explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1549: xkcd Phone 3

2015-12-04T23:02:47Z

199.27.129.155: Surface refers to Microsoft.

I believe that the reference to "Surface" refers to the "Microsoft Surface", touch sensitive hardware and software technology.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155|199.27.129.155]] 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this is made, at least in part, in reference to the just-made OnePlus infodump and their upcoming OnePlus 2 smartphone. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.188|162.158.2.188]]

Is the heartbeat accelerator used to fool fitness wristbands? Or apps? Or ... ? [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 07:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Ear screen" may refer to a different meaning of "screen" - a device that protects you from something, as in "sun screen". In this case, the "ear screen" would block the sound of the phone's speakers, making it useless (at least for telephony). 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)~~ [[User:thepike|thepike]]

:I thought it was a name change like those of beret guy, repurposing words to stay accurate without using the correct/standard term.[[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 09:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

:I'm puzzled by the "ear screen" explanation: On old wired telephone handsets, the speaker grille was sometimes referred to as an "earpiece screen" or "protective ear screen" in the user manuals, so I just assumed that it was a common feature being pointlessly touted as if it were exclusive (common practice on iOS & Android device packaging & promotional material). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.95|108.162.221.95]] 19:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't running natively just mean that it runs apps natively instead of emulating them or something. Which would be a pointless marketing term OR it implys that the phone itself or the person inside runs.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.192|108.162.249.192]] 10:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
:I did some re-writing on that point (because the likes of the Java Virtual Machine-type solution is a half-way house that needs mentioning, between 'native' and 'emulated'), but it's a bit long. Also I briefly mentioned the Crusoe chip essentially a 'hardware virtual machine layer' (over and above the machine-code to micro-code one that doesn't bear mentioning due to the ubiquity), but not sure I described it well enough. At the time, the talk was that a Crusoe chip could end up (by sofware flag or magic 'autodetection') run x86/Intel-compatible ''or'' Motorola (Apple) ''or'' DEC Alpha instruction sets (and probably any other sets they could squeeze in, whether CISC or RISC, like Acorn's {{w|ARM architecture|ARM}}) without any software emulation at all. Of course, that was the time when programs didn't so heavily rely upon an OS's own API for pretty much ''all'' resources (at least on single-user machines), which is in effect an additional Virtual Machine layer, and the whole computing business has gone in a different direction, even Apple temporarily played with the PowerPC platform model.
:...Yeah, that's no shorter than my in-article edit, is it? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.252|141.101.98.252]] 13:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wireless discharge: I think the explanation is too complicate. Every cellphone (and every other device that uses batteries) does discharge without a wire, it is just normal. The joke (in my eyes) is here that no-one would advice with that. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea: a phone that discharges it's power wirelessly into another device.(unlikely that this is what it means though)[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.166|108.162.249.166]] 12:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
* How about a phone that discharges it's battery into another human? I'd buy that (provided I could control when and whom.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 13:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
* knowing the previous xkcd phones: it isn't going to be controllable [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.166|108.162.249.166]] 11:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Could "Boneless" be a play on words against the jawbone devices?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.203|108.162.219.203]] 13:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

:The second xkcd phone comic had the phone being "Ribbed"... Perhaps that's what "boneless" is talking about? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.84|108.162.242.84]] 20:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

:Boneless might probably refer to Ivar the Boneless, a Viking leader who invaded Britain in 865 — an allusion to Harald Bluetooth, another Viking, king of Denmark and Norway. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.64.113|141.101.64.113]] 20:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the title text seem to imply to anyone else that the customer may have been abducted for testing? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A runaway pacemaker ("heartbeat accelerator") probably wouldn't cause a heart attack. A heart attack is the interruption of blood flow to the heart muscle. A runaway pacemaker ''could'' cause a lethal tachycardia -- 2,000 beats per minute is [http://europace.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/6/592.full documented] and hearts don't do well at that rate... [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] ([[User talk:Andrew|talk]]) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

:Could "heatbeat accelerator" be a reference to an indicator light? Or am I the only one who gets a bit excited when I see my phone LED flashing indicating I have a friend out there who remembered I exist? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.105|108.162.225.105]] 23:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

::I completely agree with 108...105. When I first read the comic my first thought was that the heartbeat accelerator was the LED indicator light. I can recall getting quite nervous sometimes when waiting for a text back from my girlfriend, all that much amplified when something comes in. [[User:Robodoggy|Robodoggy]] ([[User talk:Robodoggy|talk]]) 01:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The first xkcd phone comic also mentioned that the phone can drown. It said something like, "Don't submerge phone; it will drown."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.141|108.162.216.141]] 03:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to protest the idea in the explanation that a screen "all the way through" would leave no space for the actual workings of the phone. I owned an original Nexus 7, which I took apart after the kids dropped it in the bath. All of the controlling circuitry was in a thin layer *around* the screen surface, not below it. Below it was mostly battery, and presuming it takes AA batteries it wouldn't have a giant LiIon. It's not an absurd notion at all that a phone could have nothing behind its screen. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.59|108.162.216.59]] 11:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would actually like a phone running on 2AA (Or better, AAA) batteries. Not a smartphone, just a basic phone. I wouldn't want the other features though... -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.67|141.101.104.67]] 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
* Based on my experiences with wireless microphones, which I think probably consume batteries at a similar rate as dumbphones do (the reason I think this is because the main thing powered by the battery in both devices is the wireless transmitter), you'd get maaaaybe 5-6 hours of battery life from each pair of AA batteries. Less if they were AAA - for alkaline batteries, the smaller they are, the quicker they die.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.141|108.162.216.141]] 01:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
* I am struggling to say this without sounding mean, but... 141.101.104.67 must be someone over 50 years old? I never hear anyone younger desiring alkaline pile cell slots in modern devices unless they are older & miss the convenience of interchangeable batteries using standardized sizes. I think standardizing flat-pack dimensions for lithium-ion batteries could be of great benefit to the consumer & the environment in general. Far too many batteries & charger accessories become deprecated by external layout changes that are not required by the advancements made within the cells. Older folks remember being able to get a fresh battery just about anywhere. Even at the elevated price of high capacity rechargeable lithium cells, I think consumers would love being able to buy a fresh battery when theirs is low or failing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.95|108.162.221.95]] 19:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"It would also make little sense for the OS itself to be non-native..." The first few versions of MacOS for PowerPC and PalmOS for ARM were largely emulated 68k code, with only the most performance-critical or central code ported. It was presumably faster to build a 68k emulator than to port everything. (And of course this meant that existing third-party drivers, extensions, etc. continued to work for a few years after the transition, but that could have been done separately--e.g., Mac OS X 10.4 on Intel could use some kinds of PowerPC drivers, even though the OS itself was purely Intel.) Also, the NT and OS/2 DOS environments, WOW and WOW64, OS X's early "Classic", etc. are all arguably emulated systems (you may be running x86 code natively on an x86, but the BIOS, memory mapped hardware, EMS, etc. are all emulated). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 09:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

793: Physicists

2015-11-21T21:06:06Z

199.27.129.155: /* Explanation */ oops - plural

{{comic
| number = 793
| date = September 15, 2010
| title = Physicists
| image = physicists.png
| titletext = If you need some help with the math, let me know, but that should be enough to get you started! Huh? No, I don't need to read your thesis, I can imagine roughly what it says.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|No title text explanation, and generally way to little explanation all around. What about giving an example of what the gray text could have been?}}

This comic shows a view that many physics students, upon first encountering a well-known problem, think that it is not a difficult problem, since they think they can fix it using an extremely simplified model. The obvious problem with this is that if it was that simple to solve the problem to a useful degree, there wouldn't be an entire department studying the problem. This attitude leads to great annoyance from those who have probably spent years and years working on the problem. This argument is similar to the {{w|Spherical cow}}, an idea that basic models taught in early physics classes only work in friction-less vacuums, as shown in [[669: Experiment]]. The title text takes the dismissive attitude to its logical extreme.

The comment "liberal-arts majors can be annoying sometimes" seems to be referencing the stereotype that they're all elitist know-it-alls.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands at a blackboard covered in equations and diagrams, an open laptop and scattered paper at his feet. His fists are balled in anger and there is a little angry squiggle over his head. A Cueball-like physicist stands behind him, arms out in a shrug.]
:Physicist: You're trying to predict the behavior of <complicated system>? Just model it as a <simple object>, and then add some secondary terms to account for <complications I just thought of>.
:Physicist: Easy, right?
:Physicist: So, why does <your field> need a whole journal, anyway?
:Liberal-arts majors may be annoying sometimes, but there's ''nothing'' more obnoxious than a physicist first encountering a new subject.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Physics]]

1605: DNA

2015-11-21T21:04:57Z

199.27.129.155: /* Explanation */ oops - wiki markup

{{comic
| number = 1605
| date = November 18, 2015
| title = DNA
| image = dna.png
| titletext = Researchers just found the gene responsible for mistakenly thinking we've found the gene for specific things. It's the region between the start and the end of every chromosome, plus a few segments in our mitochondria.
}}

==Explanation==
Because we have pretty much {{w|Human Genome Project|mapped the entire human genome}}, it's tempting to think we now know what makes our bodies tick and can start changing things. But just knowing what the individual pieces are, doesn't mean we know how they interact and behave in a complex system like our bodies.

In the comic, [[White Hat]] thinks that mapping the human genome is the same as knowing the {{w|source code}} for a {{w|computer program}}. By studying the source code for a program, a person can often understand why it does what it does, and make effective and fundamental changes to the program's operation. This may be a reference to the hyperbolic [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/17/ray-kurzweil-does-not-understa/ claims of Raymond Kurzweil,] author of {{w|The Singularity is Near}}, that DNA is closely analogous to a computer program. Kurzweil believes that since we have sequenced DNA, we will soon be able to reverse engineer the brain and program a computer to completely simulate all its functions.

[[Megan]] points out that even a complete knowledge of DNA would only provide a partial understanding of our body's workings. Complete knowledge would require an understanding of feedbacks and external processing (such as the interactions of the proteins created by DNA). In addition the comparison is not valid because the human body is so many orders of magnitude more complicated than the computers we have running programs. White Hat is not persuaded, even though Megan points out that {{w|DNA}} has been developed in the most aggressive optimization process in the universe, running for billions of years. White Hat's thought process may be similar to the physicist in [[793: Physicists]] who assumes that any other field is simple because it appears to be similar to something he's seen before.

Finally Megan {{w|Hacker koan|enlightens}} White Hat by making him look at the source code for {{w|Google}}'s front page. In a web browser, the page looks simple; a very plain white page with a search box in the middle plus a few text links and icons, and indeed back in the 1990s Google's {{w|HTML}} code for the page was quite simple. But in less than 20 years, Google developers have vastly expanded it, with over 300 kilobytes of {{w|Minification (programming)|minified}} Javascript and CSS. Looking at some obfuscated source code may make it clearer how misleading even simple looking code can be, and how unreadable correct and well working code can be. This analogy causes White Hat to consider how much more complexity could evolve over billions of years through the relentless forces of nature.

What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of as 'source code' it isn't for a language we fully understand, and this code was generated through various natural mechanisms such as {{w|natural selection}}, feedback loops like {{w|homeostasis}}, etc.; possibly even including processes that are not currently known to science. Further, program maintainability is not an issue, so there is no reason for the code to be easy to understand. Additionally, there are many other non-genetic factors such as {{w|epigenetics}}, {{w|maternal effect}} and {{w|environment (biophysical)|environment}}, which change how the genetic code is used. This means that not all parts make sense and that there may be all kinds of side effects and things that have several purposes.

The title text reference to finding the gene that is responsible "for mistakenly thinking we've found the gene for specific things" is a reference to the tendency of news organizations to run headlines making similar claims, often by oversimplifying or misrepresenting the actual study. These claims are based off the common belief that since DNA is a 'source code' for our body it should be possible to pin point the effect of individual genes in much the same way that we could describe the effect each line of code has in a very simple program; leading to people expecting one gene to be associated with each observable human trait. In reality even small traits are the results of hundreds of genes, sometime spread across multiple chromosomes, interacting through complex mechanisms; making it rare that a single gene, or gene sequence, can be definitively stated to be the sole, or primary, cause of a given trait.

The joke of the title text is that the responsible gene is located in ''the region between the start and the end of every {{w|chromosome}}'' meaning that the whole genome, not any one gene or DNA segment, must be considered responsible for the referenced trait, since the interconnected nature of DNA and environment during development means that every gene is at least partially responsible in generating any complex traits. [[Randall]] even includes the {{w|mitochondria}}, recognizing that the short DNA sequences present in these organelles, which are located outside the cell-nucleus, also contribute to development. The organismal chromosome or chromosomes are located in the nucleus, but mitochondria have their own tiny independent genome, reflecting their distant ancestry as separate but symbiotic organisms. This means that the DNA segments coding for any given human trait are not even necessarily all found on the main chromosomes in the nucleus.

Technically a gene is "a locus (or region) of DNA that encodes a functional RNA or protein product", which means that it is a single discrete unit of DNA, with human DNA containing over 20,000 genes. Thus the theoretical gene could not include the entire ''region between the start and the end of every chromosome'' since that region contains thousands of genes, any more then it's possible to say that the ace of clubs is the card everywhere from the top of the full deck of cards to the bottom of it.

Of course if such a gene actually did exist, then we would never be able to correctly identify where it was since we would make a mistake every time we thought we found a gene for something specific. So the whole title text is either a {{w|contradiction}} (they could never find this gene if it was there) and/or it is a {{w|Tautology (logic)|tautology}} since if the gene did exist, then of course it has to be part of our entire DNA. (If it is a tautology it is the second title text using this in just two weeks, the last being [[1602: Linguistics Club]].)

Google's home page for the date this cartoon appeared can be seen at the internet archive: [https://web.archive.org/web/20151118000129/http://www.google.com/ www.google.com homepage (18 Nov 2015)].

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, holding a laptop, is talking to Megan who looks at her smart phone.]
:White Hat: Biology is largely solved. DNA is the source code for our bodies. Now that gene sequencing is easy, we just have to read it.
:Megan: It's not just "source code". There's a ton of feedback and external processing.

:[White Hat, opening his laptop, walks toward a desk and chair past Megan who holds her arms out.]
:Megan: But even if it were, DNA is the result of the most aggressive optimization process in the universe, running in parallel at every level, in every living thing, for four billion years.
:White Hat: It's still just code.

:[White Hat sits down at the desk with his opens laptop, while Megan looks over his shoulder.]
:Megan: OK, try opening google.com and clicking "View Source."
:White Hat: OK,I-...Oh my god.
:Megan: That's just a few years of optimization by Google devs. DNA is thousands of times longer and way, way worse.
:White Hat: Wow, biology is ''impossible''.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Science]]

1605: DNA

2015-11-21T21:03:30Z

199.27.129.155: /* Explanation */ Add link to archived version of Google homepage, moved a sentence that seemed out of place

{{comic
| number = 1605
| date = November 18, 2015
| title = DNA
| image = dna.png
| titletext = Researchers just found the gene responsible for mistakenly thinking we've found the gene for specific things. It's the region between the start and the end of every chromosome, plus a few segments in our mitochondria.
}}

==Explanation==
Because we have pretty much {{w|Human Genome Project|mapped the entire human genome}}, it's tempting to think we now know what makes our bodies tick and can start changing things. But just knowing what the individual pieces are, doesn't mean we know how they interact and behave in a complex system like our bodies.

In the comic, [[White Hat]] thinks that mapping the human genome is the same as knowing the {{w|source code}} for a {{w|computer program}}. By studying the source code for a program, a person can often understand why it does what it does, and make effective and fundamental changes to the program's operation. This may be a reference to the hyperbolic [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/17/ray-kurzweil-does-not-understa/ claims of Raymond Kurzweil,] author of {{w|The Singularity is Near}}, that DNA is closely analogous to a computer program. Kurzweil believes that since we have sequenced DNA, we will soon be able to reverse engineer the brain and program a computer to completely simulate all its functions.

[[Megan]] points out that even a complete knowledge of DNA would only provide a partial understanding of our body's workings. Complete knowledge would require an understanding of feedbacks and external processing (such as the interactions of the proteins created by DNA). In addition the comparison is not valid because the human body is so many orders of magnitude more complicated than the computers we have running programs. White Hat is not persuaded, even though Megan points out that {{w|DNA}} has been developed in the most aggressive optimization process in the universe, running for billions of years. White Hat's thought process may be similar to the physicist in [[793: Physicists]] who assumes that any other field is simple because it appears to be similar to something he's seen before.

Finally Megan {{w|Hacker koan|enlightens}} White Hat by making him look at the source code for {{w|Google}}'s front page. In a web browser, the page looks simple; a very plain white page with a search box in the middle plus a few text links and icons, and indeed back in the 1990s Google's {{w|HTML}} code for the page was quite simple. But in less than 20 years, Google developers have vastly expanded it, with over 300 kilobytes of {{w|Minification (programming)|minified}} Javascript and CSS. Looking at some obfuscated source code may make it clearer how misleading even simple looking code can be, and how unreadable correct and well working code can be. This analogy causes White Hat to consider how much more complexity could evolve over billions of years through the relentless forces of nature.

What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of as 'source code' it isn't for a language we fully understand, and this code was generated through various natural mechanisms such as {{w|natural selection}}, feedback loops like {{w|homeostasis}}, etc.; possibly even including processes that are not currently known to science. Further, program maintainability is not an issue, so there is no reason for the code to be easy to understand. Additionally, there are many other non-genetic factors such as {{w|epigenetics}}, {{w|maternal effect}} and {{w|environment (biophysical)|environment}}, which change how the genetic code is used. This means that not all parts make sense and that there may be all kinds of side effects and things that have several purposes.

The title text reference to finding the gene that is responsible "for mistakenly thinking we've found the gene for specific things" is a reference to the tendency of news organizations to run headlines making similar claims, often by oversimplifying or misrepresenting the actual study. These claims are based off the common belief that since DNA is a 'source code' for our body it should be possible to pin point the effect of individual genes in much the same way that we could describe the effect each line of code has in a very simple program; leading to people expecting one gene to be associated with each observable human trait. In reality even small traits are the results of hundreds of genes, sometime spread across multiple chromosomes, interacting through complex mechanisms; making it rare that a single gene, or gene sequence, can be definitively stated to be the sole, or primary, cause of a given trait.

The joke of the title text is that the responsible gene is located in ''the region between the start and the end of every {{w|chromosome}}'' meaning that the whole genome, not any one gene or DNA segment, must be considered responsible for the referenced trait, since the interconnected nature of DNA and environment during development means that every gene is at least partially responsible in generating any complex traits. [[Randall]] even includes the {{w|mitochondria}}, recognizing that the short DNA sequences present in these organelles, which are located outside the cell-nucleus, also contribute to development. The organismal chromosome or chromosomes are located in the nucleus, but mitochondria have their own tiny independent genome, reflecting their distant ancestry as separate but symbiotic organisms. This means that the DNA segments coding for any given human trait are not even necessarily all found on the main chromosomes in the nucleus.

Technically a gene is "a locus (or region) of DNA that encodes a functional RNA or protein product", which means that it is a single discrete unit of DNA, with human DNA containing over 20,000 genes. Thus the theoretical gene could not include the entire ''region between the start and the end of every chromosome'' since that region contains thousands of genes, any more then it's possible to say that the ace of clubs is the card everywhere from the top of the full deck of cards to the bottom of it.

Of course if such a gene actually did exist, then we would never be able to correctly identify where it was since we would make a mistake every time we thought we found a gene for something specific. So the whole title text is either a {{w|contradiction}} (they could never find this gene if it was there) and/or it is a {{w|Tautology (logic)|tautology}} since if the gene did exist, then of course it has to be part of our entire DNA. (If it is a tautology it is the second title text using this in just two weeks, the last being [[1602: Linguistics Club]].)

Google's home page for the date this cartoon appeared can be seen at the internet archive: [[https://web.archive.org/web/20151118000129/http://www.google.com/ www.google.com homepage (18 Nov 2015)]].

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, holding a laptop, is talking to Megan who looks at her smart phone.]
:White Hat: Biology is largely solved. DNA is the source code for our bodies. Now that gene sequencing is easy, we just have to read it.
:Megan: It's not just "source code". There's a ton of feedback and external processing.

:[White Hat, opening his laptop, walks toward a desk and chair past Megan who holds her arms out.]
:Megan: But even if it were, DNA is the result of the most aggressive optimization process in the universe, running in parallel at every level, in every living thing, for four billion years.
:White Hat: It's still just code.

:[White Hat sits down at the desk with his opens laptop, while Megan looks over his shoulder.]
:Megan: OK, try opening google.com and clicking "View Source."
:White Hat: OK,I-...Oh my god.
:Megan: That's just a few years of optimization by Google devs. DNA is thousands of times longer and way, way worse.
:White Hat: Wow, biology is ''impossible''.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:1605: DNA

2015-11-21T20:54:01Z

199.27.129.155: Explanation should include archived copy of google homepage, so joke still makes sense even if Google changes it.

The source for Google.com can be found at `<nowiki>view-source:https://www.google.com/</nowiki>` for Firefox and Chrome. Also [http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=u8SMf7G6 here]. —[[User:Artyer|Artyer]] <big>([[User Talk:Artyer|talk]]<big>'''|'''</big>[[Special:Contributions/Artyer|ctb]])</big> 16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:Should there be a link to the code in the explain. I do not understand these links or the source code, and would not like to place these links in the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I really like this comic. IMHO, just another good example of intelligent design. Google's dev had to design, plan and carefully code. If that is seemingly simple compared to DNA and biology then how much more intelligence and thought was needed for the coding of all living things?--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:With all the stupid things going on in our bodies (rendered useless by natural selection but staying put anyway like the {{w|Appendix (anatomy)|Appendix}} or our {{w|tailbone}}) then it is to me just a clear example that there has been no intelligence behind our genome, but just trial and error, and then 4 billion years to get it right enough that it works but not smart. And don't get me started on how our air and food/drink has to go in the same way with the risk of being (nearly) killed by a pretzel...([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-94567/I-feel-great-President-Bush-declares-pretzel-incident.html even if you are the president of the US] ;-) That is just plain stupid design. But few enough dies from this, that it was necessary for nature to change it once it was working. Humans and the genes survived long enough to reproduce. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
::Without an appendix how would our gut immune system develop properly? Without a tail bone how would we stand upright? It's a fallacy to think that just because we don't understand something it must have no purpose. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 00:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Without a pretzel-choking mechanism, how could we ever hope to weed out less-desirable presidents?
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.180.215|162.158.180.215]] 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Nothing to do with choking; the pretzel interfered with the vagus nerve, interfering with his heart rate [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 08:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC).
:I am sure you are right about intelligent design being involved: clearly DNA's tangled structure is a deliberate nod to a plate of spaghetti, proof indeed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had a hand (well, a noodly appendage) in all of creation. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, when I saved my comments it blitzed someone else's that must have been being written at the same time :'-( [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:13, 18 November 2015
(UTC)
:Yeah it was my two comments above? I have now moved the one right her above back in place from the bottom where Davidy22 had placed it when he tried to fix it. No harms done but as he says: ''Read error messages, I know mediawiki gives them to you''. You can always see in the history what you have changed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
::I, for my part read the edit conflict (with Kynde, 18:43) like a good little boy, re-edited in light of that, resubmitted and... forgot to answer the security question. For completeness I wrote the following. If it's still helpful...
Had the same thought. Although I just use "View | Source" from the menu or right-click and "View Page Source", or whatever that browser tends to want to give me. And, having had that same thought: For reference, in case anybody wants it, the source of the google.co.uk main page (assumed not far off google.com in its nature) is 51 lines. But that's 51 ''long'' lines of mostly javascript, with much of the unnecessary whitespace (including line-feeds) taken out of it, overwhelmingly single-character variable names, over 150 'if' statements (including 'else if' ones, in continuation to a prior one) and perhaps 56 'for' loops, at first glance. Whether 'optimised' or obfuscated, it certainly could be a challenge to fully understand.
:: HTH, HAND [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.161|141.101.106.161]] 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

::: I don't think that Google's homepage is only optimized. I'm sure part of obfuscation is deliberate. That said, just removing comments and changing variable names is usually enough to make program unreadable. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO DNA with its redundant sections for things not currently used and the bodges in biological design are a good example of unintelligent design. For example the blood supply to the retina is between the iris and the retina, so it is in the way. An intelligent designer would do an eye mark II. But this has nothing to do with the comic. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
: Sigh. Another of the "I could do a better job" brigade. Go ahead. Try it. Post back here after you learn enough about the existing eye design that you recognise just how incredible it is. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

::Eye mark II is used in octopuses: {{w|Cephalopod eye}}. Solves multiple problems of our eyes. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes is a classic example of convergent evolution, therefore eye structure proves evolution not intelligent design. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Eye structure disproves intelligent design BECAUSE no intelligent designer would use two things which are so similar and yet so different. Disproving intelligent design is easy. The real content is between evolution and STUPID design. Or, well ... Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes looks EXACTLY like something which would happen if {{w|Polytheism|two designers}} try to compete without directly copying from each other. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

White Hat is showing the hubris often seen by people who think their (often limited) knowledge in one field can be used as an anology for something very different. Megan only manages to showchim his error by showing that a "simple" web page, which has only been evolving for a few years is more complex than he thinks, and the role of any one line/command in the page is probably far from clear without deep analysis [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The evolution of life is composed exclusively of copy-paste programming on top of legacy code, global variables, and hacks on hacks on hacks at every level, from telomeres and DNA looping, to the structure of the human hip (childbirth), to our breathing tract, optic nerve, and brain structure and cognition. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.234|199.27.130.234]] 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
: That's what you get when you hack the universe together with perl. {{unsigned|Dsollen}}

: Or C. Reminds me of a joke going around in the 90s ... http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/dna.en.html [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.38|141.101.98.38]]

So much for Gattaca then... [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure what was meant by a comprehensive language in this line:
"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of 'source code' it isn't for a comprehensive language"
Whether it meant that the language of DNA is incomplete in some way (e.g. relies on other linguistic components), or what. I changed it to:
"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of as 'source code' it isn't for a language we fully understand"
Which I think is clearer, and I hope captures the intended meaning. If not, please clarify. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155|199.27.129.155]] 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

To maintain historical context, it would be prudent to add links to the current version of the Google homepage, both as it appears in a web browser, and Google's current code for the page (e.g. via the Wayback machine). Google could change the page to make it visually more complex, or change the code to make it simpler. Preserving samples of both would futureproof this explanation.
Here is a link to the archive for the Google homepage on the day this comic was posted [[https://web.archive.org/web/20151118000129/http://www.google.com/ Archive of www.google.com homepage, on 18 Nov 2015]]

I do not know how to easily provide either an image of what this page looks like in a web browser from this time period, or how to provide a link to just the google code from the archived page, without violating copyright. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155|199.27.129.155]] 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

793: Physicists

2015-11-21T20:44:18Z

199.27.129.155: /* Explanation */ grammar, remove seemingly irrelevant speculation

{{comic
| number = 793
| date = September 15, 2010
| title = Physicists
| image = physicists.png
| titletext = If you need some help with the math, let me know, but that should be enough to get you started! Huh? No, I don't need to read your thesis, I can imagine roughly what it says.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|No title text explanation, and generally way to little explanation all around. What about giving an example of what the gray text could have been?}}

This comic shows a view that many physics students, upon first encountering a well-known problem, think that it is not a difficult problem, since they think they can fix it using an extremely simplified model. The obvious problem with this is that if it was that simple to solve the problem to a useful degree, there wouldn't be an entire department studying the problem. This attitude leads to great annoyance from those who have probably spent years and years working on the problem. This argument is similar to the {{w|Spherical cow}}, an idea that basic models taught in early physics classes only work in friction-less vacuums, as shown in [[669: Experiment]]. The title text takes the dismissive attitude to its logical extreme.

The comment "liberal-arts majors can be annoying sometimes" seems to be referencing the stereotype that they're all elitist know-it-all.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands at a blackboard covered in equations and diagrams, an open laptop and scattered paper at his feet. His fists are balled in anger and there is a little angry squiggle over his head. A Cueball-like physicist stands behind him, arms out in a shrug.]
:Physicist: You're trying to predict the behavior of <complicated system>? Just model it as a <simple object>, and then add some secondary terms to account for <complications I just thought of>.
:Physicist: Easy, right?
:Physicist: So, why does <your field> need a whole journal, anyway?
:Liberal-arts majors may be annoying sometimes, but there's ''nothing'' more obnoxious than a physicist first encountering a new subject.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Physics]]

1605: DNA

2015-11-21T20:27:40Z

199.27.129.155: /* Explanation */ Note that program maintainability (legibility) is not an issue for DNA; also several clarifications/grammar

{{comic
| number = 1605
| date = November 18, 2015
| title = DNA
| image = dna.png
| titletext = Researchers just found the gene responsible for mistakenly thinking we've found the gene for specific things. It's the region between the start and the end of every chromosome, plus a few segments in our mitochondria.
}}

==Explanation==
Because we have pretty much {{w|Human Genome Project|mapped the entire human genome}}, it's tempting to think we now know what makes our bodies tick and can start changing things. But just knowing what the individual pieces are, doesn't mean we know how they interact and behave in a complex system like our bodies.

In the comic, [[White Hat]] thinks that mapping the human genome is the same as knowing the {{w|source code}} for a {{w|computer program}}. By studying the source code for a program, a person can often understand why it does what it does, and make effective and fundamental changes to the program's operation. This may be a reference to the hyperbolic [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/17/ray-kurzweil-does-not-understa/ claims of Raymond Kurzweil,] author of {{w|The Singularity is Near}}, that DNA is closely analogous to a computer program. Kurzweil believes that since we have sequenced DNA, we will soon be able to reverse engineer the brain and program a computer to completely simulate all its functions.

[[Megan]] points out that even a complete knowledge of DNA would only provide a partial understanding of our body's workings. Complete knowledge would require an understanding of feedbacks and external processing (such as the interactions of the proteins created by DNA). In addition the comparison is not valid because the human body is so many orders of magnitude more complicated than the computers we have running programs. White Hat is not persuaded, even though Megan points out that {{w|DNA}} has been developed in the most aggressive optimization process in the universe, running for billions of years. White Hat's thought process may be similar to the physicist in [[793: Physicists]] who assumes that any other field is simple because it appears to be similar to something he's seen before.

Finally Megan {{w|Hacker koan|enlightens}} White Hat by making him look at the source code for {{w|Google}}'s front page. In a web browser, the page looks simple; a very plain white page with a search box in the middle plus a few text links and icons, and indeed back in the 1990s Google's {{w|HTML}} code for the page was quite simple. But in less than 20 years, Google developers have vastly expanded it, with over 300 kilobytes of {{w|Minification (programming)|minified}} Javascript and CSS. This analogy causes White Hat to consider how much more complexity could evolve over billions of years through the relentless forces of nature.

What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of as 'source code' it isn't for a language we fully understand, and this code was generated through various natural mechanisms such as {{w|natural selection}}, feedback loops like {{w|homeostasis}}, etc.; possibly even including processes that are not currently known to science. Further, program maintainability is not an issue, so there is no reason for the code to be easy to understand. Additionally, there are many other non-genetic factors such as {{w|epigenetics}}, {{w|maternal effect}} and {{w|environment (biophysical)|environment}}, which change how the genetic code is used. This means that not all parts make sense and that there may be all kinds of side effects and things that have several purposes. Looking at some obfuscated source code may make it clearer how misleading even simple looking code can be, and how unreadable correct and well working code can be.

The title text reference to finding the gene that is responsible "for mistakenly thinking we've found the gene for specific things" is a reference to the tendency of news organizations to run headlines making similar claims, often by oversimplifying or misrepresenting the actual study. These claims are based off the common belief that since DNA is a 'source code' for our body it should be possible to pin point the effect of individual genes in much the same way that we could describe the effect each line of code has in a very simple program; leading to people expecting one gene to be associated with each observable human trait. In reality even small traits are the results of hundreds of genes, sometime spread across multiple chromosomes, interacting through complex mechanisms; making it rare that a single gene, or gene sequence, can be definitively stated to be the sole, or primary, cause of a given trait.

The joke of the title text is that the responsible gene is located in ''the region between the start and the end of every {{w|chromosome}}'' meaning that the whole genome, not any one gene or DNA segment, must be considered responsible for the referenced trait, since the interconnected nature of DNA and environment during development means that every gene is at least partially responsible in generating any complex traits. [[Randall]] even includes the {{w|mitochondria}}, recognizing that the short DNA sequences present in these organelles, which are located outside the cell-nucleus, also contribute to development. The organismal chromosome or chromosomes are located in the nucleus, but mitochondria have their own tiny independent genome, reflecting their distant ancestry as separate but symbiotic organisms. This means that the DNA segments coding for any given human trait are not even necessarily all found on the main chromosomes in the nucleus.

Technically a gene is "a locus (or region) of DNA that encodes a functional RNA or protein product", which means that it is a single discrete unit of DNA, with human DNA containing over 20,000 genes. Thus the theoretical gene could not include the entire ''region between the start and the end of every chromosome'' since that region contains thousands of genes, any more then it's possible to say that the ace of clubs is the card everywhere from the top of the full deck of cards to the bottom of it.

Of course if such a gene actually did exist, then we would never be able to correctly identify where it was since we would make a mistake every time we thought we found a gene for something specific. So the whole title text is either a {{w|contradiction}} (they could never find this gene if it was there) and/or it is a {{w|Tautology (logic)|tautology}} since if the gene did exist, then of course it has to be part of our entire DNA. (If it is a tautology it is the second title text using this in just two weeks, the last being [[1602: Linguistics Club]].)

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, holding a laptop, is talking to Megan who looks at her smart phone.]
:White Hat: Biology is largely solved. DNA is the source code for our bodies. Now that gene sequencing is easy, we just have to read it.
:Megan: It's not just "source code". There's a ton of feedback and external processing.

:[White Hat, opening his laptop, walks toward a desk and chair past Megan who holds her arms out.]
:Megan: But even if it were, DNA is the result of the most aggressive optimization process in the universe, running in parallel at every level, in every living thing, for four billion years.
:White Hat: It's still just code.

:[White Hat sits down at the desk with his opens laptop, while Megan looks over his shoulder.]
:Megan: OK, try opening google.com and clicking "View Source."
:White Hat: OK,I-...Oh my god.
:Megan: That's just a few years of optimization by Google devs. DNA is thousands of times longer and way, way worse.
:White Hat: Wow, biology is ''impossible''.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:186: Console Lines

2015-09-20T07:20:03Z

199.27.129.155: Added a joke

What if the Sony/Microsoft line is rude but honest while the Nintendo line is polite but lying?
-MD
: "If I were to approach the other line, what would they tell me?" [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.155|199.27.129.155]] 07:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)