explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2823: Fossil

2023-09-04T12:15:47Z

Blagae:

Boop! [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 07:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Came here to find out what in the heck ‘boop’ has to do with anything, learned absolutely nothing (autospell changed it to “book” so I’m not alone). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.76|172.71.154.76]] 08:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:There's a link there now (not sure when anyone added it, might have been after your query) which satisfies me somewhat. Seems to be a playful tagging/"you're it!" sort of thing, though, like "punch buggy <yellow/etc>", it's not something I really knew of though probably appears to be in Randall's childhood/whatever cultural background and that's good enough for me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.152|172.69.79.152]] 09:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::I agree that "boop" needs an extra explanation for non native speakers of English. The link is useful (thanks to whoever added it) but the Wiktionary definition alone is too terse to get the pun.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 11:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:I added the wikitionary link and I was not entirely happy with it, but it's a starting point. Please do improve it. To me, "boop" is a friendly pat on the nose that one might do to, especially, a dog's nose; see https://www.hillspet.com/dog-care/play-exercise/do-dogs-like-dog-boops?. Definitely more affectionate and less aggressive than the "punch buggy" action (which can get out of hand), or even tagging. I was surprised that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boop did not have a mention of this, not even on the talk page; yeah, it's not the most encyclopedic of topics, but discussing social behaviors is beyond the bounds of wiktionary, and Urban Dictionary isn't a great place to cite to (even if it were helpful). [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::To the non-native English speakers, it's basically just playfully, gently touching a dog or other animal/pet on the nose while saying "Boop". Like "I got your nose." Not really petting/stroking; just a form of play or affection. I'm not surprised there isn't a lot documented on this as it's not really a "thing". Kind of like Randall's use of pew pew pew noises while pretending to fire a ray gun. You understand what he's doing and may have done it yourself, but it's not the kind of thing you expect to find on Wikipedia. :) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.254.125|172.71.254.125]] 15:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Pat
:"Boop" can also be a great training tool: Dogs love to poke us with their noses, so a lot of them can readily be trained to come put their nose in your hand when you hold it palm out & say "Boop"! Adorable & handy. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.57|172.68.35.57]] 03:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The furries gonna have a field day with this one :] [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.178|172.71.154.178]] 22:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I was actually curios as whether any eye had ever seen a 400 million old fossil. Had to look it up to see when the first eyes evolved. But seems it was around [https://www.scienceworld.ca/stories/eyes-how/ 550 million years ago], so some eyes may have seen the animal that turned in to the fossil Cueball now sees. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
: "... see an animal that no one has laid eyes on..." strongly implies that the "no one" means "no human being". Which doesn't really make sense in this context. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 02:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought that the rock with the trilobite looks like a remote control button that makes a "beep" or "boop" when you push it. Or alternatively an infant's toy that has a button that makes a sound like a clown's nose. So Cueball is pressing the trilobite and vocalizing the "boop" sound that would be expected from these objects. Although "booping" a child's nose is a thing ... although it seems very rude ... I did not associate the fossil rock with the trilobite with noses, but I did associate it with remote control devices that have a flat pad with a button (or many buttons) on it. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is an example picture of a trilobite which has two large eyes and a centre area which might be booped. The fossil is 3D meaning it is not flat.
[[File:trilobite.jpg|300px]]
In contrast a fossil fish will often be flat, almost 2D, and show only one eye. Many people in North America do not like to see the head of a fish and so the head of a fossil fish can also seem odd.
[[User:Punchcard|Punchcard]] ([[User talk:Punchcard|talk]]) 22:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Can someone provide a pronunciation guide, preferrably a phonetic representation, of the word fossiliferous ? Anyone except native speakers of English who are also paleonthology enthousiasts will likely be unsure whether to pronounce it as "fossi-LI-ferous" or "fossili-FE-rous". [[User:Blagae|Blagae]] ([[User talk:Blagae|talk]]) 12:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-02-28T13:16:25Z

Blagae:

Darn, I have no idea what this comic is about. Randal has eluded my yet again. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Calculus. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.143|162.158.79.143]] 18:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Basically, integration is easy to do by hand, but integration, even of things that look simple on paper, can be very difficult, as well as easy to mess up or get lost in.
And Calc 2 is why I stopped being a Computer Science major and moved (eventually) to majoring in English. Consistent 4.0s in math through Trig and Calc I ... 1.6 in Calc II, retook and got a 1.8. Without the Calc, couldn't do the physics; without the physics, couldn't get my 2-yr degree and move on from community college to a full university. I don't know what all the integration stuff in the flowchart is (since I didn't do well in Calc and it was a long time ago), but there's so very many things that become [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonelementary_integral nonelementary integrals] that all sorts of special tricks have to be employed for things that look like they should be easy. It's like having a problem that's very easy to do division on, but requires special advanced mathematical tricks to use multiplication upon.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 19:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Basic ideas:
Integration by parts is the reverse of the Product Rule.
Substitution is the reverse of the Chain Rule.
Cauchy's Formula gives the result of a contour integration in the complex plane, using "singularities" of the integrand.
Partial fractions is just splitting up one complex fraction into a sum of simple fractions, which is relevant because they are easier to integrate.
Stokes theorem is the relationship between an integral over an area, and an integral over the boundary of said area.
Riemann integration was the first rigorous definition of integration. This has been superseded by Lesbesgue integration.
Bessel functions are like 2d versions of sin and cos, and turn up sometimes when doing integration.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61|162.158.89.61]] 20:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:"Lesbesgue integration." Best. Freudian. Slip. Ever. SCNR :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 08:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wolfram Alpha be somewhere in that flowchart? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.142|162.158.255.142]] 20:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who is too dumb to integrate [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Symbolic differentiation is just going through algorithm ; there are few functions which don't have it but they tend to be constructed in complicated way, and if function have differentiation it's usually easy to find it. Symbolic integration requires lot of thinking and trial and error ; even very easy function may lack primitive function and even if they don't, you may be unable to find it except randomly. If it's exercise in book, the ones for differentiation are done by thinking about some interesting function and putting it there. The ones for integration are done by thinking about some interesting function and putting it's differentiation there. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Oddly enough it mentions Riemann integration, but that is the integral most people know how to use. Turns out there are a lot more (e.g. lebesgue and generalized riemann integrals). I'm halfway through a second semester of real analysis and was floored by how involved integration can be. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.106|172.68.34.106]] 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One of my professors once said: "Never try to integrate a function. Almost all (in a strict mathematical sense) functions are impossible to integrate, so there is no reason why you should even try." --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.128|162.158.88.128]] 07:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How is there no "+ C" joke in there [[User:Blagae|Blagae]] ([[User talk:Blagae|talk]]) 13:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

== Risch algorithm ==

I thought I could contribute to the article with a better explanation of the Risch algorithm, since I have a bit of expertise here -- I've read all the original papers, plus the Cherry papers that add the extra features like Li and erf. I pulled out some of the old papers to review my knowledge of symbolic differential algebra (it's been a while!) then typed up a careful explanation which corrected some errors in the original description and fleshed out many more details... possibly excessively, but hey, that's kind of our calling here.

Then I saw that Glassvein completely removed my version for what appears to be the original without so much as a mention in the edit description. What gives? I

[[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1738: Moon Shapes

2017-06-04T20:16:22Z

Blagae: /* Phil Plait reads xkcd */ new section

It's a reflection of the nuclear war on [[1626|the sun's surface]]. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 08:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any photoshopped Moon that looks like the last image. Somebody has to make one. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

: Randall uncharacteristically missed an opportunity for pointing out additional errors that people make: It's interesting to note that you can get a decent estimate of the artist's latitude by looking at how they draw a crescent moon. In equatorial cultures, the crescent looks like a cup or a boat - and they interpret it like that. But if you look at most english language children's books, the crescent looks like a letter 'C' or a 'D' with a human face - suggesting that they were probably made in the tradition of northern Europe. When I first moved from the UK (more or less a 'C'-shaped crescent moon) to the southern USA (more like Randall's depiction of the correctly-drawn crescent with the points at a roughly 45 degree angle to the horizon) - I subconsciously felt that the moon "looked wrong" - it was only much later that I understood the reason.

: Furthermore, this rotation of the moon relative to the observer also explains why "The man in the moon" is a common trope caused by the pareidolia interpretation of the cratering patterns of the moon in northern cultures. But in southern cultures, people tend to see a rabbit in those full-moon patterns - and that has become the source of many of their stories.

: Now that I'm more acutely aware of this - it's interesting to note how many movies get the orientation of the moon wrong for the location that their story is supposedly set in! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::In Japan, for example, the patterns are interpreted as a rabbit making mochi (a sort of dense dumpling made from rice pounded into a powder) on the moon - the Sea of Tranquillity forming the head, and the Sea of Clouds forming part of the pestle in which the rabbit is pounding the rice. {{unsigned ip|188.114.102.167}}

::Considering how many movies features the famous [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMountainsOfIllinois Mountains of Illinois], I would be more surprised when they get it right. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

: Not quite sure how to add this but Gibbon is the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - or a type of Ape. It is not a phase of the moon. Also I think the moon depicted is Waning. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.113|141.101.98.113]] 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::I think the correct expression is gibbous - "having the illuminated part greater than a semicircle and less than a circle" {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.68}}
:: Yes, the one he says is correct has me thinking: "OMG, the moon is drunk and has fallen over on its ass." No self-respecting moon lies on its back like that.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.222|162.158.114.222]] 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::: Indeed - but that's pretty much how it looks down here in sunny Texas. It's one of those things you never think about - but once the fact of it clicks in your head, you get this visceral feeling of how you're standing on a large ball rather than a flat plane! Ha! Take that flat-earthers! :-) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::: Living in Florida, our crescent moons are almost horizontal. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.60|108.162.212.60]]
: "Wax gibbon" is probably nothing more than a joke on mispronouncing "waxing gibbous". As drawn, it is the way a waning gibbous would appear in the northern hemisphere, but a waxing gibbous in the southern hemisphere. [[User:Harperska|Harperska]] ([[User talk:Harperska|talk]]) 16:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Link to the DreamWorks logo image please? There seem to be multiple versions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.216|108.162.237.216]] 15:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
:I'm surprised Randall missed the chance to include a joke about guys with fishing rods. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.141|162.158.85.141]] 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/dreamworks-logo.jpg... Here's the link to the Dreamworks logo. You're welcome. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 16:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::neither of the examples for the "stars in the moon" apply here. both randall's examples imply a spherical moon. spring and the dreamworks child are supported on a crescent moon for which only the light section actually exists. better examples, please. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]] 12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
::While the dreamworks logo features a child sitting on the crescent moon as though the dark portion wasn't there, none of the versions of the logo which contain stars in the sky actually show stars 'inside' the moon's disk, so the logo probably isn't a good example of what Randall is complaining about. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPpy8mYHQps. [[User:Harperska|Harperska]] ([[User talk:Harperska|talk]]) 17:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The first "wrong" image is also only possible if the bright portion is presumed to be the sun during a solar eclipse, assuming the sky is actually depicted as black. You can only have a crescent moon during a solar eclipse if the solar system suddenly acquired a second sun. [[User:Harperska|Harperska]] ([[User talk:Harperska|talk]]) 16:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a good counter-example: [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V-N1Fj2RU7Y/Vnvbs3e6JxI/AAAAAAAAouE/X37EuZ2dXmI/s1600/236D5361-D23A-45AD-8D3B-451926D0CA82.jpg EXAMPLE]. The bright dot is actually the ISS transiting the moon - but it certainly looks like an impossibility! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the "nuclear war" joke. Does it need explaining? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.49|141.101.98.49]] 19:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
:It does now. [[User:WingedCat|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat|talk]]) 22:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:: your welcome ;-) [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always wanted to create a story, and have the horns of the moon connect on the other side, so you have a blackbody in front of the moon, in parody of this tendency.
Also, interesting how the moon is at different rotations in different locations. I never did see the rabbit in the moon. Now I know why. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.74|108.162.245.74]] 04:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the examples of "incorrect" moons are kinda questionable - like, how relevant is the position of the moon when there's literally a giant divine skyperson standing on it, grabbing stars and scattering of them? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.80|172.68.35.80]] 23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed part of the explanation by mentioning the title text. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 14:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
:I think that's enough detail for an explanation, so I removed the "incomplete" bar. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 14:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the table of explanations include the text in the comic? [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The comic has been updated on xkcd. Randall revised the description of #4. Maybe this should be updated? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.135|108.162.242.135]] 21:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

for trivia doesn't mass bend light so IMHO probably still possible for star light on that position [[Special:Contributions/162.158.163.61|162.158.163.61]] 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
:Nope - if a distant star's light were being gravitationally lensed by the moon, then its light would appear ''adjacent'' to the moon's disk, not ''on'' it. A star's light could only appear to originate ''on'' the moon's disk if its light were being lensed by another massive object ''between'' the earth and the moon (such as a second moon). [[User:Whoop whoop pull up|Whoop whoop pull up]] ([[User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|talk]]) 17:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

For the Dreamworks logo, it seems that the static versions don't sport the stars-through-the-moon problem, but I suspect the animated versions (the ones showing at the beginning of their movies) might and probably do. As it so happens, I'm watching Kung Fu Panda 2 for the first time right now, - the fishing kid is a turtle in this case, LOL! - and I note that this problem isn't present here, though there are no stars at all during the logo, so that might be the only reason why. (Of course, if a kid can sit there fishing, the rest of the moon is clearly absent, why wouldn't we see stars there, LOL!) - Niceguy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 18:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I swear to god I've seen an Upside down moon before.... both in the day and at night the cusps were pointed down or towards the horizon heres an example of one https://www.flickr.com/photos/dcysurfer/14631243979 i'm 100% sure this is not fake and that there is no reason why one would use a dslr upsidedown or rotate it in post (this is in the southern hemisphere so that may be why... i also swear that many times i've seen the cusps pointed directly to the side (northern hemisphere)
heres a nasa photo http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/news/InOMN.html
[[User:Needforsuv|Needforsuv]] ([[User talk:Needforsuv|talk]]) 06:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
:You haven't, at least not at night. The Flickr photo isn't evidence at all -- people often rotate pictures for best effect. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.80|172.68.55.80]] 15:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC) i swear it was at night. also the nasa photo looks the same...
i'll take a photo of it one day... it could've been dusk/ last light and maybe it was just a touch rotated down without accounting for the slope the user is standing on but its not impossible {{unsigned|Needforsuv}}

'If the Moon is in the night sky, the Sun must be somewhere "below" the horizon on the other side of the Earth.' Funny how people still talk as if Earth is the center of the universe. More correct would have been to say something about "Earth's rotation" and stuff. {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.144}}

The moon that does look like the last one is the one in the old Proctor and Gamble logo. https://goo.gl/images/4UE6n6 {{unsigned ip|162.158.10.4}}

== Phil Plait reads xkcd ==

Has anyone else noticed the Phil Plait message in the news section (up top) ? In case it changes: "Thank you to Phil Plait for the correction on #4!" [[User:Blagae|Blagae]] ([[User talk:Blagae|talk]]) 20:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1682: Bun

2016-05-18T14:57:53Z

Blagae:

The transcript is almost done, but the setting/image of each frame has to be added, and someone may want to fix my possible typos. This is my first contribute to explain xkcd! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I added the explanations about the images. Thanks for contributing! [[User:Ladidootdoot|Ladidootdoot]] ([[User talk:Ladidootdoot|talk]]) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I assumed this was about hair buns, am I incorrect? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25|173.245.54.25]] 11:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I also believed that 'bun' was also referring to hair buns/ponytails, thus giving a visual pun to the comic. It would also add another level of the 'heirarchy' pun as well. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.25|173.245.56.25]] 14:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's "bun" short for "bunny", an informal term meaning a rabbit (especially a cute one such as the ones shown in the comic). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 11:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course, 'buns' are also a euphemism for butt, which might clarify a thing or two, or at least add a more amusing context.

I also believe the comic makes more sense when taking that meaning (bun for buttocks/derrière...) into account. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.230|162.158.150.230]] 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)J

I know that this is absolutely just a personal gripe, but the website is called explain xkcd, not spell-out-everything-that-happens-in-xkcd.

In relevance, this seems to be satire of current-gen's obsession with (mis)spelling things that are cute incorrectly (see: smol, birb, doge) and the situation in the comic is a role-reversal, with the teacher being a (teen/tween/memer etc.) and the students are accusing the class's professionalism.

The point about 'rank' could of course be some fictional idea that a younger person could attach to a physical entity to make the world mor fun and interesting or something idk.
I would add this theory, of course, but i have no idea what i'm even reading when i read this explanation and don't know where to add it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.161|108.162.250.161]] 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I absolutely agree I have slowly been editing different explanations to try to try to reflect this, but it is a very difficult and tedious process, if you can contribute do it. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 13:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hierarchy is misspelled. Unless it's a convoluted pun on heir - hare (almost homophones) ? [[User:blagae|blagae]]
:A new version of the comic has been uploaded by now, with the misspelling corrected. So the heir-hare pun was probably unintentional. ([[User:blagae|blagae]]) 14:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

As soon as I read it, I was thinking 'bun' as in 'bottocks', yet there is no mention of that in the explanation?
:Added that in the explanation, but I'm not sure at all that this was intentional. When there is images of bunnies it is not necessarily something that would come into mind. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1682: Bun

2016-05-18T12:15:26Z

Blagae:

Talk:601: Game Theory

2014-12-18T14:20:58Z

Blagae: Created page with "WarGames is also referenced in the title text for http://xkcd.com/696/"

WarGames is also referenced in the title text for http://xkcd.com/696/