explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:Thing Explainer

2019-09-07T20:48:39Z

Blaisorblade:

Ooooh, I know I get this one for x-mas, but there is soooo long until then... Nice to have something you really want for x-mas again. Only 20 more days to go. Can't wait.--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I put in the promotional picture. If someone could make it appear smaller I would appreciate this. I'm not sure how to do this without changing the file's resolution. Which I do not wish to do. It should be possible to see this version of the picture by opening the file. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If the 1000 (ten hundred) word vocabulary is still too complex and you want to explain things in ''even simpler'' terms, you might take a look at the [http://learnthesewordsfirst.com learnthesewordsfirst.com] dictionary. It explains the 2000 most common English words using a set of only 360 words (the "semantic atoms and molecules" from the lessons). It is intended for 2nd-language learners, but interesting from the perspective of explaining things using reductive paraphrase. [[User:Lexyacc|Lexyacc]] ([[User talk:Lexyacc|talk]]) 23:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that in between the solar panels on the "shared space house" is the barrel boy from comic 1[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.95|108.162.212.95]]

I wish for explanations for Thing Explainer, using more words. For instance, when explaining cells, I'm not sure what is the "bag filler" (the Golgi apparatus? but does it make bags of death water aka lysosomes), the strange boxes (???), the empty pockets (???), the doping substances they produce (???). It also took me a while to guess and google what ships visited the ISS. There, the "big carrier from many countries" seems the European ATV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle), but that flew to the ISS 5 times, not 4. Since I'm clueless and Munroe isn't, I must be missing something. --[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 20:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
: Hm, the empty boxes are probably vesicles and vacuoles, including secretory vesicles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secretory_vesicles&redirect=no), used to make hormones including steroids. While I finally found this out, each time it takes googling and luck — googling the nontechnical terms fails; here I looked at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animal_Cell.svg. --[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 20:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Thing Explainer

2019-09-07T20:39:19Z

Blaisorblade:

1841: Who?

2017-05-24T16:31:17Z

Blaisorblade: /* Explanation */ Missing full stop

{{comic
| number = 1841
| date = May 24, 2017
| title = Who?
| image = who.png
| titletext = Gonna feel even dumber when I realize that all this time he's been talking into a bluetooth thingy and we're not actually friends.
}}

==Explanation==

Cueball and Hairy are walking while Hairy is talking about going to a wedding by sharing a ride. He names three people: the groom, a friend with whom he's sharing the ride, and another person he hopes to meet on the way, perhaps another guest at the wedding. The ellipsis at the beginning indicates he's been talking beforehand, and Cueball has listened to all of it.

Cueball at first replies with an "it's cool" sentence, expressing satisfaction at the idea of Hairy meeting the people he mentioned. This usually happens when two people are talking about something they have in common, like meeting with friends at a social gathering.
However, Cueball suddenly expresses that he's been lying about knowing them, and he doesn't have any intentions of preserving such lie. Note that he didn't need to explicitly acknowledge to be those people's acquaintance, he might just have nodded or said expressions like "it's cool".

Part of a social need for inclusion, or as a way to continue a conversation, people sometimes agree with the person they are talking to, or feign knowledge of the people, things or topics that were mentioned.

The title text suddenly changes the situation by stating that it's possible Hairy has been talking to someone else using a Bluetooth earphone set. This hands-free device is used to communicate via phone call and is small in nature and only visible from one side of the face, so anyone who comes across someone using this device can at first wonder whether they're actually talking to them, because no phone can be seen. This situation could mean that Cueball has been hearing and / or talking to this person, who might not even be his acquaintance, given that he knows people that Cueball doesn't seem to know about, and that he might not actually be his friend. This is a hilarious exaggeration of people with some attention problems.

The title text is an allusion to [[476: One-Sided]], where Randal doesn't realize who the other person is talking to.

In [[302: Names]] Cueball also has difficulty with names.

The problems with bluetooth headsets' inconspicuousness is a key point in [[736: Cemetery]].

Another example of not knowing someone is talking on the phone: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khn1d6LQ8PU]

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking from left to right while Hairy follows him.]
:Hairy: ...I'm getting a ride with Katie to Adam's wedding. Hoping to see Brian on the way!
:Cueball: Oh, that's cool!
:Cueball: ...I can't keep living this lie, so I'm just gonna come out and admit it: I have no idea who any of the people you keep mentioning are.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]

Talk:1831: Here to Help

2017-05-03T14:26:35Z

Blaisorblade:

So who else read the "Six months later" caption in the voice of the French narrator from SpongeBob Squarepants? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.41|172.68.58.41]] 23:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
: So I'm not the only one who does that! [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, is Randall making a parallel to someone else who only recently announced that his job is hard, and that nobody knew how complicated things could be? Seems like a clear poke at Trump to me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.23|108.162.246.23]] 23:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
:EVERYONE feels like that after the election. Get over it. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 23:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Between algorithms and "objectively" establishing that a problem is hard, I took this to be a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hardness … --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.16|162.158.222.16]] 00:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

:While the people originally having the problem (Megan and Hairy in this case) may not appreciate it (because it wouldn't help SOLVING the problem), establishing that some problem is not only "hard" but specifically NP-hard, AI-hard, equivalent to halting problem or for example equivalent to axiom of choice is important scientific result. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than referencing ''The Imitation Game'', the sentence "[...] now that I'VE tried, we KNOW it's hard." may be referencing instead ''Awakenings'' (1990), where Robin William's character says something similar near beginning of the movie.

Regarding the (possible) reference to the Imitation Game, whilst it may be true that the Americans Russians French and Germans thought Enigma unbreakable, the Polish had been breaking it for years before Turing got involved and work done in Poland was an important part of the British success early in the war. German improvements to operating practices later stopped the Polish methods working and yes Turing had better methods that still worked, later on in the war. But Poland at least, didn't think it was unbreakable. Just saying.

I think the whole paragraph about informatics at the bottom is missing the point. That explanation is based on the premise that Cueball was told the problem was a "hard problem" (a formal type of problem) and didn't understand. Megan never used the formal term "hard" in describing the problem. She merely said that her field had struggling for years.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.5|162.158.79.5]] 13:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
: Agreed — she uses "hard", but later in the title text. What's still true is that the problem might still have a solution that is "simple" (you can explain it in a paragraph) but hard-to-find (it took decades to find it), and they haven't proved that's not the case. But most would still call a problem with such a solution "hard".
: Worse, as a PhD student in CS (programming languages), I'm pretty sure "hard problem" in CS also mean the same as in everyday life—"Boy, this research problem is really hard"—as opposed to NP-hard (which is what the description is attempting to describe in an extremely informal way. I've honestly never heard anybody use "hard" for "NP-hard", though that appears used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory#Hard. Meanwhile, I went ahead and deleted "Set of algorithms" since that was even less relevant (and didn't bother arguing relevance). http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1831:_Here_to_Help&diff=139534&oldid=139519. --[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 14:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The current explanation is taking a too tactical or literal approach. Throughout history computer science has presented itself as a solution to a variety of hard problems in other fields using a variety of techniques. These include AI, machine learning and now, big data. In most cases the techniques enter with a lot of fanfare, but later flame out, producing no real gains towards solving the hard problem. For example see all the things that computers were promising back in the 1960's. Cueball simply represents a generic version of these past and present CS fads. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 15:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed: Throughout [most of] history computer science has [not existed].

1831: Here to Help

2017-05-03T14:18:41Z

Blaisorblade: /* Trivia */ Delete irrelevant "set of algorithms"

{{comic
| number = 1831
| date = May 1, 2017
| title = Here to Help
| image = here_to_help.png
| titletext = "We TOLD you it was hard." "Yeah, but now that I'VE tried, we KNOW it's hard."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Is the hard problem explanation relevant? The main part of that explain has been moved into a trivia for easier reading to the conclusion at least.}}
This comic is a satire of computer programmers, who sometimes forget that not everything can be solved with an {{w|algorithm}}. In the first panel, [[Megan]] talks about how the field that she and [[Hairy]] works in has a difficult problem that many people have been working on. [[Cueball]], believing that algorithms can solve their problem, tries to help. In the next panel, Megan and Hairy silently watch Cueball working on the problem on his laptop. Finally, six months later, Cueball concedes, and an exasperated Megan retorts sarcastically, pointing out that she had explained its difficulty six months ago with the timeline.

The title text furthers Cueball's apparent arrogance by showing a dialogue. Megan or Hairy says, "We TOLD you it was hard," referring to the first panel, but Cueball, still confident in his own ability's superiority, says, "Yeah, but now that I'VE tried, we KNOW it's hard." The joke is that Cueball believes that, even though he has just failed, it was his attempt which proved the difficulty, and not Megan and Hairy's work for years. The dialog references an exchange from the recent film ''{{w|The Imitation Game}}'', in which {{w|Alan Turing|Alan Turing's}} superior claims, "The Americans, the Russians, the French, the Germans, everyone thinks Enigma is unbreakable." and Turing replies, "Good. Let me try and we'll know for sure, won't we?"

The satire, however, applies far beyond computer programmers. It can be read as a political commentary, like in ''[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trump-nobody-knew-health-care-could-be-so-complicated.html Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.]'' It is what we'd all like to see when well-meaning advice givers provide the "simple" solution to all our problems, or management provides glib advice from ten thousand feet. It is a commentary on the universal tendency to see problems as simple because we don't know what makes them hard.

In the first place, the satire apparently refers to the mathematical/informatical definition of a "hard problem" (see [[#Trivia|below]]) and its confusion with its trivial understanding as well as to a common misunderstanding about verification/falsification. The plot is that Cueball is an enthusiastic and optimistic programmer but obviously a bad informatics guy because he apparently does not know the technical meaning of a "hard problem" and mixes up the lack of a successful falsification/disproof that a problem is "hard" with a verification/proof. Actually, the formal proof that a problem is "hard" would not be a fail, but an "epic win" (well, maybe not for the disappointed Cueball).

The comic may refer to the false belief that there is a solution algorithm for any problem (see [[#Trivia|below]]).

This may also be referencing IT support call centres ([[806: Tech Support]]), who often act as though complex computer problems can be solved with clichèd solutions such as 'turn it off and back on again'.

This comic calls back to [[793: Physicists]] in central theme.

==Transcript==
:[Megan, standing next to Hairy, is addressing the reader holding her arms out. Cueball walks in from the right.]
:Megan: Our field has been struggling with this problem for years.

:[Cueball holds his laptop high up in one arm above Megan's head while holding his other arm out as well. Megan has turned to look at him.]
:Cueball: Struggle no more! I'm here to solve it with ''algorithms!''

:[In a frame-less panel Cueball sits on a chair at a desk with his laptop working on it, while Hairy and Megan looks on from behind.]

:[Cueball, still sitting at his laptop, points at the screen. Megan raises her arms and four small lines above her head, on either side of her speech line, indicate her annoyance with Cueball.]
:Six months later:
:Cueball: Wow, this problem is really hard.
:Megan: '''''You don't say.'''''

==Trivia==
*'''Hard problem''':
**The trivial understanding of a "problem" is any random task like "make me a webpage" and a "hard problem" means "it takes much effort to solve it". However, the informatical definition of a "problem" is a formal description of a task like "find me the password to a given hash (with a length of N bits)" so it can be solved with an algorithm, i.e. a formal mathematical "how-to" or a piece of program code. A "hard problem" is a problem which can only be solved by "brute force", that means (in this example) you have to try every possible password (2^N possibilities) and check whether its hash matches the given one. A "simple problem" is a one where a "short-cut" algorithm to the "brute force" method exists. There are problems which can be formally proven to be "hard" but, unfortunately, most problems like breaking a certain encryption algorithm can only be hoped to be "hard" or at least not be proven "simple" by finding a "short-cut" too soon. You may prove that a problem is not "hard" by finding such a "short-cut" but you cannot prove it is "hard" by trying and failing (the fact that you didn't find a "short-cut" does not mean there is none).

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Programming]]

Talk:1826: Birdwatching

2017-04-19T09:34:09Z

Blaisorblade: Answer, it's a reflex camera!

This is a big one.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.41|108.162.246.41]] 04:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the size is a technical error, or if I am missing some subtle joke. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.184|108.162.245.184]] 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's the latter. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.71|162.158.166.71]] 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the vacuum is a further joke about scale and distance playing on the absurdity of trying to vacuum from a range of one mile. I must say I don't really understand this comic very well.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.70|108.162.245.70]] 04:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought the vacuum was trying to drain the atmosphere to make it so that the birds can't fly as high.[[User:1I1III1|1I1III1]] ([[User talk:1I1III1|talk]]) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
: That was my thought, too. (/edit: Honestly, to think of sucking the birds in I found being too absurd, while sucking the atmosphere seemed absolutely plausible - at least for an XKCD...) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Are these the same birds from 1824? [[User:Codrus|Codrus]] ([[User talk:Codrus|talk]]) 06:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure the size is an error, I've seen this happen briefly before. It's 1200 dpi, suitable for archival, printing, or just what comes off the scanner [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.107|108.162.246.107]] 09:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey folks, am I the only one thinking that Cueball also holds the binoculars the wrong way around? Usually the small end is nearest to the eyes... That would for sure make birdwatching even MORE difficult. Regarding size, I think it is intentional.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.76|162.158.150.76]] 09:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
: Hey, that's a reflex camera, isn't it? Some camera geek can comment on birdwatching situation camera? That zoom seems much too small for the job, but I've got no real clue...--[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 09:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1767: US State Names

2016-12-02T09:02:54Z

Blaisorblade:

I'm wondering whether this could be a joke about autocorrect/suggested completion as found in smartphone texting apps.
[[User:Dromaeosaur|Dromaeosaur]] ([[User talk:Dromaeosaur|talk]]) 08:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
:But would autocorrect replace Texas with Hexxus?--[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 09:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Will Wheaton is not from Washington [[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.150|162.158.133.150]] 08:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the starting point is the ambiguity of the standard "Name all 50 states" challenge. I'm no native speaker but "Name" means both "invent a new name" and "give the correct name for", and Randall is misunderstanding this on purpose. Maybe that's obvious to some, but it seems the sort of thing worth explaining here?--[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 09:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

1676: Full-Width Justification

2016-05-14T12:36:42Z

Blaisorblade: /* Explanation */ Make example fit comic better

{{comic
| number = 1676
| date = May 4, 2016
| title = Full-Width Justification
| image = full_width_justification.png
| titletext = Gonna start bugging the Unicode consortium to add snake segment characters that can be combined into an arbitrary-length non-breaking snake.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic refers to an irritating problem in laying out text to fit from margin to margin, the problem of {{w|justification (typesetting)|justification}}, where you want multiple-line text to line up on the left side (common), the right side (less common), or both sides, which is commonly called full justification. This strip is dealing with how to make text fit such that it lines up on both sides while still looking good. Sometimes, as before a long word like "[[:wikt:deindustrialization|deindustrialization]]," there's no universal good way to make the typography work. It is a difficult problem to make text look good and be easily legible especially in a narrow space, with the biggest issue being how to handle words that are too long to fit nicely.

The comic shows several solutions to this problem, some realistic and others less so, but each partly or wholly unsatisfying.

"'''Giving up'''" essentially means not attempting full justification for a particular line, which means it will not fit with the rest of the layout.

"'''Letter spacing'''" involves an conspicuously large amount of whitespace between letters, suggesting a reading where each letter is a word until the reader recognizes what is intended. This method is in somewhat common use in newspaper and magazine layout, where it is generally known by the name "tracking" (distance between all letters) and "kerning" (distance between particular pairs of letters that fit together easily). However, letter spacing is unavailable for justification purposes in some languages (such as German), in which it is used for emphasis, as italics are in English.

"'''Hyphenation'''" is confusing because it requires suspended recognition of the full word, confusing the eye into seeing, in the given case, the non-words "deindus" and "trialization". This creates difficulty in both pronouncing and parsing the word. Moreover, the decision of when and where to hyphenate is non-trivial, particularly for automated text layout; for example, breaking a word and leaving only two "orphaned" letters on the following line is generally considered an illegal hyphenation. Nevertheless, hyphenation is a very common means of handling extreme cases.

"'''Stretching'''" appears visually unnatural and unfamiliar, and may present technical difficulties in rendering.

Adding "'''filler'''" words is generally undesirable: in the worst case, the meaning may be unintentionally altered, or the tone might be rendered too informal, as in the given example, and even in the best case, the text becomes less concise and potentially more difficult to read. Automation is also difficult. However, filler words added by a human, especially the original author of the text, are the least visually conspicuous, and may be the most practical solution in some scenarios.

Finally, adding a decorative image like "'''snakes'''" (but not necessarily snakes in particular) to fill the extra space is a justification practice of significant historical interest (it was particularly common for illuminated manuscripts in the medieval era and remained prominent until the invention of the printing press) but little modern relevance. There may be a particular absurdity to using a snake as it can be read as a word, such as "the relationship between snake deindustrialization" as would be done similar to a {{w|rebus}}.

In modern text layout programs, some combination of the above strategies may be used to achieve the most visually consistent effect. For example, in one case, hyphenation might be the best option to split a very long word, while another line might be too long by only one or two letters, in which case the program could apply a very slight degree of extra letter spacing, too small for the average reader to notice.

The title text suggests that in order to facilitate the "snakes" method of "solving" the problem, the {{w|Unicode Consortium}}, the organization in charge of the common text standard {{w|Unicode}}, should add "snake-building characters" (similar in concept to the existing {{w|Box Drawing}} block), to allow variable-length snake images to be used as filling. Currently, there are at least six snake characters in Unicode, not including at least ten more Egyptian hieroglyphs that represent specific snakes, some in specific combination with other hieroglyphs: [http://unicode-search.net/unicode-namesearch.pl?term=SNAKE]
*[https://codepoints.net/U+1DC2 U+1DC2]   <big>᷂</big>   <big>[S᷂]</big>
**A diacritical {{w|combining character}} used in Americanist phonetic notation to indicate lenis (weak) articulation.
*[https://codepoints.net/U+2E92 U+2E92]   <big>⺒</big>
**A {{w|CJK character}} which might be interpreted as "snake".
*[https://codepoints.net/U+8675 U+8675]   <big>虵</big>
**Another CJK character meaning "snake".
*[https://codepoints.net/U+86C7 U+86C7]   <big>蛇</big>
**Another CJK character meaning "snake".
*[https://codepoints.net/U+1D9DC U+1D9DC]   <big>𝧜</big>
**One of the poorly-supported characters in the {{w|signWriting|signwriting block}}.
*[https://codepoints.net/U+1F40D U+1F40D]   <big>🐍</big>
**An {{w|emoji}} snake.

One of the hieroglyphs ([https://codepoints.net/U+13192 U+13192 EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH I009A]) is described in [https://mjn.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/egyptian/unicode/tablemain.html source documents] as HORNED VIPER CRAWLING OUT OF ENCLOSURE, so it is literally a snake-building character.

"Non-breaking" in the title text refers to a similar process as zero-width joiners and no-break HTML and CSS; the whole snake would shift down if it were too wide to fit on a given line. This suggestion would likely be rejected; the Unicode consortium is very specific about which characters are added{{Citation needed}}, and always require a good reason{{Citation needed}} before adding a character or set of characters to the standard. Strange decisions by the consortium have previously been referenced in [[1253: Exoplanet Names]], [[1513: Code Quality]], and [[1525: Emojic 8 Ball]].

Within an hour or two of this comic being published, a thread on the subject started on the Unicode Consortium’s official Unicode Mailing List. As of two days later, it’s still running.

==Transcript==
:[Caption above the panels:]
:Strategies for full-width justification

:[Below the caption is a column with six boxes, each showing a different "strategy" for justification which is annotated beside it. Here the annotation is written at the top and the text below. The top and bottom of the text is cut of in the middle, but as it can be "read" this is written anyway. Only for hyphenation does an extra word appear at the end. In the last with snakes, a snake is drawn to cover the entire space from the end of between to the right border.]

:Giving up
::their famous paper
::on the relationship
::between
::deindustrialization
::and the growth of

:Letter spacing
::their famous paper
::on the relationship
::b  e   t   w   e  e   n
::deindustrialization
::and the growth of

:Hyphenation
::their famous paper
::on the relationship
::between deindus-
::trialization and the
::growth of ecological

:Stretching
::their famous paper
::on the relationship
::<big><big><big>between</big></big></big>
::deindustrialization
::and the growth of

:Filler
::their famous paper
::on the relationship
::between crap like
::deindustrialization
::and the growth of

:Snakes
::their famous paper
::on the relationship
::between 🐍 [a snake filling the gap]
::deindustrialization
::and the growth of

==Trivia==
*The full text (with alternate changes) reads:
::''...their famous paper on the relationship between [crap like]/[ 🐍 ] deindustrialization and the growth of [ecological]...''
*An approach not depicted is to treat justification as part of a global typesetting strategy which allows words to move between lines even where this is not locally optimal. Its net effect in a case like this is to pull words from the previous line for use as filler. This approach is used by {{w|TeX}}.
*In Arabic, it is common to stretch the lines connecting letters as a relatively elegant and satisfying resolution to this problem. This trick is called "{{w|kashida}}" (كشيدة). There does in fact exist a Unicode character, U+0640: (ـ), to help with this: using it to extend "كشيدة" would result in something like "كـــــشـــيـــدة" (which, incidentally, looks a lot like a snake).
*Jim Chapman, developer of Windows 10 e-reader app Freda, has implemented snake-justification in the app, now available on the [https://www.microsoft.com/store/apps/9wzdncrfj43b Windows Store]. For best results, use the 'settings' screen to switch 'hyphenation' to 'no', 'use snakes' to 'yes', and choose a large font size (33 or so). Then pick a book with long words and justified text, and read it in a narrow window.
*The comic has been discussed on the [http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m05/0004.html Unicode Mailing List].
*The typesetting system [http://www.sile-typesetter.org/ SILE] implemented snake justification on the same day the comic was published.
*"Line Fillers" depicting animals (including snakes) were widely used in [http://www.medievalcodes.ca/2016/04/line-fillers.html medieval book art].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]

1673: Timeline of Bicycle Design

2016-05-02T22:56:12Z

Blaisorblade: /* Explanation */ Correct appearance count of characters

{{comic
| number = 1673
| date = 27 April, 2016
| title = Timeline of Bicycle Design
| image = timeline of bicycle design.png
| titletext = I'll be honest--the 1950s were a rough time for cycling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Overall meaning of the comic is still unclear.}}
[[Randall]] created a 200 year history for bicycles with 13 designs ranging from 1810 to 2016. Most of these bike designs are completely fictitious. {{Citation needed}}

The only model that both looks like a real model and fits the year is the 1875 model, which resembles the {{w|Penny-farthing}}. The Penny-farthing was popular in the 1870s until the {{w|Safety bicycle}} took over around 1880. The 1875 model appears to be missing handlebars, but it's worth noting that on the real bicycle, the handlebars were very small and close to the saddle, and may be too small to appear in the drawing.

The 1860 model looks like the {{w|American Star Bicycle}}, but that bicycle was first invented in the 1880s.

The 1900 model looks like one of {{w|Paul Scheerbart}} 's perpetual motion machines.

Some of the other examples of "bikes" could, however, look like those in the image at the top of the {{w|Velocipede}} Wikipedia page.

Several of the "bikes" are shown with a human — [[Ponytail]] is "riding" the pole-vaulting bike, [[Cueball]] appears in three designs, and [[Megan]] appears in four. These humans provide a sense of scale and, in some cases, a demonstration of how the bike might be operated. Cueball's appearance in the 1900 design shows how huge that bike is, appearing to dwarf the previous two models while continuing the short trend of ever-increasing size.

Only two of the bikes have pedals (1875 and 2016) and another two have a sprocket with a chain (1900 and 1980). Seven designs include a seat for the rider — eight if you count the device holding Megan in the 1980 model.

The 1925 model is reminiscent of a {{w|fractal}}; {{w|Benoit Mandelbrot}} was born in October 1924.

The 1880 model could be the result of an {{w|evolutionary algorithm}} trying to produce a bicycle. Some sub-optimal algorithms that have been given the task of creating a vehicle have been shown to misplace parts in ways that makes them completely useless and/or inaccessible — for example, placing a small wheel inside a much larger wheel.

This comic (especially the 2016 bicycle) is possibly also a reference to [https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/cycleweb.html The Science of Cycology], a cognitive psychology project run by Rebecca Lawson at the University of Liverpool, which asked study participants to draw a bicycle from memory. The error rate was high, supporting a hypothesis that humans over-estimate their ability to explain how things work. Gianluca Gimini ran a similar project, [http://www.gianlucagimini.it/prototypes/velocipedia.html Velocipedia], in which he asked people to draw free-hand sketches of bicycles from memory, then later rendered some of the results as if they were real bikes.

Also, the designs given for the years from 1825 to 1925 distinctly resemble designs that tend to evolve in the various challenge environments in the genetic evolution games [http://boxcar2d.com/ BoxCar2D] ({{w|Flash Player}}) or [http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/ Genetic Cars 2] ({{w|HTML5}}).

The 1980 design looks strikingly similar to the southpark "wild whacky action bike".

The title text refers to the scene labeled "1955" which depicts Cueball being chased by 3 bicycle wheels. Whatever caused the wheels to chase Cueball down a hill is left to the reader's imagination. It could be that the wheels have become sentient and are actively chasing Cueball, or it could be that the bicycle failed horribly and Cueball is running from the wreckage. The era this "bike design" is from (1955, which is in the 50s) would be hard to ride a bike in if it was the only available design.

=== Bike Design Analysis ===

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="4" style="border-collapse: collapse;"
|-
! width=4% | Year
! width=40% | Description
! width=16% | Similar to
! width=40% | What's wrong with it?
|-
| 1810
| A single wheel with a long curved bar. Ponytail is riding it like a pole vault.
| {{w|Unicycle}}, {{w|Pole vault}}
| There is no means to propel it once started, since the rider is held off the ground. It would be very difficult to balance on this device as well.
|-
| 1825
| A large wheel connected to a tiny one, with a complex bar leading to a set of handlebars. Cueball is pushing it from behind.
| {{w|Wheelbarrow}}
| This bike has no seat and no means of propulsion other than being pushed from behind, defeating its purpose as a vehicle.
|-
| 1840
| Two wheels connected by a single horizontal bar.
| {{w|Skateboard}}
| No means of propulsion or steering. Design is bottom-heavy, making it very difficult to keep balance.
|-
| 1860
| A large wheel in back and a small wheel in front, connected to a large seat on top. Megan is sitting on the seat doing nothing.
| {{w|Pennyfarthing}} (backwards),American Star bicycle
| No means of propulsion or steering.
|-
| 1875
| A large wheel in front with pedals attached, connected by a nearly-vertical rod to a small seat on top. A curved rod connects the seat to a much smaller wheel.
| Pennyfarthing (almost exact match)
| No handlebars are depicted, suggesting that there is no means of steering.
|-
| 1880
| A very large wheel, connected by a short rod to a much smaller wheel and a seat. These hang from the axle at an odd angle.
| Unicycle (vague)
| The seat and small wheel appear to hang inside or next to the large wheel. A rider could not sit on the seat and would be unable to touch the ground, making it impossible to propel or control the bike.
|-
| 1900
| An extremely large wheel, connected by a chain to a roughly human-sized wheel on top. Cueball may be standing on it, but it's unclear what he's doing.
| Unicycle
| No means of steering, unclear means of propulsion. It would be very difficult to mount this device, to get it moving with human power, and to control and stop it. Additionally, it would require many resources to build and a building several stories tall to store it.
|-
| 1915
| A large wheel connected by an angled rod to a seat. The seat is connected by a nearly-vertical rod to an extremely small wheel behind the large one. Cueball is sitting on the seat, leaning far forward and apparently turning the large wheel by hand.
| Pennyfarthing, {{w|Wheelchair}}
| No apparent means of steering. Propulsion appears to be by hand, similar to a manual wheelchair, making the device both impractical and uncomfortable.
|-
| 1925
| A symmetric seat sits atop a vertical rod connected to a wheel. From the center of this wheel, the frame extends out both front and back toward the ground, with progressively smaller wheels attached in a fractal design. It appears that only the wheels at the very ends of the rods touch the ground.
| Unicycle, {{w|Fractal}}
| No means of propulsion or steering other than pushing against the ground. Only the tiniest wheels touch the ground - if these are truly in fractal pattern, they would not withstand the weight of a rider nor be able to roll on anything but the smoothest of surfaces.
|-
| 1940
| A single seat is connected to four small wheels in a line. Each rod is separate, and the wheels are not directly attached to one another. Megan is standing on the seat and pushing the device forward with a long, flexible pole.
| {{w|In-line Skate}}, Pole vault
| No means of steering or propulsion (using a pole doesn't count). Frame would very likely collapse under a rider's weight.
|-
| 1955
| Cueball is being chased down a hill by three {{w|bicycle wheels}}.
| ''n/a''
| This scene suggests a spectacular failure of one or more bicycles, resulting in three wheels rolling down a hill. It's possible the wheels became sentient and are rebelling against humans.
|-
| 1980
| A wheel is connected to a triangular frame. Extending up from the frame appears to be a back rest. Just in front of the triangle is a sprocket with no pedals. Two long bars connect from here to a front bar, which extends down to a second wheel and up to a very long set of handlebars. The sprocket connects to the front wheel. Megan is crouched on top of the sprocket with her back resting against the rear frame.
| "Chopper" {{w|Motorcycle}}, Women's {{w|Safety bicycle}}
| No apparent means of propulsion unless the sprocket acts like a {{w|cog wheel}}, requiring the rider to essentially run in place to propel the bike, which would be difficult and uncomfortable in Megan's position. While this is the first of the designs that shows a clear means of steering, the chain would interfere.
|-
| 2016
| A rear wheel has pedals directly attached to it, and is connected to a horizontal rod. A small fender is attached to this rod under the wheel and almost against the ground. A {{w|kickstand}} hangs down and forward. A triangular frame extends upward toward the front, holding a milk bottle, and a second triangle connects to the front wheel, which also has pedals and a low-hanging fender. A set of touring-style handlebars is attached to the front. Two bars extend backward from the two triangles, and a horizontal bar extends backward. Just above the rear wheel, a seat is suspended inside a forked frame hanging down from the top bar.
| Safety bicycle
| The frame is over-complicated and, despite several strong supports in the front, would still likely collapse under a rider's weight. Front pedals would be nearly impossible to use. Seat cannot be used. Fenders and kickstand could easily strike the ground and interfere with the bike's movement.
|}

==Transcript==
:[13 drawings 8 in the top and 5 in the bottom row of different and weird "bicycle" designs. Above them there is a heading, and below each bike a year is given. On the very last cycle there is a drinking bottle with a label.]
:'''Timeline of Bicycle Design'''

:[Ponytail hanging on to a bending rod that goes down to a single normal sized bike wheel. It looks like a unicycle with no seat. The rod is bending quite a lot so she looks like she is about to use the contraption as a pole vault]
:1810

:[Cueball is running after a device holding on to a rod bend in several places before reaching the ground at a very small wheel that then is connected with a shorter rod to a normal sized bike wheel.]
:1825

:[Two normal sized bike wheels connected with a single rod between them.]
:1840

:[Megan sits on a large saddle on top of a double sized bike wheel, she has some kind of handle bars to hold on to (or it could just be the saddle) and then a small rod goes down to a half size front wheel.]
:1860

:[A regular drawing of a Penny-farthing with very small back wheel (half the size of the front wheel on the 1860 bike) and very large front wheel (larger than the 1860 bike) and pedals in the middle of the front wheel. There are no visible handlebars.]
:1875

:[A huge wheel twice the size of the one on the Penny-farthing, and then a small wheel (like the small one on the Penny-farthing) hangs in a rod from the center of the giant wheel. The small wheel has a saddle attached, but it is not straight up.]
:1880

:[This is the largest bike. Not the largest drawings, but where the other have the characters in roughly the same size, this one has a small drawing of Cueball standing on top of the wheel holding on to some kind of handle bar. The wheel is about three times his height.]
:1900

:[Cueball sits in the "saddle" of a bike design that is similar to the Penny-farthing, but the saddle is more a rod, and the back wheel is on a rod going straight down from where the saddle ends. Also there are no pedals, so Cueball seems to be directly spinning the front wheel by hand.]
:1915

:[A symmetrical saddle sits on top of single bike wheel, as with a unicycle but with no pedals. There are (at least) six progressively smaller wheels in-line to the first, three to front and three to the rear, each new wheel approximately half the size of the one before. A possible fourth wheel, presumed to complete the set of medial stabilisers, can no longer be discerned from the rod that goes through the center of the larger wheels.]
:1925

:[Megan stands on top of a saddle that has four individual rods extending from it, each to a small wheel. One wheel is directly beneath her, one is behind her, one is the same distance in front, and one is farther out in front. Megan is pushing the bike with a long flexible rod resembling a pole vault.]
:1940

:[Cueball is running down a steep hill with his arms up, being chased by three normal-sized bike wheels.]
:1955

:[Megan sits on a bike contraption that seems to have a holder around her mid section rather than her sitting on a saddle. This holder goes to the back wheel below her, and there is actually a sprocket with a chain, although no clear pedals beneath her feet. She holds on to a very long handle bar, which connects with two long rods coming from the sprocket at the front end of the bike far ahead of Megan, below which is a wheel, to where the chain is actually going. Both wheels seem to be normal size.]
:1980

:[Another weird contraption of a bike with pedals on both normal sized wheels which have handlebars on the side pointing down towards the front. The saddle hangs in a swing, connected to a rod above it, which goes to the front of the bike and splits in two rods which connect to the center frame of the bike. In front of these there is a contraption resembling many styles of touring bike handlebars, which sits just above the front wheel. The two wheels are connected with a long rod between the center of the wheels and in the middle of this is the center part of the frame going up toward the handle. On the middle of this is a bottle with a label. Towards the back wheel there are two rods sticking out, one presumably a kickstand, the other possibly a parking brake.]
:2016
:Bottle: Milk

{{comic discussion}}



[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Charts]]