explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:189: Exercise

2019-09-17T13:49:28Z

173.245.54.7:

See: Fitocracy (www.fitocracy.com), for these ideas in action.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.8|108.162.242.8]] 15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Rome_Leader

I thought he was saying he didn't have the patience for level grinding. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.177|108.162.210.177]] 00:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait till you try ingress. [[Location]] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.61|173.245.50.61]] 19:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

He isn't doing chin ups, he is doing pull-ups. They are very different. There is no way to do a chin up with your hands that wide on the bar. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 10:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This one reminds me of Habitica (habitica.com), an app that treats your life like a role-playing game. I have had an account on there since August 31, 2015, which was right before the start of my senior year of high school. Habitica is just like this comic, where you can have tasks set up for exercising, and then you can also level up, which increases your stats, including CON (Constitution) and STR (Strength)! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 13:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:189: Exercise

2019-09-17T13:47:33Z

173.245.54.7:

Talk:1132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians

2019-08-12T21:44:57Z

173.245.54.7:

Something should be added about the prior probability of the sun going nova, as that is the primary substantive point. "The neutrino detector is evidence that the Sun has exploded. It's showing an observation which is 35 times more likely to appear if the Sun has exploded than if it hasn't (likelihood ratio of 35:1). The Bayesian just doesn't think that's strong enough evidence to overcome the prior odds, i.e., after multiplying the prior odds by 35 they still aren't very high." - http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/fe5/xkcd_frequentist_vs_bayesians/ [[Special:Contributions/209.65.52.92|209.65.52.92]] 23:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: taking that bet would be a mistake. If the Bayesian is right, you're out $50. If he's wrong, everyone is about to die and you'll never get to spend the winnings. Of course, this meta-analysis is itself a type of Bayesian thinking, so [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dunning-kruger+effect Dunning-Kruger Effect] would apply. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 13:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
: You don't think you could spend fifty bucks in eight minutes? ;-) (PS: wikipedia is probably a better link than lmgtfy: {{w|Dunning-Kruger effect}}) -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Randall has referenced the Labyrinth guards before: [http://xkcd.com/246/ xkcd 246:Labyrinth puzzle]. Plus he has satirized p<0.05 in [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=882:_Significant xkcd 882:Significant]--[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 15:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A bit of maths. Let event N be the sun going nova and event Y be the detector giving the answer "Yes". The detector has already given a positive answer so we want to compute P(N|Y). Applying the Bayes' theorem:
: P(N|Y) = P(Y|N) * P(N) / P(Y)
: P(Y|N) = 1
: P(N) = 0.0000....
: P(Y|N) * P(N) = 0.0000...
: P(Y) = p(Y|N)*P(N) + P(Y|-N)*P(-N)
: P(Y|-N) = 1/36
: P(-N) = 0.999999...
: P(Y) = 0 + 1/36 = 1/36
: P(N|Y) = 0 / (1/36) = 0
Quite likely it's not entirely correct. [[User:Lmpk|Lmpk]] ([[User talk:Lmpk|talk]]) 16:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I get for the application of Bayes' Theorem:
: P(N|Y) = P(Y|N) * P(N) / P(Y): = P(Y|N) * P(N) / [P(Y|N) * P(N) + P(Y|~N) * P(~N)]
: = 35/36 * P(N) / [35/36 * P(N) + 1/36 * (1 - P(N))]
: = 35 * P(N) / [35 * P(N) - P(N) + 1]
: < 35 * P(N)
: = 35 * (really small number)

So, if you believe it's extremely unlikely for the sun to go nova, then you should also believe it's unlikely a Yes answer is true.

I wouldn't say the comic is about election prediction models. It's about a long-standing dispute between two different schools of statisticians, a dispute that began before Nate Silver was born. It's possible that the recent media attention for Silver and his ilk inspired this subject, but it's the kind of geeky issue Randall would typically take on in other circumstances too. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 19:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree - this is not directed at the US-presidential election. I also want to add, that Bayesian btatistics assumes that parameters of distributions (e.g. mean of gaussian) are also random variables. These random variables have prior distributions - in this case p(sun explodes). The Bayesian statistitian in this comic has access to this prior distribution and so has other estimates for an error of the neutrino detector. The knowlege of the prior distribution is somewhat considered a "black art" by other statisticians.

My personal interpretation of the "bet you $50 it hasn't" reply is in the case of the sun going nova, no one would be alive to ask the neutrino detector, the probability of the sun going nova is always 0. [[User:Paps|Paps]]

:Yes, you would be able to ask. While neutrinos move almost at speed of light, the plasma of the explosion is significally slower, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova 10% of speed of light tops]. You will have more that hour to ask. (Note that technically, sun can't go [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova nova], because nova is white dwarf with external source of hydrogen. It can (and will), however, go supernova, which I assume is what Randall means.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:: Our sun will not go supernova, as it has insufficient mass. It will slowly become hotter, rendering Earth uninhabitable in a few billion years. In about 5 billion years it will puff up into a red giant, swallowing the inner planets. After that, it will gradually blow off its lighter gasses, eventually leaving behind the core, a white dwarf. [[Special:Contributions/50.0.38.245|50.0.38.245]] 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:::Please don't edit others' comments on talk pages; it's considered quite rude. On a talk page, discourse is meant to be conducted, by editors for the betterment of the article. For constructive discourse to occur, a person's words must be left in tact. The act of censorship hurts the common goal of betterment. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments Wikipedia], the authoritative source on how a wiki works best: "you ''should not'' edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 17:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Note: much of this conversation has been removed at the request of the authors.

I think the explanation is wrong or otherwise lacking in its explanation: The P-value is not the entire problem with the frequentist's viewpoint (or alternatively, the problem with the p-value hasn't been explained). The Frequentist has looked strictly at a two case scenario: Either the machine rolls 6-6 and is lying, or it doesn't rolls 6-6 and it is telling the truth. Therefore, there is a 35/36 probability (97.22%) that the machine is telling the truth and therefore the sun has exploded. The Bayesian is factoring in outside facts and information to improve the accuracy of the probability model. He says "Either the machine rolls 6-6 (a 1/36 probability, or 2.77%) or the sun has exploded (an aparently far less likely scenario). Given the comparison, the Bayesian believes it is MORE probable that the machine rolled 6-6 than the sun exploded, given the relative probabilities. If the latter is a 1 in a million chance (0.000001%), it is 2,777,777 times more likely that the machine rolled 6-6 than the sun exploded.
To borrow a demonstration/explanation technique from the Monty Hall problem, if the machine told you a coin flip was heads, that would be 50% chance of occuring while a 2.7% chance of the machine lying, the probabilities would clearly suggest that the machine was more likely to be telling the truth. Whereas if the machine said that 100 coin flips had all come up heads (7.88x10^-31%). Is it more likely that 100 coin flips all came up heads or is it more likely the machine is lying? What about 1000 coin flips? or 1,000,000? I think the question is, whether one could assign a probability to the sun exploding. Also, I think they could have avoided the whole thing by asking the machine a second time and see what it answered. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 19:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Another source of explanation: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/43339/whats-wrong-with-xkcds-frequentists-vs-bayesians-comic --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The P-value really has nothing to do with it. If I think that there is a 35/36 chance that the sun has exploded, then I should we willing to take any bet that the sun has exploded with better than 1:35 odds. For example, if someone bets me that the sun has exploded in which they will pay me $2 if the sun has exploded and I will pay them $35 if it hasn't, then based on my belief that the sun has exploded with 35/36 probability, then my expected value for this bet is 2*35/36 - 35 * 1/36 = 35/36 dollars and I will take this bet. Clearly I would also take a bet with 1:1 odds - my estimated expected value in the proposed bet in the comic would be 50*35/36 - 50 * 1/36 = $49 (approximately), and I would for sure take this bet. The Bayesian on the other hand has a much lower belief that the sun has exploded because he takes into account the prior probability of the sun exploding, so he would take the reverse side of the bet. The difference is that the Bayesian uses prior probabilities in computing his belief in an event, whereas frequentists do not believe that you can put prior probabilities on events in the real world. Also note that this comic has nothing to do with whether people would die if the sun went nova - the comic is titled "Frequentists vs Bayesians" and is about the difference between these two approaches. {{unsigned|171.64.68.120}}

The Labyrinth reference reminds me of an old Doctor Who episode (Pyramid of Mars), where the Doctor is also faced with a truthful and untruthful set of guards. Summarized here: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Pyramids_of_Mars_(TV_story) [[User:Fermax|Fermax]] ([[User talk:Fermax|talk]]) 04:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is actually an example of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy Base rate fallacy]. --[[Special:Contributions/71.199.125.210|71.199.125.210]] 04:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

People have gone over this already, but just to be a bit more explicit:
Let NOVA be the event that there was a nova, and let YES be the event that the detector responds "Yes" to the question "Did the sun go nova?"
What we want is P(NOVA|YES)=P(YES|NOVA)*P(NOVA)/P(YES)
Suppose P(NOVA)=p is the prior probability of a nova.
Then P(YES|NOVA)=35/36, P(NOVA)=p, and P(YES)=p*35/36+(1-p)*1/36=1/36+34/36
So then P(NOVA|YES)=35p/(1+34p). If p is small, then P(NOVA|YES) is also small. In particular, the Bayesian statistician wins his bet at 1:1 odds if p<1/36, which is probably the case.
If the Bayesian statistician wants 95% confidence that he'll win his bet, then he needs p<1/666. =P

It's cute to attempt to connect this to the U.S. presidential election, but it's far likelier that it's a reference to Enrico Fermi taking bets at the Trinity test site as to whether or not the first atomic bomb would cause a chain reaction that would ignite the entire atmosphere and destroy the planet. I'll bet you $50 it is. [[Special:Contributions/71.229.88.206|71.229.88.206]] 21:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the explanation at all. Some of the discussion posts give a good view on this. I'd like to share my thought about the last panel, though. The page reads as if the punch line is about the fact that you cannot spend the money if the sun was going to explode; but why does the bayesian propose this bet and not the frequentist - no reason for this. I think there is a better explanation for this panel: there are several proofs that bayesian probabilities result in "rational" behaviour: They state that if you act according to bayes' rule you cannot be cheated in betting. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.179|108.162.254.179]] 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The last panel may refer to Nate Sliver's view expressed in his book {{w|The Signal and the Noise}} that if one believes one's prediction to be true one should be confident to bet on it. --[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 18:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, but how is two sixes rolled on fair dice 31/32? (In the explanation: "the detector is telling the truth (31 in 32)") --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
:Just a missreading, not stupid. The detector is telling the truth when you dont role 2 sixes. roling 2 sixes is 1/6 * 1/6 or 1/36. So not roling is 35 in 36, wait oops 36 not 32, thanks. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 17:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have always thought that the suggested Bet is also a reference to the Dutch Book argument for judging and accounting for probabilities underlying Bayesian interpretations of probability theory. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.100|141.101.98.100]] 22:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The likelyhood of a solar explosion may be wrong. Since the detector I'd only used at night, the event is twice as likely to occur than listed. That said, there's a 50% chance of the event never being detected, so I'm not sure. Any one more knowledgeable than I care to comment? [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh. I thought that the last panel was pragmatism: "If the sun goes nova, $50 doesn't matter; I'll be dead. If the sun hasn't, I get $50!"
:Same, but sign your comments, [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This comic hurts my head. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 21:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2124: Space Mission Hearing

2019-03-16T00:04:41Z

173.245.54.7: SPAAAAAAACE

Spaceship noises? What exactly does a spaceship sound like if you can't hear anything in space? Perhaps this is part of the joke! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Actauly you can - your own spaceship might be producing some sounds. Like sort of humming device.
::Spaceships sound like the computer-generated chirps, whistles, and whooshes used in sci-fi media to make travel through space familiar to those of us who travel through air. I hear little 'pew pew pew' noises come from my computer whenever I burn a cd! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.198|172.68.65.198]] 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::they add them artificcially like on electric cars, so that you do not get run over by a spaceship when crossing the milkyway. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And I see that main idea behind this comics - that while we are trying to find some serious reasoning of space programms, the real motive that realy matters - IT IS SPAAAAAAACE!!! Everything else is not enough to justify such expences.
: It could be meaningful to list some reasons for exploring or not exploring space in the article ... There's a TV show about colonizing Mars that makes the point that once we inhabit two planets, we guarantee a future for our race if the planet doesn't survive. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.198|172.68.65.198]] 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Indeed, the main reasons for exploring space are (so very human) curiosity and need of achievement. Like exploring the lands and seas of Earth in the previous centuries (even if greed was a big factor as well). The former is more rational and largely more fruitful than the latter, in the sense that pursuing curiosity we (the humanity) learn new things while exploring space and advance general science and technology, which eventually (in some cases) leads to improvements of daily life. The need of achievement (hurray! we're first to do it!) is what mostly drives manned exploration, which also provides some scientific results but comes at a vastly greater cost. Given current and near-future advances in robotics, mechatronics, etc. the scientific value/cost quotient of manned exploration is very low compared to robotic missions in my opinion. I'd vote for building a thousand of Mars probes that will take some measurements in a thousand of points on the planet's surface over doing a manned mission that'll visit one spot - for a comparable price. But humans are not entirely rational beings and sometimes do crazy things just for the sake of them. Colonization on the other hand is a completely outworldlish idea. The colony would not survive without constant resupply from Earth - not in any forseeable future state of technology. Maybe in thousands of years, maybe never (i.e. we'd go extinct before we could achieve it). -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 14:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::: See {{w|Mars (2016 TV series)}} which basically plays as a mix of advertisement for SpaceX and conventional sci-fi. They've got a surprising amount of how to do this figured out. And I can only imagine the funding comes from people saying "Spaaaaaace" with stars in their eyes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.149|162.158.79.149]] 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m glad there’s now a comic featuring literally me. Complicated explanation prior to yelling space and making laser noises. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Spaaaaaace" reminds me of the "Spaaace" substitution in 1288. Probably just a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.77|172.68.142.77]] 17:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The obsession with Space makes me think of Space Core from Portal 2
~Diceguy [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2123: Meta Collecting

2019-03-13T16:13:23Z

173.245.54.7:

RIP {{w|List of collectables}} and grammar. It’s collectable. Not collectible, collectable. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

First time posting here, so my format might be terrible. But looking at the list of collectables; Maytag is listed, and the reference is for antique scales, so definitely not dryers. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

1623: 2016 Conversation Guide

2016-01-01T23:31:56Z

173.245.54.7: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1623
| date = December 30, 2015
| title = 2016 Conversation Guide
| image = 2016_conversation_guide.png
| titletext = The real loser in an argument about the meaning of the word 'hoverboard' is anyone who leaves that argument on foot.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Open to editing, but perhaps a useful start.}}
As each year turns (or other milestone dates, perhaps set out in popular fiction) it is common enough to remember that what is now the present was once considered ''the future!''

This [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]], published just prior to the start of the {{w|New Year}}, 2016, aims to clarify a number of the things one might have expected by now. (Another New Year comic followed on New Years day: [[1624: 2016]]).

The classic target of personal futurology is the ability to levitate or fly, to varying degrees. "Where's my {{w|jetpack}}?" is one of the [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IWantMyJetPack memes] addressed here, and has actually been developed in a somewhat workable fashions and {{w|Astronaut propulsion unit|analogues}}, but is dismissed as being too personally dangerous to have a {{w|The_Jetsons|Jetson}}-like ubiquity. Similarly, various forms of {{w|Flying_car_(aircraft)|flying car}} have had varying {{w|AVE_Mizar|degrees}} of {{w|Moller_M400_Skycar|success}}, but here are ignored to point out that the regular {{w|helicopter}} is as close as most of us would ever get to this technology. The {{w|Hoverboard|levitating Hoverboard}} has been popularised by the {{w|Back_to_the_Future_Part_II|Back To The Future franchise}} of films, with several attempts to fully emulate such a device with air-blast or magnetic levitation, but the ''term'' Hoverboard has ended up being applied to a {{w|Segway}}-like {{w|Self-balancing_two-wheeled_board|personal transport system}} that has at least become a mass-produced device (albeit with a number of {{w|Self-balancing_two-wheeled_board#Safety|safety concerns}}). This is of course a reference to the game [[1608: Hoverboard]] where it is shown how a real hoverboard should work...

The very concept of the hoverboard, in particular, is predicted to be reduced mostly to arguments between opposing camps of opinions; and then, in the title-text, the conclusion that giving up and resorting to old-fashioned walking is inferior to ''any'' of the possible alternatives...

A much bigger challenge in levitation is the 'sky city', with various forms from fiction (e.g. {{w|Bespin}}, {{w|Mortal Engines Quartet}}). In reality, this seems highly unlikely to ever come to pass when there is perfectly good ground to lay the buildings down upon, due to the sheer mass. (But never say never!) It might be considered more reasonable to build a {{w|Space:_1999|settlement of some kind}} on the Moon. The basic {{w|Apollo_program|engineering}} {{w|International Space Station|exists}}, but the comic blames financial pressures for it not yet having come into existence. (Arguably political pressures, or perhaps the lack of them, are also a factor.)

From the fields of automation, the {{w|Autonomous car|self-driving car}} has had a lot of recent development put into it, with many and varied prototypes being tried out, and may actually end up featuring in our immediate future, even if not in 2016. Google has built a very good prototype but it needs improvement. Meanwhile the long-held science-fantasy aim to create a {{w|Robby the Robot|robot that can do odd tasks}} has been {{w|Roomba|limited}} or a {{w|Ask.com|differently implemented}} and the ''fully'' omnicapable version is probably almost as far out of reach as it always was considered to be. "Jeeves" as a less than superb robot butler may be a reference to the robot of that name that can be "built" by characters in the popular MMORPG {{w|World_of_Warcraft}}.

==Transcript==
:[A chart with three columns of text with only one entry to the left - which is written in the middle of the panel. Then there is one line going right from this text but soon it splits into seven lines going either up (3), almost straight (2) or down (2) ending in arrows that points to the next column with seven entries for different possible future inventions. From each of these entries a horizontal arrow continues to the last column at the right with seven more entires commenting on these inventions.]

:It's 2016 - Where's my...

::Flying car --> They're called "helicopters"

::Jetpack --> Turns out people are huge wimps about crashing

::Moon colony --> No one has put up the cash

::Self-driving car --> Coming surprisingly soon

::Floating sky city --> Turns out cities are heavy

::Hoverboard --> This question is now ambiguous thanks to a new scooter thing
:::::: (and will lead to an argument about the meaning of "hoverboard"
:::::: which is way less interesting than either kind of hoverboard)

::Robot butler --> He was called "Jeeves" and he wasn't that great

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:New Year]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Robots]]

1623: 2016 Conversation Guide

2016-01-01T23:31:16Z

173.245.54.7: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1623
| date = December 30, 2015
| title = 2016 Conversation Guide
| image = 2016_conversation_guide.png
| titletext = The real loser in an argument about the meaning of the word 'hoverboard' is anyone who leaves that argument on foot.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Open to editing, but perhaps a useful start.}}
As each year turns (or other milestone dates, perhaps set out in popular fiction) it is common enough to remember that what is now the present was once considered ''the future!''

This [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]], published just prior to the start of the {{w|New Year}}, 2016, aims to clarify a number of the things one might have expected by now. (Another New Year comic followed on New Years day: [[1624: 2016]]).

The classic target of personal futurology is the ability to levitate or fly, to varying degrees. "Where's my {{w|jetpack}}?" is one of the [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IWantMyJetPack memes] addressed here, and has actually been developed in a somewhat workable fashions and {{w|Astronaut propulsion unit|analogues}}, but is dismissed as being too personally dangerous to have a {{w|The_Jetsons|Jetson}}-like ubiquity. Similarly, various forms of {{w|Flying_car_(aircraft)|flying car}} have had varying {{w|AVE_Mizar|degrees}} of {{w|Moller_M400_Skycar|success}}, but here are ignored to point out that the regular {{w|helicopter}} is as close as most of us would ever get to this technology. The {{w|Hoverboard|levitating Hoverboard}} has been popularised by the {{w|Back_to_the_Future_Part_II|Back To The Future franchise}} of films, with several attempts to fully emulate such a device with air-blast or magnetic levitation, but the ''term'' Hoverboard has ended up being applied to a {{w|Segway}}-like {{w|Self-balancing_two-wheeled_board|personal transport system}} that has at least become a mass-produced device (albeit with a number of {{w|Self-balancing_two-wheeled_board#Safety|safety concerns}}). This is of course a reference to the game [[1608: Hoverboard]] where it is shown how a real hoverboard should work...

The very concept of the hoverboard, in particular, is predicted to be reduced mostly to arguments between opposing camps of opinions; and then, in the title-text, the conclusion that giving up and resorting to old-fashioned walking is inferior to ''any'' of the possible alternatives...

A much bigger challenge in levitation is the 'sky city', with various forms from fiction (e.g. {{w|Bespin}}, {{w|Mortal Engines Quartet}}). In reality, this seems highly unlikely to ever come to pass when there is perfectly good ground to lay the buildings down upon, due to the sheer mass. (But never say never!) It might be considered more reasonable to build a {{w|Space:_1999|settlement of some kind}} on the Moon. The basic {{w|Apollo_program|engineering}} {{w|International Space Station|exists}}, but the comic blames financial pressures for it not yet having come into existence. (Arguably political pressures, or perhaps the lack of them, are also a factor.)

From the fields of automation, the {{w|Autonomous car|self-driving car}} has had a lot of recent development put into it, with many and varied prototypes being tried out, and may actually end up featuring in our immediate future, even if not in 2016. Google has built a very good prototype but it needs improvement. Meanwhile the long-held science-fantasy aim to create a {{w|Robby the Robot|robot that can do odd tasks}} has been {{w|Roomba|limited}} or a {{w|Ask.com|differently implemented}} and the ''fully'' omnicapable version is probably almost as far out of reach as it always was considered to be. "Jeeves" as a less than superb robot butler may be a reference to the robot of that name that can be "built" by characters in the popular MMORPG {w|World_of_Warcraft}.

==Transcript==
:[A chart with three columns of text with only one entry to the left - which is written in the middle of the panel. Then there is one line going right from this text but soon it splits into seven lines going either up (3), almost straight (2) or down (2) ending in arrows that points to the next column with seven entries for different possible future inventions. From each of these entries a horizontal arrow continues to the last column at the right with seven more entires commenting on these inventions.]

:It's 2016 - Where's my...

::Flying car --> They're called "helicopters"

::Jetpack --> Turns out people are huge wimps about crashing

::Moon colony --> No one has put up the cash

::Self-driving car --> Coming surprisingly soon

::Floating sky city --> Turns out cities are heavy

::Hoverboard --> This question is now ambiguous thanks to a new scooter thing
:::::: (and will lead to an argument about the meaning of "hoverboard"
:::::: which is way less interesting than either kind of hoverboard)

::Robot butler --> He was called "Jeeves" and he wasn't that great

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:New Year]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Robots]]

Talk:476: One-Sided

2015-12-07T17:56:32Z

173.245.54.7: Talky talk! Also, chronological order.

Could the Bernanke in question be {{w|Ben Bernanke}}, American economist and currently chairman of the {{w|Federal Reserve}} (i.e. "The Fed")? I assume the crossbows are a reference to something topical, but have no idea what. Might it be a video game of some kind? --''[[User:MisterSpike|MisterSpike]] ([[User talk:MisterSpike|talk]]) 09:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)''
:Indeed. As for the crossbow and "uncontaminated" thing, and tying it all together, there was some big video game set in a post-apocalyptic Washington DC, but I can't for the life of me remember what its name was.
--[[Special:Contributions/79.222.56.250|79.222.56.250]] 12:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the Fallout 3 reference is a bit far-fetched to be anything more than speculation, especially since there's no mention of Ben Bernanke, or any Bernanke, in said game. The "contamination" aspect of the title text is most likely used because it's a simple, commonly-used "disaster' plot that justifies the use of a crossbow and doesn't require much context or explanation, if any. Also, Fallout 3 does not have crossbows. [[User:Codefreak5|Codefreak5]] ([[User talk:Codefreak5|talk]]) 20:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:Sometimes my bus journeys go on for a while before I realise I went past my stop, replying to people shouting on the telephone.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 01:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the Crossbow references might be a nod to xkcd 564 - a continuation along the same themes (this is my first time adding a comment or editing, so sorry if I do anything wrong) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.160|141.101.98.160]] 19:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
:Wrong order. 564 might be a callback then? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 17:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1581: Birthday

2015-09-24T14:00:44Z

173.245.54.7:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/23/happy-birthday-song-now-in-public-domain.html [[User:Mwburden|mwburden]] ([[User talk:Mwburden|talk]]) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

https://ia601904.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772.docket.html [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.245|162.158.92.245]] 11:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a <nowiki><code></nowiki> box around the transcript? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|12:51, 23 September 2015}}
:Because someone wrote the text with a space between each line instead of beginning each line with ":"
Like this
:Instead of like this --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There are nine musical notes, not six.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.92|173.245.50.92]] 13:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Some might claim" seems wishy-washy to me. Perhaps it would be better to say "calling the cops in such situations is neither socially appropriate nor beneficial: this is the source of the humor in this comment." [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be one of the few comics with both Black Hat and White Hat. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.116|199.27.133.116]] 15:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a sub to law360, nor do I wish to bother giving them my throwaway email. What was the basis of the ruling? Why is this public domain now? {{unsigned|NotLock}}
:It's not, text updated. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.161|108.162.250.161]] 06:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The third line implies that "xkcd" should be pronounced as having two syllables. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.163}}

:Clearly you have never heard "Happy Birthday" sung to someone with a really long name. It doesn't matter if it's two syllables, you just stretch it out. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.123|173.245.48.123]] 04:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

:The song can accommodate names of different lengths, consider the following https://youtu.be/vWs3035D69k?t=1m23s [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.180|108.162.250.180]] 08:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK The ruling only applies to the lyrics, they still have a valid copyright to the music, so if you sing the song you had better make sure it's to a suitable tune that is out of copyright!

:it was ruled that their copyright only covers a specific piano arrangement which is not the tune in use today, so sing your heart out: [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 14:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

One in 366 xkcd fans turned to the page today and initially thought that Randall had used a code not dissimilar to what Google uses to change the banner to a birthday greeting on the users' birthday. I was one of those fans... :-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.23|141.101.99.23]] 09:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
:You mean one in 365,25... ;-) Happy Birthday with yesterday! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

298: Tesla Coil

2014-03-25T20:04:56Z

173.245.54.7:

{{comic
| number = 298
| date = August 3, 2007
| title = Tesla Coil
| image = tesla_coil.png
| titletext = For scientists, this can be the hardest thing about dreams.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]] diligently creates a {{w|Tesla coil}}, a {{w|high voltage}} device producing artificial electrical lightings and more.

After that show by Cueball, [[Black Hat]] magically shoots electricity from his fingertips. When Cueball asks how he did that, he says that science doesn't really work, then hovers in mid-air, further proving his point. There is simply no apparent explanation for Black Hat's abilities, which means science is still woefully incomplete or, as Black Hat said, simply doesn't work.

The title text indicates that this was all actually a dream, explaining Black Hat's abilities and pointing out how dreams can be difficult for scientists as they will attempt to analyse and understand everything in the dream according to the laws of science, which wouldn't apply in dreams.

The image where black hat shoots electricity is very similar to what the Emperor does in ''Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi''. When he hovers it is similar to what Superman is capable of.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Black Hat stand near a tesla coil mounted on a table.]
:Cueball: I finally finished my Tesla Coil!

:[The room is dark; the characters appear as faint blue outlines on black background. Cueball turns on the Tesla Coil and it sparks white static electricity.]
:''click''
:Black Hat: Cool, but—

:[Lightning shoots out of Black Hat's hands, Cueball appears to be in shock  and awe.]
:Black Hat: Check this out!

:[The lights are back on, Cueball's arms are raised in amazement.]
:Cueball: How did you do that?
:Black Hat: The world doesn't actually make any sense. Science doesn't work. No one told you because you're so cute when you get into something.

:[Black Hat floats up the frame, and Cueball is pointing towards Black Hat.]
:Black Hat: Still, neat toy.
:Cueball: Now you're hovering!
:Black Hat: I guess you're still not getting this.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]