explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1232: Realistic Criteria

2015-12-29T05:24:26Z

199.27.128.85: Undo revision 106414 by 108.162.210.229 (talk)

{{comic
| number = 1232
| date = July 1, 2013
| title = Realistic Criteria
| image = realistic criteria.png
| titletext = I'm leaning toward fifteen. There are a lot of them.
}}

==Explanation==
Many people are opposed to space exploration. While the overall budget of {{w|NASA}} is not very large compared to the big spenders such as health, education, social services and the military, individual space missions seem very expensive to the general public (typically hundreds of millions of dollars) and the actual benefits derived from them can seem intangible. To put it simply, many people think that the money can be better spent on earth, where there are real, serious problems that need to be addressed.

The decision on how to best allocate our money is not a simple one. [[White Hat]] believes we should not explore space until "we have solved all our problems here on Earth". This is unreasonable. It is vague, broad and near-impossible to achieve, at least within the span of a human life. The basic problems that face us all - war, disease, hunger, climate change, natural disasters, general malaise - have been with us since the dawn of humanity at least, and will certainly be around for much longer than ten or fifteen years, if not ten or fifteen centuries.

Cueball, however, is playing the naive engineer, thinking that everything is as easy and simple as the math problems he uses everyday. This serves two purposes: First, it highlights the untenability of White Hat's statement by emphasizing their size and Second, it serves as a punchline, as anyone with a modicum of common sense knows nothing is that simple when humans are involved.

In the title text, Randall leans towards fifteen years, as ten doesn't seem sufficient, given all the problems.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and White Hat stand talking.]
:White Hat: We shouldn't be exploring other planets until we've solved all our problems here on Earth.
:Cueball: Sounds reasonable. So, what's the timeline on "Solving all problems"? Ten years? Fifteen?

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1283: Headlines

2015-12-25T08:59:46Z

199.27.128.85:

{{comic
| number = 1283
| date = October 28, 2013
| title = Headlines
| image = headlines.png
| titletext = 1916: 'PHYSICIST DAD' TURNS HIS ATTENTION TO GRAVITY, AND YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HE FINDS. [PICS] [NSFW]
}}

==Explanation==
This comic satirizes the sensationalist language used in Internet headlines. Many websites generate ad revenue for getting visitors ("getting more clicks"), so some unscrupulous editors seek to manipulate their readers using tantalizing yet formulaic and crass headlines, designed to attract readers rather than summarize the article's contents. You might recognize this technique from those ridiculous text advertisements — "local mom discovers 1 weird tip to reduce belly fat." The practice is nothing new: {{w|tabloid journalism}} has been doing this for many years (e.g. ''{{w|National Enquirer}}''). The numbers shown at the headline are also often wrong and not covered by the article.

Signs of a dishonest headline include giving undue weight to trivial topics, or appealing to readers' emotions or needs (fear, outrage, pity, lust, laziness) instead of offering serious information. In severe cases, it may be a {{w|bait-and-switch}}, claiming to offer something it isn't. By failing to give a useful summary of the story, whilst attempting to force the reader to click on every story on the off-chance that it's interesting, they amount to an intentionally deceptive form of spam.

[[Randall]] parodies the formula in this comic with such trivializing headlines for important historical events:

*1905 - How a shocking new theory, discovered by a dad, proves scientists are wrong about ''everything!''
:{{w|Albert Einstein}} published his {{w|Annus Mirabilis papers}}, which changed views on space, time, mass, and energy, and laid the groundwork for much of modern physics. They included his papers on {{w|special relativity}} and on {{w|mass–energy equivalence}} ("E = mc2"). He had an infant son in 1905 (born May 1904).
:The use of the term "dad" helps readers tune in emotionally. "Proving scientists wrong about everything" is obviously an inflation of Einstein's achievements. Einstein was awarded the {{w|Nobel Prize}} in 1921 for his work on the {{w|photoelectric effect}}; his work on relativity was still not accepted by many physicists at that time.
*1912 - 6 ''Titanic'' survivors who should have died
:{{w|Sinking of the RMS Titanic}}. "should have died" seems to be referring to six passengers whose survival was downright miraculous, though the wording is (deliberately) ambiguous to imply the six passengers ''deserved'' to have died. Possibly referred to here is the survival of {{w|J. Bruce Ismay}}, chairman and managing director of the White Star Line (the company responsible for the Titanic), who was condemned as a coward for leaving the sinking liner.
*1920 - 17 things that will be outlawed now that women can vote
:The {{w|Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution}} was passed, guaranteeing voting rights for women in all US states. The prediction of new prohibitions is a reference to alcohol prohibition under the authority granted to the federal government by the {{w|Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution}}. While the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified before women's suffrage was guaranteed by the Nineteeth, alcohol prohibition was widely seen as an issue driven by women's opinions (hence the suggestion that more things would be prohibited now that women had the vote).
*1928 - This one weird mold kills all germs
:{{w|Penicillin}} was discovered.
*1929 - Most embarrassing reactions to the stock market crash [GIFS]
:This is a reference to the {{w|Wall Street Crash of 1929}}, the most devastating stock market crash in history and the beginning of the Great Depression. The "embarassing reactions" may be a reference to the suicides of people suddenly impoverished by the depression.
:[GIFS] indicates that the post will contain an animated GIF image - a crude form of short video
*1945 - These 9 Nazi atrocities will make you lose faith in humanity
:1945 is the year that World War II ended. It's also the year that many war crimes committed by Nazi Germany were discovered or declassified.
*1948 - 5 insane plans for feeding West Berlin you won't believe are real
:1948 is when the Soviet Union established the {{w|Berlin Blockade}}, preventing food and other critical supplies from reaching occupied Berlin. In response, Western forces organized the {{w|Berlin Airlift}}.
*1955 - Avoid polio with this one weird trick
:The {{w|polio vaccine}} was developed.
:"One weird trick" is a common phrase used in Internet ads: see [http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/07/how_one_weird_trick_conquered_the_internet_what_happens_when_you_click_on.html this article] for more information. It may also refer to the fact that polio viruses were used as the first vaccines.
*1957 - 12 nip slips potentially visible to Sputnik
:The Soviet Union launched {{w|Sputnik 1}}, the world's first artificial satellite. A ''nip slip'' is when a woman unintentionally exposes all or part of one or both of her nipples; in the context of the internet, it generally refers to a photograph capturing such a moment.
:It would of course have to be some really big nips to be visible from space... So click ahead then!
*1968 - This year's assassinations ranked from most to least tragic
:{{w|Martin Luther King Jr.}} and {{w|Robert F. Kennedy}} ({{w|John F. Kennedy's}} younger brother) were both assassinated in 1968 (five year after JFK).
:Assassinations are rare and considered to be always tragic, so "ranking" them trivializes the political and emotional depth of the events.
*1969 - This is the most important photo of an astronaut you'll see all day
:{{w|Apollo 11}} performed the first manned lunar landing. During this historic trip newspapers printed as many pictures of astronauts as they could.
*1986 - This video of a terminally ill child watching the ''Challenger'' launch will break your heart
:Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight. See {{w|Space Shuttle Challenger disaster}} for details. This was the first shuttle mission that included a teacher on board as part of the crew ({{w|Christa McAuliffe}}, ''{{w|Teacher in Space Project}}''), so there were many children -- a New York Times poll put the number at 48% of 9-13 year olds in the US -- watching this particular launch live as teachers around the country had TV sets in their classrooms showing the ill-fated launch in real time. The launch was not shown on most mainstream TV stations; only {{w|CNN}} broadcast it live.
:Since this many children did see it, there would also have been several terminal ill children watching, and likely also some press out at one such place. So they could get this picture. And again toy with out emotions.
*1989 - You won't ''believe'' what these people did to the Berlin wall! [video]
:{{w|Fall of the Berlin Wall}}.
:[video] indicates a link to a video
*Jan 1, 1990 - 500 signs you're a 90s kid
:A 90s kid is someone born in the late 80s or early 90s (and spent most their childhood in the 1990s). Headlines like [http://www.buzzfeed.com/melismashable/25-ways-to-tell-youre-a-kid-of-the-9 this one from BuzzFeed] toy with their readers' sense of nostalgia. The parody headline is funny because it starts precisely on the first day of the 1990s, meaning that the only "90s kids" that it would apply to would be newborns. This is a reference to a common joke about the 90s not having a concrete identity in some ways like the 70s or 80s did in terms of popular culture, and yet those born in that decade always seem to have long lists of things that make you a "90s kid".
*The title text: 1916: 'Physicist dad' turns his attention to gravity, and you won't believe what he finds. [PICS] [NSFW]
:Einstein published his theory of {{w|General relativity}}, which is a vast generalization of the theory of {{w|Special relativity}} from 1905 and provides a model for gravity. In 1916 Einstein had two sons who lived in Zurich while he lived in Berlin.
:[NSFW] is "Not Safe for Work" - a tag to identify explicit images. Here it is used to trick readers hoping to find pornography.
:[PICS] tells the potential viewer that there are images embedded
:If you think of ''Gravity'' as a girls name, then the references to porn becomes more obvious.

This topic is re-used in [[1307: Buzzfeed Christmas]].

==Transcript==
:[Caption above the frame:]
:'''20th Century Headlines'''
:Rewritten to get more clicks

:[The years are always written at the center. The text has a line pointing to the relevant year. The first text is written to the left of the year. Then the texts below is alternately written to the right and to the left, finishing at the right in 1990.]
:1905 - How a shocking new theory, discovered by a dad, proves scientists are wrong about ''everything!''
:1912 - 6 ''Titanic'' survivors who should have died
:1920 - 17 things that will be outlawed now that women can vote
:1928 - This one weird mold kills all germs
:1929 - Most embarrassing reactions to the stock market crash [GIFs]
:1945 - These 9 Nazi atrocities will make you lose faith in humanity
:1948 - 5 insane plans for feeding West Berlin you won't believe are real
:1955 - Avoid Polio with this one weird trick
:1957 - 12 nip slips potentially visible to Sputnik
:1968 - This year's assassinations ranked from most to least tragic
:1969 - This is the most important photo of an astronaut you'll see all day
:1986 - This video of a terminally ill child watching the ''Challenger'' launch will break your heart
:1989 - You won't ''believe'' what these people did to the Berlin wall! [Video]
:Jan 1, 1990 - 500 signs you're a 90s kid

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]

[[Category:Clickbait]]

Talk:368: Bass

2015-07-05T21:37:06Z

199.27.128.85: Comment: question about resonance + elliptical dish

Okay, I have to ask this, and this as good a place as any. Am I the only one who reads Black Hat (and Danish) with an affected English accent? Anonymous 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC) {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.91}}
:Talk to someone in Scotland, and then some Australian, South African and finally compare Texas with LA and NY, or the London suburbs. English is still not easy, especially for non native speakers. But Black Hat and Danish are quite sure talking at some American English slangs. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, is this destructive resonance thing actually possible for car speakers? (note: don't worry, I'm not going to try this myself, just wondering)... secondly, I hadn't thought about accents before. I'm English but all the characters have my own internal voice... maybe I should put some effort in and give them all different accents (wouldn't know which accents but the aforementioned affected-english for Black Hat doesn't work in my head, as good as that suggestion was). [[User:Squirreltape|Squirreltape]] ([[User talk:Squirreltape|talk]]) 14:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify: I am American and, in my part at least, British accents are considered "snooty" and "superior", a trope Black Hat would gladly take advantage of, as would Danish, for they do consider themselves vastly superior the "commoners" and "plebs" around them (why else would they be so casually sadistic?) YMMV on the stereotypes, but that is the one I am familiar with and the one I assume they use. That said I, personally, do not think the British themselves are "snooty", but am guilty of affecting such an accent when feeling snootily sarcastic. Anonymous 08:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I didnt have an accent in my head for these stick figures, but now i have them talking like the people from "i love lucy," with black sounding like fred mertz.{{unsigned ip|173.245.54.167}}

Okej, he says to throw the switch labelled "Macarina", but it doesn't say that that's actually what it does. This is Black Hat we're talking about. I wouldn't trust his labeling if I were you.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.9|108.162.221.9]] 00:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

How would the machine work against the loud girlfriend/elliptical dish? It seems to me that creating a phase-shifted replica of her moans would be pretty much impossible. If it were, what would the resonance do, blow out the girlfriend's lungs? How would that feel to her? --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.85|199.27.128.85]] 21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1493: Meeting

2015-03-02T06:32:41Z

199.27.128.85:

It's been registered since [http://who.is/whois/http://companyname.website November], just what the hell was Randall planning on doing with this site four months ago? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 05:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to know what that "physically cannot die" thing is about.

-----------
Ok I may be way off base here but could it be possible that he is referencing the show Helix? In the show there is a group of immortals who formed a corporation name Ilaria and it's not clear how they make their money.
----------

Talk:1493: Meeting

2015-03-02T06:30:31Z

199.27.128.85:

It's been registered since [http://who.is/whois/http://companyname.website November], just what the hell was Randall planning on doing with this site four months ago? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 05:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to know what that "physically cannot die" thing is about.

Ok I may be way off base here but could it be possible that he is referencing the show Helix? In the show there is a group of immortals who form have formed a corporation name Ilaria and it's not clear how they make their money.

Talk:1487: Tornado

2015-02-17T17:26:42Z

199.27.128.85:

Are we sure this is cueball? it seems like it might be just a generic newscaster cartoon.
[[User:Reywas|Reywas]] ([[User talk:Reywas|talk]]) 07:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
: Cueball is not a character; it's a name given to any featureless stick figure in XKCD. [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 15:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, while the blank figure is used throughout XKCD, at least on this wiki, cueball refers to the recurring character, who I don't think is the one here.[[User:Reywas|Reywas]] ([[User talk:Reywas|talk]]) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
: I just checked, [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] is correct. [[Cueball]] is a name (or more accurately, a title) given to any featureless stickman. Cueball isn't a 'recurring character' because it's impossible to distinguish any instance from another by any way other than their personality (which has no clear rules to go by). Could you imagine how tough it would be to go through eg. [[610]] and name each one consistently with Cueballs from other comics? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 04:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Can a weather expert verify the claim that a tornado will destroy a merry-go-round? From what little I read and understood (Weather is confusing, and there was no graph!), a F0 or F1 tornado would not destroy it. From my estimations, a merry-go-round weighs 1350kg (2976.24054 lbs). Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.95|141.101.106.95]] 08:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:: The F scale is based on the amount of damage done, by definition an F0 does no damage and F5 Does vast amounts of damage, F1 would damage it but it may be repairable. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.93}}

Another type of "merry-go-round" is a very common playground device, much simpler than the type with seats or horses. This https://smilekiddo.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/zipline_merry-go-round.jpg is what I envisioned from the comic, although it could refer to either type. The freely-rotating small platform, usually with bars for children to hold onto while standing, and rotated merely by people-power, is probably the most common type of merry-go-round in the US. They may weigh from 500 to 2000 lbs, or mass from about 15 to 60 slugs (I'll assume xkcd readers can convert to other mass units if desired.) [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 09:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:: My experience has been that Americans typically refer to the type with seats and horses as a Carousel, and a merry-go-round is just the simple spinning wheel with bars to hold onto. This article says that merry-go-round in reference to a Carousel is a term more often used in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carousel [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.85|199.27.128.85]] 17:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think tornado can destroy the merry-go-round of either type and STILL make it a fun ride. The part of "no injuries" is the suspicious one. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what I got from this comic is the classical mass media sensationalism joke, there is no tornado, they simply invented one by taking a merry go round as one, that's why the victims say "Fun and Awesome", they interviewed the kids as victims while they were just enjoying the ride. The title text does the same, with the difference they went further this time, as trying to pass a teacup ride as a multi-vortex tornado is even more hilarious. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.103.206|141.101.103.206]] 11:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the tornado in question is ''caused'' by the merry-go-round because physics and similarly for the tea cup ride -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.150|108.162.216.150]] 18:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any point in including "like most amusement rides, it is for children"? I don't know about others but most of the amusement parks near me are for late teens-twenties. They all have a childrens section but it is pretty tiny. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.202|173.245.56.202]] 14:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that [http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/centrif.htm Centrifugal Force] Does not exist. What you are describing is Tethered forward momentum. If the rider was not bolted to the Horse then the rider would fly forward as described by the feeling of being pushed away from the center. You can test this yourself by putting a bolt on a string, spin the string and let go. IF there was Centrifugal force then the bolt would keep on a curve. Instead it flies away in a line till gravity takes over. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.93}}

:: Centrifugal force does actually exist. See comic [[123]]. It may not be real in the sense that it exists in inertial reference frames, but it exists in the sense that it's a well-defined and useful way of arranging the math. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.17|108.162.216.17]] 06:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The most improbable fact is that the tornadoes would exactly stay centered around the axes of the merry-go-round, especially in the multi-vortex case. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.72|141.101.92.72]] 14:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1119: Undoing

2014-06-07T18:20:56Z

199.27.128.85: /* Explanation */ Fixed spelling of sense

{{comic
| number = 1119
| date = October 10, 2012
| title = Undoing
| image = undoing.png
| titletext = I've been sneaking out at night and installing lamps on the underside of every photovoltaic panel I can find. Sure, there are upwards of 80% losses, but I prefer to think of them as nearly 20% gains.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic (another in the ''My hobby'' series) is a play on how energy from natural resources (wind, sun, water) are turned into electricity. {{w|Wind turbine|Wind turbines}} convert the windpower into rotational energy, which can then be used to produce electricity. The one seen in the image is the most commonly known wind turbine, which sees use on wind farms. Wind turbines provide a renewable resource for homes and cities and a common method for sustainable energy.

In this comic, [[Cueball]] has rigged it so that the wind turbine powers a {{w|mechanical fan|fan}}. He cut the power cable attaching the turbine to the {{w|Electrical grid|power grid}} and spliced it with the power cord of a giant fan. The nailed-together 2x4s that form the "tower" for the fan further indicates the "jury-rigged" nature of Cueball's work. The electricity generated from the windpower is then used to power the fan, which in turn produces wind.

The undoing part refers how Cueball is using this fan to restore the wind that was used to turn the wind turbine back to the original wind flow. (This understanding of the difference between a wind turbine and a fan is not presented by [[Megan]] in this later comic: [[1378: Turbine]].)

Wind turbines have a {{w|Wind turbine#Theoretical power captured by a wind turbine|theoretical limit of 59%}} of the portion of wind captured. You can see the wind not captured detailed in the image as dotted, turbulent curly lines; turbulent flow. Cueball has placed the giant fan in the direction of the wind so that the wind it produced combines with the windpower not captured by the wind turbine. This is indicated by the lines smoothing, like they were at the start. Thus, not only is the electrical benefit undone, but also the change in natural wind currents.

The title text explains that he performs the same undoing process with solar cells, where light energy is converting into electricity using {{w|photovoltaic cells}}, which is then used to power lightbulbs for producing light on the area below them that the sun would normally illuminate. {{W|Solar panels}} only convert 20-25% of the energy captured from the sun into electricity. However, Cueball points out that he sees this as a 20 % gain rather than an 80% loss. Since it is Cueball's hobby to literally waste time and energy this makes perfect sense.

Light bulbs only convert 20-30% of the electricity provided into light, the rest is lost as heat energy. Thus only ~5% of the energy absorbed from the original sunlight will be released as light from the bulb. Unfortunately, the wind will for the same reason be moving at a much slower velocity than at the start as energy was lost in converting windpower to rotation energy, then to electricity, then back to rotational energy, then back to windpower.

The comic may also be a continuation of [[Randall|Randall's]] mistrust of modern electric wind turbines (see [[556: Alternative Energy Revolution]]).

==Transcript==
:My Hobby:
:[A large wind turbine is spinning but the electric cord has been severed and rewired to a large fan.]
:Undoing

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]
[[Category:Windmills]]

Talk:1347: t Distribution

2014-03-30T06:38:36Z

199.27.128.85: Title text - some school systems let students retake exam until they pass

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.73|173.245.50.73]] 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Adam

As a layman, I still have no idea what the comic's about. Is it possible to clear it up a lot more? [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 05:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a comment of the quality of education today - it is difficult to grade students on a distribution curve and even more so when you take into account the distribution curve of the teachers ability. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.205}}

:I thought this as well, my interpretation of the comic was Cueball attempting to fit the data with a "Student t-distribution", realizing that the t-distribution poorly fit, and so replaced it with a "Teacher t-distribution" which has a stronger correlation with the data on the piece of paper presumably; the data in question concerning the scholastic success of students. This comic in part seemed to be poking fun at scientists misappropriating the causation of a recognized phenomena. Like the basic statistics example of people finding a correlation in children between tooth decay and vocabulary when, surprise surprise, both tooth decay and vocabulary are strongly correlated with age. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.214}}

I noticed the teacher's curve is symmetrical, and after further inspection it could be interpreted as an edge detection: high values show where an edge occurs. The two highest peaks would nicely align with the edges of the paper, the next highest peaks fit the edges of the table, and the rest could be approximation artefacts, as they're equidistant and rather insignificant compared to those four. I'm not statistics pro, but maybe that rings someone's bells? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.239|108.162.210.239]] 07:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

:Interesting observation. It may play into an age-long legend told and re-told among the students that some teachers grade papers by tossing the whole pile in the air; those sheets that land on the teacher's desk get a pass, those falling to the floor get a fail. Sometimes the story gets modified in such a way that papers falling on the teacher's book (or other object) laying on the desk will get a higher marking than those simply hitting the desk. The latter version would explain the higher sheet-size-apart peaks. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.111|108.162.210.111]] 08:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

To be more explicit, I think the sheet of paper represents some data. Cueball is not happy with the results of applying Student's t test, so ze is trying more complex tools in the hope of getting significance. -- TimMc / [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.27|173.245.52.27]] 11:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

:I would upvote this comment if allowed. As an aside, there are some teachers who think a class' grades will always fall into a nice t Distribution (thus the expression "grading on a curve") and others who vehemently hate the notion. Source: my 3-year stint as a math teacher in an urban high school. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Man, normally these explanations clear the comic right up for me, but I've read this one thrice now and I still can't figure out what a t-distribution is, much less a joke based on one. The only definition being a Wikipedia quote written in legalese doesn't help. So a t-distribution estimates...the probability of a population's average when there's unknown information?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.48|108.162.216.48]] 12:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:The unknown information is the sample size (class size, for example) and standard distribution (by how much, on average, is something going to vary from the mean). The unknown information is not "in the data".[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:Basically, if you have an underlying process that would produce samples with a Gaussian distribution with mean of 0, and stddev of 1, and then you pull a finite number of samples out of it, and do the usual "average" operation on those samples (i.e. sum them and divide by the number of samples) you would expect that that computed average would be close to zero. But it might not be! By chance the samples you pulled might mostly have been from the far right or left side of distribution and the average you got would be way off. Student's T distribution (for a certain number of samples, n) is basically "given that the underlying process a Gaussian with mean zero and stddev of 1, if I repeatedly take n samples from that distribution and compute the average of those samples to get an "estimated mean", this is how I expect that estimated mean to be distributed". Naturally, this is important in questions like "I took 100 samples and got an average of 0.02 -- does this mean that it is sensible to think that the mean of the underlying distribution is actually zero?"
: Of course, most of the joke is that the distribution is named "Student's", which is not strongly dependent on the nature of the statistics. [[User:Vyzen|Vyzen]] ([[User talk:Vyzen|talk]]) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
::Okay, it's pretty clear to me now what the Student's t distribution is. I'm still not sure about the punchline though, how does the "Teacher's" t distribution come into play? Does the uneven distribution represent any phenomena in the academic world? Like, as suggested above, is this a joke about grading? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.137|173.245.53.137]] 15:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Other than the symmetry, I'd almost suggest that the distribution could be real test scores. Typically tests will have a small number of questions worth multiple points and the scores might spike around levels that represent integral numbers of questions done perfectly, with the spaces in-between filled in by part marks. The teacher may have a bias towards giving perfect or zero scores per question. [[User:Vyzen|Vyzen]] ([[User talk:Vyzen|talk]]) 18:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The teacher's t-distribution looks like multiple spikier curves with different centres added together
and it doesn't fit the table. [[User:Wwt|Wwt]] ([[User talk:Wwt|talk]]) 13:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I took from it that the Students Distribution was too perfect, and real data would rarely yield those idealized results in a small sample size. That the teacher's distribution used actual numbers, with the occasional spikes. I took from the title text, the tendency of students, or anyone with pre-conceived notions, to keep redoing the test until they get the results they expect, in this case, the textbook result. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.71|173.245.55.71]] 13:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the piece of paper he's trying to pull out from beneath the Students' T-distribution? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.66|108.162.219.66]] 14:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

:I don't think he he trying to pull the paper from out beneath the t-distribution. I think he is placing the distribution on top of the paper to see if the data on the paper matches the distribution. In panel 2, he looks at the paper and decides that, no, it doesn't, so then opts to use another distribution - the Teacher's t-distribution and see if that works. The comic may be hinting that the t-distribution in grading, etc (since students and teachers are explicitly listed) is flawed. --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 15:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I may be over-simplifying it, but the 'Teachers' T looks like a reference to the 'double-hump programmer' idea, converted into a T-distribution. The other ideas cover the general principle, but this looks like a specific example as well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.48|108.162.221.48]] 15:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the explanation really explains what a T-distribution is at all. I know it's googleable, but the point of an explanation is you shouldn't have to look it up afterwards. I don't like how lately all of the scientific/maths comics seem to be given explanations laden with technical terms that don't actually clarify anything. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick calculation using mspaint, and it appears that the Student's t-distribution in the first panel is roughly 5780 px^2 in size; at the same time the area of the "Teacher's t-distribution" in the last panel is approximately 8125 px^2 (or 140% of the Student's distribution). Thus, using the Teacher's t-distribution as Cueball is intent on doing "is both illegal and illegitimate" (illegitimate = no scientific basis for such a distribution; illegal = this it not even a distribution per se). If Cueball goes on and publishes his results based on such approach, they will not be recognized by the international scientific community (except perhaps by Russia, Syria and North Korea). We, readers, therefore express our deep concern over Cueball's methods. [[User:Stpasha|Stpasha]] ([[User talk:Stpasha|talk]]) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the joke has to do with "fitting data to a distribution": In the first panel, Cueball is trying to adjust the Student's T distribution on top of the data, which could be a play on "fitting" the data to the distribution. Statistically speaking, fitting data to a distribution is often done to figure out how likely the data were to have occurred, under the assumption that the underlying data generating process follows a particular distribution (like the Student's T). It looks like Cueball first tries to fit his data to a Student's T, and is dissatisfied with the fit. He then tries a much more complicated distribution - which, I think is jokingly called a Teacher's distribution on the premise that something to do with teachers is more complicated than something to do with students. The joke is that data often don't fit a simple distribution like the Student's T... they are nuanced and complex, and their underlying data generating process was far more complex. [[User:Amoorthy|Amoorthy]] ([[User talk:Amoorthy|talk]]) 19:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
: By the way, this is related to and compatible with the explanation given by Dangerkeith3000 above.[[User:Amoorthy|Amoorthy]] ([[User talk:Amoorthy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The title test could be referring to the tests aspiring teachers have to take in the US to get their credentials. It's sort of like a Bar- except you may take it as many times as you wish until you pass. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.77}}
:I thought it referred to the practice that some US school systems have of allowing students to take a test (examination) repeatedly until they pass it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.85|199.27.128.85]] 06:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I predict that the "Teacher's t-distribution" is the new Cow Tools, and those with actual skill in statistics will drive themselves crazy over it. See [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowTools] for clarification. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.168|199.27.130.168]] 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Could it be pointed out that the middle of the Teacher's distribution resembles the Tower of Mordor ? Underscoring the role of the Teacher... {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.25}}

The explain says that the student distribution works when both the sample and the population have the same variance. Isn't that wrong--doesn't the sample tend to have a larger variance than the population under usual/ideal conditions? (I'm assuming the student distribution is meant for usual/ideal conditions.) [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
: I believe the true variance of a sample should be the same as the true variance of the population. Perhaps you are thinking of Bessel's correction - using "n-1" in the denominator of the formula for estimating sample variance, instead of "n". If so: While it's true that Bessel's correction makes our estimate of the sample variance larger than if we'd used "n", the reason is that using "n" would have created an estimate that was too small - or, otherwise put, biased toward zero. (The Wikipedia article on Bessel's correction has the best explanation I've seen for why this is true - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel's_correction#The_source_of_the_bias.) What's key here is that Bessel's correction is a technique to correct our estimates of variance - the true variance of a sample is really the same as in the population. [[User:Amoorthy|Amoorthy]] ([[User talk:Amoorthy|talk]]) 16:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My initial take is that in comic the students' understanding of the correct distribution is being evaluated as a function of the teacher's ability. That a poorly educated student reflects the ability of the teacher[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 12:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog

Talk:Rob

2014-03-22T00:49:31Z

199.27.128.85:

:[[647: Scary]] has the distinction of being the first comic to call Rob by his name in the transcript instead of saying "Man:".
This is despite the fact that the earlier comic [[632: Suspicion]] also calls Rob by his name in the transcript (and of course [[276: Fixed Width]] uses it as well, albeit in an unconventional format). Is this some reference to explainxkcd history that I'm not aware of? [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 14:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
:Nope. That's a mistake that you may fix. Thanks for finding that! [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

== Robert and Little Bobby Tables ==

Aren't Robert and Little Bobby Tables a.k.a. Robert'); DROP TABLE students;-- in Comic [[327: Exploits of a Mom]] the same person? --[[Special:Contributions/92.203.102.185|92.203.102.185]] 10:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

== Last Initial? ==

In comic 838, we see Rob's *nix username as robm. I assume that would be a last initial... but in any case, should we include it in the wiki as additional information about him?

221: Random Number

2013-12-12T03:11:01Z

199.27.128.85: A practical application of using carrier pigeons to transmit data has nothing to do with anything here.

{{comic
| number = 221
| date = February 9, 2007
| title = Random Number
| image = random_number.png
| titletext = <nowiki>RFC 1149.5</nowiki> specifies 4 as the standard IEEE-vetted random number.
}}
==Explanation==
The comic specifies a function (in a {{w|C (programming language)|C-like}} syntax), which should return a random number. Most functions of this form are random number ''generators'', implying that they return on subsequent calls ''different'' numbers. But the programmer has instead created a function that just returns always the same ''random'' number; random, because it was chosen by rolling a die as the comment documented. This function is essentially worthless, as it could simply be replaced by a "4" wherever it is used. And in fact, most modern compilers would do this automatically.

The {{w|IEEE}} is the organization responsible for maintaining a number of computer standards. An RFC, or {{w|Request for Comments}}, is a formal document put out to computing experts by {{w|IETF}} in the hopes of becoming a future standard. However, RFC 1149 was an {{w|April Fools' Day Request for Comments|April Fools' joke}}, defining how carrier pigeons can be used to transmit Internet packets. The <nowiki>RFC 1149.5</nowiki> simply does not exist.

==Transcript==
int getRandomNumber()
{
return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
// guaranteed to be random.
}

==Trivia==
The comic also has a philosophical bent, by showcasing the limits of knowledge for an external observer. Someone who is calling this function, but unable to see its source code, will never be able to tell with 100% confidence whether the function is flawed. Even if she runs the function 10 times, and it always returns 4, there is always the possibility that it could be a fluke. As she runs the function more and more times, she can develop more confidence in the theory that the function is faulty. But unless she breaks the barrier and examines the source code itself, she will never be able to declare the function to be faulty with 100% confidence.

Despite the extreme example given, this is actually a practical problem which likely exists in the real world. If the function was more sophisticated but still had a 5% bias towards one number under certain circumstances, this would be extremely hard to notice & prove. More likely, the API users would continue to believe that the RNG is working as intended, without realizing the flaw inherent in it; anyone who grumbles about seeing 4 very frequently may even be accused of not understanding the non-uniform nature of randomness. Given the extremely large number of APIs & libraries present, and that not all of them are fully examined & understood by 3rd party experts, such flaws are likely present in our world as well. These flaws may even have been purposely introduced by a malicious agent or entity seeking to exploit them.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:1293: Job Interview

2013-11-27T05:51:19Z

199.27.128.85:

Wouldn't this be a continuation of the story in "[http://xkcd.com/1032/ Networking]" [[User:Whiskey07|Whiskey07]] ([[User talk:Whiskey07|talk]]) 09:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

:I completely agree, Whisky. That comic is clearly a prelude to this. [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 07:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it [[Beret Guy]] character, and not just "employer with a hat"? --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 10:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the soup coming out of the electrical outlet (OK, it is label "soup", but that still does not explain it) [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])
:Who said it was an electrical outlet? It's clearly a soup outlet, it's even labeled as such. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.208|141.101.98.208]] 16:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::My first thought was that this was a modern soup kitchen of some sort with the basics of public supplies. But I've never seen or heard of such a thing? Does anyone know if they exist? [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
:::It's definitely an electrical outlet. This reinforces that this is a virtual company, not a real one. [[User:Sulis|Sulis]] ([[User talk:Sulis|talk]]) 10:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
:My understanding of the outlet matter is that:
:# It is an actual U.S. - style electrical outlet.
:# The coil of wire seen at the chair's leg in panel 2 which beret Guy uses is actually a handheld electric heater that was commonly used to heat water in Eastern Europe before electric kettles made their way there; such heaters are still being sold here ([http://e-promedia.com/go/_info/?user_id=1812&lang=pl example (in Polish)])
:# The water in the bowl is already boiling in panel 4.
:# Beret Guy is going to add some cheap instant soup to the water, e.g. [http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/3900578012_6534fb3fed.jpg Chinese-style instant noodles]
:It may be worth noting that such heaters are very cheap, you can get one for an equivalent of $3-5 on a flea market. The whole Beret Guy's new business is an extremely low cost one... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.217|108.162.231.217]] 10:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
::I'd think it's really just a soup (or whatever liquid it is) outlet. Reasons: 1. I don't see any heating attachments while the wire isn't plugged in. 2. To me, the drawing in the last panel rather looks like liquid pouring out of a hose. 3. It even says so in the official transcript: "Something one can only hope is soup streams out of the wire into Beret Guy's bowl" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.41|108.162.231.41]] 11:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Indeed, I don't like doing it, but I feel ''so'' strongly that this is surreality, not the more 'mundane' water-heater idea, that I actually reverted the explanation change making it so. (We don't know ''how'' he gets the soup from the outlet, or what happens if you plug a vacuum cleaner/etc into that outlet, but then we don't know how Beret Guy does ''most'' of the stuff he does. Or, when we do, ''why''..?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.218|141.101.99.218]] 14:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"We can offer you a bunch of paychecks" - but not actual money? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.215|173.245.55.215]] 16:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have an idea of what "There are ghosts here" means? --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:I assumed it was just part of a quirky interview. I feel it ties in to the later "interview from hell" stuff - it's not the sort of thing you want a job interviewer to raise in your interview. Even if the place does have ghosts, it's a terrible thing to mention. I think it just adds to the surrealism that others have mentioned and with which I agree. [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
::I thought it was a reference to some buzz-word that Beret Guy misunderstood, such as virtualization or intangible benefits or high spirits. I just couldn't figure out for sure what the source was. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.85|199.27.128.85]] 04:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Probably a play on "[[wikipedia:Ghostwriter|Ghostwriter]]" [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])
::Realized that this is probably a reference to Call of Duty: Ghost. Often tech companies will refer to the fun environment they have, and how guys will get together for LAN parties on the company equipment, and mention the games they play. Beret Guy, having heard and misunderstood, stripped this down to, "We have ghosts." [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.85|199.27.128.85]] 05:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
:Could it be a reference to the Snapchat mascot? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.213|141.101.98.213]] 07:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the joke here is just that this is an example of a "job interview from hell" or at least a very surreal/oddball job interview. Basically everything Beret Guy says or does is nonsensical or a non sequitur. E.g. "this real building I found" gives the impression that it may be a vacant building that he has somehow gained entrance to. It seems unlikely that a real company would make both apps and stickers for phones. Obviously you can't get soup out of a wall by plugging a cord into an electrical outlet. The humor derives from putting oneself in the position of the interviewee being confronted with this odd situation. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.217|173.245.55.217]] 18:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Pat

I suspect he is being a bit dadaist on this one. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 22:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It is more accurate (theologically and biblically - assuming that the biblical account (which is the only one we have) is correct) to say that God allowed the trials but they were performed and initiated by Satan. (And to those who want to dispute it being a real story or question the accuracy of the Bible - that's not the point. The point is that it's the only account we have so let's be accurate about what the account portrays.)
So I've changed the description to reflect the view that "God allowed" and "Satan did the horrible things" rather than that Job "was put through some horrendous ordeals by God to test his faith" which is partially true but technically inaccurate, but I kept that "God did it to test Job's faith". [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand the reference in the explanation to "the countless humorous signs near wall outlets and faucets." I haven't run into such signs (or didn't realize they were humorous). Can someone fill me in? {{unsigned|Amz}}
:I've only encountered one such sign in person. It was near the outlet powering the web server at my last job. The sign was labeled "DOES (sic) NOT PULG (sic) OUT" in meticulously-careful handwriting. It was hung in much the same manner as the comic. While the meaning was clear, I found it funny how poor the English was, given the care taken on the calligraphy. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.211|173.245.55.211]] 05:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
----
;/dʒɒɒɒɒɒɒɒb/ or /dʒoʊb/
I don't think "job" is meant to be a religious reference. I think its similar that to how one might pronounce C# as "C-pound".[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.33|108.162.222.33]] 06:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
:It very clearly is connected with Job in my opinion - there is piles of connection mentioned by numerous users here. Perhaps you don't see the connection because you don't know anything about Job. [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
::It's not a matter of opinion. The only word in English that is pronounced "job" with a long O, rhyming with ''globe,'' is the biblical figure. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 13:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
:To elaborate, I think he is saying /dʒoʊb/ (rather than /dʒɒːːb/) because he never heard anyone say it before. For example, let's say we reverse the roles of these two guys in the comic. Suppose Beret guy looked up some buzzwords to impress the interviewer. I think the result is that Beret Guy will pronounce things like Hadoop as "Had-dop", URL as "Earl", GUI as "Guy", @ as "ear", Apache as "'A'-patch", etc. Surely someone has this problem before, *cough*.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.33|108.162.222.33]] 05:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This, as well as networking, seem to me as commentary on the fragility of the 'typical' 'modern' job (and the 'typical' 'modern' company) - in terms of constancy of profession, livelihood security and permanency (and number of employees) - when compared to the 'typical' jobs of a few decades past. Many of today's SMEs and jobs live in economic bubbles, as well as credit bubbles: conventional metrics used to evaluate the strength of a job - monetary remuneration and monetary profit, no longer correlate well across career time-scales. Casting the quirky Beret Guy as the employer stokes cognitive dissonance (people expect a business owner/founder/employer to have the pulse of society, to be good strategists, etc.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.209|108.162.222.209]] 10:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is completely misunderstood. The comic is about some startups and their lack of inherent value, as demonstrated by the ridiculousness of facebook's recent attempt to acquire Snapchat for $2bn. The office is called a "real building" to emphasize that the company's product is not real. Beret guy is just throwing out a bunch of buzzwords, which demonstrates that he clearly does not have a business plan. The ghosts reference, as well as the "long 'o'", or 'joooooobs' (nothing to do with Jobe from the bible) in the alt text, which is how a ghost would pronounce 'jobs', alludes to the fact that it's a ghost company (a company that doesn't break even). Finally, the fact the he can make food, a necessity for survival, come out of a wall socket (electricity, allusion to the virtual app world) demonstrates the misconception that these app companies have real value. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.41|108.162.231.41]] 06:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:I have no comment about most of what you've written but am completely convinced that Randall has Job from the bible in mind. It is not spelled "Jobe" in English. The comments Randall makes and which others have connected with the Job character make far more sense than connecting it with something which ghosts might say. [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
::I know it's spelt "Job", but wanted to avoid being ambiguous. I don't see the "piles of connection mentioned by numerous users" you mention above; the explanation contains it (which could have been written by you) and you mention it in this discussion, that's it. This interview is in no way arduous and the interviewee is not really tested as Job was. Where do you see the connection between the comic and the Book of Job? As for the ghost explanation: as a user pointed out earlier, the Snapchat logo is a ghost, he mentions ghosts in the comic, the comic came out the same week as the Snapchat offers. This comic is clearly about Snapchat and the ridiculousness of the founder turning down an offer of billions of dollars for something that doesn't generate revenue. Where does Job fit into that story? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.41|108.162.231.41]] 09:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:::I edited what had already been written about Job. Check the history. You're right - I may have exaggerated "numerous users". But I agree with whoever had written the comments/explanation about Job linking it to his job being a "trial of faith". I make no claim at all that it connects directly to most of the rest of the comic. As Randall often does, he's gone off on a tangent - he especially does this in title texts - switched gears so to speak. And the connection is not to the interview but to the job. Check the title text again. And it's not exactly the "book of Job" but the character/life of Job as described in that book. And as explained by whoever originally wrote in the explanation the connection to Job. And I'm not disputing that other aspects of the comic have other connections. I'm not saying that it doesn't connect in other ways as you are seeing. What I'm saying is the title text is clearly a reference to Job. [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 00:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Perhaps the Job-experience allusion also refers to Snapchat being tempted by opportunities to sell out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.8|108.162.237.8]] 06:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The term "long O" is unambiguously used to denote "the long sound of O", the vowel of ''globe'' and ''Job'', as opposed to "short O" or "the short sound of O", the vowel of ''mob'' and ''job''. Since "long O" has that specialized meaning, to describe /dʒɒɒɒɒɒɒɒb/ we must say something like "a lengthened short O". [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 13:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
----

Talk:1293: Job Interview

2013-11-21T04:34:17Z

199.27.128.85:

Wouldn't this be a continuation of the story in "[http://xkcd.com/1032/ Networking]" [[User:Whiskey07|Whiskey07]] ([[User talk:Whiskey07|talk]]) 09:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it [[Beret Guy]] character, and not just "employer with a hat"? --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 10:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the soup coming out of the electrical outlet (OK, it is label "soup", but that still does not explain it) [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])
:Who said it was an electrical outlet? It's clearly a soup outlet, it's even labeled as such. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.208|141.101.98.208]] 16:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::My first thought was that this was a modern soup kitchen of some sort with the basics of public supplies. But I've never seen or heard of such a thing? Does anyone know if they exist? [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"We can offer you a bunch of paychecks" - but not actual money? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.215|173.245.55.215]] 16:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have an idea of what "There are ghosts here" means? --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
:I assumed it was just part of a quirky interview. I feel it ties in to the later "interview from hell" stuff - it's not the sort of thing you want a job interviewer to raise in your interview. Even if the place does have ghosts, it's a terrible thing to mention. I think it just adds to the surrealism that others have mentioned and with which I agree. [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
::I thought it was a reference to some buzz-word that Beret Guy misunderstood, such as virtualization or intangible benefits or high spirits. I just couldn't figure out for sure what the source was. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.85|199.27.128.85]] 04:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the joke here is just that this is an example of a "job interview from hell" or at least a very surreal/oddball job interview. Basically everything Beret Guy says or does is nonsensical or a non sequitur. E.g. "this real building I found" gives the impression that it may be a vacant building that he has somehow gained entrance to. It seems unlikely that a real company would make both apps and stickers for phones. Obviously you can't get soup out of a wall by plugging a cord into an electrical outlet. The humor derives from putting oneself in the position of the interviewee being confronted with this odd situation. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.217|173.245.55.217]] 18:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Pat

I suspect he is being a bit dadaist on this one. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 22:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It is more accurate (theologically and biblically - assuming that the biblical account (which is the only one we have) is correct) to say that God allowed the trials but they were performed and initiated by Satan. (And to those who want to dispute it being a real story or question the accuracy of the Bible - that's not the point. The point is that it's the only account we have so let's be accurate about what the account portrays.)
So I've changed the description to reflect the view that "God allowed" and "Satan did the horrible things" rather than that Job "was put through some horrendous ordeals by God to test his faith" which is partially true but technically inaccurate, but I kept that "God did it to test Job's faith". [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)