explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2599: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio

2022-03-29T08:21:16Z

Laura: Trying to puzzle out the asterisks

correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe 300 - 30 is 270, not 280? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.85|172.68.50.85]] 22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:something something percentage points maybe? idk [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.91|172.70.134.91]] 22:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:Most likely there is an unstated chance of death by not going outside... presumably ~10% but there's no way to know the breakdown (could be nearly all cardio, could be nearly all ursine if they live in a cave next bears) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.127|172.69.70.127]] 23:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
::300% increase is multiplying by (1+3), 30% decrease is multiplying by (1-0.3) , %increases are multiplicative so the increase is by a factor of 4*0.7=2.8, which is 280% of the original value (or a 180% increase).
:::Yeah, barring a total mistake, that must be where the number came from, but it seems odd by the inconsistent way it is expressed, as it assumes the 300% increase for the bear attack is added to the initial value for a final amount of 400%, along with a similar treatment for the 30% decrease, but the 280% is simply the final value skipping past that step to the conclusion afterwards that is not even shown for the previous numbers. But with the improper grammar, if it's not an actual typo, it may be trying to show the speaker acting dumb or irrational, as it doesn't make sense to end with "increased" instead of "increase" without changing part of the words before that number. Someone thinking that poorly though likely wouldn't be able to multiply things properly to produce that 280% number though.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.153|172.70.130.153]] 01:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"That's a 280% increased" has a typo/grammaro. The last word should be "increase". [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:I think the actual typo is the "a" so should be "That's 280% increased"

Also what's an odds ratio?? ~~Bumpf
:I assume something like "million to one". But the units of the horizontal axis clearly don't correspond to that. I don't know what those units are, they're not a percentage, either. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:: if you say "this is 4 times as likely" then "4" is the "odds ratio", this is the type of number appearing on the horizontal axis
:An odds-ratio is a way of reporting the results for predictions of binary outcomes. It's a transformation of the (not easily interpretable) regression coefficient. For example, if the OR for "males" (vs females) is "0.70", they're 70% as likely to have the outcome as females; if it's "1.32", then males are 1.32x as likely (equivalently: 32% more likely) to have that outcome as females. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.75|108.162.249.75]] Gye Greene

Did something happen to the size of the image after the initial posting? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What's with the asterisks on the right side? [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 00:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:I think the asterisks denote that the value at this range is "significant" because its error bars do not overlap with the baseline. If you stay outdoors 5 hours or more in a day, there is a nonzero chance that you will be hit by flying space debris. [[User:Laura|Laura]] ([[User talk:Laura|talk]]) 08:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There should probably be an explanation of what "Monte Carlo Simulation" means, as many people who would actually want an explanation of this strip would likely be unfamiliar with that term.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.122|172.70.131.122]] 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, exactly! I got as far as finding {{w|Monte Carlo method}} via a redirect but have no idea how the bars are supposed to work, what the reference point is supposed to mean, or why the columns get skinnier toward the right. Not dumb, but next to no statistics education. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 07:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

::Yes, I added some links to try to make the graph a little more explore-friendly for folks willing to click and read what's beyond, but I don't have the smarts to really explain it. [[User:Laura|Laura]] ([[User talk:Laura|talk]]) 08:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2599: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio

2022-03-29T08:04:17Z

Laura: Oops! I read the graph wrong. Got my axes mixed up. Deleted my mistaken dumbitude.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe 300 - 30 is 270, not 280? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.85|172.68.50.85]] 22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:something something percentage points maybe? idk [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.91|172.70.134.91]] 22:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:Most likely there is an unstated chance of death by not going outside... presumably ~10% but there's no way to know the breakdown (could be nearly all cardio, could be nearly all ursine if they live in a cave next bears) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.127|172.69.70.127]] 23:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
::300% increase is multiplying by (1+3), 30% decrease is multiplying by (1-0.3) , %increases are multiplicative so the increase is by a factor of 4*0.7=2.8, which is 280% of the original value (or a 180% increase).
:::Yeah, barring a total mistake, that must be where the number came from, but it seems odd by the inconsistent way it is expressed, as it assumes the 300% increase for the bear attack is added to the initial value for a final amount of 400%, along with a similar treatment for the 30% decrease, but the 280% is simply the final value skipping past that step to the conclusion afterwards that is not even shown for the previous numbers. But with the improper grammar, if it's not an actual typo, it may be trying to show the speaker acting dumb or irrational, as it doesn't make sense to end with "increased" instead of "increase" without changing part of the words before that number. Someone thinking that poorly though likely wouldn't be able to multiply things properly to produce that 280% number though.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.153|172.70.130.153]] 01:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"That's a 280% increased" has a typo/grammaro. The last word should be "increase". [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:I think the actual typo is the "a" so should be "That's 280% increased"

Also what's an odds ratio?? ~~Bumpf
:I assume something like "million to one". But the units of the horizontal axis clearly don't correspond to that. I don't know what those units are, they're not a percentage, either. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:: if you say "this is 4 times as likely" then "4" is the "odds ratio", this is the type of number appearing on the horizontal axis
:An odds-ratio is a way of reporting the results for predictions of binary outcomes. It's a transformation of the (not easily interpretable) regression coefficient. For example, if the OR for "males" (vs females) is "0.70", they're 70% as likely to have the outcome as females; if it's "1.32", then males are 1.32x as likely (equivalently: 32% more likely) to have that outcome as females. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.75|108.162.249.75]] Gye Greene

Did something happen to the size of the image after the initial posting? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What's with the asterisks on the right side? [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 00:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There should probably be an explanation of what "Monte Carlo Simulation" means, as many people who would actually want an explanation of this strip would likely be unfamiliar with that term.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.122|172.70.131.122]] 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, exactly! I got as far as finding {{w|Monte Carlo method}} via a redirect but have no idea how the bars are supposed to work, what the reference point is supposed to mean, or why the columns get skinnier toward the right. Not dumb, but next to no statistics education. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 07:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I added some links to try to make the graph a little more explore-friendly for folks willing to click and read what's beyond, but I don't have the smarts to really explain it. [[User:Laura|Laura]] ([[User talk:Laura|talk]]) 08:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2599: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio

2022-03-29T08:00:51Z

Laura: Added citation notation to my name and the comment time.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe 300 - 30 is 270, not 280? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.85|172.68.50.85]] 22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:something something percentage points maybe? idk [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.91|172.70.134.91]] 22:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:Most likely there is an unstated chance of death by not going outside... presumably ~10% but there's no way to know the breakdown (could be nearly all cardio, could be nearly all ursine if they live in a cave next bears) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.127|172.69.70.127]] 23:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
::300% increase is multiplying by (1+3), 30% decrease is multiplying by (1-0.3) , %increases are multiplicative so the increase is by a factor of 4*0.7=2.8, which is 280% of the original value (or a 180% increase).
:::Yeah, barring a total mistake, that must be where the number came from, but it seems odd by the inconsistent way it is expressed, as it assumes the 300% increase for the bear attack is added to the initial value for a final amount of 400%, along with a similar treatment for the 30% decrease, but the 280% is simply the final value skipping past that step to the conclusion afterwards that is not even shown for the previous numbers. But with the improper grammar, if it's not an actual typo, it may be trying to show the speaker acting dumb or irrational, as it doesn't make sense to end with "increased" instead of "increase" without changing part of the words before that number. Someone thinking that poorly though likely wouldn't be able to multiply things properly to produce that 280% number though.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.153|172.70.130.153]] 01:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"That's a 280% increased" has a typo/grammaro. The last word should be "increase". [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:I think the actual typo is the "a" so should be "That's 280% increased"

Also what's an odds ratio?? ~~Bumpf
:I assume something like "million to one". But the units of the horizontal axis clearly don't correspond to that. I don't know what those units are, they're not a percentage, either. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:: if you say "this is 4 times as likely" then "4" is the "odds ratio", this is the type of number appearing on the horizontal axis
:An odds-ratio is a way of reporting the results for predictions of binary outcomes. It's a transformation of the (not easily interpretable) regression coefficient. For example, if the OR for "males" (vs females) is "0.70", they're 70% as likely to have the outcome as females; if it's "1.32", then males are 1.32x as likely (equivalently: 32% more likely) to have that outcome as females. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.75|108.162.249.75]] Gye Greene

Did something happen to the size of the image after the initial posting? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What's with the asterisks on the right side? [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 00:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There should probably be an explanation of what "Monte Carlo Simulation" means, as many people who would actually want an explanation of this strip would likely be unfamiliar with that term.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.122|172.70.131.122]] 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, exactly! I got as far as finding {{w|Monte Carlo method}} via a redirect but have no idea how the bars are supposed to work, what the reference point is supposed to mean, or why the columns get skinnier toward the right. Not dumb, but next to no statistics education. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 07:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I added some links to try to make the graph a little more explore-friendly for folks willing to click and read what's beyond, but I don't have the smarts to really explain it. Like, for instance, why are some values marked by dots and some by asterisks? Why is 5 hours the cutoff point? Perhaps, up until 5 hours per day, all the error bars overlap at least with the error bar immediately prior, set for the frequency of debris accidents due to staying outdoors one fewer hours. But then, what's the frequency of debris accidents at 5 hours per more, and why is it so significant? Are its error bars narrower, to the point where they don't overlap at all with the previous error bars? [[User:Laura|Laura]] ([[User talk:Laura|talk]]) 08:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2599: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio

2022-03-29T07:57:40Z

Laura: Commenting on the need to explain the graph better and the "significance" of the two asterisks to the right of the graph.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe 300 - 30 is 270, not 280? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.85|172.68.50.85]] 22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:something something percentage points maybe? idk [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.91|172.70.134.91]] 22:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:Most likely there is an unstated chance of death by not going outside... presumably ~10% but there's no way to know the breakdown (could be nearly all cardio, could be nearly all ursine if they live in a cave next bears) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.127|172.69.70.127]] 23:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
::300% increase is multiplying by (1+3), 30% decrease is multiplying by (1-0.3) , %increases are multiplicative so the increase is by a factor of 4*0.7=2.8, which is 280% of the original value (or a 180% increase).
:::Yeah, barring a total mistake, that must be where the number came from, but it seems odd by the inconsistent way it is expressed, as it assumes the 300% increase for the bear attack is added to the initial value for a final amount of 400%, along with a similar treatment for the 30% decrease, but the 280% is simply the final value skipping past that step to the conclusion afterwards that is not even shown for the previous numbers. But with the improper grammar, if it's not an actual typo, it may be trying to show the speaker acting dumb or irrational, as it doesn't make sense to end with "increased" instead of "increase" without changing part of the words before that number. Someone thinking that poorly though likely wouldn't be able to multiply things properly to produce that 280% number though.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.153|172.70.130.153]] 01:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"That's a 280% increased" has a typo/grammaro. The last word should be "increase". [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
:I think the actual typo is the "a" so should be "That's 280% increased"

Also what's an odds ratio?? ~~Bumpf
:I assume something like "million to one". But the units of the horizontal axis clearly don't correspond to that. I don't know what those units are, they're not a percentage, either. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:: if you say "this is 4 times as likely" then "4" is the "odds ratio", this is the type of number appearing on the horizontal axis
:An odds-ratio is a way of reporting the results for predictions of binary outcomes. It's a transformation of the (not easily interpretable) regression coefficient. For example, if the OR for "males" (vs females) is "0.70", they're 70% as likely to have the outcome as females; if it's "1.32", then males are 1.32x as likely (equivalently: 32% more likely) to have that outcome as females. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.75|108.162.249.75]] Gye Greene

Did something happen to the size of the image after the initial posting? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What's with the asterisks on the right side? [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 00:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There should probably be an explanation of what "Monte Carlo Simulation" means, as many people who would actually want an explanation of this strip would likely be unfamiliar with that term.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.122|172.70.131.122]] 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, exactly! I got as far as finding {{w|Monte Carlo method}} via a redirect but have no idea how the bars are supposed to work, what the reference point is supposed to mean, or why the columns get skinnier toward the right. Not dumb, but next to no statistics education. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 07:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I added some links to try to make the graph a little more explore-friendly for folks willing to click and read what's beyond, but I don't have the smarts to really explain it. Like, for instance, why are some values marked by dots and some by asterisks? Why is 5 hours the cutoff point? Perhaps, up until 5 hours per day, all the error bars overlap at least with the error bar immediately prior, set for the frequency of debris accidents due to staying outdoors one fewer hours. But then, what's the frequency of debris accidents at 5 hours per more, and why is it so significant? Are its error bars narrower, to the point where they don't overlap at all with the previous error bars?

2599: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio

2022-03-29T07:52:29Z

Laura: /* Explanation */ Added link for reference value.

{{comic
| number = 2599
| date = March 28, 2022
| title = Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio
| image = spacecraft_debris_odds_ratio.png
| titletext = You say this daily walk will reduce my risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 30%, but also increase my risk of death by bear attack by 300%? That's a 280% increased! I'm not a sucker; I'm staying inside.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EVENS RATIO - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a misunderstanding of statistics very similar to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1252:_Increased_Risk 1252: Increased Risk]. It explains that going outside for more than 5 hours a day significantly increases your risk of head injury from falling spacecraft, and advises to limit outside activity to avoid this risk. However, since the odds of being hit in the head by (part of) a falling spacecraft are astronomically low to begin with, quadrupling it or more still results in a negligible probability. The horizontal error bars for times greater than 4 hours are marked with asterisks to indicate they are significantly different from the reference value at 0 hours, as indeed those error bars don't overlap the vertical line for the 0-hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_range reference value].

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_bar "Error bars are graphical representations of the variability of data and used on graphs to indicate the error or uncertainty in a reported measurement."]

The graph and error bars are based on a Monte Carlo simulation, [https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/monte-carlo-simulation "a type of computational algorithm that uses repeated random sampling to obtain the likelihood of a range of results of occurring."] (See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method Monte Carlo Method])

The specific reference to falling spacecraft is likely inspired by current events. Around a month before this was posted, the head of the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, warned that sanctions against Russia (mostly those over the Russia-Ukraine war) could result in the ISS crashing. Since the Russian section of the space station is the one that provides propulsion (although it is built to rely on the power generated by the other sections), this was taken seriously and as of when this was posted, NASA was trying to come up with alternative stabilization strategies in case the situation worsened. There was also a recent [https://www-uol-com-br.translate.goog/tilt/noticias/redacao/2022/03/17/parte-do-foguete-spacex-e-encontrada-por-morador-do-pr.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pt-BR&_x_tr_pto=wapp report] of some 600 kg space rocket debris found in Brazil.

The title text makes a similar joke: while the increase in chances of death by bear are greater than the decrease in chances of death by cardiovascular disease, it is incorrect to subtract them, since cardiovascular disease has a much higher starting chance of death, and reducing it by 30% has a much more significant effect on overall life expectancy than quadrupling the very very small chance of death by bear.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

2599: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio

2022-03-29T07:50:16Z

Laura:

{{comic
| number = 2599
| date = March 28, 2022
| title = Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio
| image = spacecraft_debris_odds_ratio.png
| titletext = You say this daily walk will reduce my risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 30%, but also increase my risk of death by bear attack by 300%? That's a 280% increased! I'm not a sucker; I'm staying inside.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EVENS RATIO - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a misunderstanding of statistics very similar to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1252:_Increased_Risk 1252: Increased Risk]. It explains that going outside for more than 5 hours a day significantly increases your risk of head injury from falling spacecraft, and advises to limit outside activity to avoid this risk. However, since the odds of being hit in the head by (part of) a falling spacecraft are astronomically low to begin with, quadrupling it or more still results in a negligible probability. The horizontal error bars for times greater than 4 hours are marked with asterisks to indicate they are significantly different from the reference value at 0 hours, as indeed those error bars don't overlap the vertical line for the 0-hours reference value.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_bar "Error bars are graphical representations of the variability of data and used on graphs to indicate the error or uncertainty in a reported measurement."]

The graph and error bars are based on a Monte Carlo simulation, [https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/monte-carlo-simulation "a type of computational algorithm that uses repeated random sampling to obtain the likelihood of a range of results of occurring."] (See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method Monte Carlo Method])

The specific reference to falling spacecraft is likely inspired by current events. Around a month before this was posted, the head of the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, warned that sanctions against Russia (mostly those over the Russia-Ukraine war) could result in the ISS crashing. Since the Russian section of the space station is the one that provides propulsion (although it is built to rely on the power generated by the other sections), this was taken seriously and as of when this was posted, NASA was trying to come up with alternative stabilization strategies in case the situation worsened. There was also a recent [https://www-uol-com-br.translate.goog/tilt/noticias/redacao/2022/03/17/parte-do-foguete-spacex-e-encontrada-por-morador-do-pr.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pt-BR&_x_tr_pto=wapp report] of some 600 kg space rocket debris found in Brazil.

The title text makes a similar joke: while the increase in chances of death by bear are greater than the decrease in chances of death by cardiovascular disease, it is incorrect to subtract them, since cardiovascular disease has a much higher starting chance of death, and reducing it by 30% has a much more significant effect on overall life expectancy than quadrupling the very very small chance of death by bear.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

2599: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio

2022-03-29T07:49:45Z

Laura: /* Explanation */ Added explanation of error bars and the Monte Carlo method. Not sure what the preferred style is here when referring to direct quotations to the linked source.

{{comic
| number = 2599
| date = March 28, 2022
| title = Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio
| image = spacecraft_debris_odds_ratio.png
| titletext = You say this daily walk will reduce my risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 30%, but also increase my risk of death by bear attack by 300%? That's a 280% increased! I'm not a sucker; I'm staying inside.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EVENS RATIO - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a misunderstanding of statistics very similar to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1252:_Increased_Risk 1252: Increased Risk]. It explains that going outside for more than 5 hours a day significantly increases your risk of head injury from falling spacecraft, and advises to limit outside activity to avoid this risk. However, since the odds of being hit in the head by (part of) a falling spacecraft are astronomically low to begin with, quadrupling it or more still results in a negligible probability. The horizontal error bars for times greater than 4 hours are marked with asterisks to indicate they are significantly different from the reference value at 0 hours, as indeed those error bars don't overlap the vertical line for the 0-hours reference value.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_bar "Error bars are graphical representations of the variability of data and used on graphs to indicate the error or uncertainty in a reported measurement."]

The graph and error bars are based on a Monte Carlo simulation, [https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/monte-carlo-simulation "a type of computational algorithm that uses repeated random sampling to obtain the likelihood of a range of results of occurring."] (See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method Monte Carlo Method])

The specific reference to falling spacecraft is likely inspired by current events. Around a month before this was posted, the head of the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, warned that sanctions against Russia (mostly those over the Russia-Ukraine war) could result in the ISS crashing. Since the Russian section of the space station is the one that provides propulsion (although it is built to rely on the power generated by the other sections), this was taken seriously and as of when this was posted, NASA was trying to come up with alternative stabilization strategies in case the situation worsened. There was also a recent [https://www-uol-com-br.translate.goog/tilt/noticias/redacao/2022/03/17/parte-do-foguete-spacex-e-encontrada-por-morador-do-pr.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pt-BR&_x_tr_pto=wapp report] of some 600 kg space rocket debris found in Brazil.

The title text makes a similar joke: while the increase in chances of death by bear are greater than the decrease in chances of death by cardiovascular disease, it is incorrect to subtract them, since cardiovascular disease has a much higher starting chance of death, and reducing it by 30% has a much more significant effect on overall life expectancy than quadrupling the very very small chance of death by bear.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

2596: Galaxies

2022-03-22T04:28:45Z

Laura: Added a note about depth perception.

{{comic
| number = 2596
| date = March 21, 2022
| title = Galaxies
| image = galaxies.png
| titletext = I know it seems overwhelming, but don't worry; I'm sure most of them have only a few stars, and probably no planets.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by FIFTY THOUSAND GALAXIES - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic may mean that, if one treated the circle as a pinhole, held it at arm's length, and looked through it, with infinite depth of vision, one could eventually see a number of galaxies beyond it somewhere in the range of 50,000. The same could be true when holding the pinhole in any direction. The galaxies look small enough to fit inside your field of vision when peeping through the pinhole because they are so far away. As the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy explained: "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." ― Douglas Adams

If there are 50,000 galaxies even in that small circle, then there '''are''' quite a lot of galaxies. Too many galaxies for the narrator, who seems to be having an existential crisis (a theme previously brought up in [[975: Occulting Telescope]]).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

2596: Galaxies

2022-03-22T04:26:33Z

Laura: /* Explanation */ One possible explanation, added a quote from Douglas Adams.

{{comic
| number = 2596
| date = March 21, 2022
| title = Galaxies
| image = galaxies.png
| titletext = I know it seems overwhelming, but don't worry; I'm sure most of them have only a few stars, and probably no planets.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by FIFTY THOUSAND GALAXIES - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic may mean that, if one treated the circle as a pinhole, held it at arm's length, and looked through it, with infinite depth of vision, one could eventually see a number of galaxies beyond it somewhere in the range of 50,000. The same could be true when holding the pinhole in any direction. As the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy explained: "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." ― Douglas Adams

If there are 50,000 galaxies even in that small circle, then there '''are''' quite a lot of galaxies. Too many galaxies for the narrator, who seems to be having an existential crisis (a theme previously brought up in [[975: Occulting Telescope]]).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}