explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1318: Actually

2014-01-19T05:44:10Z

Jesse:

I started reading the comic from the topmost line "Actually, measurements suggest it's flat." It seemed that he was talking about the planet, but it's also a response to the curved-space line from before. Upon further reading, I can't tell if the discussion is about a planet or a universe, and it looks like you can go around the circle twice and assume both. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.72|173.245.50.72]] 05:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

: It is about the shape of the Earth. The Earth exists in a curved universe. The alt text is referring to the fact that by being more and more specific you can always get the last word in but it may alienate you from your peers. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 05:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The transcript needs some way to show that Cueball is talking to the second Hairy in the end. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.71|108.162.216.71]] 08:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

: "show that Cueball is talking to the second Hairy in the end" -> Do you consider it done ? [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed factual error about sum of angles of a triangle in a closed geometry. An example of closed geometry is spherical geometry, where sum of angles of a triangle is π < A + B + C<3π http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry . Previous text wrongly stated that A+B+C would be smaller than π in closed geometry and greater in open geometry. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

About the oblate configuration: why attribute it to centripetal force? Because centrifugal force is an "apparent" force? Well centripetal force from gravitational pull is actually balancing the centrifugal force caused by rotation of the earth. The whole "centrifugal force does not exist" thing is a misconception. It's an inertial force and writing the equilibrium equations for an object in the rotating reference frame (the one we experience everyday) at latitude phi you see: gravitational pull toward the center of the planet + centrifugal force away from the axis of rotation= mass*g(phi). This g(phi) is not the same in every spot of the earth, it changes in value and direction (does not always point exactly to the center of the earth) with latitude.{{unsigned ip|108.162.229.65}}
: I second this. The centripetal force would actually be the gravity of earth. Attributing the oblate shape of earth to this is just plain wrong, since it pulls inwards, not outwards. Actually all forces could be called "apparent" forces, since they're really just constructs to help you calculate the acceleration of a body. There's always a (local) reference frame where a particular force doesn't "exist". {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.131}}
:: Sure, there is always such frame, but gravitation is real force anyway because we can measure the higgs field by detecting higgs bosons. At least I think we can. Failing that, electromagnetic forces are real because we can measure electromagnetic field by detecting photons, this I'm sure of :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Come now. Do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while strapped to a centrifuge? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
::::No, Mister Diszy, I expect you to die. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 20:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the explanation assumes the top claim is at the start and end. I think that part of the explanation is a stretch and that the "flat" claim is not meant to be given twice. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:It's a loop. Technically there is no "start". Each line is a direct "more specific" response to the previous remark. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 20:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I always suspected Freddie Mercury was a closet planetoligist. {{unsigned ip|127.0.0.1|20:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)}}

I highly doubt this pun is intentional, but this could be seen as a case of circular logic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 20:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Any significance to where they are standing along the circle? If we start with flat, the first three are right in a row, but then the rest are spread out further.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.57|108.162.216.57]] 21:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:Yes. They are standing close to the center of where their sentence is. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick suggestion. Under the (first) "[Actually,] measurements suggest it's flat." explanation title, just have the first point given. Then continue through the other "Actually"'s and ''then'' have (under a second "Actually, measurements suggest it's flat." header) the "Finally, the first speaker comments again," point and then the "The arguments could continue around the circle," one at the end. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.223|141.101.99.223]] 22:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It was not the case that the middle age believd in a flat eart (some of the antic cultures did). See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth Wikipedia]. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 00:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

;not a recursive loop

"Further statements could now continue to be interpreted as referring to the universe rather than the Earth, thus forming a recursive loop.". This phrase is awful. As far as I understood this long hypothetical sentence does not even wrap 2 times. Adding 'recursive' is totally pointless here. Am I right? {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.222}}

''Actually,'' you can win every exchange just by being one level more precise than '''whom'''ever talked last. --[[User:Jesse|Jesse]] ([[User talk:Jesse|talk]]) 05:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1215: Insight

2013-09-24T19:36:55Z

Jesse:

Indeed, somebody speaking circa 1895 could have made the same remark but instead of Google Glass the subject could have been something then new such as the Horseless Carriage, a technology now known as the Automobile in which I will soon drive to work.
[[Special:Contributions/24.91.233.200|24.91.233.200]] 09:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

:The same could be said for electrification (utility-provided mains, especially when extended to rural areas), steam locomotives, and industrialization as a whole. '''--BigMal27''' // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.177|192.136.15.177]] 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's make a list! --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:added <fire>, sorted by date--~~ ~~

*Maybe before we rush to adopt <Google Cornea Implants> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(2020)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <the internet> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1986)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <TV> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1954)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <automobiles> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1914)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <electrification> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1880's)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <growing food> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(10,000 BCE)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <fire> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(400,000 BCE)''



I think that most people initially view a new idea or technology with skepticism and/or suspicion, but eventually accept it and learn to incorporate into their everyday life. This generally works out fine, and often for the better. Historical examples of this abound: the telephone, electricity, and the automobile, for example, probably all caused controversy when they were first rolled out to the general public, but today we couldn't imagine our lives without them. Another great example is civil rights. At first, the public attacks civil rights activists as radicals, then tolerates them as equals, and eventually hails them as heroes who fought for good and justice.

However, I would caution against thinking that every new idea is equally beneficial, and that those who express initial concern about the latest gizmo are merely backward Luddites. Humans are generally a lot better at figuring out how to make/do/use something before we figure out if it's good for us. Just look at drug companies like Bayer at the turn of the 20th century, who marketed aspirin (good) right alongside heroin (not so good) as great new drugs for modern medicine. Or think about eugenics, which developed out of evolutionary theory. While evolution was, is, and probably will always be the foundation of modern biology, eugenics provided justification for some truly horrible actions in the 20th century before people decided that it was all bull**** science.

Or, take Google Streetview. Sure, it's a great new technology, and I use it almost daily. But think about the unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world. I don't think anyone can claim that we fully understand the repercussions that these new Google technologies will have on our lives, and I'd argue that it's premature to ignore or ridicule people who advocate caution with Google Glasses. After all, we're talking about strapping a camera to your face! Just my $0.02.

TL;DR: New technology isn't always good technology.
[[User:Chris j|Chris j]] ([[User talk:Chris j|talk]]) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi '''Chris j''', please sign your posts by using the sign button on top of the editor. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

<blockquote>unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world</blockquote>
Nothing like the entire world. Vast areas have no streets. Even where there are streets, there are large areas either nowhere near a street or not visible from the street. I await Google JungleView, SteppeView and (ahem) BedroomView. Or maybe not. [[Special:Contributions/203.206.118.14|203.206.118.14]] 02:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe before we rush to adopt <language> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in... oh, wait. Shit.
--[[User:Jesse|Jesse]] ([[User talk:Jesse|talk]]) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)