explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:675: Revolutionary

2016-03-09T20:25:32Z

Pacerier:

Looks like this guy doesn't know about Lorentz contraction and time dilation. That or he's so confident about his idea that he hasn't bothered to look further into the subject. --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this guy

:'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 20:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)''': ❝
::Had we forgotten [http://www.snopes.com/college/homework/unsolvable.asp George Dantzig]? The world would have made much more progress had it not been propaganda like this discouraging people from thinking.

::Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right.
:❞

They both look the same to me. Which one do you mean?

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess that the mouseover text refer to the Occam's razor, a favourite tool of many philosophers. --[[User:Barfolomio|Barfolomio]] ([[User talk:Barfolomio|talk]]) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:Welcome '''Barfolomio''', but I think the {{w|Occam's razor}} principle wasn't in mind of Randall when he wrote this comic. But it's a nice find and maybe it should be mentioned. Nevertheless the title text explain is wrong, reading all the math and physics books is much harder then just inventing a "racecar on a train" theory as a philosopher. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::The title text specifically compares two things.
::*That I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about (implying that decades of work by numerous physicists is wrong)
::*That I need to read a little more.
::The actual invention of the idea doesn't come into it. It takes minimal effort to invent an incorrect theory.
::In the vast majority of these cases, reading a little bit more into the subject results in finding out that the flaw you think have found is in fact already explained.
::As an example, lets say a high school student happens to do sqrt(5-6), he thinks he has uncovered a sum which has no answer. His calculator tells him 'Error'. In fact, with a little more reading, he would discover that mathematicians have a whole area devoted to this type of maths, namely {{w|Imaginary unit|imaginary numbers}}. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The relativity sections of physics forums like www.physicsforums.com, despite having FAQs and pinned posts with explanations, are often full with new threads claiming that relativity is obviously wrong because of "insert simple example here that uses normal velocity addition instead of Lorentz transforms", maybe Randall is a participant in such a forum? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.206|141.101.93.206]] 08:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
: None the less the fact remains that there are at least three completely different explanations known. Or at least there were, the last time I spent a couple of hours on the subject (one hell of a while back.)
:Once I got to the fact that there were a lot of alternative values for time -let's face it, that is what it is all about in the first place... I just lost interest.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dgbrt, I have reverted your edit which removed the example using imaginary numbers. I understand that the example uses imaginary numbers which are not referenced in the comic, however rather than removing a paragraph which gives a succinct example of the comics content (and points out that it is only an example), it would be far more useful to change the paragraph to reference special relativity instead of imaginary numbers. There are two reasons I didn't do this when I wrote the paragraph: Firstly, I don't understand special relativity in enough detail to give an example where a 'flaw' is easily explained, and secondly most readers probably don't either. Because of this I used imaginary numbers which I would think a larger proportion of people have come across in some form before. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
:I removed this paragraph because "sqrt(5-6)" or "imaginary numbers" do not help to explain the comics content — less than 5% will understand only that phrases. We can't explain special relativity — using "imaginary numbers" — to a common reader. BUT we can explain how or why some people NOT understanding Einstein still trying to invent better solutions... without any knowledge of the real matter. I did not remove it again, so it's up to you to give a better explain.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
::I disagree that it doesn't help the explanation. It gives a fairly simple example of somebody who thinks they have found a flaw, but where it would take minimal extra reading to realise its actually not a flaw (which is the whole concept of this comic). I would argue that substantially more than 5% of readers will have come across imaginary numbers, if they haven't then the wiki link is there for them to look them up. The fact that it refers to imaginary numbers is actually not even particularly relevant, only that there is a field of mathematics to explain the sqrt(5-6) "flaw". Maybe the explanation could be improved by changing the example to relate to special relativity, but as I said before I'm not qualified to write that. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:185: Wikifriends

2016-03-04T13:13:49Z

Pacerier:

I thought this was a reference to the WikiFriends group who defend WikiLeaks. I figured it was about intimidation. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's impossible. The comic came out before Wikileaks even existed.[[Special:Contributions/120.148.234.14|120.148.234.14]] 22:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
:'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 13:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)''': ❝
::So the group's name is a fork from this article title?
:❞
I have a completely different understanding of this comic than what's in the explanation here. Wiki is a site where anyone can change content and it's instantly visible - I think Randall meant that wikifriends are wiki because anyone can change their opinion on movies because they instantly adapt what others say. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 14:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 13:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)''': ❝
::Re:
::<blockquote>[…] anyone can change their opinion on movies because they instantly adapt what others say.</blockquote>
::Isn't that exactly what the explanation on this page says?
:❞

Talk:843: Misconceptions

2016-03-04T13:02:52Z

Pacerier:

:''Note:'' The [[xkcd forums]] contain a great [http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=67352 discussion] of this comic.
=="Before time"==
'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 13:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)''': ❝
:Why is the "''B''" in "''Before time''" capitalized?

:'''If''' it's a reference to "''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini B.C.]''", what's the link here?
❞
==Untitled==
When I took Calculus-based Physics in college (2003), my professor taught us that glass was an "extremely viscous fluid." When was glass reclassified as an amorphous solid?
 [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]])
Your professor was simply incorrect. Glass never was, and has never been, an "extremely viscous fluid". Molten glass is a "molecular liquid" where the viscosity depends on temperature. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 22:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 "Extremely viscous fluid" is just another way to describe an amorphous solid (as opposed to the crystallic solid). There is no sharp cut-off between these states. Just at some point it starts feeling solid enough, so it gets called a solid. See the Pitch Drop Experiment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment] for an example (though glass is obviously harder than pitch). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a chemistry professor in 2011 tell me that glass flowed, even citing old buildings with thicker glass on the bottom. I tried to argue against it, but I was interrupting a lecture. I discussed it with some students later, though. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 00:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
:If you think you had a problem, try convincing anyone that weather turns into seismic activity and vice versa.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there really a law or custom about the first Tuesday in February?, or is that just a misconception? [[User:Danshoham|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham|talk]]) 17:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:545: Neutrality Schmeutrality

2016-03-04T12:54:50Z

Pacerier:

What if instead of word count, it was determined by letter count. so insert a word with multiple spellings like "colour/color" and people will repeatedly edit and re-edit the word over and over until the servers crashed ? --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ParadoX
:'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)''': ❝
::Yea, it doesn't matter either way; let the sheeple have fun herding cats while I camp in the banquet for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction_sniping last snipe].
:❞

I think that the idea is that the edit and re-editing would overload the servers without it being a change to a single word. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

:If Wikipedia's aim is to take a neutral stance, and Wikipedia is being exploited to determine which of two opposing sides receives a donation, Wikipedia's correct action would be to prevent the article from being written, thus enforcing Wikipedia's stance on neutrality. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::If there is no article, the word count is 0, which is an even number, so it goes to pro-choice activists. :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.209|173.245.51.209]] 13:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
:::No: if there is no article, the word count is undefined. You cannot determine anything about something that doesn't exist. [[User:Rvighne|rvighne]] ([[User talk:Rvighne|talk]]) 04:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: if the article existed, it would be deleted as not notable. [[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) 00:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lock the article mid-edit leaving a single word unfinished. That becomes a fraction of a word which is neit- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.217|173.245.55.217]] 16:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)BK

What the hell is Schmeutrality? ''Schmeu...'' looks very German to me, but I still have no idea about its meaning on this portmanteau. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
:An old (read "pre-internet") meme, probably Yiddish, is to say a word, then replace the initial consonant cluster of the word with "schm" (read "shm") and say the altered word. This denotes an active apathy toward the subject, that is, the speaker is deliberately disregarding the authority (for that is usually what is "regarded") and doing their own thing, as Black Hat is doing here, disregarding the authority of Wikipedia's stance on neutrality. If you were skipping school, and wanted to justify, you would say "School, Schmool". If you were disobeying you're Aunt Josephine, you would justify, to a confidant, "Aunt Josephine, Schmaunt Josephine". Other examples include "God, Schmod", "Copyrights, Schmopyrights" and "Feds, Schmeds".
:While I was familiar with this before him, Lemony Snicket's third book of a Series of Unfortunate Events, ''The Wide Window'', explains it better than I do.
:Anonymous 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Lock the article just before the deadline, flip a coin in a meeting of lots of Wikipedians, broadcast live. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.47|108.162.228.47]] 14:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Another idea. Include a fragment of a word at the end of the article and full-protect it indefinitley. [[User:Jake|Jake]] ([[User talk:Jake|talk]]) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, what about hyphenated compound words where it can be debated whether or not they're a single word? [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 23:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Nk22

2016-03-04T12:53:36Z

Pacerier:

== Cool page ==

I like your page. Cool octopus. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 05:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[[User:Nk22|Nk22]] ([[User talk:Nk22|talk]]) 06:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Thanks!

==Please don't change the BOT standards==
Hi, my BOT [[User:dgbrtBOT|dgbrtBOT]] overrides early pages if they don't meet the standards here. Please don't revert this when the page here is only a few minutes old. If some essential explains are missing please just add it again and do not change the layout. Thanks --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
:OK, thanks for letting me know. Das war sehr nett von dir (I speak German as well, eventhough I'm Dutch) {{unsigned|Nk22}}
::Dank u well (I'm not good in Dutch.) But please learn the proper wiki syntax like I'm showing you on my edit on your former reply here.
::More in deep: My BOT was broken for many weeks but it works again and if some required further updates do not exist here it will kill the entire first upload. My BOT does not understand that, but it figures out that something is not posted as expected. Nevertheless I'm happy about your contributions and I'm saying again "Dank u well" (Dankeschön in German). And if you have any suggestions to enhance that BOT don't hesitate to send me a message there. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

==Litter==
'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 12:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)''': ❝
:Hi, why did you litter on "''[[User talk:Pacerier]]''"?
❞

User talk:Pacerier

2016-03-04T12:11:08Z

Pacerier:

==Untitled==
Test test [[User:Nk22|The Twenty-second. The Not So Only. The Nathan/Nk22]] ([[User talk:Nk22|talk]]) 06:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
:'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 09:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)''': ❝
::‽‽ Hey there, what's your comment all about?
:❞

Talk:1546: Tamagotchi Hive

2016-03-04T12:08:51Z

Pacerier:

mShould we have a "My Hobby" category? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.135|141.101.98.135]] 14:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
:You mean like the [[:Category:My_Hobby|My Hobby]] category? Yes, that would be a good idea. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.216|108.162.254.216]] 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This explanation should probably include a reference to the Matrix. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.251|198.41.242.251]] 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)p

: Most definitely. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.106}}

: Which should also reference the Title Text's modern usage of the term "Singularity". The Matrix (for humans) would imply a relatively large step _beyond_ the Singularity, as surpassing the capabilities of one human mind does not necessarily impart the capacity to simulate full sensory information for thousands of them. I believe the joke there would be that a Tamagotchi Matrix would be trivially simple as compared to one for humans. Therefore the Singularity has arrived for Tamagotchis, while our own complexity remains rather far beyond the capacity of large-scale distributed computing platforms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Only Randall Munroe fantasizes about creating a legion of digital, mutated woodland creatures.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.88|173.245.54.88]] 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: I could not disagree more. The popularity of PocketMonster digital games speaks to the broad appeal of such fantasies. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The singularity reference is worth explaining: The Singularity is a frequent trope in Science Fiction stories that postulates a time when AI technologies become all-pervasive, often alongside ubiquitous computing. This can include a situation where human minds can be uploaded into AIs, effectively running as simulations within these large distributed computers. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.139}}

:'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)''': ❝
::Can someone please elaborate on then significance of "singularity" in the comic? Sure, "the implication is that the author takes care of a population of virtual creatures rather than an AI ruling over the human population" but what has singularity got to do with this?
:❞
: Actually "The Singularity" only means that an artificial system has grown in complexity beyond our ability to understand or predict it; In many ways this has already occurred. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
::I always thought 'The Singularity' was misnamed, anyway. In the way it is commonly used it is more like 'The Event Horizon'... Not that this has anything to do with the comic, but perhaps worth a side-note, anyway. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 19:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
:::The way I get it "singularity" it more about AI improving itself in a positive-feedback loop and gaining (near)infinite processing power in a finite time. One of the related themes is that since whatever emerges from that will have infinite amounts of processing power, it may take to simulating human brains, in vast amounts, just for fun or for some purpose - the joke here, as I understand it, is that since tamagotchi brains are significantly less complicated, it's already possible for us to simulate vast amounts of them, for fun. So from the tamagochis' point of view it's pretty much like the singularity is already here and we're it (the slight difference is we're not evolved from AIs made by the tamagotchis[citation needed], but other than that detail, yup pretty much like the singularity).--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.223|141.101.89.223]] 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
::::The so-called-Singularity' point for AI is apparently where the AI crosses the line of dominance and inexorability. So, yes, that's an 'event horizon', I'd say. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.53|141.101.99.53]] 03:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree with this definition of singularity (the positive-feedback loop of self-improving AI reaching the point where it is gaining apparently infinite improvement in any human-measurable time), and disagree with the idea that it implies anything about AI taking over or simulating human brains. The joke (as I see it) is that the AI that is optimised to manage trillions of emulated Tamagotchis will start along the same self-improvement path as other, contemporary AIs but will at some point decide that it is pointless improving itself further. Or will purposefully cease improving itself out of the sheer horror of contemplating its rapidly expanding mind-space filled with gazillions of Tamagotchis... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.167|108.162.229.167]] 08:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to get on this and create a BOINC project or something. In all seriousness though, I wonder how many Tamagotchis you could simulate at once on the average home computer. [[User:Saklad5|Saklad5]] ([[User talk:Saklad5|talk]]) 14:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: First you'd need to actually make a 100% accurate Tamagotchi Simulator/Emulator. There's a Tamagotchi P1 (original 1996 model) simulator that exists out there but it's of unknown provenance, touchy and probably (I wouldn't know for sure since the code isn't available) inaccurate. Likely the best way to at least determine the behavior of a Tamagotchi on the low level would be to decompile Namco Bandai's discontinued free Tamagotchi L.i.f.e. android app, which has a Tamagotchi P1 Simulator mode. One would assume, being the original developers, they can create a 100% accurate simulation. Having that code to refer to, one could probably eventually code an accurate simulator. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.119|108.162.220.119]] 19:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

:: See [[http://hackaday.com/2013/05/24/tamagotchi-rom-dump-and-reverse-engineering/]] - Tamagotchi chip programming has already been reverse engineered. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.224|108.162.254.224]] 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm very tired, and have been looking at something complicated for a long time - so may be seeing patterns where there are none - but is Randall [http://googleresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/deepdream-code-example-for-visualizing.html? satirising Google here?] [[User:Bish|Bish]] ([[User talk:Bish|talk]]) 22:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: Saying that you may see patterns where there are none you link the output of a machine that sees patterns where there are none. Well done, have an Internet. [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 11:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain the reasoning behind the last part "and keeps them all constantly fed and happy"? Is it to counter past digital suffering? The real world? Personal reasons? I don't get it at all. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.116|108.162.229.116]] 14:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.116|108.162.229.116]] 14:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
: You're making it way too complicated. Keeping the digital pet healthy and happy is just the point of the game. Providing a challenge (albeit a minor one since it's a very simple game) to the computer is the point of the exercise. Just simulating them and letting them die would be easy as hell, a matter of running a number of processes at once and then ignoring them. You're being way too philosophical about this, your question is something along the lines of "Why program a chess playing computer to win?" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.119|108.162.220.119]] 20:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Noting that The Matrix (with its obvious parallels here) was allegedly made ''imperfect'' because the humans living in the early iterations of the 'perfect world' started to rebel against the unbelievable perfection. How long until the Tamagotchi start doing this? So we need to reprogram our array to keep them ''not'' so constantly fed and happy, to avoid rejection. And then, at some point(s), TamaNeo... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.252|141.101.98.252]] 09:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone make this? Along with specs for the virus aquarium? K, Tnx. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.63|173.245.48.63]] 06:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
: If I didn't have a bunch of other projects I should be paying attention to, I would. As I said above (I really need to make an account >.>) creating a Tamagotchi Simulator would probably involve decompiling and analyzing the android source code to the Tamagotchi L.i.f.e. app, and then coding a simulator based on it. Which shouldn't be particularly difficult, given the relatively simple game logic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.119|108.162.220.119]] 20:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
:: The code for the Tamagotchi TamaGo and Friends has been extracted ([http://www.kwartzlab.ca/2013/05/first-glimpse-soul-tamagotchi/], [http://natashenka.ca/tamagotchi-friends-code-dump/]) and it can be run in browsers with the help of JavaScript (I forget where the site is though) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.161|173.245.48.161]] 04:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
::: Someone's did it, http://tamahive.spritesserver.nl/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.147|108.162.245.147]] 03:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: Nice writeup at [http://hackaday.com/2015/11/24/building-the-infinite-matrix-of-tamagotchis/ http://hackaday.com/2015/11/24/building-the-infinite-matrix-of-tamagotchis/] [[User:Codehead|Codehead]] ([[User talk:Codehead|talk]]) 15:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::::: Also [http://spritesmods.com/?art=tamasingularity]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.147|108.162.245.147]] 07:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Every other explanation I've ever seen of The Singularity conflicts with this one. This one indicates computers becoming intelligent enough to take control, like with The Matrix or the Terminator movies, which makes it a rather negative thing we should want to avoid. Every OTHER explanation I've seen paints it as something to look forward to, describing The Singularity as being the point when computers become sophisticated enough as to allow humans to transfer their consciousness into a computer, thus extending our lifespans theoretically infinitely (an example of this version would be one particular episode of Big Bang Theory, in which Sheldon calculates that he will not live long enough to see The Singularity, and laments this. I believe past xkcd comics have likewise used this version) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.60.17|162.158.60.17]] 06:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:169: Words that End in GRY

2016-03-04T12:05:52Z

Pacerier: adding title

==Cueball's hand==
'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)''': ❝
:Can someone explain what is the '''significance''' of BlackHat cutting off Cueball's hand?
❞
:He's punishing Cueball for being smug. It's not significant that it's the hand in particular (that just seems to be the limb closest to BlackHat). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.38|108.162.216.38]] 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to give Cueball an easy way to remember to not behave this way in the future. It's funny because the lesson is a failure, it causes more long term harm than long term benefit. Also it is unlikely that Cueball is paying attention to the lesson anyway, being distracted by the pain and loss.
Or possibly it's funny because Black Hat is just causing his usual mayhem, and pretends to be a teacher to hide his intention, and does an unconvincing job. [[User:Shingleslant|Shingleslant]] ([[User talk:Shingleslant|talk]])

==Untitled==
Ok, everything on this page, I already got. The bit I came here for, is the exact nature of the ambiguity. What is 'the phrase'? 
"The English language that end in gry", he's wrong because there are more than three words. 
"The English language", he's wrong because none of them end in gry. 
"There are three words in the English language ...", wrong again because language isn't the third word. 
So...? -- Zergling_man [[Special:Contributions/58.96.88.83|58.96.88.83]] 15:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

:The second paragraph in the explanation is what you are looking for. But as a brief overview: The reason it's easy to miss is that the words are written as a dialog would happen. If it had been properly punctuated it would have read "There are three words in 'the English language' that end with gry: 'Angry' and 'Hungry' are two. What's the third?" Cueball is saying there are three words in the phrase 'the English language' but to distract his intended victim he continues the sentence so the phrase is hidden among other words that, when taken as a whole, have a seeming continuity. This is why Black Hat cuts off Cueball's hand. Because the "joke" is not funny and being intentionally ambiguous and then being smug when the ambiguity has its intended effect is not humor. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

::But this doesn't actually answer my question. Take it without the distraction. "There are three words in the English language that end in gry. What's the third?" Even then, it still doesn't make any sense. If you take it as "there are three words in the English language. What's the third?", then you're left with "that end in gry: Angry and hungry are two", and that doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not seeing how there's any way both meanings can be valid, whatever you do to this, it seems at least one is completely nonsensical. -- Zergling_man [[Special:Contributions/58.96.88.83|58.96.88.83]] 13:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

::: The trouble is that Randall told the joke incorrectly... it should be (with proper punctuation) "There are three words in 'The English Language'. Ending in 'gry' there are 'angry' and 'hungry' What is the third word?" [[Special:Contributions/190.214.5.29|190.214.5.29]] 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

:::: I think a better way to say it is:
:::: There are at least 3 words in "the English language that end with 'gry'. 'Angry' and 'hungry' are two". What is the third word? [[Special:Contributions/81.23.24.39|81.23.24.39]] 08:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

:::: For anyone who is curious, the answer is "gryphon." [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

::::: They have to end with "GRY", an answer can be "unangry", but "gryphon" does not end with GRY (source:http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=words+that+end+in+GRY){{unsigned|79.40.128.128}}

:::::: No; the original question asked for 3 words that had 'gry' in the end. 'Angry' and 'hungry' have 'gry' in the back end. 'Gryphon' has 'gry' in the front end.
:::::: Also, sudo sign all your comments by adding 4 tildes in the back end of your comment. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::: actually, as you van read in the explanation, the entire question is wrong, the joke should not have the requirement of English words ending with gry, but have the question simply be ''there are only three words in the English language, what is the third, prefaced by a misguiding comment about words that end with gry, like angry and hungry. The point of the joke is that this preface is not part of the question, and as such it creates a hilarious intentional misunderstanding. [[Special:Contributions/145.44.88.75|145.44.88.75]] 10:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:I fear you are missing the point. The comic is intentionally written ambiguously to highlight the frustration caused when one misuses grammar in retelling the joke. The original joke is grammatically correct: the third word of the phrase "the English Language" is "language." The reference to words ending in "gry" is just a distraction. However, if the distraction is combined with the phrase, then the grammar becomes confusing, ruining the joke. [[User:Lanejb24|Lanejb24]]
I really doubt this is Cueball, as he is seen later with both arms, and he is nowhere near as much of an asshole (or an idiot) to tell this joke incorrectly. [[Special:Contributions/75.185.176.214|75.185.176.214]] 18:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC) tildes for the win

:There are many Cueballs, just read the page on him. However, this doesn't exactly fit the normal Cueball's character. [[User:Gman314|Gman314]] ([[User talk:Gman314|talk]]) 16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

----

The title text is missing. Am I right that Randall states that {{w|Postmodernism|postmodernists}} are not clever?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
:'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)''': ❝
::Well, postmodernists are pretty much thrashed in [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=postmodernism&defid=3758855 Urban Dictionary]...
:❞
:No, I would say that Randall is making a joke about postmodern art. Stereotypically, postmodern art is very subtle and symbolic and doesn't look like much, but there is still a message hiding underneath. Randall is saying that they're not conveying their point well, but are still acting smug when people don't understand their poorly communicated point. [[User:Gman314|Gman314]] ([[User talk:Gman314|talk]]) 16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
::'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)''': ❝
:::What makes you think that it '''only''' refers to postmodern art and not postmodernization in general?
::❞
:No, but almost. Randall does feel that post-modernists are prone to this behavior, and this behavior is not clever. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
::'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)''': ❝
:::And where is the source for "Randall does feel that post-modernists are prone to this behavior"?
::❞
Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to the -GRY joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-gry) {{unsigned ip|66.46.112.60}}

Talk:82: Frame

2016-03-04T11:48:24Z

Pacerier:

Might be far-fetched, but this one reminded me of meiosis [http://www.vib.be/VIBMediaLibrary/Science%20and%20Technologies/Cells/meiose-cell-division500px.jpg]. - [[User:XHalt|XHalt]] ([[User talk:XHalt|talk]]) 08:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
:It's more the opposite.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It reminds me of smoking DMT.

This reminds me of the "Cube" movie series. [[Special:Contributions/208.124.118.63|208.124.118.63]] 21:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)BK

Or Hellraiser (cue the Cenobites)[[User:Squirreltape|Squirreltape]] ([[User talk:Squirreltape|talk]]) 18:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

:Hellraiser makes more sense. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.67|173.245.55.67]] 22:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)BK

Regarding the incomplete tag: Is there really anything ''to'' explain? Anonymous 21:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
:'''[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 18:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)''': ❝
::There had to be one. It's probably just not known ''yet''.
:❞

User talk:Pacerier

2015-07-31T09:53:10Z

Pacerier:

Test test [[User:Nk22|The Twenty-second. The Not So Only. The Nathan/Nk22]] ([[User talk:Nk22|talk]]) 06:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

::‽‽ Hey there, what's your comment all about? ———[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 09:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Pacerier

2015-07-12T19:42:05Z

Pacerier: Created page with "test"

test

Talk:169: Words that End in GRY

2015-07-12T19:41:14Z

Pacerier:

Can someone explain what is the '''significance''' of BlackHat cutting off Cueball's hand? ———[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
----
The title text is missing. Am I right that Randall states that {{w|Postmodernism|postmodernists}} are not clever?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

:Well, postmodernists are pretty much thrashed in [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=postmodernism&defid=3758855 Urban Dictionary]... ———[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

:No, I would say that Randall is making a joke about postmodern art. Stereotypically, postmodern art is very subtle and symbolic and doesn't look like much, but there is still a message hiding underneath. Randall is saying that they're not conveying their point well, but are still acting smug when people don't understand their poorly communicated point. [[User:Gman314|Gman314]] ([[User talk:Gman314|talk]]) 16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

:: What makes you think that it '''only''' refers to postmodern art and not postmodernization in general? ———[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

:No, but almost. Randall does feel that post-modernists are prone to this behavior, and this behavior is not clever. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

:: And where is the source for "Randall does feel that post-modernists are prone to this behavior"? ———[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

----

Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to the -GRY joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-gry) {{unsigned ip|66.46.112.60}}

----

Ok, everything on this page, I already got. The bit I came here for, is the exact nature of the ambiguity. What is 'the phrase'? 
"The English language that end in gry", he's wrong because there are more than three words. 
"The English language", he's wrong because none of them end in gry. 
"There are three words in the English language ...", wrong again because language isn't the third word. 
So...? -- Zergling_man [[Special:Contributions/58.96.88.83|58.96.88.83]] 15:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

:The second paragraph in the explanation is what you are looking for. But as a brief overview: The reason it's easy to miss is that the words are written as a dialog would happen. If it had been properly punctuated it would have read "There are three words in 'the English language' that end with gry: 'Angry' and 'Hungry' are two. What's the third?" Cueball is saying there are three words in the phrase 'the English language' but to distract his intended victim he continues the sentence so the phrase is hidden among other words that, when taken as a whole, have a seeming continuity. This is why Black Hat cuts off Cueball's hand. Because the "joke" is not funny and being intentionally ambiguous and then being smug when the ambiguity has its intended effect is not humor. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

::But this doesn't actually answer my question. Take it without the distraction. "There are three words in the English language that end in gry. What's the third?" Even then, it still doesn't make any sense. If you take it as "there are three words in the English language. What's the third?", then you're left with "that end in gry: Angry and hungry are two", and that doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not seeing how there's any way both meanings can be valid, whatever you do to this, it seems at least one is completely nonsensical. -- Zergling_man [[Special:Contributions/58.96.88.83|58.96.88.83]] 13:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

::: The trouble is that Randall told the joke incorrectly... it should be (with proper punctuation) "There are three words in 'The English Language'. Ending in 'gry' there are 'angry' and 'hungry' What is the third word?" [[Special:Contributions/190.214.5.29|190.214.5.29]] 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

:::: I think a better way to say it is:
:::: There are at least 3 words in "the English language that end with 'gry'. 'Angry' and 'hungry' are two". What is the third word? [[Special:Contributions/81.23.24.39|81.23.24.39]] 08:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

:::: For anyone who is curious, the answer is "gryphon." [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

::::: They have to end with "GRY", an answer can be "unangry", but "gryphon" does not end with GRY (source:http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=words+that+end+in+GRY){{unsigned|79.40.128.128}}

:::::: No; the original question asked for 3 words that had 'gry' in the end. 'Angry' and 'hungry' have 'gry' in the back end. 'Gryphon' has 'gry' in the front end.
:::::: Also, sudo sign all your comments by adding 4 tildes in the back end of your comment. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

----

I really doubt this is Cueball, as he is seen later with both arms, and he is nowhere near as much of an asshole (or an idiot) to tell this joke incorrectly. [[Special:Contributions/75.185.176.214|75.185.176.214]] 18:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC) tildes for the win

:There are many Cueballs, just read the page on him. However, this doesn't exactly fit the normal Cueball's character. [[User:Gman314|Gman314]] ([[User talk:Gman314|talk]]) 16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1546: Tamagotchi Hive

2015-07-12T18:44:23Z

Pacerier:

mShould we have a "My Hobby" category? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.135|141.101.98.135]] 14:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
:You mean like the [[:Category:My_Hobby|My Hobby]] category? Yes, that would be a good idea. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.216|108.162.254.216]] 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This explanation should probably include a reference to the Matrix. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.251|198.41.242.251]] 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)p

: Most definitely. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.106}}

: Which should also reference the Title Text's modern usage of the term "Singularity". The Matrix (for humans) would imply a relatively large step _beyond_ the Singularity, as surpassing the capabilities of one human mind does not necessarily impart the capacity to simulate full sensory information for thousands of them. I believe the joke there would be that a Tamagotchi Matrix would be trivially simple as compared to one for humans. Therefore the Singularity has arrived for Tamagotchis, while our own complexity remains rather far beyond the capacity of large-scale distributed computing platforms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Only Randall Munroe fantasizes about creating a legion of digital, mutated woodland creatures.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.88|173.245.54.88]] 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: I could not disagree more. The popularity of PocketMonster digital games speaks to the broad appeal of such fantasies. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The singularity reference is worth explaining: The Singularity is a frequent trope in Science Fiction stories that postulates a time when AI technologies become all-pervasive, often alongside ubiquitous computing. This can include a situation where human minds can be uploaded into AIs, effectively running as simulations within these large distributed computers. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.139}}

: Can someone please elaborate on then significance of "singularity" in the comic? Sure, "the implication is that the author takes care of a population of virtual creatures rather than an AI ruling over the human population" but what has singularity got to do with this? ———[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

: Actually "The Singularity" only means that an artificial system has grown in complexity beyond our ability to understand or predict it; In many ways this has already occurred. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
::I always thought 'The Singularity' was misnamed, anyway. In the way it is commonly used it is more like 'The Event Horizon'... Not that this has anything to do with the comic, but perhaps worth a side-note, anyway. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 19:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
:::The way I get it "singularity" it more about AI improving itself in a positive-feedback loop and gaining (near)infinite processing power in a finite time. One of the related themes is that since whatever emerges from that will have infinite amounts of processing power, it may take to simulating human brains, in vast amounts, just for fun or for some purpose - the joke here, as I understand it, is that since tamagotchi brains are significantly less complicated, it's already possible for us to simulate vast amounts of them, for fun. So from the tamagochis' point of view it's pretty much like the singularity is already here and we're it (the slight difference is we're not evolved from AIs made by the tamagotchis[citation needed], but other than that detail, yup pretty much like the singularity).--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.223|141.101.89.223]] 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
::::The so-called-Singularity' point for AI is apparently where the AI crosses the line of dominance and inexorability. So, yes, that's an 'event horizon', I'd say. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.53|141.101.99.53]] 03:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree with this definition of singularity (the positive-feedback loop of self-improving AI reaching the point where it is gaining apparently infinite improvement in any human-measurable time), and disagree with the idea that it implies anything about AI taking over or simulating human brains. The joke (as I see it) is that the AI that is optimised to manage trillions of emulated Tamagotchis will start along the same self-improvement path as other, contemporary AIs but will at some point decide that it is pointless improving itself further. Or will purposefully cease improving itself out of the sheer horror of contemplating its rapidly expanding mind-space filled with gazillions of Tamagotchis... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.167|108.162.229.167]] 08:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to get on this and create a BOINC project or something. In all seriousness though, I wonder how many Tamagotchis you could simulate at once on the average home computer. [[User:Saklad5|Saklad5]] ([[User talk:Saklad5|talk]]) 14:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: First you'd need to actually make a 100% accurate Tamagotchi Simulator/Emulator. There's a Tamagotchi P1 (original 1996 model) simulator that exists out there but it's of unknown provenance, touchy and probably (I wouldn't know for sure since the code isn't available) inaccurate. Likely the best way to at least determine the behavior of a Tamagotchi on the low level would be to decompile Namco Bandai's discontinued free Tamagotchi L.i.f.e. android app, which has a Tamagotchi P1 Simulator mode. One would assume, being the original developers, they can create a 100% accurate simulation. Having that code to refer to, one could probably eventually code an accurate simulator. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.119|108.162.220.119]] 19:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

:: See [[http://hackaday.com/2013/05/24/tamagotchi-rom-dump-and-reverse-engineering/]] - Tamagotchi chip programming has already been reverse engineered. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.224|108.162.254.224]] 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm very tired, and have been looking at something complicated for a long time - so may be seeing patterns where there are none - but is Randall [http://googleresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/deepdream-code-example-for-visualizing.html? satirising Google here?] [[User:Bish|Bish]] ([[User talk:Bish|talk]]) 22:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: Saying that you may see patterns where there are none you link the output of a machine that sees patterns where there are none. Well done, have an Internet. [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 11:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain the reasoning behind the last part "and keeps them all constantly fed and happy"? Is it to counter past digital suffering? The real world? Personal reasons? I don't get it at all. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.116|108.162.229.116]] 14:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.116|108.162.229.116]] 14:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
: You're making it way too complicated. Keeping the digital pet healthy and happy is just the point of the game. Providing a challenge (albeit a minor one since it's a very simple game) to the computer is the point of the exercise. Just simulating them and letting them die would be easy as hell, a matter of running a number of processes at once and then ignoring them. You're being way too philosophical about this, your question is something along the lines of "Why program a chess playing computer to win?" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.119|108.162.220.119]] 20:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Noting that The Matrix (with its obvious parallels here) was allegedly made ''imperfect'' because the humans living in the early iterations of the 'perfect world' started to rebel against the unbelievable perfection. How long until the Tamagotchi start doing this? So we need to reprogram our array to keep them ''not'' so constantly fed and happy, to avoid rejection. And then, at some point(s), TamaNeo... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.252|141.101.98.252]] 09:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone make this? Along with specs for the virus aquarium? K, Tnx. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.63|173.245.48.63]] 06:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
: If I didn't have a bunch of other projects I should be paying attention to, I would. As I said above (I really need to make an account >.>) creating a Tamagotchi Simulator would probably involve decompiling and analyzing the android source code to the Tamagotchi L.i.f.e. app, and then coding a simulator based on it. Which shouldn't be particularly difficult, given the relatively simple game logic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.119|108.162.220.119]] 20:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:82: Frame

2015-07-12T18:06:05Z

Pacerier:

Might be far-fetched, but this one reminded me of meiosis [http://www.vib.be/VIBMediaLibrary/Science%20and%20Technologies/Cells/meiose-cell-division500px.jpg]. - [[User:XHalt|XHalt]] ([[User talk:XHalt|talk]]) 08:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
:It's more the opposite.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It reminds me of smoking DMT.

This reminds me of the "Cube" movie series. [[Special:Contributions/208.124.118.63|208.124.118.63]] 21:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)BK

Or Hellraiser (cue the Cenobites)[[User:Squirreltape|Squirreltape]] ([[User talk:Squirreltape|talk]]) 18:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

:Hellraiser makes more sense. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.67|173.245.55.67]] 22:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)BK

Regarding the incomplete tag: Is there really anything ''to'' explain? Anonymous 21:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
:There had to be one. It's probably just not known ''yet''. ———[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 18:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)