explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1245: 10-Day Forecast

2013-07-31T18:25:45Z

Claudionico:

Any possible significance of people seeming having longer legs that usuall on "monday" frame? Also, why should that "tuesday" figure be {{w|antichrist}}? Looks more like {{w|Loki_(comics)|Loki}} to me (although if it SHOULD be Loki he would probably look even more similar). And "sunday" frame looks more like {{w|Bee}}s that {{w|Locust}}, but it's true I never heard of plague of bees :-). (On the other hand, if {{w|Plagues of Egypt|Plague of locusts}} would be referenced, one would expect the other plagues as well.) Also note that if that should reference {{w|Book of Revelation|Christian Apocalypse}}, it should include more horses. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
:I think the "legs" thing is indicating they're floating up due to the {{w|Rapture}}. --[[User:Druid816|Druid816]] ([[User talk:Druid816|talk]]) 10:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, WHY negative zip codes? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
:It may be a reference to [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinusWorld Minus Worlds], implying that the ZIP codes are levels in a video game and the negative ones are glitches, although that's a stretch. [[Special:Contributions/38.108.195.69|38.108.195.69]] 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The person in the tuesday picture reminded me of the Rabbit "Frank" from Donnie Darko / S. Darko. --[[Special:Contributions/95.33.125.63|95.33.125.63]] 10:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
:If he is, it may mean that negative zip codes are located in a [http://www.donniedarko.org.uk/explanation/ Tangent Universe] --[[User:Danroa|Danroa]] ([[User talk:Danroa|talk]]) 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's actually Megan that says the title text, and not Cueball, mainly because the title text is agreeing with what Cueball said ("Oh, definitely not"). If Cueball were to confirm his own sentence, it wouldn't make sense. {{User:Grep/signature|11:20, 31 July 2013}}

Isn't Sunday a plague of flies? And, judging by the curvature of the earth (I assume) on Tuesday One, wouldn't the character be the size of Galactus? With horns like Galactus? I think it makes sense that it's Galactus. And Monday is just a weird day, just like in my zip code. [[Special:Contributions/67.60.145.86|67.60.145.86]] 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What's a zip code? [[Special:Contributions/80.2.179.200|80.2.179.200]] 14:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
: Seriously? See {{w|ZIP code}}. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 15:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
:: Not so off-the-wall. The zip code is an American-only thing. Might be worth a mention for non-American readers. [[User:Vyzen|Vyzen]] ([[User talk:Vyzen|talk]]) 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Strongly disagree with that statement. I live in Israel and we have and use zip codes. [[Special:Contributions/95.35.56.169|95.35.56.169]] 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the Monday guy sort of look like ''{{w|The Scream}}''?
[[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 15:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone else try to put in a negative zipcode because of this? I think Google should use this as one of the easter eggs they're so fond of. [[Special:Contributions/138.162.8.57|138.162.8.57]] 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
: at weather.com a negative ZIP code gets you a "can't find" type result with Cancun, Mazatlan and Amsterdam offered as suggestions for where you were interested in. (I tried ZIPs from 10012 to 98072, same result for all I tried). Google Maps just ignores the negative and gives correct results. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that Randall is playing with the fact that 10day forecast are very inaccurate. We can trust 3, max 4 days of accuracy. After that, is pretty meaningless since the divergence of the models is a likely scenario. No?[[User:Claudionico|cinico]] ([[User talk:Claudionico|talk]])

Talk:1240: Quantum Mechanics

2013-07-22T13:51:57Z

Claudionico:

Who is CueBall talking to? It is not Meg, unless she dyed her hair. [[Special:Contributions/65.215.93.238|65.215.93.238]]
:[[Ponytail]] --[[Special:Contributions/92.230.59.41|92.230.59.41]] 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Are "almost" against common sense? I see you don't know much about quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, common sense is about as usefull as in {{w|Alice's Adventures in Wonderland|Alice's Wonderland}}. Possibly less. And that bit about {{w|Quantum tunnelling|going through the wall}} is used in {{w|Flash_memory#NAND_flash|Flash memories}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:Sure. You can see that people do not understand anything about something because you think you know a lot about that something. WRONG! I know exactly what I was talking about and "almost" was a word that I did not chose lightly.[[User:Claudionico|cinico]] ([[User talk:Claudionico|talk]]) 13:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase 'according to quantum mechanics'" Including, of course, that one. [[User:Tbrosz|Tbrosz]] ([[User talk:Tbrosz|talk]]) 16:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Albert Einstein being famously ''wrong''", isn't that a bit subjective? Although there is little evidence supporting the hidden variable theory, it is not out of the question to consider it, Einstein might've been right you know. --[[Special:Contributions/79.160.93.211|79.160.93.211]] 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:Einstein was not ''wrong'', he just was searching to unify relativity mechanics with quantum mechanics. That sentence "God does not play dice" is often misunderstood and in wrong context here. I did remove it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
::I don't know about ANY evidence supporting {{w|Hidden variable theory}}, on the other hand I heard that {{w|Bell's_theorem|Bell inequalities}} were experimentally tested and results are against Einstein. Wikipedia itself states that "Most advocates of the hidden variables idea ... are ready to give up locality". Einstein {{w|Principle_of_locality|assumed that the principle of locality was necessary, and that there could be no violations of it}}. Are you seriously saying that someone managed to put their subjective position into that many articles on wikipedia? ; The point of "wrong content" may be more valid, especially considering that Einstein probably was able to understand quantum mechanics, just didn't believe it. It would be very interresting what he would say about the issue if he wouldn't died 9 years before the Bell inequalities were formulated. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I recall hearing an argument along these lines... Something about the "fact" that a dog observing a quantum wave form will cause it to collapse, thus the observer is "conscious", and thus has a "soul". How exactly you explain all the misnomers in that set of assumptions, let alone test the hypothesis to begin with, I've no clue. Can we train monkeys to read particle detectors? And what consequence might this have for Schrodinger's poor cat? ;) [[Special:Contributions/99.42.81.32|99.42.81.32]] 06:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how they managed to actually prove dogs can collapse quantum wave form, but I'm definitely sure that if dog can do that cat can too. Remember that {{w|Schrödinger's cat}} was THOUGH experiment, we don't know if someone really tried it (unless {{w|Cheshire Cat|Lewis Carol did}}). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1240: Quantum Mechanics

2013-07-22T13:48:29Z

Claudionico:

Who is CueBall talking to? It is not Meg, unless she dyed her hair. [[Special:Contributions/65.215.93.238|65.215.93.238]]
:[[Ponytail]] --[[Special:Contributions/92.230.59.41|92.230.59.41]] 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Are "almost" against common sense? I see you don't know much about quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, common sense is about as usefull as in {{w|Alice's Adventures in Wonderland|Alice's Wonderland}}. Possibly less. And that bit about {{w|Quantum tunnelling|going through the wall}} is used in {{w|Flash_memory#NAND_flash|Flash memories}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:Sure. You can see that people do not understand anything about something because you think you know a lot about that something. WRONG! [[User:Claudionico|cinico]] ([[User talk:Claudionico|talk]]) 13:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase 'according to quantum mechanics'" Including, of course, that one. [[User:Tbrosz|Tbrosz]] ([[User talk:Tbrosz|talk]]) 16:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Albert Einstein being famously ''wrong''", isn't that a bit subjective? Although there is little evidence supporting the hidden variable theory, it is not out of the question to consider it, Einstein might've been right you know. --[[Special:Contributions/79.160.93.211|79.160.93.211]] 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:Einstein was not ''wrong'', he just was searching to unify relativity mechanics with quantum mechanics. That sentence "God does not play dice" is often misunderstood and in wrong context here. I did remove it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
::I don't know about ANY evidence supporting {{w|Hidden variable theory}}, on the other hand I heard that {{w|Bell's_theorem|Bell inequalities}} were experimentally tested and results are against Einstein. Wikipedia itself states that "Most advocates of the hidden variables idea ... are ready to give up locality". Einstein {{w|Principle_of_locality|assumed that the principle of locality was necessary, and that there could be no violations of it}}. Are you seriously saying that someone managed to put their subjective position into that many articles on wikipedia? ; The point of "wrong content" may be more valid, especially considering that Einstein probably was able to understand quantum mechanics, just didn't believe it. It would be very interresting what he would say about the issue if he wouldn't died 9 years before the Bell inequalities were formulated. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I recall hearing an argument along these lines... Something about the "fact" that a dog observing a quantum wave form will cause it to collapse, thus the observer is "conscious", and thus has a "soul". How exactly you explain all the misnomers in that set of assumptions, let alone test the hypothesis to begin with, I've no clue. Can we train monkeys to read particle detectors? And what consequence might this have for Schrodinger's poor cat? ;) [[Special:Contributions/99.42.81.32|99.42.81.32]] 06:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how they managed to actually prove dogs can collapse quantum wave form, but I'm definitely sure that if dog can do that cat can too. Remember that {{w|Schrödinger's cat}} was THOUGH experiment, we don't know if someone really tried it (unless {{w|Cheshire Cat|Lewis Carol did}}). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)