penicillin}}, and been replaced by {{w|Pollution}}.)

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
This graph shows the death rate from infectious disease in USA, similar to that shown in the comic presented by Hair Bun Girl, as both have the range of 1900-2000. The spike is attributable to the {{w|1918 flu pandemic}}. The graph has been published in this paper [http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249 Trends in Infectious Disease Mortality in the United States During the 20th Century].
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">[[File:Crude_Infectious_Disease_Mortality_Rate_in_the_United_States_from_1900_Through_1996.gif]]</div>
</div>

Hair Bun Girl then goes on to directly accuse Cueball (i.e. physicists) of creating a new Horseman to replace the one slain by the biologists. She claims that they gathered in the desert to do so. Given Cueball's opening remark, she must be referring to the development of the {{w|atomic bomb}}, which was built and tested in the {{w|New Mexico desert}}. The new horseman is therefore the atomic bomb, or the various perils associated with it.

Hair Bun Girl's implied condemnation of the physics community has been echoed by some of the scientists involved in the project itself. After the test detonation of the first nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, {{w|J. Robert Oppenheimer}}, the director of the {{w|Los Alamos National Laboratory}}, found himself quoting the {{w|Bhagavad Gita}}: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

This harsh moral judgement shocks Cueball, who exclaims "I thought this was supposed to be fun and lighthearted!" While the set-up is of a frivolous friendly competition, Hair Bun Girl's presentation is surprisingly dark. Her retort in the final panel reveals that she was angered by the off-hand dismissal of 'soft' sciences as "stamp-collecting", and turned the game from a light-hearted fun into something more disturbing.

In the title text the biologist goes on to declare in {{w|All caps}} that she is surprised a physicist isn't "harder", after all their condescending towards the "squishy" sciences. The use of 'hard' and 'squishy' is a play on the colloquial division between the so-called 'hard' sciences (such as physics and chemistry) and 'soft' sciences (such as biology and geology). 'Hard' sciences usually refer to the perception that in fields like physics, precisely repeatable experiments and measurements are possible, as opposed to 'soft' sciences seen as placing less emphasis on precisely quantifiable predictability - however Hair Bun Girl is extending 'hard' to its meaning of 'stoic', mocking Cueball for not being able to weather a personal moral attack. Again she is indicating that she's upset by directly referencing a mocking portrayal of other fields allegedly made by Cueball.

In [[520: Cuttlefish]] Randall shows that he personally respects biologists - or at least fears them.

==Transcript==
:[Hairy is acting as the host of a TV talk show, ''Degree-Off''. Cueball, Hair Bun Girl, and Megan are acting as representatives of Phys (Physics), Bio (Biology), and Chem (Chemistry) respectively. They each stand behind their own Lectern with the respective subject label.]

:Hairy: Welcome to the ''Degree-Off'', where we determine which field is the best! Physics, wanna go first?
:Cueball: Sure! I'd like to tell the story of Richard Feynman's Manhattan project lockpicking pranks...

:Cueball: ...and as he said, "all science is either physics or stamp collecting."
:Cueball: Thank you.
:Hairy: ''Great!'' Bio, you wanna go next?
:Hair Bun Girl: Okay.

:[A graph labeled "Per 100,000 is shown above Hair Bun Girl]
:Hair Bun Girl: This is a graph of the death rate from infectious disease in this country.

:[Hair Bun Girl raising her left hand]
:Hair Bun Girl: The heroes of my field have ''slain'' one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

:[Hair Bun Girl pointing at Cueball]
:Hair Bun Girl: While the heroes of ''your'' field gathered in the desert to create a new one.

:Cueball: ...Jeez, what the hell? I thought this was supposed to be fun and lighthearted!
:Hair Bun Girl: ''You must have been thinking of stamp collecting.''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hair Bun Girl]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Portmanteau]]

1516: Win by Induction

2015-04-25T10:24:16Z

173.245.48.29:

{{comic
| number = 1516
| date = April 24, 2015
| title = Win by Induction
| image = win by induction.png
| titletext = This would be bad enough, but every 30th or 40th pokéball has TWO of them inside.
}}

==Explanation==
In the {{w|Pokémon}} franchise, human characters called Trainers capture fantastical creatures from the wild, the titular Pokémon (a shortened form of "Pocket Monsters"), and train them to battle one another. Pokémon are captured and stored in devices called Poké Balls, which shrink the creatures down to pocket size (hence "Pocket Monsters"). The anime's dub has enshrined the phrase "''<Pokémon's name>'', I choose you!" into popular culture memory. When Trainers do battle, they often shout this phrase while throwing the ball to the ground, releasing the Pokémon at full size.

In this comic, a Pokémon chosen at some point was a {{w|Pikachu}}, which does not intend to engage in the battle himself. Instead, the Pikachu chooses another Pikachu to fight for him. This process then repeats itself. Behind the Pikachu with the Pokéball is a long line of other Pikachu, suggesting that this process has been going on for a while.

Nearby stands [[Cueball]], holding a closed Pokéball, and [[Megan]], looking at her watch. This suggests that Cueball intends to have his own Pokémon fight the Pikachu, but is waiting to see which enemy his Pokémon must face before the battle can actually begin (waiting in vain, if the above described process repeats indefinitely), while Megan (who may have chosen the original Pikachu) is growing impatient with the delay. Given that Cueball is holding a closed Pokéball he has not deployed yet Megan must be his enemy and cannot herself be his Pokémon.

The joke in this comic comes from analogy with the mathematical {{w|proof by induction}}, which is a proof with a base case, followed by a never ending sequence of steps. Each step leads to the next, thus proving something for all cases. This title seems to suggest that the process of Pikachu choosing Pikachu will not end, effectively postponing the battle indefinitely.

The name "induction" comes from logic and discrete mathematics, and is thus unrelated to the physical phenomena of {{w|electromagnetic induction}}; but the fact that Pikachu is an "Electric-type" Pokémon is most likely a word play connecting the two ideas.

If there were always only a single Pikachu in each Pokéball, this would spawn an unlimited number of Pikachu forming a single line. Since, as the title text notes, there're occasionally two of them in a Pokéball, this would lead to exponential rather than linear growth, as if the latter wasn't bad enough!

Pikachu was used in one of the storylines of [[1350: Lorenz]]. See all the attach moves it made [[1350:_Lorenz#Pok.C3.A9mon|here]].

==Transcript==
:[There's a long queue of Pikachu extending out of the frame to the left. They are all just out from their ball, at least the last eight Pikachu's open balls lie in two parts on the ground at their feet. They are standing in front of Megan and Cueball. Cueball is holding a closed pokéball while Megan checks the time on her watch. The front most Pikachu, holding a closed pokéball, speaks.]

:Pikachu at the front: Pikachu, I choose ''you!''

==Trivia==
*For some reason Pikachu is drawn without its lightning shaped tail.
*In the Pokémon canon, Pokémon are only allowed to hold on to an ''empty'' Pokéball when stored in a Pokéball.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Pokémon‏‎]]

1508: Operating Systems

2015-04-06T22:20:40Z

173.245.48.29: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1508
| date = April 6, 2015
| title = Operating Systems
| image = operating systems.png
| titletext = One of the survivors, poking around in the ruins with the point of a spear, uncovers a singed photo of Richard Stallman. They stare in silence. "This," one of them finally says, "This is a man who BELIEVED in something."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More fine tuning needed? What does the height above the time line mean. Is the lowest the main system? Or is it more based on order of appearance and simplicity? Note there is not always an OS at the bottom...}}
In this comic, [[Randall]] gives an overview of past, present and (speculatively) future of the {{w|operating system}}s running in his house at any given time. Notably, because Randall is fascinated by technology, he has had more than one OS running in his household since the mid '90's. The timeline tracks how Operating Systems have come and gone over the years, and the gradual shift from desktop Operating Systems to mobile can be observed. Beyond the present day, we see some of Randall's humorous predictions as to which technologies and companies will dominate the Operating System landscape in the future.

It may be that the OS that is closest to the time-line is also the one he mainly uses during these extended periods.

Previous and current systems:
*{{w|MS-DOS}} (Microsoft Disk Operating System): The default, command-line-based OS on most IBM PC-compatible computers in the 80s and early 90s.
*{{w|Microsoft Windows}}: The default GUI-based OS for IBM PC-compatible computers from the mid 80s to the present day. Early versions operated as shells on top of MS-DOS rather than stand-alone OSes in their own right, which may explain part of the overlap in those two bars.
*Apple's {{w|Mac OS}} (Macintosh Operating System): The OS of Apple's Macintosh line of computers. Randall's bar indicates that he stopped using Macs in 2001, a time when the fortunes of Apple were in decline and Macintoshes were "niche" computers.
*{{w|Linux}}: An open-source (typically free) Unix-like OS. Randall's bar indicates that he likely used it on one or two PCs starting from 1999 while still using Windows on other PCs, or perhaps was dual-booting one or more PCs with Windows, until abandoning Windows in 2007 to use Linux full-time. This timing coincides with the release of Microsoft's controversial {{w|Windows Vista}} and the advent of more user-friendly Linux distributions.
*{{w|OS X}} (Macintosh Operating System v10): The successor OS of Apple's Macintosh line of computers. Although it was sometimes marketed as merely the 10th version of the earlier Mac OS, it was largely a new product. The bar indicates Randall's renewed use of Macintosh computers in 2009 when Apple was in a much better financial state than it was in 2001.
*{{w|Android_(operating_system)|Android}}: The upper layers of the OS running on Android phones and tablets, above the Linux {{w|Kernel_(operating_system)|kernel}}. Randall is indicating that he has at least one of these devices.
*Apple's {{w|iOS}}: The OS of {{w|iPhone}}, {{w|iPad}}, and {{w|Apple TV}}. Randall is indicating that he also has at least one of these.

His predictions for the future include:
*2018: That {{w|OS X}} and {{w|iOS}} will merge.
*2019: That [http://github.com/runtimejs/runtime#readme someone will succeed] in coding an entire operating system in {{w|Javascript}}.
*2022: That there'll be an OS based on the {{w|Tinder_(application)|Tinder}} dating app.
*2024: That there'll be an OS from {{w|Nest Labs}}, presumably oriented towards home automation and the {{w|Internet of things}} .
*2029: That {{w|Elon Musk}} will come up with an operating system.
*2030: That {{w|Disk_operating_system|DOS}} would make a comeback, but only in an ironic fashion (maybe because there would be no more disks left for it to operate from).
*2034: That he will be deploying an [http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/genetically-engineered-red-blood-cells-could-be-drug-delivery-drones/ autonomous drug-delivery drone] in his body.
*2042: Human civilization comes to a fiery end, maybe due to some unholy combination of the above innovations. Another possible explanation is that human civilization will be wiped out by an artificial super-intelligence, superior to human intelligence, as Elon Musk, Ray Kurzweil, Bill Gates and many tech pundits foresee that 2045 will be the year to see such technology becoming real, and as Elon Musk, Bill Gates and many other tech pundits fear that it will be the extinction of all life on earth, as explained [http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html on this page].
*2059: At this time his operating system will be {{w|GNU}}/{{w|Hurd}}. This infamously and perennially late [http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html GNU/Hurd] OS will finally make it in to Randall's home after human civilization has been wiped out. The joke is that GNU/Hurd began to be developed in 1990, and while it was expected to be released in a relatively short time, even now only unstable builds have been released. So Randall is saying that he will finally run it in his house a decade or two after the end of civilization. GNU/Hurd will presumably have an advantage as humanity rebuilds civilization due to the widespread availability of its code and development tools, and perhaps also because of Stallman's depth of belief, based on the title text.

The title text refers to {{w|Richard Stallman}}, the founder of the {{w|Free Software movement}} and the GNU and Hurd projects. A survivor of the fire that ended the human civilization has uncovered a slightly burned ({{w|Singe|singed}}) picture of him. And they can see, either directly from the picture or because they already know of Stallman, that this was a man that really believed in something. In this case it was ''free software'' and the ''technical superiority of Hurd over the Linux Kernel''.

GNU is a collection of free software utilities, particularly the system utilities used with the Linux Kernel to form the Linux operating system (often called GNU/Linux by those who wish to emphasize the contribution of the GNU project). Hurd is an operating system kernel designed as part of GNU project that could be used in place of the Linux kernel to produce a compete GNU operating system. Hurd has a microkernel architecture, which has many perceived advantages over Linux's monolithic kernel, and is thought by many to be technically superior, despite its low adoption rate compared to the Linux kernel.

Randall has made several comics about free software and also about Stallman. See this list of [[:Category:Comics featuring Richard Stallman|comics featuring Richard Stallman]]. Most are these are also about free software in some form.

==Transcript==
:[At the top of the panel:]
:'''Operating Systems'''
:running in my house

:[At the bottom there is time-line that runs from 1990 to 2066. It has small indicators for every year, larger for every 5 years and largest for every 10 years. Below the 10 year indicators are written the years. Also the year 2015 is marked:]
:1990 2000 2010 Now 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

:[Bars above the time-line in four levels are labeled with operating system names, representing the time period for that OS. Below is a list of the bars on the time-line in order of first appearance (with approximate year ranges given). Also the level from 1-4 is indicated, with level 1 just above the time-line and level 4 the highest level above the line:]

:[Level 1 from 1988 to 1998 (extends a little left past the beginning of the time-line but not off panel):]
:MS DOS
:[Level 2 from 1993 to 2007:]
:Windows
:[Level 3 from 1994 to 2001:]
:Mac OS
:[Level 1 from 1999 to 2018:]
:Linux
:[Level 2 from 2009 to 2023. On the way the bar merges with iOS around 2019:]
:OS X
:[Level 3 from 2009 to 2016:]
:Android
:[Level 4 from 2013 to 2023. On the way to 2023 the bar moves down past Android to merge with OS X around 2019:]
:iOS
:[Level 1 from 2018 to 2028. The text is written in square brackets:]
:[Something].js
:[Level 3 from 2022 to 2029:]
:TinderOS
:[Level 2 from 2023 to 2032:]
:Nest
:[Level 1 from 2028 to 2041:]
:Elon Musk Project:
:[Level 3 from 2030 to 2036:]
:DOS, but ironically
:[Level 2 from 2034 to 2041:]
:Blood Drone
:[This is not a bar, but the text (in three lines) is in a, double bar-height (level 1-2), square bracket. The bracket extends from 2042 to 2051:]
:Human civilization ends in fire
:[Level 1 from 2059 going past the end of the panel past 2066:]
:GNU/Hurd

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Richard Stallman]]

1508: Operating Systems

2015-04-06T08:11:14Z

173.245.48.29: /* Explanation */

1508: Operating Systems

2015-04-06T08:08:06Z

173.245.48.29: /* Explanation */

Talk:1507: Metaball

2015-04-03T08:26:07Z

173.245.48.29: Created page with "This... looks amazing! I wonder if this is going to be a case of xkcd influencing real life, like geohashing, the "citation needed" on speeches or cory doctorow cosplaying... ..."

This... looks amazing! I wonder if this is going to be a case of xkcd influencing real life, like geohashing, the "citation needed" on speeches or cory doctorow cosplaying... cory doctorow. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1386: People are Stupid

2015-03-25T21:07:48Z

173.245.48.29:

On average yes, an individual is of average intelligence. But taken as a population of a whole, well, that's a different story entirely. Randall needs a vacation, ever since he jumped the shark with the dead baby it just feels like the downward trend is getting steeper. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 13:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:I don't really think that he jumped the shark. I don't quite get what you are trying to say, and individual can't be of average intelligence. You must first define the average, if we take the mean intelligence of the whole population, then take a person from the sample, then we say that the individual is of average intelligence. You can't say people is stupid while referring to the whole population, because of the definition of stupid, if we take a sample of low IQ people then those people are going to be of average intelligence within the sample, the same goes to the whole population. So this comic is perfectly valid. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.192|108.162.212.192]] 04:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that a reference to the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.119|103.22.200.119]] 04:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)krayZpaving

White Hat being burned? This certainly will not end here.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.102.208|141.101.102.208]] 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

'''''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.''''' This wiki is founded on the very principle that people are stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.29|108.162.223.29]] 05:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: You make an intelligent point, which I both appreciate and like. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
::Awww, it's just a joke, it's not personal or anything! '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This comment is one that makes me scratch my head and wonder... surely Randall is able to see that intelligence is not a relative but rather an absolute thing (if one were to kill the 10% most intelligent people the rest wouldn't get dumber, nor smarter). Surely intelligence is not to be measured in units of the common denominator. Surely it is obvious that 2nd panel is a pure strawman. Sigh...
Oh and btw an IQ of 100 is the median, not the average. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 09:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: I am wondering if the explanation should not include a mention of the Median/Mean problem because it is entirely possible for a majority of a population to be above or below some mean (average) statistic depending on the distribution. Also stupidity is a standard that is not dependent on either median or mean.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 11:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: The IQ of 100 is actually defined to be the median AND the average (and also the mode). It is also defined that the distibution around the IQ of 100 is a perfect bell curve. The IQ just tells you how many people in the world have your IQ (It is also defined that two values that have same distance from hundred, e.g. 80 and 120 have the same amount of people, 'cause it's a perfect bell curve (this means that there are as many people with IQ 120 as people with IQ 80). If the overall population gets more intelligent they have to make the IQ tests harder, so that 100 is again the average and median (This really happened). This and some other things are reasons why I think that IQ tests are BS. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.219|141.101.93.219]] 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:: "A test device with numerous correlates measures an amount of environmental influences beside innate determinants, therefore bullshit"... What are your other objections to I.Q. testing? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The mocking "award", which is an analogy of saying "intelligence isn't everything" (an EXTREMELY common cliche), reflects the fact that Randall, like just about anyone, is oblivious to the magnitude of the totality of positive correlates of intelligence, and even (TRIGGER WARNING, TABOO CONCEPT AHEAD) I.Q. Intelligence, I.Q., not only makes you happier, it also makes you more helpful to other people, more creative, more socially stable, better-to-do, less susceptible to mental illnesses, more likely to remember events in your life, etc. etc. etc... Basically, there isn't a positive trait or quality of life with which intelligence doesn't correlate. But people positively LOATHE awareness of how highly intelligence, in fact, matters. Hence the vehement denial whenever someone indicates its importance, all the "I know an intelligent person who is miserable/mean/...", all stressing of exceptions, all ridicule of the notion of intelligence in general, all the "don't think about it"-mentality, all writing off of I.Q. as "antiquated, grossly limited, racist, metric" rather than the extremely potent predictor that it is. tl;dr Randall at all, take time to actually STUDY intelligence or the g factor before you mock it like that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: In other words (and this is going to be my last addendum to this note, because it is a vast subject), whenever people say (or imply, as in the comic's case) that "intelligence isn't everything", the question to ask in return is, "okay, now what is the degree to which intelligence enables, facilitates, contributes to, 'the rest' to which you're opposing intelligence here?". People minimise the depth and breadth of the intellectual substrate of achievement. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Also, Randall (and everyone saying that) is being highly unjust in equating "people aren't smart" with "people aren't as smart as me". A perfectly valid alternative sense is, "people aren't as smart as to be rationally expected to contribute to rather than damage the discussion/situation/position at hand"--having the objective good, the objective recognition that certain situations (for instance, a certain online conversation which is expected to be competent) require certain minimal intellectual thresholds (for instance, an I.Q. of 120), in mind rather than egotic comparison. Lower intelligence, deny it all you please, comes with temperamental problems for instance. Selection for intelligence will largely filter them out. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:: tl;dr of my entire production here: people must learn that BOTH situations of the Dunning-Kruger are equally harmful, the one that's less often considered perhaps actually even more so. Mistaken self-perception as intelligent is bad for the individual, but refusal to acknowledge the importance of one's own cognitive capacity (which is as good as universal in intelligent people--"I am not that smart" (who hasn't heard that one innumerable times?), "I just like doing thing x, my proficiency in it has nothing to do with my intelligence or I.Q.", "I have areas in which I'm 'stupid' too", "effort counts too") has societal consequences, of contributing to erroneous dismissal of the notions of intelligence & I.Q. & g etc. Shutting up for good now. Night. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
::: GAHHHHH just one more thing. Consider this: the fact that people dismiss I.Q. is the best indicator of how important a trait it really is. Thing is, people would not feel compelled by modesty to deny its importance had it not been vitally integral to many, many things. We deny what we value, so to give hope to those who lack that thing (to comfort those who lack intelligence). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:::: Hey 141.101.89.211... I wonder if you have something to say, but despite my best efforts, I'm having trouble following everything you're saying - I have a feeling you were a bit emotional (perhaps tired?) when writing that, or you might have had fewer "more things" immediately following "I'm done" statements. If you're up for it, I'd appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're saying what you want to say, and ''then'' say it, because you seem to at least have good grammar (though there ''were'' a few British spellings... :-D), so I suspect you probably have a good point. It's also conceivable that I'm just not smart enough to get what you're saying (?) or perhaps it's just too ''early'' for me. BTW the best way of making sure I see what you're saying would probably be to let me know on my [[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk page]]... might even have the conversation there if you'd prefer. Thanks for your time. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: I don't know why you think that 141.101.89.211... No where does the comic say that. The mocking award is simply mocking people who '''may or may not''' have higher intelligence than the people they're addressing taking a Better Than Thou attitude because they think they do. In other words: "Higher intelligence doesn't give you an excuse to act like a jerk." I'm sure you can agree with that too [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.218|108.162.245.218]] 04:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would add one "people are stupid" angle not yet mentioned: judging by behavior, most groups of people are less intelligent that any member of that group individually. This is valid even for the "all people" group - just look at the planet. Surprisingly, judging by content of most wikis, the "editors of wiki" groups seems to immune. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Good point--conforming to pressures of one's group or one's position to the detriment of one's judgment is a separate personality trait. The phenomenon is remedied by intelligence, but independent from it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Beat me to it. I'd like to add that even individual people have their occasional stupid and intelligent moments, with the stupid ones typically being of greater magnitude. Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that the average actions of people are at least slightly less intelligent than the average intelligence of most people on most days. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.83|173.245.55.83]] 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Similar to the statement in the film "Men In Black". Agent J says, "Why the big secret [about the aliens among us]? People are smart. They can handle it." Agent K responds, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.45|108.162.221.45]] 01:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe people say things like that, man, people are stupid [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Lake Wobegon references. Not only is it on-target, but I take personal joy seeing mentions of uniquely Minnesotan culture anywhere I can find them. --BigMal27, Minnesota-born, Minnesotan-raised // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.88|173.245.55.88]] 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of saying, "People are stupid," we would do better to say "People make poor decisions / statements / judgments." And this, for multiple reasons, few of them I suspect tied to basal intelligence. Stage of life, level of health and stress, experience relative to the topic, level of education and the quality of that education, cultural idiotic beliefs that interfere with optimal choices, and a zillion others. Plus, as a large percentage of humans are either just coming online in experience and education, or are winding down in health and mental function, we are guaranteed to see a large percentage of stupid decisions right across the IQ landscape. No help for it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: I.Q. affects level of health and stress, rate of acquisition of experience, level of education, quality of education obtained, preference of cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to defy reason that it affects the zillion other factors, too. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Remember, in interaction between psychological and social factors, the question is never of *existence* of a connection, but of its magnitude. It is fine to posit a multitude of environmental factors that determine (ir)rationality, but as long as such position keeps people from connecting I.Q. with those factors' actual occurrence (how much I.Q. does it take to finish a good school? to develop a habit of reading a book every month? this is not at all trivial question, and it needs to be resolved with more than anecdotal evidence of "I know an intelligent illiterate person"), there might be an elephant buried underneath the room which no one knows about. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I know Cueball's explanation can be construed to illustrate otherwise; but I doubt the comic was meant to be a comment on the relative intelligence of humanity. It seems more likely, to me, that the purpose of the comic was to comment on the stonewalling that the mindset, "I'm better than you," induces. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.35|108.162.216.35]] 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The cartoon never mentions I.Q. at all, Just "Average Intelligence", so the Mean/Median discussion is moot. As for the other discussion on this page, I'm just going to quote Blaise Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time" [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, in other comments that it's hard to find a way to indent from, there's a difference between different 'average's. (To compare "the median" with "the average" is not a good way of doing it, because one needn't know whether you're talking mean or mode in the second sense. I could even say that I have more than the average number of arms, for a human.) The assumption that the median [i]and[/i] mean (and, perhaps, also mode) are a single location at which 100IQ can be placed is dependant upon the bell curve being symmetrical. Just one hyper-intelligent could skew the mean well above the median. (Ok, so we're talking about comic-book "hyper"ness, to make it significant, in a world's worth of population, but the principle still stands for any more manageable population.) And about IQ tests being recalibrated... there is already a common convention that there's a score-adjuster (or a look-up table, based on this) that gives you different IQs for the same number of correct answers but for people of different ages (and sometimes male/female). Which seems to me like "we give up trying to be demographically neutral, let's just find how well different people answer in our test and then work out where their own arbitrary sub-group's bell-curve stradles". That said, I like IQ tests. I do well in them, and have fun doing them, even if I don't actually believe in them any more than I believe in Sudoku puzzles! And, sorry, I ended up typing far more than I had intended... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.193|141.101.99.193]] 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion on intelligence, but nothing on "losing faith in humanity". The way I see it everywhere is not in response to stupid people, but to acts of inhumanity. Random acts of violence and hate, for example. Or not random, but large scale. "Restored my faith in humanity" comments often refer to the opposite (in my experience) which involve random acts of kindness, or large-scale altruism. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What about people using Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and any other "social network web 2.0" thing? They certainly aren't an individual or small group, they are stupid and I've lost my faith in them. :) {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.166}}

There are distributions where majority of the population would indeed be below average. Luckily for humanity, intelligence is on a bell curve! I am happy beyond words that this is the case. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.31}}

This has to be one of the most entertaining boring conversations I've ever come across! Brilliant! (Or not.) [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think when someone says "people are stupid", they actually usually mean something like "people systematically make mistakes that I feel are readily avoidable", rather than making an actual judgement regarding general intelligence. So this comic feels rather off to me. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.113|173.245.48.113]] 08:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

:If you read xkcd long enough, you'll find a lot of Randall's comics feel "off." {{unsigned ip|108.162.212.215}}

Interestingly, the people making comments about average people being stupid tend to be, eh, below-average-smart themselves. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 00:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:"Interestingly," huh? You sound smart. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.215|108.162.212.215]] 14:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When I say "People are stupid" I mean that a group of people making a decision is much stupider than a person. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.215|108.162.246.215]] 04:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

'''"No, people aren't stupid. On average, people are of average intelligence."'''

Hey, guys. Consider that average intelligence ''is'' stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.215|108.162.212.215]] 14:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
: Yeah, this is how I've always interpreted "People are stupid" it means, considering we all think we're a smart species, our average intelligence is really low. It's not "I'm better than everybody/average/most people" but "Everybody/the average person/most people is/are worse than most people believe" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What if the distribution of intelligence is bimodal? If no one is of "average" intelligence, might the more extreme stupidity of a large portion of the population give the impression that the actual average is lower than it appears? [[User:Bppubjr|Bppubjr]] ([[User talk:Bppubjr|talk]]) 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"People is dumb." [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.164|173.245.52.164]]

All the (admittedly online) IQ tests I've done have always been focussed on logic, mental manipulation of shapes, maths, deduction etc. While this favours those with a certain type of brain, I can't help but think it is heavily biased against those with creative types of thinking. Hand me a paintbrush and canvas, and my logical brain is of no help at all --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
:Intelligence is the ability of learning, the use of logic and solving problems. While being creative is good, necessary and a very useful thing by itself, is NOT intelligence. So a person could be creative and being dumb at the same time, or the opposite. Also, there are not different kind of brains. The whole left-brain vs right-brain thing is a myth: http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1502: Wasted Time

2015-03-25T20:38:51Z

173.245.48.29:

If I'm reading the revision history correctly, the Incomplete notice was incomplete when added - if it's a person who added it, then just a typo. If it's a bot, possibly a bug in the bot. [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 05:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Didn’t Momo tell us, that we can’t save time – and if we you, someone ''other'' uses it? ;-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 12:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

another one on time management: https://xkcd.com/1205/ [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 14:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:... which, coincidentally (or not?) is an anagram, numerically speaking, of this one's number. [[User:Gearoid|Gearoid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 08:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
::There where so many comics listed with time management as a theme, so I have created the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Time_management Time management category] and references this instead of a long list of comics (both here and in several of these - so far - 9 comics). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm the only one who thinks white hat is annoying?
Perhaps one of this days we could see Black hat "taking care" of White hat [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 20:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1497: New Products

2015-03-22T21:40:24Z

173.245.48.29:

Seems to me that the humor on the first two is based on engineers and programmers not understanding the general public's needs and wants. Also based on how engineers may find products "exciting" based on how novel the product's functionality is, not based on how useful that functionality is. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.150|108.162.215.150]] 07:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)MW
:It seems to me to be a bash on various makes, remakes, re-remakes, /(re-){2,}remakes/ and sequels of sequels that become very successful. —[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.95|141.101.106.95]] 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.125|173.245.53.125]] 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I took the point of the first category to be that if smart people (programmers and engineers being assumed to be smart) can't understand why anyone would want some stupid useless piece of crap, that it will be a huge success because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one (ref: MS Windows), and the point of the second category to be that if it excites smart people, it'll fail in the marketplace because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in a chart of examples of each category {{unsigned ip|108.162.242.5}}

Sean Malstrom talked about this. In general, Super Mario Bros, the Legend of Zelda, and Metroid, while classic, are actually nothing new... just having a high level of crasftmanship. Besides, people want familiar experiences. In a way, that makes sense. Meanwhile, hype tends to inflate expectations. The only game that ever fulfilled hype was Super Mario Bros. 3... still a classic. Then again, hype is a mere tactic used in getting people to buy poor games; great games do not need hype. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading those 'quotes', I'm minded of Bill Gates's statement on exactly how much memory we wouldn't need more than, the head of IBM far earlier predicting the need for perhaps five(? look it up) computers in the whole world, the century-old prediction that the number of cars in the world wouldn't exceed the (small number of) chauffeurs who could be trained, etc. Plus things like Microsoft's failed earlier attempts at Windows tablets (and OSes) that preceded the latest craze by a decade and then died, only for the recent mania (which might again be dying, but at least has a foothold). But is it worthwhile actually putting in loads of links to these kinds of things, to illustrate each issue? Probably not...[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.188|141.101.98.188]] 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
: Well, Bill Gates actually didn't said that: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 21:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the alt text refers to the 6th row of the table as well, the speaker in the quote is nervous about handing his medical information over to KimDotCom's company, which means within 5 years he will willingly do it. The 2nd and 3rd rows made me think of the Pebble Watch, which was launched on kickstarter (pre-ordered), but I don't believe it was widely commercially successful. The concept of the Pebble is being used in the Apple Watch, but with a higher quality screen, greater focus on design elements, and a much much higher price-tag. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:No it cannot fit there. Because he has signed up and thus h does not say never in my life... I have changed back and added this explantion --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody else find this explanation borderline offensive? You can describe differences groups without being derogatory.

Something between the current text and the comment labeled 199.27.133.27 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) should do it.
--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Title text does seem to refer to 4th category. Please discuss before deleting. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:Well I disagree. I has already once removed a reference to the fourth category, and thus I did it again when you put it in again and also wrote alot of text where all of it basically was written below the Dotcom explanation. Try and read your versions, and see that most of what you wrote apart from the fourth category is more or less double. If the guy has signed up he have no problems with this company. Also it is mentioned that the fourth category is not a company he is afraid off, but just someone they do not like. At least we should try to avoid writing the same twice! I could say the same to you by the way: ''Please discuss before adding something others have already twice removed.'' --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::I had not seen your latest revision. I like the wording. I have kept the category four reference in my newest change, where I have merged the two paragraphs, keeping by far most of your text, but moving most of it below the Kim Dotkom paragraph, as it is importnat to explain him before going on with the explanation why he is so dangerous! I hope you can live with this version? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the consensus of engineers upon seeing the iPhone was that it was boring. I remember thinking it would make a killing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:Compare the iPhone 1 to the Nokia E90 (also from 2007); 3G, aGPS, clipboard, optionally larger screen with higher resolution, replaceable battery. So the iPhone has been technically inferior for its time (except the capacitive touch). The correction of the shortcomings have been sold as the next generation iPhones in the following years and many engineers knew of succsssions of better alternatives during that times. The image of Apple is and has been: The devices have less options, but do what they should. The price tag makes them a status symbol. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

added Ubuntu Edge to ""I've already pre-ordered one" which I actually did :) [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

1497: New Products

2015-03-22T20:37:12Z

173.245.48.29: /* Explanation */ Explaining why he is controvesial

{{comic
| number = 1497
| date = March 11, 2015
| title = New Products
| image = new products.png
| titletext = If you ever hear "Wait, is that Kim Dotcom's new project? I'm really excited about it and already signed up, although I'm a little nervous about whether everyone should hand over control of their medical...", it's time to dig a bunker in your backyard.
}}
==Explanation==
This comic points out an apparent paradox in product performance: Many products that are [https://www.google.com/search?q=No+wireless+Less+space+than+a+nomad+Lame criticized by techies when first announced] go on to great success, and many that are heavily hyped are total flops. The product in question may be a reference to the {{w|Apple Watch}}, which was announced around the time of this comic's release.

{| class="wikitable"
! If they say...
! Explanation
! Example
|-
|"It doesn't do anything new"
|A product that "doesn't do anything new" may still be successful for a variety of reasons. It may in fact do something new that the engineers and programmers are overlooking, or it may simply be a better presentation of an older idea that so far hasn't caught on among the general public. This latter category is the completion of the life-cycle mentioned later in the comic, those products whose "ideas will show up in something successful."
|{{w|iPod}}, {{w|iPad}}
|-
|"Why would anyone want that?"
|If engineers and programmers can't figure out why anyone would want a product, it may be because the applications are highly avant-garde or niche (though that could make it hard for the product to be a mass success). Alternatively, engineers and programmers themselves often don't share the tastes and priorities of non-technical people, and are therefore unable to understand and accurately assess the appeal that a product will have to the masses.
|{{w|Twitter}}, {{w|MacBook Air}}
|-
|"Really exciting"
|rowspan="2"|Products that are "really exciting" to engineers and programmers, so much so that they have already pre-ordered them, may fail to succeed for various reasons, such as:
*The product is excellent, but costs too much for mass audiences.
*The product has an unintuitive interface or strange aesthetics, which techies are willing to "live with", but regular people are not.
*The product has bad marketing; the masses never "get" how good the product is.
*The product turns out to be "nerd bait" or {{w|vaporware}}, offering visionary ideas that aren't actually feasible yet.
When a later product is based on the same ideas, but without the mistakes, it will be worth billions. Then the techies will say "it doesn't do anything new".
|{{w|NeXT}}
|-
|"I've already preordered one"
|[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/how-one-kickstarter-project-squandered-3-5-million/ myIDkey]
{{w|Ubuntu_Edge}}
|-
|"Wait, are you talking about <unfamiliar person's name>'s new project?"
|If a product's developer's name is well-known among engineers and programmers, but not among the general public, that's usually not a good sign. Quite likely, the developer is someone who goes a step further than those in the previous category, not just announcing something cool and exciting they can't follow through on, but doing so ''knowing'' that they can't follow through yet still taking people's money. The state may press criminal charges against them (for fraud or such), or the angry investors may sue to get their money back.
|{{w|Shawn Fanning}}
|-
|"I would never put <company> in charge of managing my <whatever>"
|If engineers' and programmers' only objection is that they don't like the company behind the product, that's basically a tacit admission that there's nothing else wrong with it. For the average consumer, the perks of a groundbreaking new product outweigh whatever problems they may have with the company behind it. This category also relates to the numerous privacy concerns raised about the devices and software of certain companies, and the way people tend to get riled up about these issues and then forget about them once it becomes too inconvenient. For instance, a few months ago, in the aftermath of Facebook releasing its Messenger app, it would not be uncommon to hear people say "I would never put Facebook in charge of managing my network connectivity/phone calls/camera". However, 6 months later and barely anyone is complaining anymore, and within another year or so even the most hardline of privacy advocates will probably give in.
|[https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+OR+google+OR+microsoft+OR+amazon+"is+evil" take your pick]
|}

The title text imagines a product that fits into the second, third and fourth categories:
* "Wait, is that Kim Dotcom's new project?" -- third category
* "I'm really excited about it and already signed up." -- both options from the second category
* "Although I'm a little nervous about whether everyone should hand over control of their medical..." -- fourth category

{{w|Kim Dotcom}} is a controversial entrepreneur, creator of the former {{w|megaupload}} which was closed by the FBI for copyright violations. He {{w|Kim_Dotcom#Personal_life|changed his surname}} to "Dotcom" because of the {{w|Dot-com bubble|dot-com stock market bubble}} that made him a millionaire. He fits perfectly into the mold of someone well-known to programmers and engineers (as well as New Zealanders), but perhaps not so much to your average Joe.

Taken together, these imply that an untrustworthy and potentially malicious company has an exciting new idea that may eventually come out in successful form, gains control of a large amount of medical information, but ultimately result in lawsuits not just from investors but from misled consumers (category 3). Because the initial release will be a flop (category 2), there is some time to prepare before the successful use of this idea becomes a reality (also category 2), at which point that or some other company will gain control of a large amount of people's medical something (category 4). Once this happens you could expect dramatic repercussions; this is why the title text suggests to dig a bunker while there is still time.

==Transcript==
:'''Predicting the success or failure of a new product'''
:based on what engineers and programmers are saying about it

:[A two-column table illustrating this. The headings are actually standing above the table.]
:{| class="wikitable alternance"
! If they say...
! It means...
|-
| "It doesn't do anything new"
|rowspan="2"|The product will be<br>
a gigantic success.
|-
| "Why would anyone want that?"
|-
| "Really exciting"
|rowspan="2"| The product will be a flop.<br>
Years later, its ideas will<br>
show up in something successful.
|-
|"I've already preorded one"
|-
| "Wait, are you talking about<br>
<unfamiliar person's name>'s<br>
new project?"
| The product could be<br>
a scam and may result<br>
in arrests or lawsuits.
|-
| "I would never put<br>
<company> in charge of<br>
managing my <whatever>."
| Within five years, they will.
|}

==Trivia==
*There is a typo in the comic: "Preorded" should have been "preordered".

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people‏‎]]

Talk:1319: Automation

2014-01-21T22:20:25Z

173.245.48.29:

Why is this administrator protected? Did an admin lock it just to make sure they'd be the first person to explain it? --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 07:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not protected. Check the logs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 07:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, done the preliminary explanation. I think I got the joke right, and I'm a programmer myself so I can relate to the graphs. However, laymen may not understand the circumstances of programming world, so maybe simpler words could be used, or a real-life example given. That and I'm not a native English speaker, so someone else should do some grammar check. Also, I posted that from my mobile, it's not really convenient (editing the post itself is already a bit hard) so I'll do some fact checking and citation-linking once I got home. I did check on the screwing definition with TheFreeDictionary, don't have time to do better search now. [[User:Raestloz|Raestloz]] ([[User talk:Raestloz|talk]]) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that in reality, many tasks can be automated successfully: while the programming takes longer that expected, may not simplify the task as much as expected and the program feels unfinished, outside circumstances can force the programmer to abandon ongoing development and use the program for partial automation instead. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The title text reminds me of the old joke about the definition of politics -- "poli-" meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "blood sucking creatures". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 12:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Or the definition of polygon; "poly" = parrot and "gon" = gone (i.e., deceased). Therefore,
"dead parrot" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.236|141.101.99.236]] 09:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do the lines on the "Theory" graph converge shortly after automation takes over? Surely, the idea behind writing a code in this example is to save time. Therefore, the original task line should remain relatively constant and the coding line should plunge below it, no? {{unsigned|Jevicci}}

: Once the automation takes over, the programmer will no longer have to do anything, the program will take care of it [[User:Raestloz|Raestloz]] ([[User talk:Raestloz|talk]]) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Yes, but I agree with Jevicci's comment and that's what I was going to post. The point of the automation is (in theory) to save effort. After an initial input of lots of work coding, the "automation" line drops to near-zero. That makes sense, but the "regular way" line should continue horizontal like it does in the 2nd graph because if you don't automate, it should continue to take effort. The first chart suggests that even in theory, automation takes more work and the same amount of time as the old fashioned way.

::I think what Randall is trying to say is EITHER that a) programmers will automate for the sake of the challenge or it being less tedious than the basic way even if it doesn't save time. b) programmers will automate even if it doesn't save time because they can use the code next time the problem arises. But I agree, I think the first graph's "regular way" line should have either continued horizontal, or tappered off somewhere after the "automation" line does. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::As far as I can tell, the line labelled "work on original task" is not meant to represent the amount of work you'd be doing without any automation (which would indeed remain a straight horizontal line), as the "theory" graph doesn't compare two separate scenarios. Rather, it's just there to be a baseline amount of work (programming work being done on top), which diminishes to near-zero as soon as automation takes over. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.221|108.162.231.221]] 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::::Yea, in the theory you would continue performing the task while also coding the automation. Once the automation is done, you work on neither the original nor the coding so both drop to zero. In practice, you keep doing the work and never finish the automation, so the coding goes up and the original stays the same. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)