explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1453: fMRI

2014-11-28T13:22:50Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ link

{{comic
| number = 1453
| date = November 28, 2014
| title = fMRI
| image = fmri.png
| titletext = They also showed activation in the parts of the brain associated with exposure to dubious study methodology, concern about unremoved piercings, and exasperation with fMRI techs who won't stop talking about Warped Tour.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Functional magnetic resonance imaging|fMRI}} (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), as the name suggests, is an offshoot of the MRI procedure. It is a technique designed to show brain activity, typically while the subject is performing tasks or responding to stimuli. During the test, the subject is laid in a relatively small cylinder inside a big, very loud, machine producing extremely strong magnetic fields. To prevent damage or injury, the subject must remove all metal objects from their body, including piercings, jewelry, watches etc.

In the tests shown, the brain activity detected is a direct results of the testing environment itself, and has nothing to do with the simple tasks being performed by the subject. During fMRI participants hear loud noises, are confined in a small space (thus the claustrophobia) and have removed their jewelry. The researcher has mistaken these associated brain activities as effects as being caused by ''performing simple tasks'' which the participants have been asked to do and not a direct result of the settings of the test. Thus, the memory areas described by Megan are those associated with taking a functional MRI scan, rather than those associated with the "test" supposedly being carried out.

It appears that [[Randall]] makes fun of the overly confident, sweeping statements made by some fMRI researchers, often in the press. In reality the technique is still in its infancy and while large amounts data can be produced, their interpretation usually remains ambiguous. Problems include statistical analyses and the use of proper control groups. See {{w|Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging#Criticism|here}} for further information as well as an anecdote involving a dead salmon.

The title text continues directly with this theme by saying that the subjects ''also showed activation in the parts of the brain associated with exposure to dubious study methodology''. It then continues with the jewelry issue, now especially the ''concern about unremoved piercings''. In the worst case these could be ripped off by the strong magnetic field. So it could be of some concern - especially when you take into consideration some of the places people may have piercings that is not obvious to the MRI personnel! The final remark about activation regards ''exasperation with fMRI techs who won't stop talking about Warped Tour''. "{{w|Warped Tour}}" refers to a traveling music festival that has been going since 2009, originally as a punk rock festival, but now with a more diverse set of music..

==Transcript==
:[Megan talking to an unseen audience in front of an fMRI brain scan]
:Megan: Our fMRI study found that subjects performing simple memory tasks showed activity in the parts of the brain associated with loud noises, claustrophobia, and the removal of jewelry.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2013-10-02T08:06:33Z

Chtz: /* Strip Title */

<noinclude>{{Community portal}}</noinclude>

== Add unexplained strips ==

At the moment, browsing through the explanations using the previous and next buttons is interrupted whenever there's an explanation missing.

I think adding a page with the strip fr all of those with a short message like "no one has explained this yet, want to give it a shot?" would make the wiki easier to browse through and will get more strips explained faster.

:I don't think that would happen. If suddenly it was much easier for people to skip over pages that had no explanation, I think they would do exactly that, skip right over it. On the same side of that coin, If suddenly there are no longer any red links on the [[List of all comics]] then everyone perusing that page assumes that all the comics have been explained and don't need to contribute any more. It's astonishing how quickly an [[589: Designated Drivers|embedded]] red link gets an explanation page created simply to get rid of the red link.

:Secondarily, ''many'' of the pages created recently aren't being created with their numerical and titular redirects. Without the numerical redirect, the comic template can't find that there is a previous/next comic to link to. Every once in a while somebody will go through and try to notice all the pages that don't have their redirects created but it's an unscientific process that only happens occasionally. If we could get every joe blow that comes in and vomits up a poorly done explanation to create the redirects I wouldn't be quite as annoyed at their lack of show-don't-tell-manship. But, since they can't be bothered to put the date in the comic template, I doubt we'll ever get people to create the redirects.

:'''TL;DR:''' No more red links, no more work gets done on the back catalog.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 14:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

== xplainkcd.com ==

When I first saw this site I thought it should definitely be at xplainkcd.com or at least redirect from that url {{unsigned|115.166.22.158|12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)}}

: I like that idea! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Yeah! If it's possible, it would be cool! At least as a redirect. -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

== Section style and usage ==

I am new here and I'm trying to get up to speed with the culture. I have a few questions about how and where to use sections (== this ==). I am more willing to go with (and enforce) whatever norms there are here, but I have not seen them actually discussed.

# '''Is it OK to create sections in Discussion pages?''' I have been told no, but there are many examples extant of this usage in this Wiki and indeed in Wikipedia.
# '''Section title case''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Acronyms Wikipedia's style guide] recommends sentence case, not title case. There are many title cased section headers here.
# '''Links''' I do not have a reference for this but it seems to me putting links in section code (== [[<nowiki>this</nowiki>]] == ) is bad form.

Last note -- it's understood if these bylaws have not yet been written. I can see that a few of you have made a huge personal investment to make this Wiki what it is today, and that is a credit to you all -- this is awesome! As a long-time aficionado of xkcd I applaud your work and look forward to further collaboration.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:As a general rule, we stick to the standard format that existing pages follow, with an optional trivia section below the transcript. Some zealous editors like to add other sections though, which tend to be for the most part unneeded or redundant. If something you want to add doesn't help to explain the comic in some way, but the inclusion of which would somehow still add to the page, *and* it doesn't fall under the trivia category, a new section is warranted. This isn't the case most of the time though, so editors usually fold the content of extraneous sections into "Explanation" or "Trivia." We have no policy on links in titles, and they're allowed so long as they are appropriate; the link is useful and can't be folded into the section itself. And we use title case for titles cuz it just makes sense. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:We generally do not (or at least, discourage) use sections on the talk/discussion pages for explanation pages. This is purely for looks. The comic discussion section of the explanation page looks/feels wrong if there are level 2 section breaks in the transclusion. Also, if the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Table_of_contents Table of Contents] starts showing up on a page, such as on [[Click and Drag]] the sections created on the talk page also show up in the TOC. This gets confusing, and this is why we prefer not to use them on explanation talk pages. Everywhere else we follow standard wiki format and do use sections on the discussion pages.

:Personally, I think that links in section titles looks wrong, but I choose not to be the dictator of style in this matter. :p

:Please feel free to make edits. The worst that happens is someone reverts your edit. If it's a big enough issue and/or you don't seem to be learning from what people are fixing about your edits someone will leave a comment on your talk page. That's it. We might leave a nasty-gram in the edit summary, but oh well. We only ban for malicious intent. Honestly working to better the wiki is good, even if sometimes we grumble about it.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Oh, I just looked at your talk page. I completely forgot that that happened. Don't worry about it. Learning the ropes is part of the experience. Do make edits, and if they're wrong, we'll nudge you in the right direction. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been moving some trivia sections to directly below the explanation, in order to make it more consistent, and easier to survey and maintain. Often the dividing line between trivia and explanation is not entirely clear, and in articles without a trivia section the end of the explanation very often contains trivia-like information. (e.g. [[1155: Kolmogorov Directions]]) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
===Title case doesn't make any sense===
At first sight title case in titles just makes sense. However title case '''never''' makes sense. It's worse than all caps. Besides, only Americans and children like title case. [[Special:Contributions/190.96.48.48|190.96.48.48]] 20:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

== Protip ==

Anyone for adding ''Protip'' as a [[:Category:Comic series|Comic series]]. I have found five so far: [[653]], [[711]], [[1022]], [[1047]] and [[1156]]. (There are also a few comics with a protip title text.) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:I think that qualifies as a recurring topic (thus worthy of a category), but not as a series, where you can see a clear sequence. In fact, [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] has the same limitation, for what I suggest it to be removed from [[:Category:Comic series]]. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Seconded. Looks general and common enough to be a category. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Okay, great! Do you think that the ones with a "protip:" title text should be included? Besides, I think I might be the one responsiple for moving My Hobby from [[:Category:Comics by topic|Comics by topic]] to Comic series. I felt that all the My Hobby comics were about different topics, but maybe i've got to narrow an interpretation of the word "topic". -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::: Can you link to the protip-in-title-text comics?
:::: As for My Hobby, note that categories aren't mutually exclusive. They can be in the "my hobby" topic, and each of them further categorized as appropriate: music, math, etc. Makes sense? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: I just searched for protip in the xkcd search bar. Here: [[1084]], [[427]]. And yes, makes sense. I've moved My Hobby back to "by topic". -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

== Category: Sports ==

How about creating a new "Sports" category? [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 15:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:Well, maybe. Everyone aren't so keen on new categories here. Which comics are you thinking of, for a start? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
::We definitely need to reach an agreement as a community on when to create new categories. Something simple like a minimum of 3 (or, say, 5) existing comics. Since we're already at the proposals' portal... what do you guys think about that? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:::My opinion: Five would be enough to qualify. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 09:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I vote for four. But it should also be a reasonable thing to categorize, like sports, not like "sports with Cueball containing at least three anagram words". Wich sholdn't be a problem. :) But the best name choice could be tricky sometimes. e.g. "Film & television", Film & TV", "Film", "Films", or "Movies"? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::
::::Agreed, five should be enough to create the category without having to discuss it. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
: OK, let's start with [[588: Pep Rally|588]], [[1092: Michael Phelps|1092]], [[904: Sports|904]] and [[1107: Sports Cheat Sheet|1107]]. Should be able to find a few more. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 05:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's a broad subject so there are probably several more. -[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I found another one, sort of, in [[929:Speculation|929]] (although it hasn't been explained yet). Should I get the ball rolling (no pun intended) on setting up the category? Don't wanna do it unilaterally and get yelled at. ;) [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 06:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I think you should. On a wiki, getting stuck in discussions which die without a conclusion, to the point that motivated people give up without having done anything, is definitely counter-productive, and phrases like [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold|Wikipedia:Be bold]] are here to remind us of that. Seems like people agreed that you ''could'', and after a while nobody said that you ''shouldn't'', so I'd say do it. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

== Category: Sex ==

I think we should also create a Sex category. There's no ''doubt'' we can find more than three examples. I'll start looking for them and post the ones I find in here; again, I don't wanna create a large category by myself without community consent. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
*OK, the ones for Category: Sex that I've found so far are [[443]], [[219]], [[550]], [[1026]], [[575]], [[468]], [[592]], [[320]], [[1101]], [[417]], [[713]], [[672]], [[230]], [[436]], [[940]], [[532]], [[649]], [[176]], [[1006]], [[596]] and [[717]], and I'm sure there are many more. Should we create this category? [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 23:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

:Same as [[#Category: Sports|above]], do it. Oh, already did; well, all the better. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

==New character==
As per [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]], the character with hair has appeared in quite a few comics now, and he's starting to become a recurring character. Shall we go ahead with inaugurating him into our list of regular characters, and what name shall we assign him? Current candidate names include Hairy and Harry. Anyone? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

: I like Harry :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::Cos made a point in the discussion on [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]] that Hairy is directly descriptive, whereas Harry is not obvious to visitors. On the other hand, not all names are descriptive ([[Danish]]) and I think this wiki is entitled to create some xkcd-in-culture, and not just describe. And Harry is quite funny.
::I wonder: has [[Randall]] ever called him anything at all in the transcript? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, he's not named in a any official transcripts, but he's already called Harry in quite a few comic explanations. Then again, I do like having a more descriptive name for him. Shall we hold this up to a vote? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I think we should wait a little for a few more viewpoints to crop up. Also, can someone link to some more comics he's been featured in? I've got [[1028: Communication]], [[1027: Pickup Artist]] and [[1178: Pickup Artists]]. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I actually like what that anon said: ''Curly''. Second choice: Hairy (being descriptive, a la Black Hat, Beret, Cueball, etc.) While there's talk about in-culture, we've done that with the names Cueball, Beret, etc. It's my opinion that the only names that should be "real" proper names are those that are named in the comic. Megan, Miss Lenhart, etc. Danish (as is discussed below) isn't truly a proper name, but you could argue it's a meta-description (one attributed by Black hat.) So that's my vote: yes for '''Curly''' or '''Hairy''', no for Harry. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::That's right, [[Danish]] is not descriptive, but 1/ that name was suggested because the character [[515: No One Must Know|was called that way in the comic]], which is a tiny bit like a name given by the author (at least more than Harry which we have completely made up), and 2/ in that case it's hard to find a descriptive term: use something that revolves around her black hair (her only descriptive feature), and you easily mix up with [[Megan]]; the only graphical difference is that her hair is ''long'', but what kind of name can you make out of that?
:::For this new character, I suggest Hairy because it comes as the easy solution with every advantage: descriptive, easy to understand, and it's not ugly... I actually see no reason to resort to a made-up name like Harry.
:::[[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

: '''Alright. So the discussion's been had, and the most oft recommended name appears to be Hairy. All in favor, say aye. If more than 1/3 of editors agree and we have more than 6 votes, Hairy it is.''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' [[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' to Hairy. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Harry would be a nice nod to the fact that he's actually hairy, but indeed it's better to avoid inside jokes. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. I'm convinced! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 17:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Hairy. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::Hooray! We now have a [[:Category:Comics featuring Hairy]], with four pages already! Does anyone feel compelled to create "[[Hairy]]", with a brief description and a nice profile pic like the other characters? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

== Ambiguous characters ==

I've been thinking about the problem of the ambiguity of characters. "Is this really Cueball even though he has an eye and half a nose?", "This is very likely ''not'' x." "Darnit, these arn't Cueballs, these are Randall and his friends!", and so on. The character ambiguity is standard for xkcd (not less so in the early ones), and comes from the very loose or "free" way Randall uses his characters to be whatever he needs at the moment. It's simply often impossible for us to know whether he had e.g. "Cueball" or himself in mind, when drawing a particular comic (and I'd say: probably often both).

I want to suggest that we in general have a likewise rather loose policy towards including characters in the categories for the comics. So that reasonably ambiguous cases should be included in e.g. [[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]] (does she have a ponytail?) This is not because I believe this or that to really be this or that; I just don't believe in objective truth (here!). I feel that when doing research :) on a character, the borderline cases are often the most interesting ones, and you want to be able to find them through the "Comics featuring miss x"!

I came to think this through now, when I wanted to (and did) list two comics with [[Miss Lenhart]] (?) where she was drawn but not named. Any thoughts on this in general? Other case studies? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:My take has always been that [[Cueball]], for example, has not been a specific character. There is not ''a'' cueball, per se, distinct from any other cueball... indeed, there are several comics with several cueballs in-frame, and that is the point. I see the cueball character as a wildcard character (pun intended) ready to stand in for anybody (and ''not'' necessarily just Randall; I think those readers who suggest "this ''is'' Randall" are missing the point; he's way more META than that...) [[Megan]], while slightly less generic, still remains the female wild-card significant-other, while Curls seems to be a not-significant-other female used to illustrate a relationship that is transient. Other characters come and go, and when it's important to visually distinguish them from others in the frame, they're given additional characteristics, to wit [[Hairy]], [[Ponytail]], etc.
:Unfortunately, that viewpoint is not commonly held, so I daresay I'm in the minority here.
:-- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

== Note at the top, about the server error ==

:''This thread was moved to [[MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice]]''

== Category: Flowcharts ==

Hello, the line "Randall has made use of flowcharts before." in today's comic explanation made me want a [[:Category:Flowcharts|flowcharts category]] to navigate into...

As it didn't exist, I proceeded to create it, but as the log says, [[User:lcarsos|lcarsos]] deleted such a category in November, saying ''"Insufficient differentiation from Category:Comics with charts, diluting the depth of comics tagged charts"''.

I don't agree with that, and I think we could profit from such a subcategory. I found those pages fitting it:
* [[94: Profile Creation Flowchart]]
* [[210: 90's Flowchart]]
* [[488: Steal This Comic]]
* [[627: Tech Support Cheat Sheet]]
* [[844: Good Code]]
* [[851: Na]]
* [[854: Learning to Cook]]
* [[1195: Flowchart]]

So? - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:Weell if you're willing to take charge of the category and personally make sure it's added to all relevant comic explanations, go ahead. The usual objection to making new categories is that we admins can't remember all the categories when we're reviewing new explanations, but it's K if you're willing to take up that responsibility yourself. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:
:: OK. I did it without waiting for further replies, because I think it will be especially profitable today (to viewers).
:: It doesn't seem a big issue to me if the correct category is not added when a new explanation is made: a passing editor will do it later on... But hey, I'm OK with taking special care of adding pages to this category.
:: [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 12:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

::: I just want to add that Cos' view is indeed the appropriate way to work in wikis: there is no concept of a single author for a page, category, or piece of text, and the workload is meant to be distributed among several editors: it is not necessary that any single editor remembers all existing categories, or knows the wiki markup by heart, or knows how to work with all the features of mediawiki, etc. The reason why wikis can be edited by anyone is precisely a recognition that there *will* be errors and any page can be improved somehow. That reasoning against categories should, IMO, be abandoned, or at most only kept as the opinion of some editors. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Isnt there a page which lists all the categories? If not, there should be one, and it should be accessible to all. Such a page could be useful when trying to quick-add categories to comics. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.83.155|117.194.83.155]] 13:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, there is. [[Special:Categories]]. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Of course, there's a gazillion of 'em, over several pages, so I understand any reluctance to add new categories (having just suggested a new one myself which I feel is justified, but knowing that the upkeep needed may be the key point of contention so remaining philosophical about it).
::A solution perhaps to carry over from another locale that I frequent is to have a "Categories of Character" page, a "Categories of Object" one, perhaps "Categories of Event", and a "Categories of Publication". For each new comic someone can easily check the shorter Character categories list against those present, the Object list against itemsin use, Events, etc, and of course the Publication one has the "Tuesday Comic"/equivalent, and other date-based ones (although isn't that automatic from templated creation? ...never added a comic, but would imagine it is). After that it's a trawl through the miscelania categories (perhaps a meta-category just for them?). But, yeah, a lot of work to set up. Wouldn't wish it on anyone who wasn't already willing to do it, and I remain an anon-IP person right now so can hardly commit ''myself'' as volunteer maintainer of this. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

== I've removed "add a comment!" from Discussion heading ==

This does move it to above the line, and the rule stops early. Undo my change if that's more bothering than when the TOC is displayed as "add a comment!Discussion"...

I don't know how to automatically treat level 2 headers as level 3. That may be why Discussion was a level 1 heading earlier.
[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:Actually I now noticed there was a short edit war at {{tl|comic discussion}} over whether it should be a level 1 heading, just for this reason. [[User:Waldir]] seems to have conceeded... [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

:: No edit war, hence no (intentional) concession. I reverted a change once, and didn't notice the change being re-implemented by another user. In any case, it is irrelevant now since we actively discourage using headers in talk pages precisely so that they don't display in the TOC for the main comic page, where the discussion page is transcluded to (see the discussion [[#Section style and usage|above]]). This might not scale well for comics that generate lots of discussion. It might be worth discussing our customs (and perhaps write them down somewhere) before performing such changes. What do others think? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

== Time: The Table ==

Right now on the page [[1190: Time]], we have a whole bunch of tables in the form image-time-hash. The tables take up heaps of vertical space and all have to be collapsed to even be remotely traversible. I propose that we aggregate all the images into one table after Time ends, like so:

{| class="wikitable plainlinks table-padding"
|-
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:00]]||01/00:00||[[Media:time.png|10:00]]||01/10:00||[[Media:time.png|20:00]]||01/20:00||[[Media:time.png|30:00]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:30]]||01/00:30||[[Media:time.png|10:30]]||01/10:30||[[Media:time.png|20:30]]||01/20:30||[[Media:time.png|30:30]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|}

The hash values aren't really a part of the comic, they're gibberish for the most part and they take up space that could be used to compact the table, as shown above. Even if we are conservative and make the table only five columns wide to account for smaller screens, we've divided scrolling time by five and eliminated much of the need for annoying collapsed tables and section headers for each day. Constructing the table shouldn't be particularly hard either, as all our current data is in nice regular tables with clear patterns that are easy enough to parse through.

I'm putting this here because the organization of the frame entries would be unintuitive and difficult to change from the edit window, which would make it a poor choice when we're still expanding it and don't even know how long the comic will continue for. It's merely a space-saving trick for after we're sure that the comic is over. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

:Oh and it'd be really nice if other people could also upload images if you're awake and a new one rolls by. There's gaps in the image record every time I wake up, and I dun likey. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
:Good work so far; go ahead make it better! :) –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

==Featured Explanation, and Archival?==

* Wikipedia has featured content. Now that we are close to reaching the goal of all comics explained, I think it makes more sense to have a "featured explanation" which would serve as a sort of a marker for a complete and good explanation. Many comics, and almost all charts are not fully explained/not a good quality explanation.

* We should set up archival of discussion of the most discussed pages, like this one. Its not very pleasing to see comments from July 2012 still lying around here. It becomes hectic at some point.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to discuss. Cheers,
[[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.180|117.194.88.180]] 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:We dedicate this wiki to explaining xkcd, and we do actually have a featured comic feature; it changes every week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and we usually manage to fill out the explanation for it within an hour or so of it going up. The most recent comic tends to be the one that most people visiting the wiki care about, so we give it prime space on the front page so they can find it easily. xkcd updates frequently enough that there isn't really that big of a time window for us to feature an article on our front page. Also, we're a volunteer project with quite a bit less manpower than Wikipedia.
:We do need to archive talk pages though. Some of these are getting ridiculously long. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with Davidy22. Archiving topics can be done by anyone, by moving resolved threads to the portal section's corresponding [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals|talk page]]. We could start with the threads marked "✓ Closed". [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:: The reason I asked for a "featured explanation" was because many of the comic explanations we currently have are sub-par, and we're almost at our initial goal of explaining all comics. A "featured explanation" would drive our editors towards the goal of having complete and good explanation towards all comics, and would allow us to know which explanations need elaboration.
:: P.S. My definition of complete explanation would be - To have a good explanation, To have all categories relevant, To link to any comics related and To explain any technical portions of the comic.
:: [[Special:Contributions/117.194.82.49|117.194.82.49]] 07:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::That message on the front page is going to link to all the pages marked by the incomplete template. If you find an unsatisfactory explanation, please mark it with <nowiki>{{incomplete}}</nowiki> '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: By my definition, I think all comics will be incomplete. An incomplete template will be focused more towards improving the worst explanations, while a featured one will be to improve the best ones. Since we already have the former, we should focus on the latter. Just my 2 cents. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.85.82|117.194.85.82]] 06:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

== Split the list of all comics ==

[[List of all comics]] is getting larger and larger, which makes it hard to read and hard to edit. How about splitting into parts, say [[List of all comics/1-1000]], [[List of all comics/1001-2000]], etc., or something to that effect? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

: Done. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.176|117.194.88.176]] 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
::Great job, thanks! [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
:::And I've added back [[List of all comics (full)]], which allows, for example, listing all comics by alphabetical order.[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 17:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

== Sidebar ads ==

''Moved from [[Talk:Main Page]] –– [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)''

Are they generating significant money? The ones I see are pretty sleazy looking and/or scammy - "Power Companies Hate this Device! - click here to break the laws of thermodynamics!" and "Debt relief program click here to lose more money". How much money are they generating? Can you set any selections to remove the sleazy ads? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:Do we have sleazy sidebar ads? Since when? Thanks Google Chrome and AdBlock, I had no idea! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 07:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::People give 20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks on explainxkcd, and Jeff uses that money to buy a faster server with a hard drive that doesn't have less space than a public toilet with an elephant in it. It'd be really nice if you didn't turn on adblock, the money is appreciated. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::It's a question of me not turning it off specifically every time I visit this site. More importantly, I do think people would be more likely to click the "donate" if it weren't irrelevant ads around it. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Generating money is a great thing. Getting "20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks" is a bit unclear. Do the ads only generate revenue when clicked on? So EXKCD only gets money when someone actually falls for the sleazy ads? I know lots of people do not like Google - but at least their adsense stuff is relevant to the content of the website, which might generate some legitimate traffic for a legitimate advertiser.... [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Welllll, I didn't pick the ad supplier. You could bring it up with [[User talk:Jeff|Jeff]] if you want, I think he picked the ad provider on basis of which one had a mediawiki plugin or something. If you can link Jeff to a quick and easy way to put adsense on mediawiki, he should change it quickly enough. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::And I also gather then that they are only a temporary thing? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Until we can buy a server that doesn't poop itself every time a new comic is released, the ads are staying. If you want them to go away sooner, throw more money at Jeff. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: The ads are crap. For sure. Wish I didn't have to run them, but I don't trust donations alone to hold up continually some better hosting. The ads really don't bring in that much $$$. I had google adsense before, but Google shutdown my adsense account for unnamed reason after 1 week. This new ad service is way sketchier. If you all think they don't have a place here, I'll ax 'em. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks for the info Jeff. How much ad money are we talking about? Is it calculated on how many ads are displayed or how many are clicked-through? How close to the goal is the server fund? How about a Kickstarter campaign for the server? $10 gets your name on a thankyou webpage or something like that. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: It ain't much, last I looked it was $2 or $3 in 2 weeks. I believe it is based on clicks, it is not nearly as clear as Google adsense. I'm not really interested in doing a Kickstarter. I think the donations will cover the initial start up, I just want to be able to cover the monthly costs as well. A few things are still up in the air. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you find a way to show the donations and ad income on the site, to make it transparent? ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: How about a donation amount that you'll take to turn it (the annoying unethical scummy ads) off for a year? Give me a dollar value and I might step up for the good of us all! [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

== Economic transparency ==

I think this is very important: How can we make the donations and ad-income transparent, so that we all can see when and how much money is coming in, and how far we are from reaching our goal? – [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds fine to me, I think I can put something together. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

== Using <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> in transcripts to improve accuracy ==

In the transcripts, <nowiki>[[lines]]</nowiki> are being changed to [lines] in order to avoid auto-linking. Why not just surround these with <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> tags and avoid the problem entirely? --[[User:Epauley|Epauley]] ([[User talk:Epauley|talk]]) 04:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:Because it takes less time to type and single brackets are just as readable as double brackets to visitors. It's also a bit more readable in the editor. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

== Category: (Barred/banned from?) Conferences ==

I come here after realising I erroneously posted (in reply) to the Main page Talk, being anonymous (or at least IP-only) and without a list of qualifying articles to support me, just yet, but still wish to put forward the above category before I forget. There's no apparent equivalent, that I found, but it's definitely a recurring meme. I should be back (named or otherwise) with my suggested list of members, if someone else doesn't get there first, but I thought I'd start with the placemarker. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
:Ok, so I got the bee in my bonnet and spent a few minutes actually looking into this. Revising "Barred from Conferences" (actually more often "Banned" or even "Thrown out of"/equivalent) to just "Conferences", the subset of comics that I can easily find that are involved is *[[153]], *[[177]], *[[365]], *[[410]], *[[463]], *[[541]], [[545]], [[685]], [[829]] and [[867]], but I'm sure there are more recent ones that I didn't spot/recall. One alternative title to "Conferences" is "Presentations", and I'm sure if I'd searched for that I'd have found more potential candidates (less some that might ''exit'' the renamed category). The asterisked ones ''do'' deal with being barred/banned/thrown out/etc, making it still a suitable category in its own right, IMO, but I'll leave it up to your combined musings to decide. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 17:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
::I add [[690]] to the list. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

== Strip Title ==

For someone who commonly browses explainxkcd in place of xkcd, and hence often see the strips for the first time here rather than the parent site, I find it somewhat odd that the 'Title Text' is so poorly displayed given how critical it can be to the strip.

I propose that, while retaining the given name (perhaps moving it top left), the title text be enlarged and relocated to being over the strip as originally intended. {{unsigned ip|175.41.133.18}}
:The title text is placed very well at bottom of the image.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 07:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:I would have to agree with Dgbrt, it's placed nicely at the bottom, and there is no need for it to be moved. My reasoning is that you never actually read the title text first, you read it last. Making it <code>text-align: left;</code> does not make sense, because the image is centered (just like on xkcd.com). I also believe that there is no need for it to be re-sized, mainly due to the fact that it is slightly larger than the title text (for me, at least). {{User:Grep/signature|05:18, 08 September 2013}}

:Plus, if you hover over the image, it's the same as on xkcd.com {{User:Grep/signature|06:13, 08 September 2013}}

:I also agree with Dgbrt and Grep. The title text is kind of a bonus and should not be emphasized more than on the original page. On the original site you only see it before the image, if you have very slow internet access (or very fast eyes) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

== Sections in talk pages ==

Is there a reason why there are no sections in talk pages? It is not a very big deal, but especially for longer talk pages it would make editing be much handier, especially when using the preview function (not having to find the section every time). Also it automatically adds a description to the history (thus makes it more easy to look for certain edits, or decide by just looking at the [[Special:RecentChanges]], if a comment should concern you. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
:When discussion pages are transcluded by the comic discussion template, section headers carry over from talk pages and bad things happen. Using ; to denote headers instead of equals signs works well, and doesn't share transclusion pain. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2013-10-02T08:01:43Z

Chtz: /* Sections in talk pages */ new section

<noinclude>{{Community portal}}</noinclude>

== Add unexplained strips ==

At the moment, browsing through the explanations using the previous and next buttons is interrupted whenever there's an explanation missing.

I think adding a page with the strip fr all of those with a short message like "no one has explained this yet, want to give it a shot?" would make the wiki easier to browse through and will get more strips explained faster.

:I don't think that would happen. If suddenly it was much easier for people to skip over pages that had no explanation, I think they would do exactly that, skip right over it. On the same side of that coin, If suddenly there are no longer any red links on the [[List of all comics]] then everyone perusing that page assumes that all the comics have been explained and don't need to contribute any more. It's astonishing how quickly an [[589: Designated Drivers|embedded]] red link gets an explanation page created simply to get rid of the red link.

:Secondarily, ''many'' of the pages created recently aren't being created with their numerical and titular redirects. Without the numerical redirect, the comic template can't find that there is a previous/next comic to link to. Every once in a while somebody will go through and try to notice all the pages that don't have their redirects created but it's an unscientific process that only happens occasionally. If we could get every joe blow that comes in and vomits up a poorly done explanation to create the redirects I wouldn't be quite as annoyed at their lack of show-don't-tell-manship. But, since they can't be bothered to put the date in the comic template, I doubt we'll ever get people to create the redirects.

:'''TL;DR:''' No more red links, no more work gets done on the back catalog.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 14:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

== xplainkcd.com ==

When I first saw this site I thought it should definitely be at xplainkcd.com or at least redirect from that url {{unsigned|115.166.22.158|12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)}}

: I like that idea! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Yeah! If it's possible, it would be cool! At least as a redirect. -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

== Section style and usage ==

I am new here and I'm trying to get up to speed with the culture. I have a few questions about how and where to use sections (== this ==). I am more willing to go with (and enforce) whatever norms there are here, but I have not seen them actually discussed.

# '''Is it OK to create sections in Discussion pages?''' I have been told no, but there are many examples extant of this usage in this Wiki and indeed in Wikipedia.
# '''Section title case''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Acronyms Wikipedia's style guide] recommends sentence case, not title case. There are many title cased section headers here.
# '''Links''' I do not have a reference for this but it seems to me putting links in section code (== [[<nowiki>this</nowiki>]] == ) is bad form.

Last note -- it's understood if these bylaws have not yet been written. I can see that a few of you have made a huge personal investment to make this Wiki what it is today, and that is a credit to you all -- this is awesome! As a long-time aficionado of xkcd I applaud your work and look forward to further collaboration.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:As a general rule, we stick to the standard format that existing pages follow, with an optional trivia section below the transcript. Some zealous editors like to add other sections though, which tend to be for the most part unneeded or redundant. If something you want to add doesn't help to explain the comic in some way, but the inclusion of which would somehow still add to the page, *and* it doesn't fall under the trivia category, a new section is warranted. This isn't the case most of the time though, so editors usually fold the content of extraneous sections into "Explanation" or "Trivia." We have no policy on links in titles, and they're allowed so long as they are appropriate; the link is useful and can't be folded into the section itself. And we use title case for titles cuz it just makes sense. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:We generally do not (or at least, discourage) use sections on the talk/discussion pages for explanation pages. This is purely for looks. The comic discussion section of the explanation page looks/feels wrong if there are level 2 section breaks in the transclusion. Also, if the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Table_of_contents Table of Contents] starts showing up on a page, such as on [[Click and Drag]] the sections created on the talk page also show up in the TOC. This gets confusing, and this is why we prefer not to use them on explanation talk pages. Everywhere else we follow standard wiki format and do use sections on the discussion pages.

:Personally, I think that links in section titles looks wrong, but I choose not to be the dictator of style in this matter. :p

:Please feel free to make edits. The worst that happens is someone reverts your edit. If it's a big enough issue and/or you don't seem to be learning from what people are fixing about your edits someone will leave a comment on your talk page. That's it. We might leave a nasty-gram in the edit summary, but oh well. We only ban for malicious intent. Honestly working to better the wiki is good, even if sometimes we grumble about it.

:--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Oh, I just looked at your talk page. I completely forgot that that happened. Don't worry about it. Learning the ropes is part of the experience. Do make edits, and if they're wrong, we'll nudge you in the right direction. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been moving some trivia sections to directly below the explanation, in order to make it more consistent, and easier to survey and maintain. Often the dividing line between trivia and explanation is not entirely clear, and in articles without a trivia section the end of the explanation very often contains trivia-like information. (e.g. [[1155: Kolmogorov Directions]]) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
===Title case doesn't make any sense===
At first sight title case in titles just makes sense. However title case '''never''' makes sense. It's worse than all caps. Besides, only Americans and children like title case. [[Special:Contributions/190.96.48.48|190.96.48.48]] 20:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

== Protip ==

Anyone for adding ''Protip'' as a [[:Category:Comic series|Comic series]]. I have found five so far: [[653]], [[711]], [[1022]], [[1047]] and [[1156]]. (There are also a few comics with a protip title text.) -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:I think that qualifies as a recurring topic (thus worthy of a category), but not as a series, where you can see a clear sequence. In fact, [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] has the same limitation, for what I suggest it to be removed from [[:Category:Comic series]]. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

::Seconded. Looks general and common enough to be a category. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::Okay, great! Do you think that the ones with a "protip:" title text should be included? Besides, I think I might be the one responsiple for moving My Hobby from [[:Category:Comics by topic|Comics by topic]] to Comic series. I felt that all the My Hobby comics were about different topics, but maybe i've got to narrow an interpretation of the word "topic". -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:::: Can you link to the protip-in-title-text comics?
:::: As for My Hobby, note that categories aren't mutually exclusive. They can be in the "my hobby" topic, and each of them further categorized as appropriate: music, math, etc. Makes sense? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: I just searched for protip in the xkcd search bar. Here: [[1084]], [[427]]. And yes, makes sense. I've moved My Hobby back to "by topic". -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

== Category: Sports ==

How about creating a new "Sports" category? [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 15:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:Well, maybe. Everyone aren't so keen on new categories here. Which comics are you thinking of, for a start? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
::We definitely need to reach an agreement as a community on when to create new categories. Something simple like a minimum of 3 (or, say, 5) existing comics. Since we're already at the proposals' portal... what do you guys think about that? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:::My opinion: Five would be enough to qualify. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 09:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I vote for four. But it should also be a reasonable thing to categorize, like sports, not like "sports with Cueball containing at least three anagram words". Wich sholdn't be a problem. :) But the best name choice could be tricky sometimes. e.g. "Film & television", Film & TV", "Film", "Films", or "Movies"? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::
::::Agreed, five should be enough to create the category without having to discuss it. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
: OK, let's start with [[588: Pep Rally|588]], [[1092: Michael Phelps|1092]], [[904: Sports|904]] and [[1107: Sports Cheat Sheet|1107]]. Should be able to find a few more. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 05:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's a broad subject so there are probably several more. -[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I found another one, sort of, in [[929:Speculation|929]] (although it hasn't been explained yet). Should I get the ball rolling (no pun intended) on setting up the category? Don't wanna do it unilaterally and get yelled at. ;) [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 06:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I think you should. On a wiki, getting stuck in discussions which die without a conclusion, to the point that motivated people give up without having done anything, is definitely counter-productive, and phrases like [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold|Wikipedia:Be bold]] are here to remind us of that. Seems like people agreed that you ''could'', and after a while nobody said that you ''shouldn't'', so I'd say do it. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

== Category: Sex ==

I think we should also create a Sex category. There's no ''doubt'' we can find more than three examples. I'll start looking for them and post the ones I find in here; again, I don't wanna create a large category by myself without community consent. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
*OK, the ones for Category: Sex that I've found so far are [[443]], [[219]], [[550]], [[1026]], [[575]], [[468]], [[592]], [[320]], [[1101]], [[417]], [[713]], [[672]], [[230]], [[436]], [[940]], [[532]], [[649]], [[176]], [[1006]], [[596]] and [[717]], and I'm sure there are many more. Should we create this category? [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 23:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

:Same as [[#Category: Sports|above]], do it. Oh, already did; well, all the better. - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

==New character==
As per [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]], the character with hair has appeared in quite a few comics now, and he's starting to become a recurring character. Shall we go ahead with inaugurating him into our list of regular characters, and what name shall we assign him? Current candidate names include Hairy and Harry. Anyone? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

: I like Harry :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::Cos made a point in the discussion on [[Talk:1178: Pickup Artists]] that Hairy is directly descriptive, whereas Harry is not obvious to visitors. On the other hand, not all names are descriptive ([[Danish]]) and I think this wiki is entitled to create some xkcd-in-culture, and not just describe. And Harry is quite funny.
::I wonder: has [[Randall]] ever called him anything at all in the transcript? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, he's not named in a any official transcripts, but he's already called Harry in quite a few comic explanations. Then again, I do like having a more descriptive name for him. Shall we hold this up to a vote? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I think we should wait a little for a few more viewpoints to crop up. Also, can someone link to some more comics he's been featured in? I've got [[1028: Communication]], [[1027: Pickup Artist]] and [[1178: Pickup Artists]]. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I actually like what that anon said: ''Curly''. Second choice: Hairy (being descriptive, a la Black Hat, Beret, Cueball, etc.) While there's talk about in-culture, we've done that with the names Cueball, Beret, etc. It's my opinion that the only names that should be "real" proper names are those that are named in the comic. Megan, Miss Lenhart, etc. Danish (as is discussed below) isn't truly a proper name, but you could argue it's a meta-description (one attributed by Black hat.) So that's my vote: yes for '''Curly''' or '''Hairy''', no for Harry. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::That's right, [[Danish]] is not descriptive, but 1/ that name was suggested because the character [[515: No One Must Know|was called that way in the comic]], which is a tiny bit like a name given by the author (at least more than Harry which we have completely made up), and 2/ in that case it's hard to find a descriptive term: use something that revolves around her black hair (her only descriptive feature), and you easily mix up with [[Megan]]; the only graphical difference is that her hair is ''long'', but what kind of name can you make out of that?
:::For this new character, I suggest Hairy because it comes as the easy solution with every advantage: descriptive, easy to understand, and it's not ugly... I actually see no reason to resort to a made-up name like Harry.
:::[[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

: '''Alright. So the discussion's been had, and the most oft recommended name appears to be Hairy. All in favor, say aye. If more than 1/3 of editors agree and we have more than 6 votes, Hairy it is.''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' [[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 06:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye''' to Hairy. [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Harry would be a nice nod to the fact that he's actually hairy, but indeed it's better to avoid inside jokes. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. I'm convinced! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 17:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:# '''Aye'''. Hairy. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::Hooray! We now have a [[:Category:Comics featuring Hairy]], with four pages already! Does anyone feel compelled to create "[[Hairy]]", with a brief description and a nice profile pic like the other characters? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

== Ambiguous characters ==

I've been thinking about the problem of the ambiguity of characters. "Is this really Cueball even though he has an eye and half a nose?", "This is very likely ''not'' x." "Darnit, these arn't Cueballs, these are Randall and his friends!", and so on. The character ambiguity is standard for xkcd (not less so in the early ones), and comes from the very loose or "free" way Randall uses his characters to be whatever he needs at the moment. It's simply often impossible for us to know whether he had e.g. "Cueball" or himself in mind, when drawing a particular comic (and I'd say: probably often both).

I want to suggest that we in general have a likewise rather loose policy towards including characters in the categories for the comics. So that reasonably ambiguous cases should be included in e.g. [[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]] (does she have a ponytail?) This is not because I believe this or that to really be this or that; I just don't believe in objective truth (here!). I feel that when doing research :) on a character, the borderline cases are often the most interesting ones, and you want to be able to find them through the "Comics featuring miss x"!

I came to think this through now, when I wanted to (and did) list two comics with [[Miss Lenhart]] (?) where she was drawn but not named. Any thoughts on this in general? Other case studies? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:My take has always been that [[Cueball]], for example, has not been a specific character. There is not ''a'' cueball, per se, distinct from any other cueball... indeed, there are several comics with several cueballs in-frame, and that is the point. I see the cueball character as a wildcard character (pun intended) ready to stand in for anybody (and ''not'' necessarily just Randall; I think those readers who suggest "this ''is'' Randall" are missing the point; he's way more META than that...) [[Megan]], while slightly less generic, still remains the female wild-card significant-other, while Curls seems to be a not-significant-other female used to illustrate a relationship that is transient. Other characters come and go, and when it's important to visually distinguish them from others in the frame, they're given additional characteristics, to wit [[Hairy]], [[Ponytail]], etc.
:Unfortunately, that viewpoint is not commonly held, so I daresay I'm in the minority here.
:-- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

== Note at the top, about the server error ==

:''This thread was moved to [[MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice]]''

== Category: Flowcharts ==

Hello, the line "Randall has made use of flowcharts before." in today's comic explanation made me want a [[:Category:Flowcharts|flowcharts category]] to navigate into...

As it didn't exist, I proceeded to create it, but as the log says, [[User:lcarsos|lcarsos]] deleted such a category in November, saying ''"Insufficient differentiation from Category:Comics with charts, diluting the depth of comics tagged charts"''.

I don't agree with that, and I think we could profit from such a subcategory. I found those pages fitting it:
* [[94: Profile Creation Flowchart]]
* [[210: 90's Flowchart]]
* [[488: Steal This Comic]]
* [[627: Tech Support Cheat Sheet]]
* [[844: Good Code]]
* [[851: Na]]
* [[854: Learning to Cook]]
* [[1195: Flowchart]]

So? - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:Weell if you're willing to take charge of the category and personally make sure it's added to all relevant comic explanations, go ahead. The usual objection to making new categories is that we admins can't remember all the categories when we're reviewing new explanations, but it's K if you're willing to take up that responsibility yourself. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:
:: OK. I did it without waiting for further replies, because I think it will be especially profitable today (to viewers).
:: It doesn't seem a big issue to me if the correct category is not added when a new explanation is made: a passing editor will do it later on... But hey, I'm OK with taking special care of adding pages to this category.
:: [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 12:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

::: I just want to add that Cos' view is indeed the appropriate way to work in wikis: there is no concept of a single author for a page, category, or piece of text, and the workload is meant to be distributed among several editors: it is not necessary that any single editor remembers all existing categories, or knows the wiki markup by heart, or knows how to work with all the features of mediawiki, etc. The reason why wikis can be edited by anyone is precisely a recognition that there *will* be errors and any page can be improved somehow. That reasoning against categories should, IMO, be abandoned, or at most only kept as the opinion of some editors. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Isnt there a page which lists all the categories? If not, there should be one, and it should be accessible to all. Such a page could be useful when trying to quick-add categories to comics. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.83.155|117.194.83.155]] 13:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, there is. [[Special:Categories]]. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Of course, there's a gazillion of 'em, over several pages, so I understand any reluctance to add new categories (having just suggested a new one myself which I feel is justified, but knowing that the upkeep needed may be the key point of contention so remaining philosophical about it).
::A solution perhaps to carry over from another locale that I frequent is to have a "Categories of Character" page, a "Categories of Object" one, perhaps "Categories of Event", and a "Categories of Publication". For each new comic someone can easily check the shorter Character categories list against those present, the Object list against itemsin use, Events, etc, and of course the Publication one has the "Tuesday Comic"/equivalent, and other date-based ones (although isn't that automatic from templated creation? ...never added a comic, but would imagine it is). After that it's a trawl through the miscelania categories (perhaps a meta-category just for them?). But, yeah, a lot of work to set up. Wouldn't wish it on anyone who wasn't already willing to do it, and I remain an anon-IP person right now so can hardly commit ''myself'' as volunteer maintainer of this. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

== I've removed "add a comment!" from Discussion heading ==

This does move it to above the line, and the rule stops early. Undo my change if that's more bothering than when the TOC is displayed as "add a comment!Discussion"...

I don't know how to automatically treat level 2 headers as level 3. That may be why Discussion was a level 1 heading earlier.
[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:Actually I now noticed there was a short edit war at {{tl|comic discussion}} over whether it should be a level 1 heading, just for this reason. [[User:Waldir]] seems to have conceeded... [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 11:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

:: No edit war, hence no (intentional) concession. I reverted a change once, and didn't notice the change being re-implemented by another user. In any case, it is irrelevant now since we actively discourage using headers in talk pages precisely so that they don't display in the TOC for the main comic page, where the discussion page is transcluded to (see the discussion [[#Section style and usage|above]]). This might not scale well for comics that generate lots of discussion. It might be worth discussing our customs (and perhaps write them down somewhere) before performing such changes. What do others think? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

== Time: The Table ==

Right now on the page [[1190: Time]], we have a whole bunch of tables in the form image-time-hash. The tables take up heaps of vertical space and all have to be collapsed to even be remotely traversible. I propose that we aggregate all the images into one table after Time ends, like so:

{| class="wikitable plainlinks table-padding"
|-
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
!Image
!Time
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:00]]||01/00:00||[[Media:time.png|10:00]]||01/10:00||[[Media:time.png|20:00]]||01/20:00||[[Media:time.png|30:00]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|-
|[[Media:time.png|00:30]]||01/00:30||[[Media:time.png|10:30]]||01/10:30||[[Media:time.png|20:30]]||01/20:30||[[Media:time.png|30:30]]||AND MOAR SAMPLE DATAS
|}

The hash values aren't really a part of the comic, they're gibberish for the most part and they take up space that could be used to compact the table, as shown above. Even if we are conservative and make the table only five columns wide to account for smaller screens, we've divided scrolling time by five and eliminated much of the need for annoying collapsed tables and section headers for each day. Constructing the table shouldn't be particularly hard either, as all our current data is in nice regular tables with clear patterns that are easy enough to parse through.

I'm putting this here because the organization of the frame entries would be unintuitive and difficult to change from the edit window, which would make it a poor choice when we're still expanding it and don't even know how long the comic will continue for. It's merely a space-saving trick for after we're sure that the comic is over. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

:Oh and it'd be really nice if other people could also upload images if you're awake and a new one rolls by. There's gaps in the image record every time I wake up, and I dun likey. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
:Good work so far; go ahead make it better! :) –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

==Featured Explanation, and Archival?==

* Wikipedia has featured content. Now that we are close to reaching the goal of all comics explained, I think it makes more sense to have a "featured explanation" which would serve as a sort of a marker for a complete and good explanation. Many comics, and almost all charts are not fully explained/not a good quality explanation.

* We should set up archival of discussion of the most discussed pages, like this one. Its not very pleasing to see comments from July 2012 still lying around here. It becomes hectic at some point.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to discuss. Cheers,
[[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.180|117.194.88.180]] 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:We dedicate this wiki to explaining xkcd, and we do actually have a featured comic feature; it changes every week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and we usually manage to fill out the explanation for it within an hour or so of it going up. The most recent comic tends to be the one that most people visiting the wiki care about, so we give it prime space on the front page so they can find it easily. xkcd updates frequently enough that there isn't really that big of a time window for us to feature an article on our front page. Also, we're a volunteer project with quite a bit less manpower than Wikipedia.
:We do need to archive talk pages though. Some of these are getting ridiculously long. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with Davidy22. Archiving topics can be done by anyone, by moving resolved threads to the portal section's corresponding [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Proposals|talk page]]. We could start with the threads marked "✓ Closed". [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:: The reason I asked for a "featured explanation" was because many of the comic explanations we currently have are sub-par, and we're almost at our initial goal of explaining all comics. A "featured explanation" would drive our editors towards the goal of having complete and good explanation towards all comics, and would allow us to know which explanations need elaboration.
:: P.S. My definition of complete explanation would be - To have a good explanation, To have all categories relevant, To link to any comics related and To explain any technical portions of the comic.
:: [[Special:Contributions/117.194.82.49|117.194.82.49]] 07:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::That message on the front page is going to link to all the pages marked by the incomplete template. If you find an unsatisfactory explanation, please mark it with <nowiki>{{incomplete}}</nowiki> '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: By my definition, I think all comics will be incomplete. An incomplete template will be focused more towards improving the worst explanations, while a featured one will be to improve the best ones. Since we already have the former, we should focus on the latter. Just my 2 cents. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.85.82|117.194.85.82]] 06:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

== Split the list of all comics ==

[[List of all comics]] is getting larger and larger, which makes it hard to read and hard to edit. How about splitting into parts, say [[List of all comics/1-1000]], [[List of all comics/1001-2000]], etc., or something to that effect? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

: Done. [[Special:Contributions/117.194.88.176|117.194.88.176]] 10:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
::Great job, thanks! [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
:::And I've added back [[List of all comics (full)]], which allows, for example, listing all comics by alphabetical order.[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 17:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

== Sidebar ads ==

''Moved from [[Talk:Main Page]] –– [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)''

Are they generating significant money? The ones I see are pretty sleazy looking and/or scammy - "Power Companies Hate this Device! - click here to break the laws of thermodynamics!" and "Debt relief program click here to lose more money". How much money are they generating? Can you set any selections to remove the sleazy ads? [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:Do we have sleazy sidebar ads? Since when? Thanks Google Chrome and AdBlock, I had no idea! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 07:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::People give 20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks on explainxkcd, and Jeff uses that money to buy a faster server with a hard drive that doesn't have less space than a public toilet with an elephant in it. It'd be really nice if you didn't turn on adblock, the money is appreciated. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::It's a question of me not turning it off specifically every time I visit this site. More importantly, I do think people would be more likely to click the "donate" if it weren't irrelevant ads around it. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Generating money is a great thing. Getting "20$ a pop to get a bunch of clicks" is a bit unclear. Do the ads only generate revenue when clicked on? So EXKCD only gets money when someone actually falls for the sleazy ads? I know lots of people do not like Google - but at least their adsense stuff is relevant to the content of the website, which might generate some legitimate traffic for a legitimate advertiser.... [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 11:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Welllll, I didn't pick the ad supplier. You could bring it up with [[User talk:Jeff|Jeff]] if you want, I think he picked the ad provider on basis of which one had a mediawiki plugin or something. If you can link Jeff to a quick and easy way to put adsense on mediawiki, he should change it quickly enough. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::And I also gather then that they are only a temporary thing? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Until we can buy a server that doesn't poop itself every time a new comic is released, the ads are staying. If you want them to go away sooner, throw more money at Jeff. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: The ads are crap. For sure. Wish I didn't have to run them, but I don't trust donations alone to hold up continually some better hosting. The ads really don't bring in that much $$$. I had google adsense before, but Google shutdown my adsense account for unnamed reason after 1 week. This new ad service is way sketchier. If you all think they don't have a place here, I'll ax 'em. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks for the info Jeff. How much ad money are we talking about? Is it calculated on how many ads are displayed or how many are clicked-through? How close to the goal is the server fund? How about a Kickstarter campaign for the server? $10 gets your name on a thankyou webpage or something like that. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: It ain't much, last I looked it was $2 or $3 in 2 weeks. I believe it is based on clicks, it is not nearly as clear as Google adsense. I'm not really interested in doing a Kickstarter. I think the donations will cover the initial start up, I just want to be able to cover the monthly costs as well. A few things are still up in the air. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you find a way to show the donations and ad income on the site, to make it transparent? ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: How about a donation amount that you'll take to turn it (the annoying unethical scummy ads) off for a year? Give me a dollar value and I might step up for the good of us all! [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

== Economic transparency ==

I think this is very important: How can we make the donations and ad-income transparent, so that we all can see when and how much money is coming in, and how far we are from reaching our goal? – [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds fine to me, I think I can put something together. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

== Using <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> in transcripts to improve accuracy ==

In the transcripts, <nowiki>[[lines]]</nowiki> are being changed to [lines] in order to avoid auto-linking. Why not just surround these with <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki> tags and avoid the problem entirely? --[[User:Epauley|Epauley]] ([[User talk:Epauley|talk]]) 04:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:Because it takes less time to type and single brackets are just as readable as double brackets to visitors. It's also a bit more readable in the editor. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

== Category: (Barred/banned from?) Conferences ==

I come here after realising I erroneously posted (in reply) to the Main page Talk, being anonymous (or at least IP-only) and without a list of qualifying articles to support me, just yet, but still wish to put forward the above category before I forget. There's no apparent equivalent, that I found, but it's definitely a recurring meme. I should be back (named or otherwise) with my suggested list of members, if someone else doesn't get there first, but I thought I'd start with the placemarker. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 16:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
:Ok, so I got the bee in my bonnet and spent a few minutes actually looking into this. Revising "Barred from Conferences" (actually more often "Banned" or even "Thrown out of"/equivalent) to just "Conferences", the subset of comics that I can easily find that are involved is *[[153]], *[[177]], *[[365]], *[[410]], *[[463]], *[[541]], [[545]], [[685]], [[829]] and [[867]], but I'm sure there are more recent ones that I didn't spot/recall. One alternative title to "Conferences" is "Presentations", and I'm sure if I'd searched for that I'd have found more potential candidates (less some that might ''exit'' the renamed category). The asterisked ones ''do'' deal with being barred/banned/thrown out/etc, making it still a suitable category in its own right, IMO, but I'll leave it up to your combined musings to decide. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 17:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
::I add [[690]] to the list. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

== Strip Title ==

For someone who commonly browses explainxkcd in place of xkcd, and hence often see the strips for the first time here rather than the parent site, I find it somewhat odd that the 'Title Text' is so poorly displayed given how critical it can be to the strip.

I propose that, while retaining the given name (perhaps moving it top left), the title text be enlarged and relocated to being over the strip as originally intended. {{unsigned ip|175.41.133.18}}
:The title text is placed very well at bottom of the image.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 07:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:I would have to agree with Dgbrt, it's placed nicely at the bottom, and there is no need for it to be moved. My reasoning is that you never actually read the title text first, you read it last. Making it <code>text-align: left;</code> does not make sense, because the image is centered (just like on xkcd.com). I also believe that there is no need for it to be re-sized, mainly due to the fact that it is slightly larger than the title text (for me, at least). {{User:Grep/signature|05:18, 08 September 2013}}

:Plus, if you hover over the image, it's the same as on xkcd.com {{User:Grep/signature|06:13, 08 September 2013}}

== Sections in talk pages ==

Is there a reason why there are no sections in talk pages? It is not a very big deal, but especially for longer talk pages it would make editing be much handier, especially when using the preview function (not having to find the section every time). Also it automatically adds a description to the history (thus makes it more easy to look for certain edits, or decide by just looking at the [[Special:RecentChanges]], if a comment should concern you. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-10-02T07:51:08Z

Chtz:

Am i the only one considering this can be presented also in opposition to Object Oriented Programming, where tail recursion is very difficult to achieve at execution time, and impossible to achieve at compilation time, due to the possibility of method overloading?[[Special:Contributions/193.190.231.132|193.190.231.132]] 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall[sic], because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think {{w|Haskell (programming language)|Hask'''e'''ll}} is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

:Being a mathematician, I can't agree. Even though I would consider myself more an applied mathematician, I find the basic concepts of abstract mathematics quite clear and intuitive (at least to a level which is required to understand functional programming). I do agree that there are many areas of abstract mathematics neither intuitive nor clear ''to me'', but I am quite sure for people working in these areas this is not the case. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::A standard calculator works in degrees and so sine(90°) is exactly 1, while when using {{w|Radian|radians}} sine(pi/2)=1 is correct. But this doesn't matter, it always describes how to invoke a function and get the result.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::However, I don't know any programming languages that use degree instead of radians by default. But that was indeed not my point: The point is that sine is an example of a ''function'' (independent of the programming paradigm used) and not a good example of '''{{w|functional programming}}'''. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 11:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

;There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, I am a real programmer. And so I try to explain the "recursive" issue to NON specialists. We should EXPLAIN but not ENHANCE the comic. My two cents...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, then the question remains if it is not more important to explain functional programming first? Currently, the second paragraph explains the difference between a function and a procedure in imperative programming and then mostly explains recursion for imperative programming (which I doubt will help understanding the comic -- how is it relevant if and where memory is allocated?). In the next paragraph I originally tried to describe how functional programming is different from imperative programming (after some editing there is not much left of it at the moment, it currently again describes more what imperative programming is). I assume there are more people who know recursion but have no idea of functional programming than the other way around. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "which should not work because the return statement is missing" is relevent. In a given language, functions may only return values when a "return" is given (and ''immediately'' that one is given, ending all processing), otherwise giving "undefined", or "void" or the equivalent default state for an explicitly stated return-type. But in others they (in the absence of anything else, like an explicitly terminating "return" well within its own code) will use the bare evaluation of the very last statement within it as the return-value of that function/sub/procedure, if in tested at all by the calling-block (although it's prefereble to "return variable" at the end rather than just put "variable" as the last statement, for readability purposes, especially when it isn't "variable" but something that looks like (or is!) an evaulation/function call in its own right). The above being pseudocode (or "composite relatively common dialect code" not far off various common languages), surely the ''readability'' is the big concern, not the fact that (in certain languages, but not others) should not work. (Basically, have I just spent a paragaph saying "don't add that above statement, just put a 'return' into the pseudocode and everyone should be happy"? Yes. Yes, I believe I might have. Still.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 15:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:This [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] is a valid functional definition of the factorial function. There are no ''statements'' in pure functional programming, especially no return statements. (There are ways to simulate them, but that's beyond this conversation). If everyone thinks that we shall just explain recursion and tail-recursion and avoid talking about functional programming, go ahead and revert it back to before my first attempt to describe functional programming. I agree that functional programming can be hard to get at first, especially to programmers used to imperative programming, but I do think it is worth to know about it. If it is just the brace-less syntax that is confusing, we can use this [http://ideone.com/NYKQeb] alternative (very uncommon in Haskell, but I agree that it's more important to make the code easy to understand). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::Lest I have made myself unclear (and you're replying to me), I'm happy with the code as is. The 'statement' I mentioned, above, was regarding the added explanatory text (not yours) not any code-statement. The other pseudocodes had "return"s in them, however, so for an argument of readability it might be useful to make that "prod" "return prod", although I (especially as a bit of a Perl fanatic) don't mind either way. I can deal with braces substituted by idents, in pseudocode, much as I can read either XML or YAML encoded data, fairly easily. ;) However, we've got quite a technical discussion going which (unlike code, even deliberately obfuscated Perl!) is not so easily untangled into who is replying to which bit and what they are trying to say (and why). Maybe we should switch to Lojban! [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::There is no agreement yet, if and when we should introduce/''explain'' the concept of functional programming. At the moment the transition is very abrupt, partly because someone changed my first functional example to imperative code. The tail recursive example is at this very moment exactly the same as [http://ideone.com/OrCUMp this valid functional code (written in Haskell)]. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I agree, this is still chaos! Please explain "An imperative, recursive (but not tail-recursive) implementation can look like this:", I disagree and there is still no prove helping me or other people to understand. And beside: My first recursive program was to solve a one player game, written in {{w|Turbo Pascal}} in the middle of the eighties of the last century. And it was ''fast'' even at that time. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::I guess you mostly disagree on the non tail-recursiveness? Basically, this can be seen as the recursion can't be replaced by a simple replacement of the return statement with another function call, because after the call another operation (the multiplication by n) needs to be performed before the value can be returned. My original attempt on this article was to switch to functional programming at this point, since it does not make much sense to implement such a simple function recursively in an imperative language (admittedly, the transition to functional programming was way to abrupt). When implementing a function which searches inside a tree it often/usually makes sense to implement it recursively even in imperative languages and with some tricks you can also make this comparatively fast (I assume that was the point of your last two sentences?). To come back to 178.98... My intention was to structure the explanation approximately as follows:
:::::1) Describe the difference between functional and imperative programming (assuming that most readers know what imperative programming is -- if we can't assume that, where shall we start?)
:::::2) Give an example of a simple imperative function (e.g. the factorial function) written with typical imperative constructs (loops, assignments)
:::::3) As this is not possible in functional programming introduce the concept of recursion and define the function recursively (this step was clearly to fast)
:::::4) Explain the benefit of tail-recursion and give an tail-recursive example of factorial (also in functional programming)
:::::5) '''Explain the actual joke!'''
:::::6) Explain remaining parts (title text, ...) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::On your fourth point, the functional programming example is confusing, and strange. Why are you defining two seperate functions, when a single function would do? For example, an easy way to show this is:
factorial[0] = 1
factorial[n] = n * factorial(n - 1)
::::::which, though not valid computer code, is valid mathematical syntax, and shows perfectly what a factorial function, in functional programming, does. The explanation would then be:
factorial[6] = 6 * factorial[6-1] = 6 * 120 = 720
factorial[5] = 5 * factorial[5-1] = 5 * 24 = 120
factorial[4] = 4 * factorial[4-1] = 4 * 6 = 24
factorial[3] = 3 * factorial[3-1] = 3 * 2 = 6
factorial[2] = 2 * factorial[2-1] = 2 * 1 = 2
factorial[1] = 1 * factorial[1-1] = 1 * 1 = 1
factorial[0] = 1
::::::or something similar to that. [[User:GBGamer117|GBGamer117]] ([[User talk:GBGamer117|talk]]) 05:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I would be totally fine (and originally intended) to have this definition at step 3). If you replace your [ ] brackets by ( ) parentheses, or leave them, [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T it is actually valid Haskell code] (and as you point out, [clear and intuitive as] ''valid mathematical syntax''). The evaluation, however would rather go like:
factorial(4) = 4 * factorial(3)
= 4 * ( 3 * factorial (2) )
= 4 * ( 3 * ( 2 * factorial (1) ) )
= 4 * ( 3 * ( 2 * ( 1 * factorial (0) ) ) )
= 4 * ( 3 * ( 2 * ( 1 * 1 ) ) )
= 4 * ( 3 * ( 2 * 1 ) ) = 4 * ( 3 * 2 ) = 4 * 6 = 24
:::::::That would actually give a nice example, why this recursion is less efficient than actual tail recursion: During evaluation, you need to build up an entire expression tree which you don't have to do for the tail-recursive way (it does not really matter for this simple function, though).
factorial(4) = factorial_helper(4, 1) = factorial_helper(3, 4) = factorial_helper(2, 12) = factorial_helper(1, 24) = factorial_helper(0, 24) = 24
:::::::The number of numerical operations is actually the same (I omitted the steps of evaluating the products and differences), but you don't have to build up a large expression, before you can actually start multiplying. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 07:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-10-02T07:23:34Z

Chtz: added a wiki-link to Haskell in a previous comment

User talk:Dgbrt

2013-09-30T23:37:23Z

Chtz: /* 1270: Functional */

== [[1190: Time]] ==

It's fine that you're helping with updating [[1190: Time]]. I'm trying to write a script that automatically updates the hashes and uploads the images. In order to test the script, could you, at least for the next image, refrain from doing that? I can then test the script and if it works, you can continue if you want to, but least I know that my script does work.

Updating the transcript and anything else from the page is still absolutely fine, I cannot do this. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 15:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
: Ok, seems to work. If you want, you can continue updating, but my script should do this automatically within ~1 minute while I'm online. And if I'm not, it should catch up later. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 16:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

:: GREAT, it's really working. My computer is online 24/7 (but not me). Since updates should be done in time maybe my computer is the better machine for your script. I am on Linux and a cron job is downloading at 00,05,20,35,50 each hour, just in case the update frequency will change again. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

::: Might be, but I have a folder full of scripting stuff, and I would have to tidy up all that to get the important lines. And I'm not really in the mood for that. ;-) Maybe I will come back to this later. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The reason I said "another" river is because "another" is referencing Megan's quote that "yes. there are other rivers" - implying they have arrived at "another" river, not the one they already knew about. I put quotes because as you point out, we haven't exactly seen them come across the first river. As to the water bottle, if you want to change it to "drinking bottle", I'm fine with that. The contents being water is an assumption based on what you might expect someone to do going on a long journey. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 20:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

: I am not a native English speaker - so thanks for help - but I just want to be correct. And I did edit your edit...

I think a special page (i.e. "1190: Time: Pictures") with a table (description | thumb with link) or other form of separator might work. I seem to remember seeing something on using a different thumb file on a picture link. This is my first time editing wiki pages, but the thumbs and smaller images on the upload pages don't appear to be working. As a work around, I just used blind links without thumbs (e.g. :file:fname...). I can create and upload smaller pictures, but will need some help putting it all together. If this sounds good to you, give me a nod on my talk page and I'll start adding content and let the regulars help straighten it out. Also, am I doing something wrong on the uploads or is it just not working? [[User:Galois|Galois]] ([[User talk:Galois|talk]]) 23:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
: I'm also relatively new to wiki edits, but I'm a programmer, Linux expert (and more OS's) and also the admin for the wiki at my company. Thumbnails do not work because of a bug in the configuration or missing capabilities at the hoster. I will try to talk to the admins here, maybe I can help. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

== Redirections, and incomplete explanations ==

Hello there, and thank you for your work! :-)

One technical thing that you should note, when you create pages that should redirect directly to a newly created explanation page (for example [[332]] to redirect to [[332: Gyroscopes]]), use the redirection syntax which goes like this: <code><nowiki>#REDIRECT [[332: Gyroscopes]]</nowiki></code>

You've done it right for [[447]] / [[Too Old For This Shit]] or [[531]] / [[Friends]] for instance, so try to do it all the time, instead of leaving pages with only a link in it, like {{diff|39258|332}} / {{diff|39259|Gyroscopes}} or {{diff|39251|311}} / {{diff|39252|Action Movies}}. Thanks :-)

Another thing, not from me, and about content this time: [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] left you a couple of message in the changes he made to the pages you created, but it's fairly possible that you didn't get them, so here they are:
* (in response to your comment ''"I am still trying to give every comic a page here. Help me to complete it!"''): {{diff|39262|''"I'd really rather leave those links red for someone to write a proper explanation. With explanations that read like second transcripts, all we really do is take traffic away from xkcd.com without adding value."''}}
* {{diff|39263|''"Also, incomplete articles are harder to track than nonexistent articles, so I'd rather we just focus on making explanations well instead of making an unsatisfactory shell for every comic. Incomplete explanations make us look kinda bad too."''}}
* {{diff|39265|''"People on other sites often comment on how our explanations are a wildly mixed bag of quality. I'd rather you put your effort into making a few good substantial explanations instead of loads of summaries and rehashes of the transcript."''}}

Try to take that into account also...

Cheers, [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 10:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:Hello [[User:Cos|Cos]], here some comments by me:
::Redirections - I'm sorry for the missing #REDIRECT tag. I'm using often a text editor for my own copy and paste templates. I am sure I would have figured out that error today by myself. Thanks for your help!
::Incomplete explanations - I will stop on this even when I think it's good idea to have a page for each comic here and work afterwards on all those incomplete ones. The pages [[Help:How_to_add_a_new_comic_explanation]] and [[List_of_unexplained_comics]] should clarify this issue. Furthermore there are many more incomplete comics not marked as incomplete so you can't find them here: [[:Category:Incomplete articles|Incomplete explanations]]. I will also send a message to [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] about this.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of incomplete explanations, do you think you could help add some text to [[266: Choices: Part 3]] and [[267: Choices: Part 4]]? To my knowledge, they are the only articles on the wiki without even a stub for an explanation. In addition, the other three choice articles could use some better explanations. --[[User:Oneforfortytwo|Oneforfortytwo]] ([[User talk:Oneforfortytwo|talk]]) 04:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

== Ach nee,... ==

...schau mal einer an, noch ein Deutscher! Wollte nur mal 'nen Gruß hinterlassen... ;-) --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 21:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:Ich grüße zurück! I am greeting you too.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

== Congratulations! ==

You worked on the last unexplained comic of ''xkcd'' at very much the same time that the article was created! [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
:I was working at the same time to create that explanation. After trying to save I got a warning that it's already there. So I just did add my work there.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
::In that case, you also created the last explanation. You two worked on the comic at essentially the same time. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 18:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

== 1190:Time frame renumbering ==

Apologies if I created confusion, I was under the impression that davidy22 had already made the final decision to renumber the frames. I didn't know there was someone else who made the decision. [[User:Patzer|Patzer]] ([[User talk:Patzer|talk]]) 01:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

== DgbrtBOT ==

It took a while for me to notice your request. I think you've been quite the active figure around the wiki, so I've added the bot to the bots group.

Keep up the work and don't burn out! [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

:Many thanks, my request was mainly for picture uploads to 1190 Time, but maybe I will use this feature in the future. I will be careful, first tests will be done at my local TestWiki.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

== The right place to add 'discussion' ==

I don't disagree with your comment to [[User:Anon]] (although I'd say "additions" instead of "adds"), or to a number of your edits to their additions, but some of what has been added is not worthy of Trivia sections being added. They should probably have been put into the talk page, or in some cases, left where they were. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 05:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
:You are right, I just did not want to delete the additions by this new user. Because I can't move a single line to the talk page by one edit I thought the Trivia section would be the best solution. I don't like links to other comics here when it doesn't explain anything to the actual one. But a sidestep to a similar joke could be worthy to the Trivia section.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

== Explained too much ==

Hello Dgbrt, I'm sorry I explained too much about comic 1255. I was under the impression that the purpose of this wiki was to explain XKCD comics for those who don't get the references, so I thought it would be helpful to explain the part about sailing in a line tangent to the surface, which wasn't previously touched on in the description. I understand now that what you guys actually do here is to describe and transcribe XKCD comics. That's not something I'm interested in so I'll leave now. Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. [[User:Rombobjörn|Rombobjörn]] ([[User talk:Rombobjörn|talk]]) 12:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
:Hey, this site does not only "transcribe XKCD comics". The wrong stories about Columbus is the major joke here, Megan did use Tolkien's books, but she also could have used many others. The explain should point on the essentials of the comic, people should be able to read this easy in general.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::Hello. Admin here. I don't comb through and look at every single edit that happens in this wiki, but some things flag up as significant and this scuffle qualifies. Reading the current explanation and your addition, there are a number of unexplained and unreferenced Tolkien-specific terms littered around the place. Valar and Ilúvatar will not be familiar to people who have not read the Silmarillion before. Megan appears to be drawing a direct parallel between Eärendil and Columbus here with the quote "A silmaril on his brow, he wanders the heavens as the morning star." There is no apparent evidence to show that the reformation of the earth is referenced in this comic; no mention of Akallabêth, Ilúvatar or any hint of Columbus being of elvish descent. If you can link your reference directly to the comic, feel free to add it in.
::Also, Dgbrt, you only have to reply once to the original talk message. You don't have to leave disjointed messages in other people's talk pages. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 17:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

== Discussions with Quicksilver ==

Hello! I have noticed that "In this comic" is a pet peeve to you. As a gift, I have removed it from almost all of the 60 explanations that it started, but there remain some more places where it could be removed. If you wish, you can go ahead and remove the newlines that I left in their wake.

If you need a general copy-editor for grammar, punctuation, or usage, let me know. I consider myself adequate at it, being a decently educated native American English speaker. (I am not a professional editor, though, so stuff can always be made better.)

Also, as you definitely have noticed, I can get belligerent over some things, particularly whether a page deserves its "Incomplete" status. I expect some more sparring matches in the coming future. I do hope to work with you on cutting the number of such pages down.

Anyway, thanks for the intro to the wiki! --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 21:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
:Welcome Quicksilver! I did see that you must be an native American speaker but some of your edits are too offensive, I do reply on this, and we have to discuss until a final solution can be presented. Many updates by you are great, but please check all the links, etc. until removing the incomplete tag. This tag does not mean the explain is wrong. BTW: Please sign your discussions.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that I have your attention, we can begin discussing things. We have a brewing edit war over the following pages (so far): [[694: Retro Virus]], [[54: Science]], and [[10: Pi Equals]].

The first one I claim to be complete, while you dispute this. I cannot see how much further we can go into explanations of XP, viruses, Howard Dean, Friendster, or Kazaa. Apart from those, the comic really doesn't have anything else to explain, and its grammar and style are fair. I see no reason that the Incomplete tag should be there.

In the second one, we have different interpretations of the title text, "Bonus point if you can identify the science in question." You claim that this somehow means we should challenge science. While I understand that part of the spirit of science is questioning it, this sentence has a fairly straightforward meaning: if you can identify the science in question, you get a bonus point. In other words, if you know where this equation comes from, good for you. Randall is praising his readers who happen to know about the blackbody radiation curve, which would be a good number of them (I'd guess).

The third one is a simple issue of punctuation. You have argued, via explanations, that "one must close sentences." While I understand that it may look awkward for the quotation marks in question (those around the name of Mrs Roberts's daughter) to contain a period, not part of the name, and to have the sentence ended by a punctuation mark inside a pair of quotes, this is the English convention on quotation marks. Such a convention can be checked [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/577/ here]. This usage clashes with that of French, German, and many other languages, but is standard in English.

As other pages turn into edit wars, I would prefer to discuss them in some central location (such as your wonderful talk page) rather than individual pages. Thank you for your consideration. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
:Every comic does have it's own discussion page. Here you can talk about my behave, especial on some few offensive edits I did not accept. And keep short or I will just reply {{w|Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read|tl;dr}}--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::Very well. Our agenda begins with [[54: Science]]. The other two we will address at some point. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 23:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

== Allegations concerning [[User:Quicksilver]] ==

You have in the edit summary field claimed that Quicksilver's edits are offensive. After a quick glance through some of his recent edits, I don't find this to be the case. Do you care to explain yourself? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 03:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
:200 or 300 edits within a few hours, no one can understand all that comics at this time range. I just did criticized two or three edits he did, but an edit to former content without any understandable explain I can't except. And than he reverts my criticism, that's all.

:I'm not a spam hunter here, but I like CLEAR and SHORT (meaning, people will be able read) explains here. Look at [[1256: Questions]], just an other hell (nobody will ever read all that masturbation orgasms writers must have - sorry, put this into the sex category.)--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

::One add: Understand sarcasm, xkcd, romance, math, and language. Randall did publish many sarcastic comics, I just do like to point this out.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

== Language and writing style ==
Please, please stop reverting and calling editors out on language and writing style. It is not your strong point. Focus on content. When we start work on our german translations, you can go jabbing editors in their talk pages over writing too much. Here, you're only reverting and deterring valuable edits. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:You know I'm not native American, many viewers are too. American English is still strange sometimes, but you are right: It's not my "strong point". But nevertheless, I always did focus on content in the past, and I will do this in the future. I was just acting on mass updates nobody can review.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

== PyCon ==

The post saying that Randall was banned was a joke. There is no PyCon issue. See [[Talk:153: Cryptography]]. [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
:Sure it was joke, so maybe it should be explained, it belongs to this comic.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

== [[1270: Functional]] ==

Would you mind answering my actual concerns regarding [[1270]]? The things you answered are (in my eyes) very minor points, where I would not mind to compromise. However, currently the article does not explain what '''{{w|functional programming}}''' is at all! I wanted to change that which you mostly edited away. I am willing to make my explanations more understandable (preferably if you or anyone else has suggestions what is/might be unclear). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:Hi, I don't like edit wars. I just did try to simplify the explain for non programmer readers. And I think these facts should be mentioned:
:1. Functions return a value, unlike procedures do.
:2. Your wiki link says: "a style of building the structure and elements of computer programs, that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data." My sine(x) idea isn't bad according to this.
:3. The part "mutable data" means that each call of the function allocates its own memory, local variables are not viewable or changeable from the outside. Recursions just use this feature.
:4. Tail recursion just means that there is a clearly defined break at the end of the function. The most elegant code should be this (the else statement is removed, braces for a clear code):
factorial(n)
{
if n > 0
{
n * factorial(n-1)
}
return 1
}
:5. The wikipedia pages are a little bit confusing and inaccurate (I would mark them incomplete). But even the first reference at {{w|functional programming}} to this [http://www.dbnet.ece.ntua.gr/~adamo/languages/books/p359-hudak.pdf PDF] is interesting. It's saying (Chapter 4): "Myth 1, that functional programming is the antithesis of conventional imperative programming,...".
:This programming paradigm definitions are still confusing, but here Randall just mentions a recursion with a break at the tail. I think we have to focus on this first. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::I replaced your bullet points by numbers, so I can refer to them, I hope you don't mind.
::ad 1) I agree, but I don't know why you need to introduce the (imperative) concept of a procedure at all? (There is no such thing in functional programming)
::ad 2) Yes, sine is a function, also in the functional programming sense. It is not really a function one would implement using a functional language (although it is possible). Also this function is not referred to later, so I don't see any benefit from introducing it. How about using the factorial function as example for a function?
::ad 3) There is no such thing as a "variable" in functional programming. Variables are mutable data, and mutable data is avoided.
::ad 4) What I learned is that tail recursion means that the only recursive call happens at the tail of the function ("call" in imperative programming, or substitution in functional programming). Maybe I'm wrong and should study again, and also did not understand what {{w|tail recursion}} wants to say, but I doubt that.
::ad 5) I agree that it is not very easy to understand, but I don't see any inaccuracy in that article. About the reference: Yes, but that does not mean imperative and functional programming is essentially the same. The section continues and describes that functional programming carries on the evolution from low-level (e.g. Assembler, allowing just simple operations) over high-level (imperative) programming which allows expressions to functional programming which says there are '''only''' expressions. (If and why and when this is useful is another story -- though actually that is essentially what White Hats wants to know from Cueball)
::And w.r.t your last point: So you would prefer not to explain (or have someone explain) the parts which are confusing to you? Wasn't explaining that the whole idea of this wiki? --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I don't mind your edit but now I will reply in general. The most important paradigm is {{w|Structured programming|structured programming}} witch did lead to avoid statements like ''GOTO'', but this explain can not be a comprisal on computer since. It's just a small comic mentioning functional programming and tail recursion. But maybe we should try to enhance the English Wikipedia. ;) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Yes, the article you quoted also says (concluding the Myth 1-section) that functional programming goes further from avoiding [[goto]] to also avoiding assignments and control-flow structures. I'll mostly leave enhancing the English wikipedia to English native speakers, actually {{w|de:Funktionale Programmierung}} is not that badly written. (Sure it also gets complicated towards the end, but ''intuitive and clear'' does not equal ''easy'' ;) ) [[541|Damn you, Randall!]] --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::The German Wiki is often just a bad translation from English, lacking references. But this part is interesting: {{w|de:Funktionale_Programmierung#Abgrenzung_von_imperativer_Programmierung}} explains the difference of imperative and functional implementations. My example above is functional, NOT imperative, and also includes the the ''tail'' part. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::Ok, you are right, that it is '''also''' functional (at least when written using if ''and'' else and ignoring the syntactic noise of the ''return'' (without the else part, I would consider that control flow: The second return is called ''after'' the if statement)). '''Only''' functional I would call the formula which comes before the implementation (in the de:wiki article), but the implementation is also a valid imperative function.
::::::I still don't agree that this is tail recursive (I think our definitions of tail-recursion don't match so far). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-30T22:41:52Z

Chtz:

Am i the only one considering this can be presented also in opposition to Object Oriented Programming, where tail recursion is very difficult to achieve at execution time, and impossible to achieve at compilation time, due to the possibility of method overloading?[[Special:Contributions/193.190.231.132|193.190.231.132]] 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall, because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think Hask'''e'''ll is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

:Being a mathematician, I can't agree. Even though I would consider myself more an applied mathematician, I find the basic concepts of abstract mathematics quite clear and intuitive (at least to a level which is required to understand functional programming). I do agree that there are many areas of abstract mathematics neither intuitive nor clear ''to me'', but I am quite sure for people working in these areas this is not the case. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::A standard calculator works in degrees and so sine(90°) is exactly 1, while when using {{w|Radian|radians}} sine(pi/2)=1 is correct. But this doesn't matter, it always describes how to invoke a function and get the result.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::However, I don't know any programming languages that use degree instead of radians by default. But that was indeed not my point: The point is that sine is an example of a ''function'' (independent of the programming paradigm used) and not a good example of '''{{w|functional programming}}'''. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 11:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

;There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, I am a real programmer. And so I try to explain the "recursive" issue to NON specialists. We should EXPLAIN but not ENHANCE the comic. My two cents...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, then the question remains if it is not more important to explain functional programming first? Currently, the second paragraph explains the difference between a function and a procedure in imperative programming and then mostly explains recursion for imperative programming (which I doubt will help understanding the comic -- how is it relevant if and where memory is allocated?). In the next paragraph I originally tried to describe how functional programming is different from imperative programming (after some editing there is not much left of it at the moment, it currently again describes more what imperative programming is). I assume there are more people who know recursion but have no idea of functional programming than the other way around. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "which should not work because the return statement is missing" is relevent. In a given language, functions may only return values when a "return" is given (and ''immediately'' that one is given, ending all processing), otherwise giving "undefined", or "void" or the equivalent default state for an explicitly stated return-type. But in others they (in the absence of anything else, like an explicitly terminating "return" well within its own code) will use the bare evaluation of the very last statement within it as the return-value of that function/sub/procedure, if in tested at all by the calling-block (although it's prefereble to "return variable" at the end rather than just put "variable" as the last statement, for readability purposes, especially when it isn't "variable" but something that looks like (or is!) an evaulation/function call in its own right). The above being pseudocode (or "composite relatively common dialect code" not far off various common languages), surely the ''readability'' is the big concern, not the fact that (in certain languages, but not others) should not work. (Basically, have I just spent a paragaph saying "don't add that above statement, just put a 'return' into the pseudocode and everyone should be happy"? Yes. Yes, I believe I might have. Still.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 15:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:This [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] is a valid functional definition of the factorial function. There are no ''statements'' in pure functional programming, especially no return statements. (There are ways to simulate them, but that's beyond this conversation). If everyone thinks that we shall just explain recursion and tail-recursion and avoid talking about functional programming, go ahead and revert it back to before my first attempt to describe functional programming. I agree that functional programming can be hard to get at first, especially to programmers used to imperative programming, but I do think it is worth to know about it. If it is just the brace-less syntax that is confusing, we can use this [http://ideone.com/NYKQeb] alternative (very uncommon in Haskell, but I agree that it's more important to make the code easy to understand). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::Lest I have made myself unclear (and you're replying to me), I'm happy with the code as is. The 'statement' I mentioned, above, was regarding the added explanatory text (not yours) not any code-statement. The other pseudocodes had "return"s in them, however, so for an argument of readability it might be useful to make that "prod" "return prod", although I (especially as a bit of a Perl fanatic) don't mind either way. I can deal with braces substituted by idents, in pseudocode, much as I can read either XML or YAML encoded data, fairly easily. ;) However, we've got quite a technical discussion going which (unlike code, even deliberately obfuscated Perl!) is not so easily untangled into who is replying to which bit and what they are trying to say (and why). Maybe we should switch to Lojban! [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::There is no agreement yet, if and when we should introduce/''explain'' the concept of functional programming. At the moment the transition is very abrupt, partly because someone changed my first functional example to imperative code. The tail recursive example is at this very moment exactly the same as [http://ideone.com/OrCUMp this valid functional code (written in Haskell)]. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I agree, this is still chaos! Please explain "An imperative, recursive (but not tail-recursive) implementation can look like this:", I disagree and there is still no prove helping me or other people to understand. And beside: My first recursive program was to solve a one player game, written in {{w|Turbo Pascal}} in the middle of the eighties of the last century. And it was ''fast'' even at that time. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::I guess you mostly disagree on the non tail-recursiveness? Basically, this can be seen as the recursion can't be replaced by a simple replacement of the return statement with another function call, because after the call another operation (the multiplication by n) needs to be performed before the value can be returned. My original attempt on this article was to switch to functional programming at this point, since it does not make much sense to implement such a simple function recursively in an imperative language (admittedly, the transition to functional programming was way to abrupt). When implementing a function which searches inside a tree it often/usually makes sense to implement it recursively even in imperative languages and with some tricks you can also make this comparatively fast (I assume that was the point of your last two sentences?). To come back to 178.98... My intention was to structure the explanation approximately as follows:
:::::1) Describe the difference between functional and imperative programming (assuming that most readers know what imperative programming is -- if we can't assume that, where shall we start?)
:::::2) Give an example of a simple imperative function (e.g. the factorial function) written with typical imperative constructs (loops, assignments)
:::::3) As this is not possible in functional programming introduce the concept of recursion and define the function recursively (this step was clearly to fast)
:::::4) Explain the benefit of tail-recursion and give an tail-recursive example of factorial (also in functional programming)
:::::5) '''Explain the actual joke!'''
:::::6) Explain remaining parts (title text, ...) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Dgbrt

2013-09-30T21:37:07Z

Chtz: /* 1270: Functional */

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-30T21:07:36Z

Chtz:

Am i the only one considering this can be presented also in opposition to Object Oriented Programming, where tail recursion is very difficult to achieve at execution time, and impossible to achieve at compilation time, due to the possibility of method overloading?[[Special:Contributions/193.190.231.132|193.190.231.132]] 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall, because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think Hask'''e'''ll is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

:Being a mathematician, I can't agree. Even though I would consider myself more an applied mathematician, I find the basic concepts of abstract mathematics quite clear and intuitive (at least to a level which is required to understand functional programming). I do agree that there are many areas of abstract mathematics neither intuitive nor clear ''to me'', but I am quite sure for people working in these areas this is not the case. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::A standard calculator works in degrees and so sine(90°) is exactly 1, while when using {{w|Radian|radians}} sine(pi/2)=1 is correct. But this doesn't matter, it always describes how to invoke a function and get the result.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::However, I don't know any programming languages that use degree instead of radians by default. But that was indeed not my point: The point is that sine is an example of a ''function'' (independent of the programming paradigm used) and not a good example of '''{{w|functional programming}}'''. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 11:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

;There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, I am a real programmer. And so I try to explain the "recursive" issue to NON specialists. We should EXPLAIN but not ENHANCE the comic. My two cents...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, then the question remains if it is not more important to explain functional programming first? Currently, the second paragraph explains the difference between a function and a procedure in imperative programming and then mostly explains recursion for imperative programming (which I doubt will help understanding the comic -- how is it relevant if and where memory is allocated?). In the next paragraph I originally tried to describe how functional programming is different from imperative programming (after some editing there is not much left of it at the moment, it currently again describes more what imperative programming is). I assume there are more people who know recursion but have no idea of functional programming than the other way around. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "which should not work because the return statement is missing" is relevent. In a given language, functions may only return values when a "return" is given (and ''immediately'' that one is given, ending all processing), otherwise giving "undefined", or "void" or the equivalent default state for an explicitly stated return-type. But in others they (in the absence of anything else, like an explicitly terminating "return" well within its own code) will use the bare evaluation of the very last statement within it as the return-value of that function/sub/procedure, if in tested at all by the calling-block (although it's prefereble to "return variable" at the end rather than just put "variable" as the last statement, for readability purposes, especially when it isn't "variable" but something that looks like (or is!) an evaulation/function call in its own right). The above being pseudocode (or "composite relatively common dialect code" not far off various common languages), surely the ''readability'' is the big concern, not the fact that (in certain languages, but not others) should not work. (Basically, have I just spent a paragaph saying "don't add that above statement, just put a 'return' into the pseudocode and everyone should be happy"? Yes. Yes, I believe I might have. Still.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 15:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:This [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] is a valid functional definition of the factorial function. There are no ''statements'' in pure functional programming, especially no return statements. (There are ways to simulate them, but that's beyond this conversation). If everyone thinks that we shall just explain recursion and tail-recursion and avoid talking about functional programming, go ahead and revert it back to before my first attempt to describe functional programming. I agree that functional programming can be hard to get at first, especially to programmers used to imperative programming, but I do think it is worth to know about it. If it is just the brace-less syntax that is confusing, we can use this [http://ideone.com/NYKQeb] alternative (very uncommon in Haskell, but I agree that it's more important to make the code easy to understand). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::Lest I have made myself unclear (and you're replying to me), I'm happy with the code as is. The 'statement' I mentioned, above, was regarding the added explanatory text (not yours) not any code-statement. The other pseudocodes had "return"s in them, however, so for an argument of readability it might be useful to make that "prod" "return prod", although I (especially as a bit of a Perl fanatic) don't mind either way. I can deal with braces substituted by idents, in pseudocode, much as I can read either XML or YAML encoded data, fairly easily. ;) However, we've got quite a technical discussion going which (unlike code, even deliberately obfuscated Perl!) is not so easily untangled into who is replying to which bit and what they are trying to say (and why). Maybe we should switch to Lojban! [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 20:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::There is no agreement yet, if and when we should introduce/''explain'' the concept of functional programming. At the moment the transition is very abrupt, partly because someone changed my first functional example to imperative code. The tail recursive example is at this very moment exactly the same as [http://ideone.com/OrCUMp this valid functional code (written in Haskell)]. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

1270: Functional

2013-09-30T20:59:33Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ removed or corrected plainly wrong parts, added some inside comments. The article is still far from understandable at the moment

{{comic
| number = 1270
| date = September 26, 2013
| title = Functional
| image = functional.png
| titletext = Functional programming combines the flexibility and power of abstract mathematics with the intuitive clarity of abstract mathematics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|1270: Functional}}


[[White Hat]] questions [[Cueball]]'s faith in {{w|functional programming}}. [[Cueball]] responds saying, "Tail recursion is its own reward."

Functional programming is a famous method in modern programs. Unlike {{w|Procedural programming|procedures}} they always return a value, like {{w|Sine|sine(x)}} returns 1 when x is 90°. Furthermore the function even can call itself, starting a loop. This is called {{w|Recursion (computer science)|recursion}}, each call does allocate its own memory ({{w|Call stack|stack}}), and works independently to the other calls.

The main difference between functional programming and {{w|imperative programming}} is that in imperative programmings the functions do have a {{w|control flow}} and local variables. In order to {{w|Iteration|iterate}} they usually use {{w|Loop (programming)|loops}}.

For example, the {{w|factorial}} function can be coded imperatively as:

factorial(n):
prod = 1
while n > 0:
prod = prod * n
n = n - 1
end
return prod

An imperative, recursive (but not tail-recursive) implementation can look like this:

factorial(n)
{
if n > 0
{
return n * factorial(n-1)
}
return 1
}

In this situation, the recursion stops when the argument (n) is not greater than zero. Without the conditional definition it would be an infinite loop. The {{w|Tail recursion}} is a special case of recursion whose very '''last''' operation is to invoke the function itself or return a definite value.

This (functional) example is tail recursive inside the helper function:


factorial(n) = factorial_helper(n, 1)

factorial_helper(n, prod) =
if n > 0 then
factorial_helper(n - 1, prod * n)
else
prod

In functional programming tail recursion is detected by the compiler or interpreter and can be executed as efficient as loops in imperative programming languages. This makes tail recursion an essential programming technique in functional programming.

Cueball is making a play on words where "Tail recursion is its own reward" is used both in the "it's worth doing on elegance and intellectually satisfying grounds alone" sense and in the sense that "the 'tail call' of a function is its final step, and is the final step (and hence the result/reward) for all levels of a tail-recursive function".

The title text says that to {{w|Abstract mathematics|abstract mathematicians}} functional programming is both powerful and flexible, as well as intuitive and clear since it comes very close to the way mathematicians usually describe functions. The humorous contrast is that to non-mathematicians, functional programming can be exactly the opposite (thus being non-intuitive and unclear as abstract mathematics appears to them). And it's also a reference to a common saying about the imperative programming language, 'C': "C combines the flexibility and power of {{w|assembly language}} with the user-friendliness of assembly language".

==Transcript==
:[White Hat stands behind Cueball, who is sitting at a computer]
:White Hat: Why do you like functional programming so much? What does it actually ''get'' you?
:Cueball: Tail recursion is its own reward.

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

User talk:Dgbrt

2013-09-30T20:44:09Z

Chtz: /* 1270: Functional */

User talk:Dgbrt

2013-09-30T16:11:07Z

Chtz: /* 1270: Functional */ new section

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-30T15:52:31Z

Chtz:

Am i the only one considering this can be presented also in opposition to Object Oriented Programming, where tail recursion is very difficult to achieve at execution time, and impossible to achieve at compilation time, due to the possibility of method overloading?[[Special:Contributions/193.190.231.132|193.190.231.132]] 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall, because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think Hask'''e'''ll is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

:Being a mathematician, I can't agree. Even though I would consider myself more an applied mathematician, I find the basic concepts of abstract mathematics quite clear and intuitive (at least to a level which is required to understand functional programming). I do agree that there are many areas of abstract mathematics neither intuitive nor clear ''to me'', but I am quite sure for people working in these areas this is not the case. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::A standard calculator works in degrees and so sine(90°) is exactly 1, while when using {{w|Radian|radians}} sine(pi/2)=1 is correct. But this doesn't matter, it always describes how to invoke a function and get the result.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::However, I don't know any programming languages that use degree instead of radians by default. But that was indeed not my point: The point is that sine is an example of a ''function'' (independent of the programming paradigm used) and not a good example of '''{{w|functional programming}}'''. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 11:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

;There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, I am a real programmer. And so I try to explain the "recursive" issue to NON specialists. We should EXPLAIN but not ENHANCE the comic. My two cents...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, then the question remains if it is not more important to explain functional programming first? Currently, the second paragraph explains the difference between a function and a procedure in imperative programming and then mostly explains recursion for imperative programming (which I doubt will help understanding the comic -- how is it relevant if and where memory is allocated?). In the next paragraph I originally tried to describe how functional programming is different from imperative programming (after some editing there is not much left of it at the moment, it currently again describes more what imperative programming is). I assume there are more people who know recursion but have no idea of functional programming than the other way around. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "which should not work because the return statement is missing" is relevent. In a given language, functions may only return values when a "return" is given (and ''immediately'' that one is given, ending all processing), otherwise giving "undefined", or "void" or the equivalent default state for an explicitly stated return-type. But in others they (in the absence of anything else, like an explicitly terminating "return" well within its own code) will use the bare evaluation of the very last statement within it as the return-value of that function/sub/procedure, if in tested at all by the calling-block (although it's prefereble to "return variable" at the end rather than just put "variable" as the last statement, for readability purposes, especially when it isn't "variable" but something that looks like (or is!) an evaulation/function call in its own right). The above being pseudocode (or "composite relatively common dialect code" not far off various common languages), surely the ''readability'' is the big concern, not the fact that (in certain languages, but not others) should not work. (Basically, have I just spent a paragaph saying "don't add that above statement, just put a 'return' into the pseudocode and everyone should be happy"? Yes. Yes, I believe I might have. Still.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 15:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:This [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] is a valid functional definition of the factorial function. There are no ''statements'' in pure functional programming, especially no return statements. (There are ways to simulate them, but that's beyond this conversation). If everyone thinks that we shall just explain recursion and tail-recursion and avoid talking about functional programming, go ahead and revert it back to before my first attempt to describe functional programming. I agree that functional programming can be hard to get at first, especially to programmers used to imperative programming, but I do think it is worth to know about it. If it is just the brace-less syntax that is confusing, we can use this [http://ideone.com/NYKQeb] alternative (very uncommon in Haskell, but I agree that it's more important to make the code easy to understand). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:936: Password Strength

2013-09-30T13:53:42Z

Chtz:

You still have to vary the words with a bit of capitalization, punctuation and numbers a bit, or hackers can just run a dictionary attack against your string of four words. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No you don't. Hackers cannot run a dictionary attack against a string of four randomly picked words.
Look at the number of bits displayed in the image: 11 bits for each word.
That means he's assuming a dictionary of 2048 words, from which each word is picked randomly.
The assumption is that the cracker knows your password scheme.
[[Special:Contributions/86.81.151.19|86.81.151.19]] 20:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Willem

Sometimes this is not possible. (I'm looking at you, local banks with 8-12 character passwords and PayPal) If I can, I use a full sentence. A compound sentence for the important stuff. This adds the capitalization, punctuation and possibly the use of numbers while it's even easier to remember then Randall's scheme. I think it might help against the keyloggers too, if your browser/application autofills the username filed, because you password doesn't stand out from the feed with being gibberish. [[Special:Contributions/195.56.58.169|195.56.58.169]] 09:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The basic concept can be adapted to limited-length passwords easily enough: memorize a phrase and use the first letter of each word. It'll require about a dozen words (you're only getting 4.7 bits per letter at best, actually less because first letters of words are not truly random, though they are weakly if at all correlated with their neighbors -- based on the frequencies of first letters of words in English, and assuming no correlation between each first letter and the next, I calculate about 4 bits per character of Shannon entropy). SteveMB 18:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Followup: The results of extracting the first letters of words in sample texts (the {{w|Project_Gutenberg|Project Gutenberg}} texts of ''The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'', ''The War of the Worlds'', and ''Little Fuzzy'') and applying a {{w|Entropy_(information_theory)|Shannon entropy calculation}} were 4.07 bits per letter (i.e. first letter in word) and 8.08 bits per digraph (i.e. first letters in two consecutive words). These results suggest that first-letter-of-phrase passwords have approximately 4 bits per letter of entropy. --[[User:SteveMB|SteveMB]] ([[User talk:SteveMB|talk]]) 14:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: The above test was case-insensitive (all letters converted to lowercase before feeding them to the [[http://millikeys.sourceforge.net/freqanalysis.html frequency counter]]). Thus, true-random use of uppercase and lowercase would have 5 bits per letter of entropy, and any variation in case (e.g. preserving the case of the original first letter) would fall between 4 and 5 bits per letter. --[[User:SteveMB|SteveMB]] ([[User talk:SteveMB|talk]]) 14:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just have RANDOM.ORG print me ten pages of 8-character passwords and tape it to the wall, then highlight some of them and use others (say two down and to the right or similar) for my passwords, maybe a given line a line a little jumbled for more security. [[Special:Contributions/70.24.167.3|70.24.167.3]] 13:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:Remind me to visit your office and secretly replace your wall-lists by a list of very similar looking strings ;) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 13:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-30T11:14:56Z

Chtz:

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall, because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think Hask'''e'''ll is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

:Being a mathematician, I can't agree. Even though I would consider myself more an applied mathematician, I find the basic concepts of abstract mathematics quite clear and intuitive (at least to a level which is required to understand functional programming). I do agree that there are many areas of abstract mathematics neither intuitive nor clear ''to me'', but I am quite sure for people working in these areas this is not the case. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::A standard calculator works in degrees and so sine(90°) is exactly 1, while when using {{w|Radian|radians}} sine(pi/2)=1 is correct. But this doesn't matter, it always describes how to invoke a function and get the result.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::However, I don't know any programming languages that use degree instead of radians by default. But that was indeed not my point: The point is that sine is an example of a ''function'' (independent of the programming paradigm used) and not a good example of '''{{w|functional programming}}'''. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 11:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

;There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, I am a real programmer. And so I try to explain the "recursive" issue to NON specialists. We should EXPLAIN but not ENHANCE the comic. My two cents...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, then the question remains if it is not more important to explain functional programming first? Currently, the second paragraph explains the difference between a function and a procedure in imperative programming and then mostly explains recursion for imperative programming (which I doubt will help understanding the comic -- how is it relevant if and where memory is allocated?). In the next paragraph I originally tried to describe how functional programming is different from imperative programming (after some editing there is not much left of it at the moment, it currently again describes more what imperative programming is). I assume there are more people who know recursion but have no idea of functional programming than the other way around. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1271: Highlighting

2013-09-30T08:35:05Z

Chtz:

Personally, I dislike it when the highlighted area includes either the beginning indent/tab or the ending indent/tab, so according to my standards, I'm satisfied with the highlighting in paragraphs 1-3, but not with 4-6. Saibot84 04:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:There is nothing marked in paragraph 6, is there? --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 07:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why does he spell highlight like "hilight"? [[Special:Contributions/62.209.198.2|62.209.198.2]] 06:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:Good question. Wiktionary allows {{Wiktionary|hilite}} as ''informal'', but says that {{Wiktionary|hilight}} is a "common misspelling". --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 07:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm so used to doing this that I know a few tricks and tiny strips of areas to click on in order to achieve symmetry in some tricky situations. [[Special:Contributions/131.215.169.224|131.215.169.224]] 07:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

: On some pages, I spent more time getting the highlights right than actually reading it --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 08:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The most frustrating thing when it comes to highlighting: willing to select text on a long line (such as source code with no word wrap) only to have the mouse cursor move out of line, sabotaging your selection and location in the text. When pages are wider than the visible area, it should not jump to the left side when there are empty lines above/below a long line and you drag the selection up/down, instead, it should scroll left only as you drag the selection to the left. [[Special:Contributions/213.163.40.100|213.163.40.100]] 08:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:If you have source code extensively above your horizontal screen size, you either have a very small screen or you should rethink your coding style. ;) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1271: Highlighting

2013-09-30T07:07:56Z

Chtz:

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-29T21:06:25Z

Chtz: /* Title text */

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall, because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think Hask'''e'''ll is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

:Being a mathematician, I can't agree. Even though I would consider myself more an applied mathematician, I find the basic concepts of abstract mathematics quite clear and intuitive (at least to a level which is required to understand functional programming). I do agree that there are many areas of abstract mathematics neither intuitive nor clear ''to me'', but I am quite sure for people working in these areas this is not the case. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

== There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming ==

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, I am a real programmer. And so I try to explain the "recursive" issue to NON specialists. We should EXPLAIN but not ENHANCE the comic. My two cents...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, then the question remains if it is not more important to explain functional programming first? Currently, the second paragraph explains the difference between a function and a procedure in imperative programming and then mostly explains recursion for imperative programming (which I doubt will help understanding the comic -- how is it relevant if and where memory is allocated?). In the next paragraph I originally tried to describe how functional programming is different from imperative programming (after some editing there is not much left of it at the moment, it currently again describes more what imperative programming is). I assume there are more people who know recursion but have no idea of functional programming than the other way around. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-29T20:58:58Z

Chtz: /* There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming */

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall, because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think Hask'''e'''ll is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

== There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming ==

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, I am a real programmer. And so I try to explain the "recursive" issue to NON specialists. We should EXPLAIN but not ENHANCE the comic. My two cents...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, then the question remains if it is not more important to explain functional programming first? Currently, the second paragraph explains the difference between a function and a procedure in imperative programming and then mostly explains recursion for imperative programming (which I doubt will help understanding the comic -- how is it relevant if and where memory is allocated?). In the next paragraph I originally tried to describe how functional programming is different from imperative programming (after some editing there is not much left of it at the moment, it currently again describes more what imperative programming is). I assume there are more people who know recursion but have no idea of functional programming than the other way around. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-29T20:23:49Z

Chtz:

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall, because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think Hask'''e'''ll is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if sine(x) is any good example at all. It is a function, but as I tried to explain below, that does not make it relate to functional programming. And I would say that sine(pi/2)=1 and sine(90) is approximately 0.894. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

== There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming ==

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-29T20:15:58Z

Chtz: /* There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming */ new section

I'm getting the adblock message at the top.. on mobile. On an unrelated note, I laughed and I don't even get it. Edit: I'm also seeing an ad while seeing the message.[[Special:Contributions/50.159.5.112|50.159.5.112]] 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:This shouldn't be in comic discussion. I have written an updated version of our ad plugin that should only display a message to people using adblock, but we're using a sitenotice for now to test the waters. We'll take it down in about a day, promise!
:Also, would you be complicit if I were to move this to the relevant forum? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed that misguided explanation about lists that was not tail recursive. I'm also wondering if we should also mention that tail call optimization is also applicable to mutually recursive functions. In fact proper functional languages will always apply it whether the functions are recursive or not. Maybe emphasize the fact that "The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion."?

I feel like the examples should be in Haskall, because that is the major functional language... [[Special:Contributions/67.160.98.42|67.160.98.42]] 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) GBGamer117
:I think Hask'''e'''ll is more common, but I agree. And to emphasize the clarity, usually if/else blocks are avoided using pattern matching. I.e. tail-recursive factorial can be written as follows:
fac2::Integer->Integer-> Integer -- optional function header
fac2 acc 0 = acc
fac2 acc n = fac2 (acc*n) (n-1)

fac::Integer-> Integer
fac = fac2 1
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Addendum: I did not dare to edit that yet, as I am unsure if this actually helps anyone not familiar with functional programming (and I don't think this page should include a Haskell crash course just to explain this comic). --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 10:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I think the pseudo-code examples currently in the explanation are easy enough to understand regardless of which programming languages one works in, but the [I'm assuming] Haskell example here in the comments makes no sense to me. Saibot84 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Even though they are as clear and intuitive as abstract mathematics ... We could write it in a pseudo-functional language like this:
fac2(acc,0):=acc;
fac2(acc,n):=fac2(acc*n,n-1)
fac(n):= fac2(1,n)
::::The main point of the functional programming paradigm is not that all functions return values (as currently stated in the explanation) but that functions don't have side-effects and don't have an internal state (i.e. they can have parameters, but they don't have variables). This makes recursion the only way to implement things which are usually implemented using loops in procedural languages. Tail-recursion has the benefit that it can be optimized very easily. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the text a little and don't the the interpretation "tail recursion is an end unto itself" is correct. I think what's going on is a pun of the word "reward". "Tail recursion is it's own reword" makes more sense since you are calling the same function but are "rewording" the arguements. To reword means to re-express something with different words. --[[Special:Contributions/24.187.72.209|24.187.72.209]] 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would you start a wall of text with TL;DR? Doesn't that belong at the end, followed by a very short synopsis? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. To start with, it needs a definition of "functional programming". Also, a single example of recursion should be plenty: this isn't a programmer's textbook. I really, really don't understand the reward/reword "pun" (if it is such a thing); is the "reword" version really in current use in functional programming circles? If it is, you need to highlight the o vs. a difference (bold and underline) to make it pop out - it took me four readings to notice it. Unfortunately, I don't understand these topics enough to even begin to edit the explanation. (Smperron is right: TL;DR belongs at the end, not the beginning, and it really can't be followed by a wall of text like this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.36.128.166|108.36.128.166]] 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"tail recursion is its own reword" - The only instance of this on Google is this page. Searching for tail recursion reword on Google also yields no results on the first page that agree with the proposed usage in functional programming circles. I think the pun explanation should be taken out, as it's clearly wrong. -- [[Special:Contributions/67.170.217.103|67.170.217.103]] 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the pun line this morning, and worked out what was niggling me earlier this evening, so I changed it to point out that the 'tail call' of a 'tail recursive' function is the end for *all* the invocations. That seems punnier to me. [[User:SleekWeasel|SleekWeasel]] ([[User talk:SleekWeasel|talk]]) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So.... can someone explain why the recursion code examples are written in Python? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:Why not? While python [http://neopythonic.blogspot.ch/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimination.html doesn't eliminate tail recursions] (i.e., it lacks the optimization mentioned in the explanation) it is well suited to illustrate the idiom/pattern. Even though there's little reason to use the pattern in python, one can show how it'd look like.
:In my experience, simple python code can easily be read (often correctly!) by programmers not knowing that language, which cannot be said about many functional languages. Therefore I tend to say that "python is executable pseudo-code", which makes it perfect for explanatory examples. (Unlike actual pseudo-code, it has well-defined semantics, but like pseudo-code, it's mostly readable for programmers not knowing its exact syntax.) --[[User:Das-g|Das-g]] ([[User talk:Das-g|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::I changed the functional examples to functional pseudo code. In imperative programming languages it rarely makes sense to write tail recursive functions using recursion instead of a loop. (Sure, there are cases, but factorial is not one of them) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

;Title text

The title-text explanation is not quite right in my opinion. The joke is that abstract mathematics is not intuitive or clear to *anyone*, including mathematicians. Functional programming borrows many concepts from higher-level mathematics, so understanding the concepts behind functional programming often requires an abstract mathematical mind.

In other words, the title-text explanation is wrong because it claims that a contrast is being drawn between mathematicians and non-mathematicians. This is not the case (at least by my interpretation).

[[Special:Contributions/27.32.32.199|27.32.32.199]] 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

;sinus(X)?

In English math, it's sin(x) as an abbreviation for sine of x -- is sinus something specific to programming, or is it just a typo? {{unsigned ip|50.23.115.122}}
:I'm not native English, but sine or just sin in programming is correct. Thanks for your help.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

== There is a difference between functional programming and using functions in imperative programming ==

@Dgbrt: I'm not reverting your last rewriting, since I'm fearing it will lead to an edit war. I don't doubt that you are a real programmer, but I somehow doubt that you have experience with functional programming (like e.g. Haskell, Lisp, ...).
As I tried to explain, functions in functional programming don't have a state and therefore they don't have statements (especially no return statement). They simply describe functions in a mathematical sense, i.e. they have input parameters and result in a value. (They don't ''return'' that value, they just have that value).
The if-else construct I was using was supposed to describe a case distinction, similar as a mathematician would describe the abs function: <math> |x| = \begin{cases} x & x>0 \\ -x & \text{else}\end{cases}</math>.

Actually, a functional programmer would avoid such if-else constructs and write (for the non-tail-recursive variant)
factorial 0 = 1
factorial n = n * factorial (n-1)
And the interpreter/compiler will automatically find the most specialized case of the definition which can be matched to the input arguments: [http://ideone.com/1ZWZ9T]

Here is a demonstration how a valid Haskell program with tail-recursion and the if-else construct would look like: [http://ideone.com/VvqYSI] and this is how it (usually) would be written with pattern matching: [http://ideone.com/hj4VfO]
--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-28T23:42:14Z

Chtz:

1270: Functional

2013-09-28T23:29:35Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ (hopefully) improved the explanation.

{{comic
| number = 1270
| date = September 26, 2013
| title = Functional
| image = functional.png
| titletext = Functional programming combines the flexibility and power of abstract mathematics with the intuitive clarity of abstract mathematics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|1270: Functional}}

[[White Hat]] questions [[Cueball]]'s faith in {{w|functional programming}}. [[Cueball]] responds saying, "Tail recursion is its own reward."

The main difference between functional programming and {{w|imperative programming}} is that functional programming does not allow functions to have side-effects or to modify their internal state. Most importantly, this means functions have no {{w|control flow}} and do not have variables. In order to {{w|Iteration|iterate}} they usually use {{w|Recursion (computer science)|recursion}} instead of {{w|Loop (programming)|loops}}.

For example, the {{w|factorial}} function can be coded imperatively as:

factorial(n):
prod = 1
while n > 0:
prod = prod * n
n = n - 1
end
return prod

A recursive (and functional) definition can look like this:

factorial(n) =
if n > 0
n * factorial(n-1)
else
1

In this situation, the recursion stops when the argument (n) is not greater than zero. Without the conditional definition it would be an infinite loop.

The {{w|Tail recursion}} is a special case of recursion whose very '''last''' operation is to invoke the function itself or return a definite value. Therefore, the example above is not tail recursive, because the result of <tt>factorial(n-1)</tt> still needs to be multiplied by n.

This example is tail recursive inside the helper function:

factorial(n) = factorial_helper(n, 1)

factorial_helper(n, prod) =
if n > 0
factorial_helper(n - 1, prod * n)
else
prod

In functional programming tail recursion is detected by the compiler or interpreter and can be executed as efficient as loops in imperative programming languages. This makes tail recursion an essential programming technique in functional programming.

Cueball is making a play on words where "Tail recursion is its own reward" is used both in the "it's worth doing on elegance and intellectually satisfying grounds alone" sense and in the sense that "the 'tail call' of a function is its final step, and is the final step (and hence the result/reward) for all levels of a tail-recursive function".

The title text says that to {{w|Abstract mathematics|abstract mathematicians}} functional programming is both powerful and flexible, as well as intuitive and clear since it comes very close to the way mathematicians usually describe functions. The humorous contrast is that to non-mathematicians, functional programming can be exactly the opposite (thus being non-intuitive and unclear as abstract mathematics appears to them). And it's also a reference to a common saying about the imperative programming language, 'C': "C combines the flexibility and power of {{w|assembly language}} with the user-friendliness of assembly language".

==Transcript==
:[White Hat stands behind Cueball, who is sitting at a computer]
:White Hat: Why do you like functional programming so much? What does it actually ''get'' you?
:Cueball: Tail recursion is its own reward.

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

1270: Functional

2013-09-28T21:31:10Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ Trying to explain functional programming. I think the example still should look more functional to be useful.

{{comic
| number = 1270
| date = September 26, 2013
| title = Functional
| image = functional.png
| titletext = Functional programming combines the flexibility and power of abstract mathematics with the intuitive clarity of abstract mathematics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|1270: Functional}}

[[White Hat]] questions [[Cueball]]'s faith in {{w|functional programming}}. [[Cueball]] responds saying, "Tail recursion is its own reward."

The main difference between functional programming and {{w|imperative programming}} is that functional programming does not allow functions to have side-effects or to modify their internal state. Most importantly, this means functions can not have variables and to {{w|Iteration|iterate}} they usually use {{w|Recursion (computer science)|recursion}}.

For example, the {{w|factorial}} function can be coded as:

factorial(n):
if n > 0:
return n * factorial(n - 1)
end
return 1

The {{w|Tail recursion}} is a special case of recursion whose very '''last''' operation is to invoke the function itself or return a definite value. In this situation, the recursion stops when the argument (n) is not greater than zero. Without the last line it would be an infinite loop.

Not all programming languages implement this optimisation for tail recursion - the compiler/interpreter writers may not have considered it worth expending the overhead of recognising the situation or saving the time and space involved in storing the status of each level of the recursion on the stack.

This example ''is'' tail recursive inside the helper function:

factorial(n):
return factorial_helper(n, 1)

factorial_helper(n, acc):
if n == 0:
return acc
else:
return factorial_helper(n - 1, n * acc)

which is transformed behind the scenes to

factorial_helper(n, acc):
if n == 0:
return acc
else:
(n, acc) := (n - 1, n * acc)
goto factorial_helper

The technique here is to use a helper function with an additional argument called an accumulator which will accumulate results from previous calls to the function, often used to implement tail recursive or iterative versions of recursive functions. This is not applicable for all recursive functions, though.

Cueball is making a play on words where "Tail recursion is its own reward" is used both in the "it's worth doing on elegance and intellectually satisfying grounds alone" sense and in the sense that "the 'tail call' of a function is its final step, and is the final step (and hence the result/reward) for all levels of a tail-recursive function".

The title text says that to {{w|Abstract mathematics|abstract mathematicians}} functional programming is both powerful and flexible, as well as intuitive and clear since it comes very close to the way mathematicians usually describe functions. The humorous contrast is that to non-mathematicians, functional programming can be exactly the opposite (thus being non-intuitive and unclear as abstract mathematics appears to them). And it's also a reference to a common saying about the {{w|Imperative programming|imperative programming}} language, 'C': "C combines the flexibility and power of assembly language with the user-friendliness of assembly language".

==Transcript==
:[White Hat stands behind Cueball, who is sitting at a computer]
:White Hat: Why do you like functional programming so much? What does it actually ''get'' you?
:Cueball: Tail recursion is its own reward.

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

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-28T21:18:12Z

Chtz:

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-27T10:43:01Z

Chtz:

Talk:1270: Functional

2013-09-27T10:34:59Z

Chtz:

1270: Functional

2013-09-27T09:16:14Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ Title text (feel free to improve)

{{comic
| number = 1270
| date = September 26, 2013
| title = Functional
| image = functional.png
| titletext = Functional programming combines the flexibility and power of abstract mathematics with the intuitive clarity of abstract mathematics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|if that's the recursion pun I think it is, Randall needs a caning.}}

'''TL;DR:''' After [[White Hat]] questions his faith in {{w|functional programming}}, [[Cueball]] says that "tail recursion is its own reward." This implies the equivalent sentence "tail recursion is an end unto itself," and that's where the pun lies. Tail recursion refers to when a function finishes by going back and calling itself, forming a loop. If you aren't groaning by now, read on.

Recursion refers to functions that invoke themselves at some point to perform a smaller part of their computation - except where the task at hand is simple enough not to require it.

For example, the {{w|factorial}} function has a recursive definition:

factorial(n) = 1 if n = 0
factorial(n) = n * factorial(n - 1) if n > 0

which can be coded as:

factorial(n):
if n == 0:
return 1
else:
return n * factorial(n - 1)

{{w|Tail recursion}} refers to a recursive function whose final operation is to invoke the function itself - crucially with no subsequent computation involved. This means that instead of pushing each level of recursion onto the stack, the compiler can simply arrange for the recursive call to jump to the start of the function with the new parameters - effectively turning a recursive call into an iterative loop, whilst retaining the simplicity of a recursive call.

The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion.

The {{w|greatest common divisor}} function can be coded as:

gcd(a, b):
if b == 0:
return a
else:
return gcd(b, a % b)

Here, the recursive call to gcd is tail recursive since its the last step of the function.

The first example is not tail recursive because the multiplication cannot be evaluated until after its right operand has been calculated. This next example performs its multiplication before the final step - the recursion - and is, thereby, tail recursive.

factorial2(n, acc):
if n == 0:
return acc
else:
return factorial2(n - 1, n * acc)

factorial(n):
return factorial2(n, 1)

The technique used here is to use a helper function with an additional argument called an accumulator which will accumulate results from previous calls to the function. It is often used to implement tail recursive or iterative versions of recursive functions. This is not applicable for all recursive functions, though.

Cueball is making the pun that "(functional programming) is an end unto itself", which would be both figuratively and literally correct.

The title text describes that to {{w|Abstract mathematics|abstract mathematicians}} functional programming is both powerful and flexible, as well as intuitive and clear since it comes very close to the way mathematicians usually describe functions. On the other hand to non-mathematicians, functional programming can be exactly the opposite (thus being non-intuitive and unclear as abstract mathematics appears to them).

==Transcript==
:[White Hat stands behind Cueball, who is sitting at a computer]
:White Hat: Why do you like functional programming so much? What does it actually ''get'' you?
:Cueball: Tail recursion is its own reward.

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

1270: Functional

2013-09-27T08:59:17Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ typo

{{comic
| number = 1270
| date = September 26, 2013
| title = Functional
| image = functional.png
| titletext = Functional programming combines the flexibility and power of abstract mathematics with the intuitive clarity of abstract mathematics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|if that's the recursion pun I think it is, Randall needs a caning.}}

'''TL;DR:''' After [[White Hat]] questions his faith in {{w|functional programming}}, [[Cueball]] says that "tail recursion is its own reward." This implies the equivalent sentence "tail recursion is an end unto itself," and that's where the pun lies. Tail recursion refers to when a function finishes by going back and calling itself, forming a loop. If you aren't groaning by now, read on.

Recursion refers to functions that invoke themselves at some point to perform a smaller part of their computation - except where the task at hand is simple enough not to require it.

For example, the {{w|factorial}} function has a recursive definition:

factorial(n) = 1 if n = 0
factorial(n) = n * factorial(n - 1) if n > 0

which can be coded as:

factorial(n):
if n == 0:
return 1
else:
return n * factorial(n - 1)

{{w|Tail recursion}} refers to a recursive function whose final operation is to invoke the function itself - crucially with no subsequent computation involved. This means that instead of pushing each level of recursion onto the stack, the compiler can simply arrange for the recursive call to jump to the start of the function with the new parameters - effectively turning a recursive call into an iterative loop, whilst retaining the simplicity of a recursive call.

The efficiency and elegance are the literal rewards of tail recursion.

The {{w|greatest common divisor}} function can be coded as:

gcd(a, b):
if b == 0:
return a
else:
return gcd(b, a % b)

Here, the recursive call to gcd is tail recursive since its the last step of the function.

The first example is not tail recursive because the multiplication cannot be evaluated until after its right operand has been calculated. This next example performs its multiplication before the final step - the recursion - and is, thereby, tail recursive.

factorial2(n, acc):
if n == 0:
return acc
else:
return factorial2(n - 1, n * acc)

factorial(n):
return factorial2(n, 1)

The technique used here is to use a helper function with an additional argument called an accumulator which will accumulate results from previous calls to the function. It is often used to implement tail recursive or iterative versions of recursive functions. This is not applicable for all recursive functions, though.

Cueball is making the pun that "(functional programming) is an end unto itself", which would be both figuratively and literally correct.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat stands behind Cueball, who is sitting at a computer]
:White Hat: Why do you like functional programming so much? What does it actually ''get'' you?
:Cueball: Tail recursion is its own reward.

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

explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals

2013-09-13T08:12:06Z

Chtz: /* Category: (Barred/banned from?) Conferences */

User talk:Davidy22

2013-07-25T13:13:19Z

Chtz: /* Outage from Friday to Saturday */

Hi Davidy22,

Just a quick thanks for helping roll back so much of the vandalism. Per your recent log comment, yes, there has been a recent spate of vandalism; before yesterday, it was the odd spammer that I've had to remove. But with the advent of ''Click and Drag'', there's also been an insurgence of ip-based vandalism. I'm hoping this is just a spike owing to the popularity of the comic, but I'm with you; if it doesn't die down, something more drastic is going to have to be done.

But again, thanks for helping...

-- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

== Please don't ==

Please don't create the redirects to explanations that haven't been created yet. It breaks the next and previous buttons, and gives people that are browsing through the explanations the false impression that the site is more complete than it is. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 06:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

:Ah, I'll stop then. Didn't know that. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 07:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

==Davidy22, the spam connoisseur==
Congratulations on transcending from being annoyed at all spam to recognizing the truly beautiful works of spammage from the rest of the cruddy heap. We should throw a party, lol. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
:Hey, it *was* a well written bit of spam. It was one of those copy/paste types of spam, except it was nicely formatted and coherent all the way through. It was informative too. A great change from the mindless template drivel or gibberish that we usually get. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 23:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

== Just asking ==
Was there a reason you deleted most of the List of all comics? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:What on- shi-
:I was adding comic number 1132, and the preview was really slow, so I copied everything in the edit box and refreshed the page. I think half of the page hadn't finished loading in the edit box, and I only copied the first half. Derp [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 08:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

::I figured it was something like that. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 04:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, it happened again. But SlashMe fixed it. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

:Mother of fracking- I'm going to figure out what's causing this and I'm going to fix this. Godammit. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 23:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

:Durr dee-durr, and now I've done it. Thanks for spotting that. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

== Ahem... You gonna finish that? ==

Have you taken a look at the front page recently (say within since you created the [[1134]] redirect)? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
:I have it open right now. Please don't ninja me again. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 05:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

::<nowiki>*Sits tight and twiddles thumbs*</nowiki> Actually, if you've got this I'll go back to the pitiful bit of literature I'm calling this year's NaNo. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

== The Anonymous editor of 1132 ==

Has been 50.0.38.245 all along. For a while he changed his signature to be a userpage that didn't exist, and wasn't a registered user. He has now changed it back to being the IP address again. Just thought I should do some out-of-band communication about that. If you want to change your last comment about the anonymous user, that would be good. (I almost offered to edit it for you, but then realized the subject we're talking about, and decided that if 50.0 ever learns about looking at the edit history and diffs, I don't need to be called a hypocrite as well as a banhammer wielding {{w|BOFH}}) [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 03:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

== Broken mirror... ==

Sorry for the "ninja"... I guess we probably don't need 2 versions of the image though... Feel free to distill the explain part...--[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 07:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
:Godammit, I even had the window open waiting for the article. The definitions can be merged into one paragraph, and wiki magic will explain how the comic works. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 07:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

== Fooooooooor He's a Jolly Good Fellow... ==

You are the man, man. Keep it up! [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 06:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

:Seconded. Great work, you deserved the milestone! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 12:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

== Please take a look ==

...at [[User talk:Lcarsos#Deletion|this]]. Nothing new to you, I suppose (spam fighting can be quite hard if we're overly cautious on every step), but I'm dropping the note just in case :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:52, 25 November 2012‎ (UTC)

== autoblocking suspicious users ==

Once again, it looks like auto-blocking users that have suspicious usernames would require someone with more power than we have.

However, I very nearly blocked those three when I noticed the account creation. But, I didn't because I thought they might be legitimate users with stupid usernames. But now I've read up on {{w|Wikipedia:New_admin_school/Blocking|Wikipedia's block policy}} and from now on I'll be posting {{tl|uw-blockindef}} (which I've bungled fantastically right now, but shortly should be working) which should allow the rare legitimate user (with bad taste in usernames) to reclaim their good account, but allow us to block bad people.

You're ever friendly, massive toddler of an admin, [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 03:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:I've also just found this page {{w|Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide}} which I will be reading very thoroughly and beginning to use this blacklist. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 04:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

::Hum. A great many of these templates could be condensed into a few bigger ones, but at least the documentation links are there for us to use. Also, you do know that Template:UserBox already exists, right? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 04:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, crud. You switched, I switched. I do like the one we had better, mostly because of the descriptive labels and the nice thick borders. The name's in convenient CamelCase too. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

::::As a general rule I loathe my shift key, using more keys to achieve the same goal is wasted time, and I could be called ruthless about wasted time. Saving a single keypress seems petty. But I had a CS professor point out that by specially crafting what you have to type (creating shortcuts) saving a keypress here and there can add up to saving several thousand keypresses every 8 hours, which over a long enough quantity of time can equal hours and days. That's my long winded explanation for why I like using {{tl|userbox}} instead of {{tl|UserBox}}.

::::Also, I like the wikipedia userboxen, it's more flexible. And that allows anyone who comes over from Wikipedia to know how to work userboxen here too. That's my case for it. I hope you agree because I don't want to have to push my shift key, but I'll take your input, and if we end up in a tie, we might ask Waldir to tie break for us, as he'd be a neutral third party. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 06:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::In CS, I learned that descriptive variable names and easy to recognize naming conventions can save heaps of debugging time. I personally like the CamelCase version better because it uses variable names like left-bg instead of id-c for the background color in the box on the left, which makes the template self-documenting and easier to grok for a new user who's just reading the source. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::: I was asked to comment. Here are my thoughts:
::::::* Regarding CamelCase, it is indeed a neat convention but we don't use it elsewhere on the wiki. In fact, MediaWiki itself, in its early versions, used to rely on CamelCase for linking, but moved to the free-form, space enabled link syntax, which is better in many cases. Not everything converts nicely into CamelCase. So while I appreciate the argument to use CamelCase as the template name, I think the regular case version fits the wiki better. Besides, redirects are cheap and work well, so if the CamelCase title redirects to the lowercase one, whoever wants to use the CamelCase version can still do so seamlessly. Not an issue, therefore.
::::::* I agree with Davidy22 on the parameter names. In fact, the code of the template can be arranged in a more readable form (using whitespace and indentation) so not only its uses can be deciphered, but the template itself too. Renaming parameters is a simple matter, especially for templates with not many uses as these are, which means there isn't a lot of replacements to perform.
:::::: In summary, I think the two templates should definitely be merged and the best features of each kept in the final version: the title being [[Template:userbox]] (with redirects from [[Template:UserBox]] and [[Template:Userbox]]), and the parameters using intuitive names as {{tl|UserBox}}.
:::::: --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 17:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::: Sounds good to me. The wikicode looks god-awful ugly though, who's up for cleaning that thing up? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::::: If you guys do the merge, I can clean it up afterwards :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 01:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

== separate section for title text ==

I agree that in the two instances you removed the section header for the title text, it wasn't justified, but in some cases it does make sense. See [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals#Subsection for title text explanation|here]]. Cheers, [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 15:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

== No more imagesize ==

I made a comment on [[Template Talk: comic#Imagesize]], essentially imagesize isn't necessary, and I've changed the {{tl|create}} template to not include it. So rejoice, and forget imagesize ever existed (until the bug gets fixed). [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 03:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
: Bah, what was that parameter good for anyways? Clicking on the image should take you to the XKCD site anyways. What user cares about the image pages that the template currently takes you to? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
:: That's an interesting point. It's technically doable. But I think there should be a way to access the comic images (granted, I'm not sure why exactly, but I'm not comfortable leaving them "orphans" —linkless— either) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 12:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
::: There's the list of all comics page, and we could make the titletext link to the image page or something. I dunno, any excuse to kill imagesize. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 12:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
:::: To clarify, linking the image directly to xkcd has nothing to do with killing imagesize. That, for what I understand, has already been done. Good point about the list of comics page. I'll wait for more comments before implementing the change in the image link target. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
::::: Imagesize isn't *quite* dead yet. There's still four or five comics that still use it. Permission to upload the thumbnail versions of those comics, as we do with the other large comics, and end that broken thing once and for all? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::: I don't like the idea of uploading smaller versions of images. We ought to be able to use mediawiki's own image scaling abilities as soon as we can do some [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Technical#We need more maintainers|testing in the wiki setup]] and make the image scaling issue go away. Apart from that, what exactly are the problems of imagesize, again? I haven't followed the discussions about it, sorry. Feel free to give me pointers to the appropriate places where the issues have been discussed. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 13:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

== Please move pages ==

I'm noticing that when someone creates a new page with the wrong title you're just copy/pasting the content onto the new page. Please don't do that. Please use the move page feature on the drop down of the page, that way we can keep the edit history for the page intact, and that way it doesn't look like you created these oddly poor quality pages. Thanks much. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:Righty ho. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

== Sorry ==

I have been working contra u by routinely adding a white line above the categories. I instantly raise white flag! And say good night! -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

== Trivia placement ==

Cheers mate! Please check the comment I made some time ago in the section you started, [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals#Section style and usage|"Section style and usage"]] on the Proposals community page. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with the trivia placement between explanation and transcript, why don't you say so, and explain why? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 14:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a section for discussion of this, so that we can come to some agreement: [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Proposals#Trivia and transcript]]. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
:Moved to [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Coordination#Trivia and transcript placement]] –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

== Jurassic Park category ==
Hi, you wrote you don't like how I created a new category for Jurassic Park. I thought it appropriate: there's a *lot* of references to Jurassic Park and/or velociraptors in the comics. And not all reference are to both... But what did you not like? Thanks for enlightening me! [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

:There's a lot of categories on this wiki. When adding categories to a page, it can get extremely difficult to make sure that you've gotten every category that applies to the comic. For regular editors, the amount that we have to remember when maintaining pages is already quite onerous; more categories hurt our dinky heads. If you're willing to steward that category, go ahead, but you'll have to remember to put in the explanation pages yourself when you find a comic that it applies to. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

:: OK. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 08:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

==[[220: Philosophy]]==

Actually, what happened was: This being my first new page edit, I copy-pasted the format from another page, and then edited all the information to fit the correct comic. Then I realized I'd forgotten to remove the date of the original page's comic, so I did so. *blushes* No trolling intended, just a newbie mistake. Is 2/7/07 the correct date for this comic? [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 11:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:Oooh. I thought you had gotten the date then removed it after seeing earlier rants concerning omitted dates. You can check a comic's date by clicking on the "All Comics" button in the sidebar on the left. All dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
::Yep. I see that now, and now that I know it's there, I create new pages straight from [[List of all comics]]. No offense taken. Thanks for the useful advice! [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 05:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

== Character names in transcripts ==

Ah, I see now that you've been cleaning up after me, adding character names to transcripts instead of "Man", "Woman", et cetera. Now realizing that's the wiki's standard, I'll endeavor to do that myself from now on. Thanks for your patience with the new guy. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 07:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

:It's k, just doing maintenance. You're really prolific, do you write all of those yourself or are you getting those explanations off the forums somehow? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

::I write them all myself. It's been some time since I've looked at the xkcd forums, actually. Sometimes I get a little help from Wikipedia when a particular detail escapes me. But you'll notice I don't make an attempt to explain the math ones. *laughs* [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 02:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

== My unexplained hobbies. ==

I just want to make sure that you are getting this, but I restored "My Unexplained Hobbies." You can now explain them. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 14:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
:Shweet. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suck at wiki stuff but am a real human - sorry for the confusion. {{unsigned|‎Schmammel}}
:No matter. Also, see the blue box above the talk page edit box for instruction on how to sign your posts. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 04:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

== About your new admin powers ==

Actually just the rollback hammer. I've learned this after being burned a few times.

Rollback will actually not revert just the one edit you are looking at, but will go back until it hits a revision that wasn't done by that user, so its useful for pure spam accounts, but if you're just undoing a single edit, you may still want to use the undo tool.

Also, once or twice I actually had it revert all the way back to the last patrolled edit, which meant it actually got rid of the edits of a few anonymous editors too.

Just a caution that with great power comes great responsibility.

--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 04:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:Oh damn, did I do that? Welp. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 04:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== Removed Level 2 headings from Discussion page ==

Hi, I noticed you removed the level 2 headings in the discussion of comic 1188. I'm guessing it's the application of some formatting rule established on this wiki, so I'm curious where I can find a list of these standards that I should adhere to, so I don't make such a mistake again in the future. [[User:Jfresen|Jfresen]] ([[User talk:Jfresen|talk]]) 15:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:It's not really a formatting convention, more of a workaround to technical limitations of the wiki. The way discussion pages are embedded into comic pages, headings in talk pages cause breakages when tables of contents are spawned. It's ugly and bad and it's the reason why we delete discussion page headers. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 15:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

== Captcha help ==

:''This thread was moved to [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Admin requests#Captcha help]].''

== RE: Signature ==

Sweet, thanks David. {{User:Omega/sig}} 14:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

== Time is hard... ==

... and not only that, she also is, just like her sister Gravity, a heartless b**** :D
Thanks for taking care! :) [[User:Caranhyas|Caranhyas]] ([[User talk:Caranhyas|talk]]) 09:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

== Feedback ==

Hey David. It's nice that you're so responsive to requests such as those at [[Mediawiki talk:Sitenotice]] (or [[explain_xkcd:Community portal/Admin requests#Captcha help|this one]]), but please take also a moment to report the request as completed, as that not only provides feedback to the requester, but is also a reference for the future (which removes the need to dig through the relevant page's history if, for example, one decides to check whether a request ever got implemented), and exemplifies desired behavior for future administrators. Cheers, [[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
:Alright. Was just trying to get through everything quickly, and forgot to reply to those requests. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

== 262 correction: Thanks! ==

Hi there!

Unfortunately, I was not aware that I had incorrectly created the page for xkcd 262. Thanks for fixing that. My only question is whether the page "262" should be redirected to xkcd 262 rather than just showing the deletion template.

Thanks,

[[User:Milar Kayne|Milar Kayne]] ([[User talk:Milar Kayne|talk]]) 07:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

:The page "262" and all other pages consisting of only numbers are used internally to handle page linking. You don't really need to worry about them, you just need to know that making explanation pages in those numbered pages is baaad and that the create templates in the [[List of all comics]] will set up everything relevant for you. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

::So all of the xkcd comic pages theoretically "exist" on the site, but not all have connected pages? Also, how do I create a new page from the "All comics" page? Thanks for being so patient--I really want to be able to contribute meaningfully here. [[User:Milar Kayne|Milar Kayne]] ([[User talk:Milar Kayne|talk]]) 20:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
::No, we just link to the xckd comic pages. The numbered pages handle links between explanation pages. On the "List of all comics" page, there are (create) buttons next to all the red links; click those to start explaining those comics. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

:::OK thanks for explaining! I'll try to do better next time :). [[User:Milar Kayne|Milar Kayne]] ([[User talk:Milar Kayne|talk]]) 01:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

== List of unexplained comics ==

Thanks for the vote of confidence - hoping it'll encourage more contributors! [[User:Sean|Sean]] ([[User talk:Sean|talk]]) 21:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

== New sections in comic talk pages ==

Re [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:277:_Long_Light&curid=8457&diff=35146&oldid=35143 this correction] (especially your edit summary!): while there is the "Add topic" tab at the top of talk pages, you'll get new sections added to comic talk pages too.

Perhaps reducing them to ; headings is a better alternative that still marks a new topic.

;Just testing that I have the right formatting character
Yes.

Of course this won't fix the automatically supplied heading from the "Add topic" tab, but then we do still want that functionality in other talk pages, like here...
[[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 03:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

:Ooh, the semicolon does that? You learn something new every day. Noted. There might be a way to change those controls at the top, I'll look into that. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 03:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

== Time frames 1008-1014 have an artefact in your upload ==

In your uploads "under the ground" between frames 1008 and 1014 there is a grey horizontal line with unmoving "ticks" while the terrain does change above. This is not reflected in the live hash for the only hash in this range recorded so far. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 10:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
:Hrm, I've just been pulling the images from the xkcd site and uploading them straight. Imma check on this. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's not just you, the [http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/?frame=1014&framediff=1007 geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190] has it too. Randall must have had a snafu that he's fixed. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

== Time1190 - but sometimes I also have NO time ==

I did register in here mainly for 1190, I am sure you did see this.
This weekend I will work on a script giving me an easy update for the next day template, for now I am doing manual.

THANKS for your great job on all the other comics!

I just do need more TIME...

And I am not native English, so I am still happy about everyone correcting me.

Archive discussion I did start here [[Talk:1190:_Time]]

--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
:I actually already have a script to do that. I thought you had made one of your own though when you were filling in for new days, so I was just letting you go ahead with that. Here's my script: [http://pastebin.com/RQGGia3L]. Change the variables at the top of the script, run it and copy/paste the output into the page for time. The fields should be self-evident, but ask me if you have any questions. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

:: Oh, PYTHON - I prefer Perl or just a simple bash script.
:: So I will ask Randall for a translator for Python to Perl ;)
:: And tomorrow I hopefully will have some more time, your script is helpful.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Just for fun I did the script in PERL. Here is the link: [http://pastebin.com/PG5j56Nv template]--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

== And sometimes I do have time ==
Just tell me what I did do wrong (I will follow you...). I am still new to WIKI syntax, it is still new to me. But I am learning as you can see.
And after all that I will write a Perl Script with a missing close paren...

I like jokes but I also like a clean Wiki here!

--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:Uh, the explanation for that page is a wee bit thin for the size and complexity of the comic, and it uses terms like the hibbert curve without defining them. It's not enough of an explanation to cover the whole comic. Also, there were a few missing categories and a bunch of trailing spaces in the transcript. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
::"a wee bit thin for the size and complexity of the comic" so sure this is still incomplete (I just did forget to add that template). Oh, and we have so many more complex comics with a need for more explanations. And while I am still not native English, which does mean I have to goooogle fore many memes, I am hoping I can support this wiki. I just try to do my best - any help on me is welcome! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 00:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:::And I'm pretty sure they're all tagged as incomplete too, so all is well. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

== User talk page deleted? ==

Hey there, apparently my talk page was deleted because the only content on it was "buttsex", which is fine, but I just thought I should let you know that I did not add that ;). Can I restore my talk page blank? --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 11:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
:Yeah, sure, I saw the edit log when I deleted it. Do whatever you want with your user page. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

== Incomplete explanations ==
Hello [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]], I will stop creating incomplete new pages even when I think it's good idea to have a page for each comic here and work afterwards on all those incomplete ones. The pages [[Help:How_to_add_a_new_comic_explanation]] and [[List_of_unexplained_comics]] should clarify this issue. Furthermore there are many more incomplete comics here not marked as incomplete so you can't find them here: [[:Category:Incomplete articles|Incomplete explanations]]. I am trying to give my best to support this wiki--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:One add: I am not a youngster, my first computer was a C64 and the next one was a IBM compatible PC 286 (512 KByte main memory, 20 MByte hard drive). And right now I'm just trying to encourage other people to help here. But I don't want to fight against windmills.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::I wasn't making any implication as to your age. It is actually harder to track incomplete articles than nonexistent ones - the wiki has no way of automagically detecting them the way it automatically provides red links for missing explanations. We have the incomplete tag, but people delete it from pages that still haven't quite been explained completely, and I sometimes forget to tag a new incomplete explanation as incomplete. Also, the fact that some incomplete articles exist that are not tagged as incomplete does not justify the creation of more stubs; if you find an unsatisfactory explanation, mark it as incomplete yourself. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

== Various requests ==
Could you delete the spam page [[User:Inkovic]] and block the user who created it? And delete [[Talk:283: Projection]] as well, since it was apparently created by mistake?

Also, [[1225: Ice Sheets]] is still missing a transcript. Could you help add it? And [[266: Choices: Part 3]] and [[267: Choices: Part 4]] lack explanations, but have been removed from the [[List of unexplained comics]]. Should we re-add them to that page, or create some basic explanations for them? --[[User:Oneforfortytwo|Oneforfortytwo]] ([[User talk:Oneforfortytwo|talk]]) 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

:Incomplete articles are marked as incomplete, we'll deal with all the unsatisfactory articles on this wiki after we have a page for every comic. Still not an excuse to make more stubs, mind you. Did all the rest though. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please block spammer 70.50.106.152, he did kill 1190 Time.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 08:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
:Looks like a mistake. Not ban-worthy. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
::This was the only edit he/she ever did. I am hoping this will not happen again, that big page was really hard to load.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The main page needs to be edited, as the recent deletion of the [[List of unexplained comics]] was recently deleted, making the wiki comic count one less than the actual number. Also, could you delete [[Talk:List of unexplained comics]] and [[:File:a matter of some gravity.jpg]]? The former is an orphaned talk page, and the latter was superseded by [[:File:A Matter of Some Gravity.png]]. --[[User:Oneforfortytwo|Oneforfortytwo]] ([[User talk:Oneforfortytwo|talk]]) 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:Done. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I created an explanation for 1228 (Prometheus). What I wrote didn't appear for a few minutes and then when I tried to check why, I found you'd deleted a page, but the text I wrote then appeared where I was expecting it. Your comment on the deletion referred to "a thing on the front page" I should have read. I looked for this "thing", but I've still no idea what I did wrong, or what happened with all the page creation / deletion jiggery pokery. I created the explanation after clicking a box which told me to do so if I wanted to provide / improve the explanation. I apologise for my mistake, but perhaps it would be better not to put boxes on the main page which invite edits if those edits end up in the wrong place? [[Special:Contributions/87.115.172.168|87.115.172.168]] 08:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:I manually create the comic page and set it to show up on the front page usually within an hour of every new xkcd comic. The explanation pages for every comic follow a naming convention, with the comic number followed by the comic name. We also make a few redirects for the wiki to use to make the back/forwards buttons work. In addition to that, every explanation page has a template; note how every other page on this site has a particular look to it. The page that you created didn't follow any of that, so I deleted it and copy/pasted it to the correct location. The thing on the front page that I was referring to was the correct explanation page location that I had created 21 minutes earlier. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the explanation - quite a manual process! I didn't realise I was creating a page - it looked to me like the page had already been created (which it had, it seems) and I would just be editing the empty section for the explanation. Now I realise that the "please edit" box should have shown up in the editor, perhaps alarm bells should have wrung. Nevertheless, I'm still wondering if it would be better, if possible, to somehow remove or modify the "please edit" box when it appears on the main page so it doesn't create an incorrect new page when one already exists! [[Special:Contributions/87.115.172.168|87.115.172.168]] 09:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You,

[[User:Hopiakuta|hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina hopiakuta]] ([[User talk:Hopiakuta|talk]]) 09:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of xkcd comics that link to an extra image on the site when they are clicked. On this wiki, most of the time, the explanations just contain a direct link to this image. However, sometimes, users upload the secondary images and link to those. This is rather inefficient, especially since some images are too large to be displayed directly after they are clicked on the wiki. So, I was wondering if you could delete the few secondary images from the wiki. They are: [[:File:lakes and oceans large.png]], [[:File:na make it better.png]], [[:File:subways large.png]], and [[:File:lojban translated.png]].

In addition, I suggest that some [[Special:UnusedFiles|unused files]] also be nuked. [[:File:combination vision test fullcolor.jpg]] was superseded by [[:File:combination vision test fullcolor.png]]. [[:File:22 pieces.png]] was uploaded by a user who apparently just wanted to show off his Tetris skills. [[:File:2008 christmas special original.png]] is an xkcd comic before it was updated, which I doubt is necessary to include on the wiki. [[:File:starsmove.png]] doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. --[[User:Oneforfortytwo|Oneforfortytwo]] ([[User talk:Oneforfortytwo|talk]]) 23:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Na make it better and the translated lojban do add to the comic. The two larger versions of comic images and the junk files have been deleted. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you might have forgotten to delete [[:File:22 pieces.png]]. And [[404: 404 Error]] was created by mistake and also needs to go.

Also, could some admin tackle the issue that involves thumbnails not displaying properly? Dgbrt suggested [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Errors_and_symptoms#Image_Thumbnails_not_working_and.2For_appearing this fix]. Perhaps it could be tried? --[[User:Oneforfortytwo|Oneforfortytwo]] ([[User talk:Oneforfortytwo|talk]]) 16:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

:The 404 page needs to exist for the previous/next comic buttons to work properly. It also explains why comic 404 is missing, which may be confusing to some xkcd readers. Mostly the forward/backwards buttons though. The scrap image is gone, and I'm looking into the proposed fix. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 12:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
::Nope. The page [[404: 404 Error]] is a duplicate to [[404: Not Found ]]. I just did a redirect there because I can't delete it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Whoop, deleted. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 23:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Thanks, but there is still the discussion page. I did the same redirect there.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

== Spam at 1190 Time ==

Hi, IP 68.100.149.94 is still doing annoying edits here. I do not like that.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

== Su Doku ==
Hi Davidy22, I'm trying to enhance explains. People do read and understand shorter explains more easy, but the link to the details must be always included. I just did add the incomplete tag because my edit is maybe not complete. Everyone is welcome to help. But please keep short as possible, otherwise people won't read.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
:That explanation is hardly too long. Our explanations should be self-sufficient, with the links there just to provide further context on things that we talk about in the explanations. A description of the format of sudoku is an important part of the explanation for comic 74, as the comic deviates from it in a notable way that not all visitors may recognize, be it because they haven't heard of sudoku before or because they aren't particularly familiar with the puzzles. There's a wee difference between cutting information and condensing the wording of a passage, and what you did with that explanation leads further towards cutting content. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
::I prefer explains people will read. The wiki link for Su Doku is already there but I will work on a small explain soon.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
:::What, three full paragraphs is too much for people to read? Three full paragraphs of a complete explanation are better than a paragraph and two sentences of incomplete description? I'd rather we follow the name of the wiki and actually explain the comics. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Read my version completely, I did adopt your hints on explain Su Doku and did some more polish. PLEASE just read before you undo! Tell me what's missing but I still prefer a more simple explain. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::You made a complete explanation incomplete in the name of simplicity. At least you bothered re-adding the relevant information back in post-hoc this time. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

== 1190 Time pictures after major changes ==

Hi,
any ideas to get new file uploads here? After your change we have some silence...--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 00:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:Geekwagon, Aubronwood and many other sites keep archives of past frame hashes. We can look up our last hash and upload all proceeding images here. I did that for the first 500-odd frames, until people started doing it faster than me. I'll probably start again since other editors seem to be on holiday. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
::You did upload all the images manual, is this the new way to do this? I thought your scripts don't like file names like 1234a, 1234b..., so do you not use a bot to upload the images? Further more: Since hashes from other sites do not map to the new naming here I think we have to document them here. But it seems I'm just running against windmills.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Post-hoc scripts; instead of an image archive littered with special cases, scripts need only iterate in numerical order. It's slightly more difficult to upload, but it's a consistent naming scheme for future use. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

== 1190 Time pictures - Do you use a bot or not... ==

...it seems not - why?
Lazy as I am! You're not like this.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
:I have a script to help with backlog uploads, but then I also manually upload new images while I'm awake and am near my computer. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
::What do you think about a bot? My computer is downloading the images by 24/7 so an upload here should be possible. But first I will start some tests at my local MediaWiki installation.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
:::A bot would be nice. Slashme's Slashbot actually did time image uploads, but he stopped cuz electricity bills or something. We could ask him if he's willing to share. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
::::I am thinking about a bot like ''DgbrtBot''. I never have done this before (WikiBot) but I know the fucking manuals and while Randall does not like Perl I will use this language ;). Tomorrow I will start some tests at my local MediaWiki and then I will need an account for a bot.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

== Outage from Friday to Saturday ==

Did you recognize this, every error was just a "access denied for user ... on database ...". This board was dead for 24 hours.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
:Yep, purged cache to fix it. Not currently in a place with perfect access to internet though, so I'm not quite as fast with that as I usually am. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
::The same happened yesterday. Do you have chronic disk space/quota shortage? --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 13:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1242: Scary Names

2013-07-25T13:08:18Z

Chtz:

What is "A Zero Halliburton briefcase"?[[Special:Contributions/212.232.24.57|212.232.24.57]] 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

:Zero Halliburton is a luggage brand name, with a line of aluminum attache cases. Not connected to the big company Halliburton, associated with former US Vice President Cheney and the war in Iraq. [[User:Wrybred|Wrybred]] ([[User talk:Wrybred|talk]]) 13:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)wrybred

::The history of Zero Halliburton luggage does intersect with the founder of Halliburton Company, Erle P. Halliburton. He needed rugged cases, so he started a company to produce them. He sold it to Zero Corporation. [http://www.zerohalliburton.com/about-our-company.html]. ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)''

Isn't the nuclear football carried by a military aide, not a Secret Service agent? [[Special:Contributions/167.165.238.254|167.165.238.254]] 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

:Probably. I don't really know what I'm talking about. If you think you can improve on what I wrote, go for it! [[User:RouterIncident|RouterIncident]] ([[User talk:RouterIncident|talk]]) 14:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

::Yes. "Cheney noted that the president is accompanied at all times by a military aide carrying a 'football' that contains launch codes for nuclear weapons. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/21/AR2008122100869.html] ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)''

:::I assume it's called 'football' because in the USA footballs are usually carried by hand. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

::::Early plans for nuclear war against the Soviets were codenamed "Dropkick". [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Helvetica Scenario" explanation is wrong, but I don't know enough about it to feel comfortable editing. Here's an article I found that makes more sense. http://enigmauniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Helvetica_Scenario (I didn't watch the Youtube clip since I'm at work, so maybe that's what the clip refers to. It should be explained in the article instead.) [[User:Trek7553|Trek7553]] ([[User talk:Trek7553|talk]]) 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

:To the best of my knowledge, the page you linked to is a work of fiction on a role-playing wiki. The references to calcium imply that it is based off of the Look Around You segment, but with its own added elements for the sake of role-playing. [[User:RouterIncident|RouterIncident]] ([[User talk:RouterIncident|talk]]) 14:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a slight issue with the artificial percentage scale given for entries in the chart. First of all it assumes a linear chart that is measured in percentages. Secondly, it assumes Flesh-eating Bacteria is 100% scariest thing and scariest-sounding thing existant. Just because it's the highest on the chart doesn't make it "100%" (again, percentage seems like an arbitrary scale to assign) [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
:I disagree on your second point. The explanation expresses the scariness of something as a percentage of Flesh-eating Bacteria BECAUSE it is an arbitrary scale. It doesn't imply that the bacteria is the scariest possible thing. I think this is the best way; it's better than saying "Grey goo isn't as scary sounding, but is scarier than..." for all possible combinations of every item.
:Also on your first point, it doesn't assume the chart is measured in percentages (although it does assume linearity). [[Special:Contributions/174.88.154.131|174.88.154.131]] 12:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
::How about we just give the pixel coordinates and point out that the scale is arbitrary (or not defined by the comic). Percentage would suggest that the scale is in some way linear, which you actually cannot conclude from the graph. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 13:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1242: Scary Names

2013-07-24T15:16:22Z

Chtz:

816: Applied Math

2013-07-24T15:10:01Z

Chtz: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 816
| date = November 8, 2010
| title = Applied Math
| image = applied_math.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = Dear Reader: Enclosed is a check for ninety-eight cents. Using your work, I have proven that this equals the amount you requested.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Donald Knuth}} is a {{w|computer scientist}} that has written several computer science textbooks and he offers rewards for anyone finding errors in his publications. The first error found in each book is worth $2.56. Other errors and suggestions are worth less than $2.56, but a check is still sent out if Dr. Knuth finds them to be reasonable.

In this comic, [[Megan]] uses a proof to invalidate logic itself. And then, she writes a letter to Dr. Knuth to collect her money for the 1,317,408 errors in {{w|The Art of Computer Programming}} at $2.56 each.
Assuming only the latest edition of each volume is considered, the number of errors would average to more than 400 errors per page—that would imply that (almost) every single word is considered wrong by Megan.

In the title text is the reply from Dr. Knuth in which he uses Megan's logic disproving proof to evaluate her work down to 98 cents.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is standing at a whiteboard considering a logical proof. The proof assumes ''P'' and deduces ''P ∧ P.]
:Ponytail: Wow. I can't find fault with your proof.
:[Ponytail is still looking at the white board, the frame expands to show Megan walking away, rubbing her hands together in an evil manner.]
:Ponytail: You've show the inconsistency -- and thus the invalidity -- of basic logic itself.
:Megan: Excellent, on to step two.
:[Megan sits down at a desk and begins to write.]
:Dear Dr. Knuth,
:[She continues to write.]
:I am writing to collect from you the $3,372,564.45 I am owed for discovering 1,317,408 errors in The Art of Computer Programming...

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Donald Knuth]]
[[Category:Logic]]

816: Applied Math

2013-07-24T14:59:56Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ estimation of errors/page. Is there an accurate value for the number of words in TAOCP?

{{comic
| number = 816
| date = November 8, 2010
| title = Applied Math
| image = applied_math.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = Dear Reader: Enclosed is a check for ninety-eight cents. Using your work, I have proven that this equals the amount you requested.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Donald Knuth}} is a {{w|computer scientist}} that has written several computer science textbooks and he offers rewards for anyone finding errors in his publications. The first error found in each book is worth $2.56. Other errors and suggestions are worth less than $2.56, but a check is still sent out if Dr. Knuth finds them to be reasonable.

In this comic, [[Megan]] uses a proof to invalidate logic itself. And then, she writes a letter to Dr. Knuth to collect her money for the 1,317,408 errors in {{w|The Art of Computer Programming}} at $2.56 each.
Assuming only the latest edition of each volume is considered, the number of errors would average to more than 400 errors per page—that would imply that (almost) every single word is considered wrong by Megan.

In the title text is the reply from Dr. Knuth in which he uses Megan's logic disproving proof to evaluate her work down to 98 cents.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is standing at a whiteboard considering a logical proof.]
:Ponytail: Wow. I can't find fault with your proof.
:[Ponytail is still looking at the white board, the frame expands to show Megan walking away, rubbing her hands together in an evil manner.]
:Ponytail: You've show the inconsistency -- and thus the invalidity -- of basic logic itself.
:Megan: Excellent, on to step two.
:[Megan sits down at a desk and begins to write.]
:Dear Dr. Knuth,
:[She continues to write.]
:I am writing to collect from you the $3,372,564.45 I am owed for discovering 1,317,408 errors in The Art of Computer Programming...

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Donald Knuth]]
[[Category:Logic]]

653: So Bad It's Worse

2013-07-24T09:24:04Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ typo

{{comic
| number = 653
| date = October 23, 2009
| title = So Bad It's Worse
| image = so_bad_its_worse.png
| titletext = You think it's so legendarily bad that you'll torrent it and sit through it just for the kitschy nerd cred. I, too, once thought as you did.
}}

==Explanation==
The graph in the comic shows the enjoyability of movies - going from good to okay to bad, then popping back up with "[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoBadItsGood So Bad It's Good]". The term is used to describe movies that are so terrible that, for a variety of reasons, watching them can be considered an enjoyable experience. The comic lists ''{{w|Plan 9 from Outer Space}}'' and ''{{w|The Rocky Horror Picture Show}}'', two widely known films of this type.

However, the graph warns of showing ''The Star Wars Holiday Special'', as it manages to wrap back around from "So Bad It's Good" to being bad again. ''{{w|The Star Wars Holiday Special}}'' is a prime-time comedy special based on ''{{w|Star Wars}}''. It is widely known for its terrible quality, and has never been fully released (although an animated segment that introduced {{w|Boba Fett}}, which {{w|George Lucas}} has approved of, has been released as a bonus feature on a DVD).

The bottom of the comic shows [[Cueball]], [[Megan]], and [[Ponytail]] watching a movie with alcohol - first enjoying it, then merely watching, then unhappily drinking.

The title text refers to {{w|BitTorrent (protocol)|torrents}}, which are a way to obtain large amounts of data over the internet. According to [[Randall|Munroe]], he had torrented a copy of the film and then watched it, in spite of its terribleness, just to cement himself as a nerd. It should be noted that while it is impossible to view the ''Holiday Special'' otherwise, torrenting films this way is usually considered piracy and is thus illegal.

==Transcript==
:Protip: Even at "Bad Movie Night," avoid the Star Wars holiday special.

:[A graph plots movie enjoyability against movie quality. It drops steadily through points marked "Good Movie" to "Okay Movie" to "Bad Movie," rises up again for "So-Bad-It's-Good (Plan 9, Rocky Horror, etc)," and then drops off the bottom of a graph with an arrow pointing to where "Star Wars Holiday Special" would be. There are three mini-panels below the graph, arranged from "Good" to "Bad" along the movie quality axis.]

:[Three friends are on a couch, drinking and gesticulating enthusiastically.]
:[The same three are sitting quietly, with a bottle on the floor.]
:[The three are sitting around a table, drinking and looking miserable.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Protip]]

840: Serious

2013-07-24T01:38:09Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ {{w}}

{{comic
| number = 840
| date = December 29, 2010
| title = Serious
| image = serious.png
| titletext = Not to be confused with Serious PuTTY, the Windows terminal client where everything is in Impact.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a play on words with the child's putty known as "{{w|Silly Putty}}", which is "silly" because it likes to be played with. Whereas Serious Putty does not even liked to be touched.

As it says in the image text {{w|PuTTY}} is a Windows Terminal client. {{w|Impact (typeface)|Impact}} is a font that is distributed with Windows that is used in the vast majority of "{{w|internet meme|meme}}" image macros, such as {{w|lolcat}} pictures.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing next to a table. There is a can on the table.]

:[The label on the can reads, "Serious Putty".]

:[Cueball is looking at the table again.]

:[He reaches out to touch the can. The can speaks.]
:Can: Don't touch me.

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

Talk:142: Parody Week: Megatokyo

2013-07-23T22:38:05Z

Chtz: Created page with "Isn't it quite unusual that Black Hat does not want to harm anyone in this comic? --~~~~"

Isn't it quite unusual that Black Hat does not want to harm anyone in this comic? --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 22:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

141: Parody Week: Achewood

2013-07-23T22:34:35Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ he does not claim that awkward pauses are annoying

{{comic
| number = 141
| date = August 14, 2006
| title = Parody Week: Achewood
| image = achewood.png
| titletext = I always wanted to impress them with how well I could hear, didn't you? Also, this sets the record for number of awkward-pause panels in one strip (previously held by Achewood)
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Achewood}} is a webcomic by {{w|Chris Onstad}}. It portrays the lives of a group of anthropomorphic stuffed toys, robots, and pets. The comic's humor is often lacking a traditional set punchline, and have many awkward pause panels.

This comic has three of the prominent characters from the strip: Phillippe, Ray and Roast Beef. In the first panel, Phillippe is dreaming of having his ears checked. There's an eye chart on the wall behind him. The doctor informs him that because of his superhearing power he is needed at Hogwarts.

Afterwards, the comic is a conversation between Roast Beef and Ray about Ray being invited to participate in what seem to be a talent show, with no reference to Phillippe again before the title-text.

The comic is written well in the style of Onstad and his humor is in the parody. The last 11 panels are having no dialogues which is also in style of Achewood although '11' is a tad too far at poking fun at it.

At the title text [[Randall]] claims that he set a new record on awkward-pause panels.

This comic is a part of the Parody Week, just joking about other webcomics.
*'''Parody Week: Achewood'''
*[[Parody Week: Megatokyo]]
*[[Parody Week: TFD and Natalie Dee]]
*[[Parody Week: A Softer World]]
*[[Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics]]

==Transcript==
:Doctor (out of frame): Philippe, your hearing is perfect! In fact, you heard ALL the beeps! You have super-hearing! You're needed at Hogwarts!
:Philippe: Oh boy!
:Meanwhile...
:Ray: Beef, check this out. I got an invite to that The Dude Is Pretty Awesome In Most Measurable Ways I Mean Wow competition.
:Beef: Alright that is pretty sweet dogg what is your strategy gonna consist of
:Ray: I'm thinkin' I need to point out my best features--maybe go holdin' a sign with an arrow toward my junk.
:Beef: Yeah well I always said subtlety was your middle name dogg
:Beef: And also your first and last in case they didn't get the point
:Ray: How do you think I should play it?
:Beef: Well basically you got no chance as I see it these dudes are all lovers and fighters to the last
:Beef: All sprung fully formed from the head of Sweet Sweetback
:Beef: You are gonna stand out as the sort of dude who stays at home all night playing fleshlight tag
:Ray: These words you got are crazy. Didn't I win the outdoor fight?
:Beef: Uh huh about the fight I wasn't gonna tell you but how could you miss that I was setting you up
:Ray: What?
:Beef: You got played dogg
:Beef: I basically just didn't have the heart to go through with it in the end.
:Beef: Anyway the point is that you are gonna lose this thing so hard
:Beef: All cheap McD's hamburger to their slabs of steak
:Beef: A couple 12-oz sirloins garnished with nothing but pure manhood
:Beef: Maybe some sprigs of parsley
:Beef: You are pretty much going down
:[Closeup of a shocked Ray.]
:[Silence.]
:[Silence. Beef looks perturbed and his ear is twitching. Ray's mouth is open.]
:[Silence. Beef looks sorry.]
:[Silence. Beef looks sorry and Ray looks annoyed.]
:[Silence.]
:[Silence.]
:[Silence. Beef is looking down and Ray's mouth is open.]
:[Silence.]
:[Silence. Beef is looking down and Ray's mouth is open.]
:[Silence. Beef looks surprised.]

==Trivia==
*The line 'sprung fully formed from the head of Sweet Sweetback' is actually a reference to 1971 indie movie {{w|Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song}}.
*According to [[Randall]], it also mildly references to {{w|Athena#Birth|The birth of Greek Goddess Athena}}.

{{comic discussion}}

977: Map Projections

2013-07-23T22:29:41Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 977
| date = November 14, 2011
| title = Map Projections
| image = map_projections.png
| titletext = What's that? You think I don't like the Peters map because I'm uncomfortable with having my cultural assumptions challenged? Are you sure you're not ... ::puts on sunglasses:: ... projecting?
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Map projection}}s, or how to represent the spherical Earth surface onto a flat support (paper, screen...) to have a usable map, is a long-time issue with very practical aspects (navigation, geographical shapes and masses visualization, etc.) as well as very scientific/mathematic ones (involving geometry or even abstract algebra among other things). There is no universal solution to this problem, any 2D map projection will always distort in a way the spherical reality; many projections have been proposed in various contexts, each intending to minimize distortions for specific uses (for nautical navigation, for aerial navigation, for landmass size comparisons, etc.) but having drawbacks from other points of view. Some of them are more frequently used than other in mass media and therefore more well-known than others, some are purely historical and now deprecated, some are really obscure, etc.

[[Randall]] suggests here the idea that someone's "favorite" map projection can reveal aspects of their personality, and goes through a series of them and what they can mean:

;Mercator
:The {{w|Mercator projection}} was introduced by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. The main purpose of this map is that at any point the vertical and horizontal scales are the same, so locally i.e. considering only a small part of the map, geographical features (shapes, angles) are well represented, which helps a lot in recognizing them on-the-field, or for local navigation in that small part only. For this reason that projection (or a close variant) is used in several online mapping services such as Google Maps, which means that people commonly see it nowadays. No angle distortion also means that a straight line on the map corresponds to a course of constant bearing (direction), which was very useful for nautical navigation during centuries (and thus made that projection very well-known).

:However from a global point of view, this projection is radically incorrect in how it shows the size of landmasses (for instance Antartica or Greenland seem gigantic), and furthermore it always excludes a small region around each pole (otherwise the map would be of infinite height), so it doesn't provide a complete solution for the problem of map projection. The comic implies that people who like that projection aren't very interested with map issues, and typically use what they are offered without thinking a lot about it.

;Van der Grinten
:The {{w|Van der Grinten projection}} is not much better than the Mercator. It was adopted by {{w|National Geographic}} in 1922 and was used until they updated to the Robinson projection in 1988.

:The Van der Grinten projection is circular as opposed to the Mercator projection. Circles look happier than squares, leading to the conclusion that people who like the projection are optimistic.

;Robinson
:The {{w|Robinson projection}} was developed by {{w|Arthur H. Robinson}} as a map that was supposed to look nice. National Geographic moved to this projection in 1988, and used it for ten years, moving to the Winkel-Tripel in 1998.

:{{w|The Beatles}} was a rock band that enjoyed great commercial success in the 1960s. The Beatles, coffee, and running shoes suggest an ordinary, easygoing lifestyle paralleled by the projection.

;Dymaxion
:Also called the Fuller Map, the {{w|Dymaxion Map}} takes a sphere and projects it onto an icosahedron, that is a polyhedron with 20 triangular faces. It is far easier to unwrap an icosahedron than it is to unwrap a sphere into a 2D object and has very little skewing of the poles.

:Randall associates the projection to geek subculture and niche markets:
:*{{w|Isaac Asimov}} was an American science-fiction writer, that (as well as publishing many textbooks) is considered the father of the modern concept of robots. He invented the {{w|Three Laws of Robotics}}. He also worked on more than 500 books throughout his career.
:*{{w|XML}} is the eXtensible Markup Language. It is used to represent data in a format that machines can read and understand, as well as being human-readable. In practice, XML is cumbersome to read.
:*{{w|Vibram FiveFingers|Toed-Shoes}} are a [[1065|favorite]] of Randall's to pick on. In society they are seen as a {{w|Hipster (contemporary subculture)#Late 1990s through late 2000s|hipster}} clothing item.
:*Brought to the world by {{w|Dean Kamen}}, the {{w|Segway PT}} was supposed to be a device that changed the way cities were built. In reality, most principalities have put in place rules specifically against Segways, making them a frustration to own and use within the law (In some states in Australia, it is illegal to use them on public footpaths or roads). Also, the former owner of {{w|Segway Inc.}}, the late {{w|Jimi Heselden}}, accidentally rode his Segway off a cliff in 2010.
:*{{w|Virtual reality|3D goggles}} are a very niche market only pursued by enthusiasts. In the 1990s the promise of virtual realities was very tantalizing, many companies attempted to perfect it, but fell short of the mark. Also the phrase "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." is relevant.
:*{{w|Dvorak Simplified Keyboard|Dvorak}} is an alternate keyboard layout to QWERTY. Where QWERTY was invented to help keep manual typewriters from jamming (by placing the most used keys further away from each other), Dr. {{w|August Dvorak}} performed many studies and found the mathematically optimal keyboard layout to reduce finger travel for right handed typists. While technically better than QWERTY, QWERTY had become the standard. All the keyboards were laid out in QWERTY format, and retraining the brain after becoming a touch typist is extremely difficult.

;Winkel Tripel
:Proposed by {{w|Oswald Winkel}} in 1921, this map tried to reduce the three (German: tripel) main problems with map projections: area, direction, and distance. The {{w|Kavrayskiy VII projection|Kavrayskiy projection}} is very similar to the Winkel Tripel and was used by the USSR, but very few in the Western world know of it.

:The comic links this projection to {{w|hipster}} subculture. The whole point of hipsters is to avoid conforming to mainstream fashions. "Post-" refers to a variety of musical genres such as {{w|post-punk}}, {{w|post-grunge}}, {{w|post-minimalism}}, etc. that branch off of other genres.

;Goode Homolosine
:The {{w|Goode homolosine projection}} takes a different approach to skewing a sphere into a roughly circular surface. An orange peel can be taken off of an orange and flattened with fair success, this is roughly the procedure that {{w|John Paule Goode}} followed in creating this projection.

:Common people make arguments that if normal people would run the United States, then the US wouldn't be in the trouble it is. This is from the belief that career politicians are simply out to make money and will only act in the interest of their constituency when their continued easy life is threatened (usually around election time).

:Airline food is another, much maligned, problem. How do you store enough food to feed people on long airplane trips? The common solution is to use some kind of sub-standard microwave-able dinner. Randall is saying that the people in favor of the Goode Homolosine wonder why the airlines don't simply order meals from the restaurants in the airport, store that food, and serve it, rather than using frozen, and microwaved food.

:Older cars burned oil like mad fiends and oil back then would become corrosive to the innards of an engine, so oil had to be changed often. But, with the introduction of synthetic motor oil and better designed engines, new cars only need their oil changed about ever 10,000 to 15,000 miles. Allegedly. Perhaps this is a conspiracy built by the collusion of the car manufacturers and big oil companies!

:All of these references suggest that people who like the Goode Homolosine projection are fans of practical solutions to simple problems.

;Hobo-Dyer
:The {{w|Hobo–Dyer projection}} was commissioned by Bob Abramms and Howard Bronstein and was drafted by Mick Dyer in 2002. It is a modified {{w|Behrmann projection}}. The goal was to be a more visually pleasing version of the Gall-Peters.

:As is discussed in the Gall-Peters explanation, the Gall-Peters was developed to be equal area, so that economically disadvantaged areas can at least take comfort in the fact that their country is represented correctly by area on maps.

:Randall associates the Hobo-Dyer projection to "crunchy granola" — a stereotype associated with vegetarianism, environmental activism, anti-war activism, liberal political leanings, and some traces of {{w|hippie}} culture.

:With the new general acceptance of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons, some have begun to invent gender-neutral pronouns so that when referring to a person whose gender is not known they cannot be offended by being referred to by the wrong pronouns. In old English 'they' and 'their' were accepted gender-less pronouns that could replace 'he', 'she' as well as be used to represent a crowd. This usage is now considered archaic, so, a whole host of new pronouns are being invented in an attempt to keep from ever offending anyone ever again.

;Plate Carrée
:Also known as the {{w|Equirectangular projection}} that has been in use since, apparently, 100 AD. The benefit of this projection is that latitude and longitude can be used as x,y coordinates. This makes it especially easy for computers to graph data on top of it.

:According to the comic, the projection appeals to people who find much beauty in simplicity.

;A Globe!
:In any good discussion there has to be at least one smart-ass. This is a comic about map projections, that is, the science of taking a sphere and flattening it into 2 dimensions. The smart-ass believes that we shouldn't even try: a sphere is, in fact, the perfect representation of a sphere.

:To quote ''{{w|The Princess Bride}}'': "Yes, you're very smart. Shut up."

;Waterman Butterfly
:Similar to the Dymaxion, the {{w|Waterman butterfly projection}} turns a sphere into an octahedron, and then unfolds the net of the octahedron, which was devised by mathematician {{w|Waterman polyhedron|Steve Waterman}} based upon the work of {{w|Bernard J.S. Cahill}}

:Bernard Cahill published a [http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html butterfly map] in 1909. Steve Waterman probably has the only extant "ready to go" map following the same general principles, though Gene Keys may not be far behind. Waterman has a poem with graphics in a similar vein to this xkcd comic that is worth reading.[http://watermanpolyhedron.com/worldmap.html]

:The Cahill/Keyes/Waterman projections are arguably the only map projections, thus far, that more or less equally balance the inevitable “all maps lie” distortions in size, shape and area.

:The joke is that the person responding deeply understands map projections; anyone who knows of this projection is a person that Randall would like to get to know.

;Peirce Quincuncial
:The {{w|Pierce quincuncial projection}} was devised by {{w|Charles Sanders Peirce}} in 1879 and uses {{w|complex analysis}} to make a {{w|conformal mapping}} of the Earth, that conforms except for four points which would make up the south pole.

:{{w|Inception}} was a 2010 movie about {{w|meta}} {{w|lucid dream}}ing. It has a complex story that is difficult to follow and leaves the viewer with many questions at the end, and almost needs to be watched multiple times to be understood.

:The human brain is not well developed to deal with oddly obvious things. One example is that everyone has a skeleton, but everyone is surprised when a bone pokes through the skin after it has been broken. Another is the fascinating complexity of the human hand, a machine that is amazingly complex driven by a complex interplay of electrical and chemical signals and yet is the size of the hand and is so useful.

;Gall-Peters
:The {{w|Gall-Peters projection}} is mired in controversy, surprising for a map. {{w|James Gall}} a 19th century clergyman presented this projection in 1855 before the {{w|British Association for the Advancement of Science}}. In 1967, the filmmaker {{w|Arno Peters}} created the same projection and presented it to the world as a "new invention" that put poorer, less powerful countries into their rightful proportions (as opposed to the Mercator). Peters played the marketing game and got quite a few followers of his map by saying it had "absolute angle conformality," "no extreme distortions of form," and was "totally distance-factual" in an age when society was very concerned about social justice. All of these claims were in fact false. The polar regions are horribly distorted, and south of the Mediterranean Sea is "taller" than it should be.

:Anyone who loves such a politically charged map that has become popular by way of marketing stunts, Randall would rather not have anything to do with.

The title text makes a joke that goes to the familiar meme from ''{{w|CSI: Miami}}'', in which the star, David Caruso starts on sentence, then [[:Category:Puts on sunglasses|puts on his sunglasses]] and then ends it with a corny pun. This internet meme has been mentioned previously by xkcd in comic [[626]] and possibly others.

==Transcript==
:What your favorite
:'''Map Projection'''
:says about you
:[All of these are organized as Title, a copy of the particular projection underneath, and what it says about you under that]

:*Mercator
:**You're not really into maps.
:*Van der Grinten
:**You're not a complicated person. You love the Mercator projection; you just wish it weren't square. The Earth's not a square, it's a circle. you like circles. Today is gonna be a good day!
:*Robinson
:**You have a comfortable pair of running shoes that you wear everywhere. You like coffee and enjoy The Beatles. you think the Robinson is the best-looking projection, hands down.
:*Dymaxion
:**You like Isaac Asimov, XML, and shoes with toes. You think the Segway got a bad rap. you own 3D goggles, which you use to view rotating models of better 3D goggles. you type in Dvorak.
:*Winkel-Tripel
:**National Geographic adopted the Winkel-Tripel in 1998, but you've been a W-T fan since ''long'' before "Nat Geo" showed up. You're worried it's getting played out, and are thinking of switching to the Kavrayskiy. You once left a party in disgust when a guest showed up wearing shoes with toes. Your favorite musical genre is "Post–".
:*Goode Homolosine
:**They say mapping the Earth on a 2D surface is like flattening an orange peel, which seems enough to you. You like easy solutions.You think we wouldn't have so many problems if we'd just elect ''normal'' people to Congress instead of Politicians. You think airlines should just buy food from the restaurants near the gates and serve ''that'' on board. You change your car's oil, but secretly wonder if you really ''need'' to.
:*Hobo-Dyer
:**You want to avoid cultural imperialism, but you've heard bad things about Gall-Peters. You're conflict-averse and buy organic. You use a recently-invented set of gender-neutral pronouns and think that what the world needs is a revolution in consciousness.
:*Plate Carrée (Equirectangular)
:**You think this one is fine. You like how X and Y map to latitude and longitude. The other projections overcomplicate things. You want me to stop asking about maps so you can enjoy dinner.
:*A Globe!
:**Yes, you're very clever
:*Waterman Butterfly
:**Really? You know the Waterman? Have you seen the 1909 Cahill Map it's based— ...You have a framed reproduction at home?! Whoa. ...Listen, forget these questions. Are you doing anything tonight?
:*Peirce Quincuncial
:**You think that when we look at a map, what we really see is ourselves. After you first saw ''Inception'', you sat silent in the theater for six hours. It freaks you out to realize that everyone around you has a skeleton inside them. You ''have'' really looked at your hands.
:*Gall-Peters
:**I ''hate'' you.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Puts on sunglasses]]

Talk:832: Tic-Tac-Toe

2013-07-23T21:40:52Z

Chtz:

This is all wrong. The second move for X, unless O blocked it already, or started off in the centre should be the lower right corner. That way, O will use the centre to block, and then X goes in a third corner, thus sealing the game.[[Special:Contributions/76.29.225.28|76.29.225.28]] 04:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:Can you tell which situation you mean? If X starts at 7 and O does not go to 5, then X forces a win with the described tactic. There might be other ways to win, but I don't think that matters. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 09:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
::Playing as X, you start in the upper left corner. O plays in any square other than the lower right corner (They ''might'' be able to block if they play the centre, depending on whether they anticipate this move). Then, when O blocks the centre, you play the upper right or lower left corner, depending on where O has played before, thus making it impossible to block because they only get one move. The only time this ''ever'' fails is when O knows what X is doing after the ''first'' move.[[Special:Contributions/76.29.225.28|76.29.225.28]] 19:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:::If it goes X7, O5, X3, then O must play anywhere but in a corner next (result is symmetric) X has to block and O can hold a draw. Just see the ''Map for O'' part. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an error in the drawing when starting with (numpad coordinates) X7, O9, X1, O4, X3: Both O5 and O6 have the same picture. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 09:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:134: Myspace

2013-07-23T11:10:31Z

Chtz:

Not sure (because this machine has no audio, and I'm accessing an archive of the site) but the Yvette's Bridal Formal site was always an examplar of... well, loads of things, but definitely including music. Bagpipe music ''one'' page, IIRC. Anyway, it had disappeared, last time I checked, but I have the link http://web.archive.org/web/20110718150459/http://yvettesbridalformal.com/ (might need to be better URLified with %3A%2F%2F or whatever it needs in there) that at least gives the visual... experience? [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 00:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Could this also describe the fact that often only samples of a few seconds (usually more than 5, though) are available? --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 11:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

854: Learning to Cook

2013-07-23T11:05:24Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ typo

{{comic
| number = 854
| date = January 31, 2011
| title = Learning to Cook
| image = learning to cook.png
| titletext = And yet I never stop thinking, 'sure, these ingredients cost more than a restaurant meal, but think how many meals I'll get out of them! Especially since each one will have leftovers!'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
This comic shows the plight of a person who apparently is not good at cooking, but occasionally motivates himself to cook anyways (possibly to improve his cooking skills).
After buying ingredients and cooking them, he realizes that it does not taste really good, puts the leftovers in the fridge and starts ordering pizza again.
As they go bad, he first throws away the leftovers and later the unused ingredients.
After some months he is motivated again to cook more and the loop repeats.

The title text describes that buying ingredients for a single meal might be more expensive than eating at a restaurant, but it would be compensated if there are enough leftovers to eat again from it or cook several meals.
Of course, this idea is vitiated if he gives up cooking after a single try and throws away all remaining food.

==Transcript==
:[A flowchart.]

:I should cook more! -> Buy ingredients -> Put some in a pan -> Cook -> Does it taste good? -> (arrows marked "Kinda" and "No" both lead to) Put leftovers in fridge -> (hours pass) -> Order pizza -> (days pass) -> Throw away leftovers -> (weeks pass) -> Throw away remaining ingredients as they go bad -> (months pass) -> (arrow leads back to beginning)

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Flowcharts]]

854: Learning to Cook

2013-07-23T11:04:12Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ A little more explanation (not much more than a summary, though)

{{comic
| number = 854
| date = January 31, 2011
| title = Learning to Cook
| image = learning to cook.png
| titletext = And yet I never stop thinking, 'sure, these ingredients cost more than a restaurant meal, but think how many meals I'll get out of them! Especially since each one will have leftovers!'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
This comic shows the plight of a person who apparently is not good at cooking, but occasionally motivates himself to cook anyways (possibly to improve his cooking skills).
After buying ingredients and cooking them, he realizes that it does not taste really good, puts the leftovers in the fridge and starts ordering pizza again.
As they go bad, he first throws away the leftovers and later the unused ingredients.
After some months he is motivated again to cook more and the loop repeats.

The title text describes that buying ingredients for a single meal might be more expensive than eating at a restaurant, but it would be compensated if there are enough leftovers to eat again from it our cook several meals.
Of course this idea is vitiated if he gives up cooking after a single try and throws away all remaining food.

==Transcript==
:[A flowchart.]

:I should cook more! -> Buy ingredients -> Put some in a pan -> Cook -> Does it taste good? -> (arrows marked "Kinda" and "No" both lead to) Put leftovers in fridge -> (hours pass) -> Order pizza -> (days pass) -> Throw away leftovers -> (weeks pass) -> Throw away remaining ingredients as they go bad -> (months pass) -> (arrow leads back to beginning)

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Flowcharts]]

138: Pointers

2013-07-23T10:11:42Z

Chtz: /* Explanation */ another wiki link

{{comic
| number = 138
| date = August 7, 2006
| title = Pointers
| image = pointers.png
| titletext = Every computer, at the unreachable memory address 0x-1, stores a secret. I found it, and it is that all humans ar—SEGMENTATION FAULT.
}}

== Explanation ==
This comic is about a play on the dual meaning of the word “pointer”. [[Cueball]] is playing a computer game in the comic, but he seems to be stuck. So he asks [[Black Hat]] for a few tips (“pointers”) to get unstuck again. Black Hat wants to be annoying, so he spits out a couple of (seemingly random) 32-bit hexadecimal addresses, which are “{{w|Pointer (computer programming)|pointers}}” in a programming language. These pointers are used to access a certain location in the computer's memory in order to fulfill a task. Cueball is then annoyed at [[Black Hat]] for not answering his question.

A {{w|segmentation fault}}, as the title text references, is a result by accessing invalid memory addresses. If you define a pointer to an invalid address, then try to access the memory location associated with it, you could end up with this exception. The hexadecimal address 0x-1 is one of those invalid access pointers, because it should contain more accurate numbers for a valid 32-bit hexadecimal address.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is playing a video game, with Black Hat standing behind him.]
:Cueball: Man, I suck at this game. Can you give me a few pointers?
:Black Hat: 0x3A28213A 0x6339392C, 0x7363682E.
:Cueball: I hate you.

==Trivia==
*The "pointers" given are interesting in that all the bytes are printable ASCII characters. In this case (and assuming network byte order), "''':(!:'''", "'''c99,'''", and "'''sch.'''". It is also interesting that the values that are followed by punctuation each end in that punctuation.

{{Comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:832: Tic-Tac-Toe

2013-07-23T09:11:01Z

Chtz:

Talk:128: dPain over dt

2013-07-23T08:40:50Z

Chtz:

== Explanation ==

: ''Since this is my first real contribution here I'm putting everything on the talk page instead of on the article itself.''

The equation describes Pain as a function of Pain, time, and several constants. This is a [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=dP%2Fdt+%3D+%28-a+*+P+%2B+G%29+%281+%2B+e+%5E+-%28t-b%29%2Fd%29%5E%28-1%29 first-order linear differential equation with possible solution]:

Pain = c_1 (e^k_2 + d e^t)^(-k_1) + (Girl)/k_1

Hopefully, d is relatively small ("days... or weeks"), thereby diminishing the time it takes for Pain to change. Significantly, k_1 needs to be positive, otherwise the first term would grow unbounded and Pain would never decrease. Assuming k_1 is positive, a larger k_2 results in a lower initial state. Again assuming k_1 is positive, the "Girl" term guarantees there will always be a nonzero amount of Pain since Pain approaches Girl/k_1 asymptotically, unless of course "How much she's still in my life" is zero. This probably gives rise to observation "I guess there's some kind of a cutoff after years."

--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 02:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Applying dimensional analysis suggests the 'How much she's still in my life' has the same units as 'Pain'. This makes no sense.

In addition, the explanation that pain will eventally reach zero after 'how much she's still in my life' reaches zero (either through drifiting apart or death?) 'after a number of years' is contradicted by the text of the comic (...we can be friends). Perhaps the formulation is incorrect?

I would like to suggest that the first term be corrected to : (-k1.pain.(1-megan)) where 'megan' lies between 0 and 1. This makes dimensional sense.
I would also like to suggest that the denominator of the second term be amended to: (1+ e^((K2-t)/d))). By my reckoning this allows a time period approximately equal to K2 where dPain/dt is small, so providing the cut-off period. After this period, dPain / dt gets increasingly negative.

My own experience is that K2, in my terms, is proportionate to the amount of denial you indulge in and inversely proportionate to the presence of someone else to help you pull through! Whatever, the cartoon provided a good amount of laughter which also helps.

--[[User:HandyAndy|HandyAndy]] ([[User talk:HandyAndy|talk]]) 19:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC) HandyAndy 20:35 BST, 2013-05-20 (ref ISO 1806 ;-))
: 'How much she's still in my life' should have dimension Pain/time (the same as dPain/dt) and k1 has dimension 1/time. We don't know for sure, if 'How much she's still in my life' is a constant or a function, but if it is a constant, the solution of the ODE is as follows (Smartin: You forgot a pair of parentheses) [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=dP%2Fdt+%3D+%28-k1*P%2BG%29*%281%2F%281%2Bexp%28-%28t-k2%29%2Fd%29%29%29]:
P(t) = c_1*(e^(k2/d)+e^(t/d))^(-d*k1)+G/k1.
:--[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 14:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I just added the (IMO correct) solution to the ODE and marked the rest as incomplete/incorrect.
First of all, we can't say that less pain is "better". But assuming that, it's not enough that ''dPain/dt'' approaches 0 fast, but that P(t) itself gets smaller or at least does not increase unbounded. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:We still have to figure out about what REAL equation is in the background. It's not relativity, entropy, or thermodynamics. But the picture looks familiar to me, my poor old brain just do not remember.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
::The first factor alone would describe a shifted {{w|exponential decay}}. The second factor is a scaled and shifted {{w|sigmoid function}}, more precisely the hyperbolic tangent shifted to have its inflection at ''(k2,0.5)'' and vertically scaled by ''d''. I'm not sure if that helps anyone, though ... --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

207: What xkcd Means

2013-07-22T18:33:54Z

Chtz: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 207
| date = January 8, 2007
| title = What xkcd Means
| image = what xkcd means.png
| titletext = It means shuffling quickly past nuns on the street with ketchup in your palms, pretending you're hiding stigmata.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
This comic purports to finally answer the question, "What does 'xkcd' mean?" However, instead of giving an answer as to what the letters mean (a random, unpronounceable four-letter string), he offers five quirky behaviors. It's reminiscent of TV commercials that ask, "What does [brand name] mean? It means [happy activity]!"

The first panel shows a driver making a {{w|right turn on red|right turn at a red light}}, a {{w|U-turn}} on the connecting road and then another right turn, returning him to his original direction. Right turns at red lights and U-turns could be illegal at some intersections.

The second panel shows a person in an inset calling his friend's phone to help him find it, only for it to ring from inside a dog's stomach.

In the third panel, {{w|Graham's number}} is a large number (celebrated as the largest number ever used in a proof), and the {{w|Ackermann function}} is a fast-growing function. Actually, A(g64, g64) is less than g65.

The fourth panel shows somebody walking in a pattern based on the position of black and white tiles on the floor. This is further referenced in [[245: Floor Tiles]].

The title text refer to stigmata, marks corresponding to Jesus' crucifixion wounds. Devout Catholics have claimed to have spontaneously developed stigmata.

==Trivia==
*In his [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24#t=44m30s Google-speech], [[Randall]] said that ''xkcd'' originated as a previously unused random 4 letter string which he used, e.g., as his account name on various internet services.

==Transcript==
:What does XKCD mean?
:[One car of two sitting at a red light makes a right turn, then shifts over to the left and makes a left turn to go back the way it came. It then makes another right and continues on the road past the traffic light. This is shown with a red arrow.]
:It means saving a few seconds at a long red light via elaborate and questionably legal maneuvers.
:[Someone on a cell phone is shown in a circle in the panel. A second person in the panel itself is looking at a dog, from which the ringing sound of his phone is coming.]
:''Ring''
:It means having someone call your cell phone to figure out where it is.
:[The mathematical function "A(g64, g64)=" appears in the panel. Next to the equal sign stands a mathematician, clutching his head.]
:It means calling the Ackermann function with Graham's number as the arguments just to horrify mathematicians.
:Mathematician: Aughhh
:[An approximately 8 by 8 square of floor tiles is shown; the first, fourth and seventh across in the first, fourth and seventh rows are black and the rest are white. A guy and girl are shown next to it, walking on what is presumed to be the same pattern of floor tiles.]
:It means instinctively constructing rules for which floor tiles it's okay to step on and then walking funny ever after.
:[Line indicating the uppermost right black tile: Black tiles okay.]
:[Line indicating tile directly below it: White tiles directly between black tiles okay.]
:[Line indicating a white tile in the last column over: Not okay.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]

132: Music Knowledge

2013-07-22T18:31:54Z

Chtz: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 132
| date = July 24, 2006
| title = Music Knowledge
| image = music_knowledge.png
| titletext = When Guitar Hero 2 comes out I'll have fresh conversational material for MONTHS.
}}

==Explanation==
The punchline of this comic is that just by naming bands from the game {{w|Guitar Hero}}, you can sound pretty knowledgeable about music without actually knowing anything about the bands you are naming. This is further emphasized when [[Megan]] mentions {{w|Metallica}}, a very famous band that mostly everyone can be assumed to have heard of, and [[Cueball]] has no clue who they are.

On the title text, Cueball is just hoping for a sequel on ''Guitar Hero'' to get more, and newer conversational material.

==Trivia==
*In his [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24#t=42m20s Google-speech] in late 2007, [[Randall]] expressed some form of dissatisfaction with ''Guitar Hero III''.
*In 2009, three years after this comic was released, ''Metallica'' eventually got a game {{w|Guitar Hero: Metallica}}.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball converse.]
:Megan: What kind of music do you listen to?
:Cueball: Oh, a mix of things. Some classic rock like Boston, but then of course Queen and Bowie, Joan Jett...
:Megan: Definitely, we need more of those sounds.
:Cueball: But there's some great newer stuff too, like Franz Ferdinand, The Donnas, and Audioslave.
:Megan: Sometimes they're a little much for me. I go more for things like The Arcade Fire, sometimes mixing some electronic sounds like Postal Service.
:Cueball: Oh yeah—have you ever checked out Freezepop?
:Megan: Mhm! Synth pop can be fun, but at the same time, I agree that sometimes you just need to blast some Metallica.
:Cueball: Who?
:Megan: ...Metallica.
:Cueball: Are they new?
:I sound pretty knowledgeable about music until people figure out that I'm just naming bands from Guitar Hero.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Music]]
[[Category:Video games]]

207: What xkcd Means

2013-07-22T18:23:29Z

Chtz: /* Transcript */ origin of xkcd

{{comic
| number = 207
| date = January 8, 2007
| title = What xkcd Means
| image = what xkcd means.png
| titletext = It means shuffling quickly past nuns on the street with ketchup in your palms, pretending you're hiding stigmata.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
This comic purports to finally answer the question, "What does 'xkcd' mean?" However, instead of giving an answer as to what the letters mean (a random, unpronounceable four-letter string), he offers five quirky behaviors. It's reminiscent of TV commercials that ask, "What does [brand name] mean? It means [happy activity]!"

The first panel shows a driver making a {{w|right turn on red|right turn at a red light}}, a {{w|U-turn}} on the connecting road and then another right turn, returning him to his original direction. Right turns at red lights and U-turns could be illegal at some intersections.

The second panel shows a person in an inset calling his friend's phone to help him find it, only for it to ring from inside a dog's stomach.

In the third panel, {{w|Graham's number}} is a large number (celebrated as the largest number ever used in a proof), and the {{w|Ackermann function}} is a fast-growing function. Actually, A(g64, g64) is less than g65.

The fourth panel shows somebody walking in a pattern based on the position of black and white tiles on the floor. This is further referenced in [[245: Floor Tiles]].

The title text refer to stigmata, marks corresponding to Jesus' crucifixion wounds. Devout Catholics have claimed to have spontaneously developed stigmata.

*In his [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24#t=44m30s Google-speech], [[Randall]] said that ''xkcd'' originated as a previously unused random 4 letter string which he used, e.g., as his account name on various internet services.

==Transcript==
:What does XKCD mean?
:[One car of two sitting at a red light makes a right turn, then shifts over to the left and makes a left turn to go back the way it came. It then makes another right and continues on the road past the traffic light. This is shown with a red arrow.]
:It means saving a few seconds at a long red light via elaborate and questionably legal maneuvers.
:[Someone on a cell phone is shown in a circle in the panel. A second person in the panel itself is looking at a dog, from which the ringing sound of his phone is coming.]
:''Ring''
:It means having someone call your cell phone to figure out where it is.
:[The mathematical function "A(g64, g64)=" appears in the panel. Next to the equal sign stands a mathematician, clutching his head.]
:It means calling the Ackermann function with Graham's number as the arguments just to horrify mathematicians.
:Mathematician: Aughhh
:[An approximately 8 by 8 square of floor tiles is shown; the first, fourth and seventh across in the first, fourth and seventh rows are black and the rest are white. A guy and girl are shown next to it, walking on what is presumed to be the same pattern of floor tiles.]
:It means instinctively constructing rules for which floor tiles it's okay to step on and then walking funny ever after.
:[Line indicating the uppermost right black tile: Black tiles okay.]
:[Line indicating tile directly below it: White tiles directly between black tiles okay.]
:[Line indicating a white tile in the last column over: Not okay.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]