explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1520: Degree-Off

2020-05-08T06:49:26Z

Rereading xkcd:

Isn't this the debut of the dark hair-bun girl? Is this trivia section worthy? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)BK201
:The hair bun girl has [[:Category:Comics featuring Hair Bun Girl|appeared a few times]] since it's inception in [[378: Real Programmers]]. --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|01:05, 05 May 2015}}
::But this one has bangs, and visibly darker hair. Isn't it possible it's a different character? Or am I [http://media1.giphy.com/media/v9rfTQBNqdsSA/giphy.gif splitting hairs]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)BK201
:::Yes your are splitting hair. Because in xkcd most characters are just generic and can be any person they need to be. The characteristic of the hair bun has been used only a few times, 8 with this one. Sometimes the figure even represents a real person. I agree that she is drawn a little different, but in the page for Hair Bun Girl it is mentioned that she also sometimes have glasses. It is though interesting that he has used her several times sine passing comic 1500. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::::After having spotted the recurrence of [[Science Girl]] for whom I just made a category I realized that the hair bun Bio "girl" here is just her as a (young) adult woman. I have included her and revised the explanation accordingly. So I disagree with my own comment above now ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume "''Your'' field gathered in the desert to create a new one." refers to the Manhattan Project? {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.74}}
:Yes [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 06:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So, no one has really brought up the topic of biological WMD. There are manmade plagues out there far more horrible than any natural disease and arguably more terrible than a nuclear bomb.

Chem wants absolutely no part of this conversation. [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 06:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are: Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. Is she claiming that her heros have conquered death? [[User:Capncanuck|Capncanuck]] ([[User talk:Capncanuck|talk]]) 06:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
: Yeah I didn't get that either. The description as it stands now seems to be implying one of the four horsemen is pestilence, but that's not what my Google search turned up… --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Pestilence [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.176|173.245.56.176]] 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::In Terry Pratchett's book the fourth horsemen is Pestilence. See also {{w|Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse#As_infectious_disease|Pestilence}}. It was new to me that it was originally Conquest instead of Pestilence which can be read on wiki: {{w|Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse}}. Since Randall is a big fan of Terry Pratchett it is very likely that he refers to "his" version of the four Horsemen. (It is not Terry's invention, but he made it popular amongst people like Randall). As I disagree with the Death version of the title text, I'm not sure that Terry is directly refereed to in this comic, but I'm sure the Bilologist refers to them killing of pestilence (or plauge). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::There are no humanities on stage, so I think bio can get away with this one.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.23|108.162.218.23]] 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Maybe it referred to famine. Though that'd be a bit odd. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 19:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps the reason why pestilence isn't a real Horseman is because its death by biology retroactively altered the prophecy ("Yes, you've had it for ages. But did you have it for ages 30 minutes ago?" - Rincewind, The Last Continent).```` {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.144}}
::::::If we're assuming that the comic is using Pratchett's version of the Horsemen, and that Bio has killed Pestilence... then we know that Pestilence was replaced with Pollution. So it might be a reference to the atomic waste and fallout of the testing itself. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.29|173.245.56.29]] 00:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

also a possible reference to: https://xkcd.com/435/ ? {{unsigned ip|141.101.75.101}}

The stamp collecting quote is from Ernest Rutherford, not Richard Feynman. {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.43}}

1052 also compares degrees --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.12|141.101.104.12]] 08:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My assumption was that Cueball was giving a long and possibly rambling talk about physics starting with an anecdote about Feynman and ending with one about Rutherford. I didn't consider the quote to be wrongly attributed therefore. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.71}}

Please be aware that the proper way to link to wikipedia is to use [[Template:w]].--{{User:17jiangz1/signature|10:01, 04 May 2015}}

This may be Randall's indirect way of saying what he thinks of the anti-vaxxers. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the "killing Pestilence" thing also refer to ''Good Omens'' (co-authored by Pratchett), where Pestilence retired in 1936 "mumbling something about penicillin"? Homusubi

Isn't the comment about vaccines kinda reaching? I don't really see any evidence, even implied, that this comic is referencing the anti-vaccine movement in any way. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 13:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:I agree that the anti-vaxer comments are out of place. I don't think they should be included as part of the explanation. [[User:Bmmarti3|Bmmarti3]] ([[User talk:Bmmarti3|talk]])

Isn't the biologist talking in the title text? And isn't biology considered a squishy science? I think the title is directed at the physicist, telling him to get harder skin because he's so easily hurt emotionally. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|Yourlifeisalie]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 14:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:Was I the only one to see the title text as a dirty joke? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.65|173.245.50.65]] 16:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I rather doubt that the CAPS in the title text are referring to Pratchett's figure DEATH. In my opinion, the talking-in-CAPS is just meant to infer (further) SHOUTING on the part of the biologist, since she is shouting in the last panel as well. There is no indication whatsoever that the title text should be spoken by anyone other than the biologist herself.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.180|141.101.104.180]] 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)thd

Do chemistry and physics represent a helium atom with biology as the nucleus? It would also explain her hair. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 15:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:I don't see any reason for it to make any sense. It is quite a long shot to think so. However, what explains her hair? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)BK201

Might there also be a reference to https://xkcd.com/520/, praising biology just in case. [[User:Tzwenn|Tzwenn]] ([[User talk:Tzwenn|talk]]) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the giant bump in infectious diseases around 1925? It seems like it must have been a mayor effect, but I don't know how to google for it.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.99|141.101.104.99]] 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:The planet-wide superflu of 1919, which happened because millions decided to go to Europe, camp in filthy trenches for months and then decided to all go back home simultaneously for some reason. {{unsigned ip|199.27.133.44}}

::Actually, it happened for other reasons, and it was mostly in 1918. Many people arrived at that camp bringing the superflu with them, actually, and the drop-off happened around when the bulk of them went home. Most of the fatalities may actually have been due to cytokine storms, AKA your immune system deciding that you ought to die horribly and now. What you ''actually'' got at the camp is the discovery that, if your feet are continuously wet for sufficiently long periods of time, they'll rot. That said, infectious diseases are on their way back, because antibiotic resistance is going up. There's already a confirmed case of TB resistant to all current antibiotics, and truly new ones becoming less and less frequent. (Most of the obvious routes we've exploited and adaptation is destroying, and many of the remaining obvious routes are insufficiently easy to distinguish from chemical warfare.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.182|108.162.237.182]] 22:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

moved the most important comment to the top. [[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhm lockpicking != safecracking. Feynman was exploiting a bad design in the safes (you didn't have to dial the exact number) combined with people being lousy at choosing their codes. [[User:Poizan42|Poizan42]] ([[User talk:Poizan42|talk]]) 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:A numpad safe still contains a lock. It locks items inside. --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|11:27, 05 May 2015}}

I'm not sure what is the biologists arguing about. Physics creating new horseman of apocalypse is definitely bigger achievement than biologists almost removing one. On the other hand, both fields are capable of making humans extinct by mistake. (Also, seriously, the idea of degree-off is flawed: we need experts in both (or rather all) fields.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
:I disagree. Penicillin is a much more important discovery - helping so many people. Killing people is a lot easier than curing them! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that Civil Engineering should get half the credit. It wouldn't make for as good a cartoon though. Why was the graph of infectious disease rates lightly doctored to reduce the 1918 flu pandemic? My guess is to increase the visual impact. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.188|108.162.238.188]] 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Biology: Aren't many theoretical developments reliant on chemistry and/or physics? And even more practical developments use tools which rely on chemistry/physics? Example: brain mapping, drug synthesis, etc.? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.178|108.162.215.178]] 02:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
: No, this would be as circuitous as saying that physics is entirely reliant on biology, because it's conducted using human brains, hands, eyes, etc. Or hey - theology. How would physics have gotten it's start without funding from churches and kings? The whole line of discussion is more than a little ludicrous. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.170|108.162.249.170]] 08:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
:: No, what I mean is that physics and chemistry are necessary in order to understand biology and perform research, while the reverse is not true. Cellular/molecular biology, in particular, is dependent on an understanding of chemistry and physics.
:: Just take for example electron transport chains, which depends on quantum mechanics. Or the behavior of neurotransmitters, hormones, etc., which are all connected with organic chemistry.
:: A good understanding of chemistry and physics is also essential in advancing science in general. A good understanding of biology could be useful for the creation of biologically inspired materials in engineering, but biology is not a fundamental building block in any of the harder sciences.
:: Regarding biology and theology: No science's knowledge is taken from, or builds off of, theological teachings. Physics is not dependent on biology, because it does not involve the study of our brains, merely the existence of them. Biology's knowledge is directly dependent on physics.
:: In terms of practical implications, I think biology affects our health more, and physics and chemistry affects our technology more. But it's undeniable that physics and chemistry are more fundamental and essential to all science, than biology.
:: What is your opinion?
:: --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.178|108.162.215.178]] 03:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Any ideas as to why Hair Bun Girl's bun disappears in the fourth frame? As in anything more interesting than it being forgotten to be drawn in. [[User:JRVeale|JRVeale]] ([[User talk:JRVeale|talk]]) 11:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
:I think she just has turned her head so the bun is behind it. Thus not forgotten, and not really interesting either! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion about the new horseman of the apocalypse being radiation poisoning, and the linking of it all to Pratchet, reads very very strangely, I think it is a major overreach. It's very common for Pestilence to be listed as one of the four horsemen, and even with Randall being a Terry Pratchett fan, it seems unlikely this had any influence on it. It's stock-standard in pop culture for them to be listed as War, Famine, Death, Pestilence, even if they don't appear that way in the Bible, just as it is stock-standard for the devil to be portrayed as a red horned guy with cloven feet (which also doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible). It seems like the development of the atomic bomb is what Hair Bun Girl is referring to as the new horseman. I don't see why an overly specific and convoluted connection to "radiation poisoning" is included. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.170|108.162.249.170]] 08:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's science girl. That's not science girl's usual hairstyle, and science girl is a child. [[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 18:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

;Is the girl representing chemistry Science Girl?

It doesn't seem to be Science Girl to me. I think Hairbun would be better used. Also related, I think Science Girl should be renamed Jill, as per [1662: Jack and Jill] [[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 18:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the horseman is back...[[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 06:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1339: When You Assume

2020-04-12T10:26:59Z

Rereading xkcd:

This explanation is most certainly correct. A quick google search will prove as much. [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 15:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The explanation may sound better if the "assert" in Cueball response is also stressed. In fact, we may suppose that Megan IS the emergency response team, from the starting of the dialog, and the history of the comics. Cueball just did some stupid thing because he assumed something, and the specialist came to fix it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.6.238|162.158.6.238]] 04:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[[User:Tesshavon|Tesshavon]] ([[User talk:Tesshavon|talk]]) 09:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC) this is a direct reference to the popular saying 'When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME'.
:: My donkey is behind a donkey, I am behind my donkey, my entire country is behind me! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.7|141.101.99.7]] 05:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm just curious. Is there any popular saying about ass-ass-inating someone? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.161|173.245.53.161]] 10:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:To the best of my knowledge, there is no such saying, but I'm sure it's a spelling mnemonic used by many. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] ([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]]) 14:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:I have read of badly programed profanity filters that change "assassin" to "buttbuttin". It's a clbuttic mistake. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220|108.162.250.220]] 13:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

::Funny that such profanity filters are the ones who gave me the idea of asking. I first heard about them in [http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-2008s_weirdest_stories.html This Is True] (search for "How Embarrbutting" in that page), who took it from The London Telegraph. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.161|173.245.53.161]] 15:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Assert is also used in programming (c and such) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.11|108.162.241.11]] 13:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::And Python, which I was hacking in yesterday, so that came to my mind. But Randall isn't distracting us with any assert + throw unhandled exception jokes today. — ''[[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)''

Thank goodness for the 'ERT' explanation; I had terrible notions of a [[739: Malamanteau|portmanteau]] involving 'insert'. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] ([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]]) 14:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If Megan was going to phrase it like "You know what happens when you assume something? You make an ass out of you and me.", then she wouldn't be assuming anything. Of course, in spoken English, you could determine which one it is through inflection. Maybe Randall could start making voice-overs for the comics. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.80|103.22.200.80]] 18:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Megan is asking a rhetorical question; one that she intends to answer herself. However, I once had a dickhead manager try this one on me, so I fully support this comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56|108.162.215.56]] 20:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

;This comic explain needs some enhancements!!!
xkcd is a webcomic "A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and '''language'''." There is definitively no ASS here, or ERT... That could be mentioned at trivia, not more. This is all about language — assuming vs. asserting — not more or less. Everything more interpretations are like hearing a message by playing a song backwards. This explain isn't incomplete — it's incorrect! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
:Um, the explanation is fine. The cheesy "ass" + "u" + "me" pun is well-known, and the comic is quite specifically riffing on it. No pareidolia here. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.72|199.27.128.72]] 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw it as that Megan was on an ERT and that Cueball's assumption was about the emergency (e.g. "The building must be safe by now,") hence the comment about an ERT (although I now also see and agree with the explanation of the play on words). [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 23:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
::WOW: Neil Armstrong was just a movie star (I will not talk about 911) or what??? Look at the picture, look at the comic; I'm pretty sure Randall is giggle about all the comments here. I'm pretty sure you can find a ERT at the bible many times; but this isn't that Randall talks about!!!--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 00:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Dgbrt, are you rejecting the simple ass-u-me explanation? — ''[[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)''
::::And this explain is still bad because: 1) A hint to use Google as a help is not a proper way. 2) There is also a real language issue on that both different words "assume" and "assert". The joke is about mixing this language issues and all that memes.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::I know I didn't user Google to search anything, but I knew the "ass out of u and me" joke immediately, same thing with the assert one. That's the comic's joke. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 17:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

See now, this is the type of classic exchange that’s been tidied up. [[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 10:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

So... nobody else is going to mention that the proper phrase is, "When you assume, you make an ass IN FRONT OF 'u' and 'me'"? Not only is the "ass" in front of those two letters, but if somebody assumes, they're only making an ass out of theirself, not "you and me". Therefore, YOU are making an ass IN FRONT OF yourself and me. Though... are you truly doing so in front of yourself? Either way, more accurate than the innocent bystander being made an ass out of. [[User:Ferretwilliams|Ferretwilliams]] ([[User talk:Ferretwilliams|talk]]) 05:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:I'm not a native English speaker but you seem to be correct and it should be fixed. Other than that, I first read the explanation as it is right now and it's perfect. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 04:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I always like to respond with "... Or you make A SUM out of M and E" just to be different.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.8|173.245.54.8]]mtndew99

Talk:1276: Angular Size

2020-04-07T03:53:05Z

Rereading xkcd:

What is the meaning of "football field" in panel #2? --[[User:Kevang|Kevang]] ([[User talk:Kevang|talk]]) 04:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:I was wondering the same thing. Probably misplaced text. [[User:Irino.|Irino.]] ([[User talk:Irino.|talk]]) 05:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::It does seem to be misplaced, but if that's the only glitch, this is the only panel without a unique reference object. "20 football pitches long" isn't all that easy to grasp. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] ([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]]) 09:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::The image is fixed by Randall. I did an update here.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Well, that's a letdown. I'm surprised Randall didn't use Heathrow. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] ([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]]) 13:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done any lookups or maths to check these, but give the size of these as "stars" in the sky, everything from panel 2 onwards seems to me to be an order of magnitude or two too large. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 05:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: Not really. You see the stars and planets as points because their angular size is lower than your eyes' resolution. They have measurable (or, in case of really distant or small objects, computable) angular sizes. For stars etc. these angular sizes are really small - but Earth is quite big, so if you cut a portion of a sphere the radius of Earth corresponding to these small solid angles, you get sizable areas. I haven't checked Randall's math, but I'd rather believe his results. If it is non-intuitive for you consider the Sun and Moon example - when observed by naked eye, the Moon looks for you as being the size of a dime held up in your hand - and yet it's shadow during an eclipse covers quite an area of Earth's surface. It is true that sizes of some of these "footprints" are quite surprising compared to other ones. [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74|89.174.214.74]] 08:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:: Definitely surprising. I'll put faith in Randall doing his math correctly, but still needed to check on a couple of these because they did elicit a "What? No. Really? Can't be." reaction. Using the formula described in the Explanation above, for Venus I get 12742 km (Earth radius) * 12104 km (Venus diameter) / 38000000 (shortest distance to Venus) = 2.03 km.
:: Hard to picture that something that is such a small dot in the sky is actually directly over such a large patch of ground. But there you are.
[[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::: The question that sprung to my mind was, ''which'' distance is he using for the planets and asteroids, since those vary hugely depending on where objects are relative to each other along their orbits. Is he going with closest approach, maybe? Or the distance that we happen to be at just this instant? --[[User:Rmharman|Rmharman]] ([[User talk:Rmharman|talk]]) 21:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I just checked for Deimos, and got to ~50 mio km, so that´d be the closest approach. --[[User:Wilberforce|Wilberforce]] ([[User talk:Wilberforce|talk]]) 13:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Does someone know how to use LaTeX formulas? And if so, can they translate my formula into something more pleasing to the eye? [[User:Irino.|Irino.]] ([[User talk:Irino.|talk]]) 05:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia page, the M25 is 117 miles long. That sounds more like "37 miles across" to me. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: it originally stated 15 miles, someone has fixed it now. Thanks! [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 11:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither the sun or moon, nor Messier 25 (declination -19°) can ever culminate in the zenith over London. :-( Admittedly, Townsville, Australia would be sort of overwhelmed by M25. --[[Special:Contributions/129.13.72.198|129.13.72.198]] 11:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: M25 is a reference to the highway that surrounds London, not the Messier object, which is probably nowhere near the angular size of the moon. [[Special:Contributions/65.129.214.100|65.129.214.100]] 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::Why would Randall choose London, if it wasn´t for the obvious disambiguity of the name M25? ----[[User:Wilberforce|Wilberforce]] ([[User talk:Wilberforce|talk]]) 12:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the exoplanet "HD 189733 b" is labled as "Permadeath" ? Same question for the other weird names in the same pannel (the "tilde on keyboard" one) ? [[User:Jahvascriptmaniac|Jahvascriptmaniac]] ([[User talk:Jahvascriptmaniac|talk]]) 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: A reference to [[1253|Exoplanet Names]]. [[User:Squornshellous Beta|Squornshellous Beta]] ([[User talk:Squornshellous Beta|talk]]) 12:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you were looking from the center of the earth, as the situation suggests, wouldn't the M25 be reversed, east-to-west, as you look at the sun and the moon?--[[Special:Contributions/76.105.133.220|76.105.133.220]] 16:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: I visualize it as looking down on Earth, with the "shadow" of the celestial object on top of the M25/soccer field/laptop/etc. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that Voyager 1 and 2 look like viruses? Kind of funny considering they're next to E. Coli...
[[User:StelarCF|StelarCF]] ([[User talk:StelarCF|talk]]) 17:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

: Yeah, I thought that too. It's a happy thought. Why, you ask? Well, with vastly diminished (or - in the course of time - zero) output from RTG power sources, they're like weakened (or inactivated) viruses - that we've sent out to the rest of the Universe, to any other intelligent lifeforms that may find them. What does that remind you of?

: VACCINES! We've vaccinated aliens to the human condition :D To the Earthly condition even.

: [PS - that's a happy thought because I choose to interpret from a cross-contamination standpoint. Which, in this case, allows them to observe us in our own locale, and establish our intrinsic nature - before a two-way interaction with us, in 'shared space' :P, and observing us through the medium of those interactions.] [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Does "Explain XKCD" installation of MediaWiki has [http://www.mathjax.org/ MathJax] [plugin] installed for writing mathematics formulas? --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Too bad he didn't do the Pleiades. I mean, instead of using the Vatican, he could have used something geeky: Bletchley Park or something (though that's probably not big enough). [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 14:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

;Panel 6 (extrasolar planets)
My table doesn't really match the image. An earth sized Planet would be at some micrometer, their hosting stars are about some centimeter. Who is wrong? Me or Randall?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the laptop a MacBook Pro? [[User:Xyz|Xyz]] ([[User talk:Xyz|talk]]) 13:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of extragalactical objects. Or did I miss something? [[User:Starblue|Starblue]] ([[User talk:Starblue|talk]]) 08:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

;Moon shadow
If I understand correctly, the comic show the size of objects at the Earth surface. So, if the shadow of the Moon is projected on London, it will cover approximately all the space inside the M25 motorway ? If so, why it is said that a total solar eclipse will normally cover a band of about 250 km wide (and not 60 km wide) on Earth ? [[Special:Contributions/24.200.202.45|24.200.202.45]] 09:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
:The projection is to the center of the earth, not w.r.t. the sun like the shadow of a solar eclipse. [[User:Starblue|Starblue]] ([[User talk:Starblue|talk]]) 09:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
::Look at the first picture at this comic and compare it this to this one (left): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_eclipse_types.svg Solar_eclipse_types.svg]. You are just behind the moon at the surface of the earth, and when the moon is not close enough a total eclipse will not happen (right). All distances and also angular sizes belong to the surface but not the center of the Earth.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
::He’s pretty clearly darkened the line at the earth’s surface under each object (no intention, nor power, of trying to work out if he had the calculation right). So yeah, I think he’s talking about the shadow on the surface of the earth (which is a sphere, to 98% of the inhabitants who recognise the word. Sorry, Dgbrt). Also, subtitle... [[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 03:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I am of the theory that the entire comic was created specifically so Randall could include his eponymous asteroid. And yes, I can present a falsification experiment for this model. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1276: Angular Size

2020-04-07T03:51:43Z

Rereading xkcd:

What is the meaning of "football field" in panel #2? --[[User:Kevang|Kevang]] ([[User talk:Kevang|talk]]) 04:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:I was wondering the same thing. Probably misplaced text. [[User:Irino.|Irino.]] ([[User talk:Irino.|talk]]) 05:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::It does seem to be misplaced, but if that's the only glitch, this is the only panel without a unique reference object. "20 football pitches long" isn't all that easy to grasp. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] ([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]]) 09:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::The image is fixed by Randall. I did an update here.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Well, that's a letdown. I'm surprised Randall didn't use Heathrow. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] ([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]]) 13:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done any lookups or maths to check these, but give the size of these as "stars" in the sky, everything from panel 2 onwards seems to me to be an order of magnitude or two too large. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 05:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: Not really. You see the stars and planets as points because their angular size is lower than your eyes' resolution. They have measurable (or, in case of really distant or small objects, computable) angular sizes. For stars etc. these angular sizes are really small - but Earth is quite big, so if you cut a portion of a sphere the radius of Earth corresponding to these small solid angles, you get sizable areas. I haven't checked Randall's math, but I'd rather believe his results. If it is non-intuitive for you consider the Sun and Moon example - when observed by naked eye, the Moon looks for you as being the size of a dime held up in your hand - and yet it's shadow during an eclipse covers quite an area of Earth's surface. It is true that sizes of some of these "footprints" are quite surprising compared to other ones. [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74|89.174.214.74]] 08:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:: Definitely surprising. I'll put faith in Randall doing his math correctly, but still needed to check on a couple of these because they did elicit a "What? No. Really? Can't be." reaction. Using the formula described in the Explanation above, for Venus I get 12742 km (Earth radius) * 12104 km (Venus diameter) / 38000000 (shortest distance to Venus) = 2.03 km.
:: Hard to picture that something that is such a small dot in the sky is actually directly over such a large patch of ground. But there you are.
[[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::: The question that sprung to my mind was, ''which'' distance is he using for the planets and asteroids, since those vary hugely depending on where objects are relative to each other along their orbits. Is he going with closest approach, maybe? Or the distance that we happen to be at just this instant? --[[User:Rmharman|Rmharman]] ([[User talk:Rmharman|talk]]) 21:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I just checked for Deimos, and got to ~50 mio km, so that´d be the closest approach. --[[User:Wilberforce|Wilberforce]] ([[User talk:Wilberforce|talk]]) 13:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Does someone know how to use LaTeX formulas? And if so, can they translate my formula into something more pleasing to the eye? [[User:Irino.|Irino.]] ([[User talk:Irino.|talk]]) 05:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia page, the M25 is 117 miles long. That sounds more like "37 miles across" to me. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: it originally stated 15 miles, someone has fixed it now. Thanks! [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 11:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither the sun or moon, nor Messier 25 (declination -19°) can ever culminate in the zenith over London. :-( Admittedly, Townsville, Australia would be sort of overwhelmed by M25. --[[Special:Contributions/129.13.72.198|129.13.72.198]] 11:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: M25 is a reference to the highway that surrounds London, not the Messier object, which is probably nowhere near the angular size of the moon. [[Special:Contributions/65.129.214.100|65.129.214.100]] 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::Why would Randall choose London, if it wasn´t for the obvious disambiguity of the name M25? ----[[User:Wilberforce|Wilberforce]] ([[User talk:Wilberforce|talk]]) 12:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the exoplanet "HD 189733 b" is labled as "Permadeath" ? Same question for the other weird names in the same pannel (the "tilde on keyboard" one) ? [[User:Jahvascriptmaniac|Jahvascriptmaniac]] ([[User talk:Jahvascriptmaniac|talk]]) 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: A reference to [[1253|Exoplanet Names]]. [[User:Squornshellous Beta|Squornshellous Beta]] ([[User talk:Squornshellous Beta|talk]]) 12:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you were looking from the center of the earth, as the situation suggests, wouldn't the M25 be reversed, east-to-west, as you look at the sun and the moon?--[[Special:Contributions/76.105.133.220|76.105.133.220]] 16:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: I visualize it as looking down on Earth, with the "shadow" of the celestial object on top of the M25/soccer field/laptop/etc. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that Voyager 1 and 2 look like viruses? Kind of funny considering they're next to E. Coli...
[[User:StelarCF|StelarCF]] ([[User talk:StelarCF|talk]]) 17:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

: Yeah, I thought that too. It's a happy thought. Why, you ask? Well, with vastly diminished (or - in the course of time - zero) output from RTG power sources, they're like weakened (or inactivated) viruses - that we've sent out to the rest of the Universe, to any other intelligent lifeforms that may find them. What does that remind you of?

: VACCINES! We've vaccinated aliens to the human condition :D To the Earthly condition even.

: [PS - that's a happy thought because I choose to interpret from a cross-contamination standpoint. Which, in this case, allows them to observe us in our own locale, and establish our intrinsic nature - before a two-way interaction with us, in 'shared space' :P, and observing us through the medium of those interactions.] [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Does "Explain XKCD" installation of MediaWiki has [http://www.mathjax.org/ MathJax] [plugin] installed for writing mathematics formulas? --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Too bad he didn't do the Pleiades. I mean, instead of using the Vatican, he could have used something geeky: Bletchley Park or something (though that's probably not big enough). [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 14:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

;Panel 6 (extrasolar planets)
My table doesn't really match the image. An earth sized Planet would be at some micrometer, their hosting stars are about some centimeter. Who is wrong? Me or Randall?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the laptop a MacBook Pro? [[User:Xyz|Xyz]] ([[User talk:Xyz|talk]]) 13:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of extragalactical objects. Or did I miss something? [[User:Starblue|Starblue]] ([[User talk:Starblue|talk]]) 08:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

;Moon shadow
If I understand correctly, the comic show the size of objects at the Earth surface. So, if the shadow of the Moon is projected on London, it will cover approximately all the space inside the M25 motorway ? If so, why it is said that a total solar eclipse will normally cover a band of about 250 km wide (and not 60 km wide) on Earth ? [[Special:Contributions/24.200.202.45|24.200.202.45]] 09:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
:The projection is to the center of the earth, not w.r.t. the sun like the shadow of a solar eclipse. [[User:Starblue|Starblue]] ([[User talk:Starblue|talk]]) 09:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
::Look at the first picture at this comic and compare it this to this one (left): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_eclipse_types.svg Solar_eclipse_types.svg]. You are just behind the moon at the surface of the earth, and when the moon is not close enough a total eclipse will not happen (right). All distances and also angular sizes belong to the surface but not the center of the Earth.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
::He’s pretty clearly darkened the line at the earth’s surface under each object (no intention, nor power, of trying to work out if he had the calculation right). So yeah, I think he’s talking about the shadow on the surface of the earth (which is a sphere, to 98% of the inhabitants who recognise the word. Sorry, Dgbrt). Also, title... [[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 03:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I am of the theory that the entire comic was created specifically so Randall could include his eponymous asteroid. And yes, I can present a falsification experiment for this model. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1276: Angular Size

2020-04-07T03:50:26Z

Rereading xkcd:

What is the meaning of "football field" in panel #2? --[[User:Kevang|Kevang]] ([[User talk:Kevang|talk]]) 04:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:I was wondering the same thing. Probably misplaced text. [[User:Irino.|Irino.]] ([[User talk:Irino.|talk]]) 05:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::It does seem to be misplaced, but if that's the only glitch, this is the only panel without a unique reference object. "20 football pitches long" isn't all that easy to grasp. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] ([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]]) 09:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::The image is fixed by Randall. I did an update here.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Well, that's a letdown. I'm surprised Randall didn't use Heathrow. [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] ([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]]) 13:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done any lookups or maths to check these, but give the size of these as "stars" in the sky, everything from panel 2 onwards seems to me to be an order of magnitude or two too large. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 05:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: Not really. You see the stars and planets as points because their angular size is lower than your eyes' resolution. They have measurable (or, in case of really distant or small objects, computable) angular sizes. For stars etc. these angular sizes are really small - but Earth is quite big, so if you cut a portion of a sphere the radius of Earth corresponding to these small solid angles, you get sizable areas. I haven't checked Randall's math, but I'd rather believe his results. If it is non-intuitive for you consider the Sun and Moon example - when observed by naked eye, the Moon looks for you as being the size of a dime held up in your hand - and yet it's shadow during an eclipse covers quite an area of Earth's surface. It is true that sizes of some of these "footprints" are quite surprising compared to other ones. [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74|89.174.214.74]] 08:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:: Definitely surprising. I'll put faith in Randall doing his math correctly, but still needed to check on a couple of these because they did elicit a "What? No. Really? Can't be." reaction. Using the formula described in the Explanation above, for Venus I get 12742 km (Earth radius) * 12104 km (Venus diameter) / 38000000 (shortest distance to Venus) = 2.03 km.
:: Hard to picture that something that is such a small dot in the sky is actually directly over such a large patch of ground. But there you are.
[[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::: The question that sprung to my mind was, ''which'' distance is he using for the planets and asteroids, since those vary hugely depending on where objects are relative to each other along their orbits. Is he going with closest approach, maybe? Or the distance that we happen to be at just this instant? --[[User:Rmharman|Rmharman]] ([[User talk:Rmharman|talk]]) 21:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I just checked for Deimos, and got to ~50 mio km, so that´d be the closest approach. --[[User:Wilberforce|Wilberforce]] ([[User talk:Wilberforce|talk]]) 13:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Does someone know how to use LaTeX formulas? And if so, can they translate my formula into something more pleasing to the eye? [[User:Irino.|Irino.]] ([[User talk:Irino.|talk]]) 05:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia page, the M25 is 117 miles long. That sounds more like "37 miles across" to me. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: it originally stated 15 miles, someone has fixed it now. Thanks! [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 11:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither the sun or moon, nor Messier 25 (declination -19°) can ever culminate in the zenith over London. :-( Admittedly, Townsville, Australia would be sort of overwhelmed by M25. --[[Special:Contributions/129.13.72.198|129.13.72.198]] 11:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: M25 is a reference to the highway that surrounds London, not the Messier object, which is probably nowhere near the angular size of the moon. [[Special:Contributions/65.129.214.100|65.129.214.100]] 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::Why would Randall choose London, if it wasn´t for the obvious disambiguity of the name M25? ----[[User:Wilberforce|Wilberforce]] ([[User talk:Wilberforce|talk]]) 12:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the exoplanet "HD 189733 b" is labled as "Permadeath" ? Same question for the other weird names in the same pannel (the "tilde on keyboard" one) ? [[User:Jahvascriptmaniac|Jahvascriptmaniac]] ([[User talk:Jahvascriptmaniac|talk]]) 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: A reference to [[1253|Exoplanet Names]]. [[User:Squornshellous Beta|Squornshellous Beta]] ([[User talk:Squornshellous Beta|talk]]) 12:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you were looking from the center of the earth, as the situation suggests, wouldn't the M25 be reversed, east-to-west, as you look at the sun and the moon?--[[Special:Contributions/76.105.133.220|76.105.133.220]] 16:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
: I visualize it as looking down on Earth, with the "shadow" of the celestial object on top of the M25/soccer field/laptop/etc. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that Voyager 1 and 2 look like viruses? Kind of funny considering they're next to E. Coli...
[[User:StelarCF|StelarCF]] ([[User talk:StelarCF|talk]]) 17:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

: Yeah, I thought that too. It's a happy thought. Why, you ask? Well, with vastly diminished (or - in the course of time - zero) output from RTG power sources, they're like weakened (or inactivated) viruses - that we've sent out to the rest of the Universe, to any other intelligent lifeforms that may find them. What does that remind you of?

: VACCINES! We've vaccinated aliens to the human condition :D To the Earthly condition even.

: [PS - that's a happy thought because I choose to interpret from a cross-contamination standpoint. Which, in this case, allows them to observe us in our own locale, and establish our intrinsic nature - before a two-way interaction with us, in 'shared space' :P, and observing us through the medium of those interactions.] [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Does "Explain XKCD" installation of MediaWiki has [http://www.mathjax.org/ MathJax] [plugin] installed for writing mathematics formulas? --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Too bad he didn't do the Pleiades. I mean, instead of using the Vatican, he could have used something geeky: Bletchley Park or something (though that's probably not big enough). [[User:Homunq|Homunq]] ([[User talk:Homunq|talk]]) 14:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

;Panel 6 (extrasolar planets)
My table doesn't really match the image. An earth sized Planet would be at some micrometer, their hosting stars are about some centimeter. Who is wrong? Me or Randall?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the laptop a MacBook Pro? [[User:Xyz|Xyz]] ([[User talk:Xyz|talk]]) 13:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of extragalactical objects. Or did I miss something? [[User:Starblue|Starblue]] ([[User talk:Starblue|talk]]) 08:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

;Moon shadow
If I understand correctly, the comic show the size of objects at the Earth surface. So, if the shadow of the Moon is projected on London, it will cover approximately all the space inside the M25 motorway ? If so, why it is said that a total solar eclipse will normally cover a band of about 250 km wide (and not 60 km wide) on Earth ? [[Special:Contributions/24.200.202.45|24.200.202.45]] 09:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
:The projection is to the center of the earth, not w.r.t. the sun like the shadow of a solar eclipse. [[User:Starblue|Starblue]] ([[User talk:Starblue|talk]]) 09:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
::Look at the first picture at this comic and compare it this to this one (left): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_eclipse_types.svg Solar_eclipse_types.svg]. You are just behind the moon at the surface of the earth, and when the moon is not close enough a total eclipse will not happen (right). All distances and also angular sizes belong to the surface but not the center of the Earth.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
::He’s pretty clearly darkened the line at the earth’s surface under each object (no intention, nor power, of trying to work out if he had the calculation right). So yeah, I think he’s talking about the shadow on the surface of the earth (which is a sphere, to 98% of the inhabitants who recognise the word. Sorry, Dgbrt).

I am of the theory that the entire comic was created specifically so Randall could include his eponymous asteroid. And yes, I can present a falsification experiment for this model. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1273: Tall Infographics

2020-04-07T03:27:11Z

Rereading xkcd:

From 2019 here! I just found this comic and I am shook!

Still nothing.

[[File:Example.jpg]]I'm not really sure how to transcribe an infographic... Sorry. Saibot84 04:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
:I tried to expand on it a bit, sorry if it's not the best. ollien 04:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
For anyone wondering if the "FORMAT" frequency graph is self-referential to the entire comic... no, or at least not on actual explicit instances of the letters (certainly nowhere near 26 Ts, and even proportionally the As are vastly the most frequent and Fs the ''actual'' least, the rest almost identical), but I wouldn't put it past Randall having taken into account cummulative font-size, or something like that. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 07:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
:It's by position in the alphabet (F=6, O=15, R=18, M=13, A=1, T=20). [[Special:Contributions/67.183.134.13|67.183.134.13]] 07:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
::Gah, I'm an idiot. The "26" should have clued me in. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.80|178.98.253.80]] 17:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a reference to cellphone screen aspect ratios![[Special:Contributions/121.74.169.237|121.74.169.237]] 10:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this comic might be inspired by [http://www.symantec.com/connect/sites/default/files/users/user-2935611/zeroaccess_blog_infographic.png that infographic] which was recently published regarding an attack against a botnet. (At least that was my first association - and I, too, found that graphic a little unsuitable when I saw it in the news) -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 12:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
:Search for "infographics" at google images and you will find thousands other examples.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is more to the explanation: Big Data mostly will be analyzed statistically, so we will get diverse diagrams and infographics as result. The trend will be an increase in the number of cases where informationen is presented in this way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.98.211|178.26.98.211]] 14:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

: Note that Big Data is used nowadays as a ''buzzword'', even if you don't have that much data. Remember: if your data cannot be processed by Excel, [http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/hadoop_hatred.html it isn't big]. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 14:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
::More accurately: Just because your data cannot be processed by Excel, that doesn't make it big.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.21|108.162.216.21]] 13:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I read the Venn diagram to mean that data would be either clear OR concise, if you took it literally.[[Special:Contributions/75.120.198.118|75.120.198.118]] 08:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)gonzo

:I don't think that's quite right. The Venn diagram is intended to be just as superfluously self evident as the other graphics. The set of all things "Clear" intersects with the set of all things "Concise" in the region "And".
[[Special:Contributions/111.69.237.202|111.69.237.202]] 09:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

:: it's a Venn diagram? D'Oh! Of course it's a Venn diagram. I thought it was the Mastercard logo! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.71|141.101.104.71]] 19:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

:: I think you mean "if your data ''can'' be processed by Excel, it isn't big". [[Special:Contributions/121.74.169.237|121.74.169.237]] 00:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

:: Or maybe "if your data cannot be processed by Excel, it isn't necessarily big." Because it might really ''be'' big - you wouldn't know. [[Special:Contributions/121.74.169.237|121.74.169.237]] 00:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Another take on infographics: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/05/how-to-make-a-shitty-infographic/ --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 15:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"In the pie chart, the areas represent the proportion of letters in each word." - this isn't right; the area for "will" is three times the size of the area for "be". It could be comparing the number of consonants in each word. {{unsigned ip|86.128.6.174}}
: "will" and "be" are both forms of the verb "to be". "Be" is therefore merely the infinitive, while "will" is both a conjugated form (3rd person singular) and in the future tense. Therefore "will" has three levels of meaning to "be"'s one... ;) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.122|108.162.229.122]] 12:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Could the part where Megan is saying "Communicated" to Hairy and Hairy responds with an enthusiastic "Yes!" possibly be a reference to some other infographics about preventing sexual assault by making sure to have consent first? I remember seeing a lot of those around my high school and college, so I could just be assuming this based off my surroundings and whatnot. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 07:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I make infographics, myself, and recently have given up and switched from using square, 4:3, or 16:9 to using 3:4 (making the image taller than wide) to deal with the fact that a snowballing proportion of my hypothetical audience is viewing the image on their phone, and can't even easily resize a wide graphic to see the whole thing comfortably...and that the ones who see it on the computer have far greater ability to view an image regardless of its aspect ratio. 
/me sighs — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, this, like that whole weird thing with the Mayans, is another doomsday prophecy that did not come to pass. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.178|162.158.75.178]] 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
:This is a travesty, we must change wiki to be infographic only [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Its 2019...--[[User:Realqwerty64|Realqwerty64]] ([[User talk:Realqwerty64|talk]]) 17:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
:Comments at the bottom. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what if “72 months” wasn’t actually false precision? Do we only have 14 days left? – [[User:Unnameduser17|Unnameduser17]] ([[User talk:Unnameduser17|talk]]) 13:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
:Unless something bad happens in the next 4 hours (depending on what country you're in) then no. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.127|162.158.158.127]] 20:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
: Sometrhing bad didn’t happen...then[[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 03:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1269: Privacy Opinions

2020-04-07T03:08:26Z

Rereading xkcd:

This comic could be meant to satirize those who trivialize the opinions of privacy advocates. I doubt many reading this comic would assume this is either a fair or exhaustive list of opinions on internet privacy as it is highly unlikely that the reader him/herself would hold any of these opinions. 00:05, 1 October 2013 {{unsigned ip|68.190.213.83}}

Sometimes I think all my burritos are imaginary. [[User:Nathkingcole|Nathkingcole]] ([[User talk:Nathkingcole|talk]]) 11:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Nat.
:The burrito isn't, but Chipotle's promises of all natural ingredients in their food is. They do that just to make a quick buck off the health-conscious crowd. Lying burrito! --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 15:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This may be pointless, but Kudos to 63.85.81.254's edit. [[User:Saibot84|Saibot84]] ([[User talk:Saibot84|talk]]) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:This may be offensive, but Redeemer's edit was both excellent and necessary. [[Special:Contributions/96.254.46.231|96.254.46.231]] 13:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::I wouldn't call it offensive (outside the language); it's simply opinionated. Thanks Saibot84. [[Special:Contributions/63.85.81.254|63.85.81.254]] 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::Fail on both counts, from me (for Redeemer's contribution), as neither excellent ''nor'' necessary. Only in the light of that does 63.etc's edit (who has just ninjaed me with an edit conflict... hi there!) actually make any sort of sense. But what do I know? I'm just an IP, and you can probably find that I'm not even in the US, from that...
:::Redeemer's meta-analysis of Randall, even if false, was still an exemplary display of critical thinking that I've found to be surprisingly lacking with XKCD fans. If Randall is anything like the person I think he is, he would appreciate such an alternative perspective. Additionally, it was an ''absolutely'' necessary defense against a straw man-like simplification of an all too legitimate concern for privacy rights. I will agree that Redeemer's edit would have been more appropriate here as a Discussion item rather than an edit to the Explanation, but this differing viewpoint should still be heard. [[Special:Contributions/96.254.46.231|96.254.46.231]] 15:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::Can we just have a proper explanation, instead, please? Let's say something like: there's those that overthink the situation, those that over-''do'' it, some overestimate the problem, some overestimate ''other'' problems, some enjoy the idea too much and some just enjoy their food more. Eh? Any good for ya? I'm sure it can be tweaked, to taste. [[Special:Contributions/31.109.31.130|31.109.31.130]] 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Done. Or at least a start. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an opinion, but I'm keeping it private for now. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 13:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

One mention of the NSA, one mention of Google. I'm not sure how Randall's politics are relevant, or how he's excusing privacy concerns, and the "explanation" says a lot about the interpretation and US-centric perspective of the poster without adding to the comic. Unless it was a deliberate parody of the conspiracy panel, not appropriate, dude. (And I'm a Brit - I definitely didn't vote for any political party in the states. But hello, Echelon.) [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::The comment was so off the wall I think it pretty much had to be parody, in keeping with panel 3. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why '''some''' Americans consider that '''world-wide''' issues like on-line privacy have to be related '''only''' to U.S. politicians.{{unsigned ip|88.9.73.162}}

I'm pretty sure the explanation of the Nihilist isn't right. In my opinion Randall jokes that if all of your actions are meaningless (the nihilistic way of thought) then the same applies to all your data. [[Special:Contributions/188.174.192.237|188.174.192.237]] 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever classed this place up by deleting that vitriol.{{unsigned ip|50.148.241.3}}

I'm a fan, but I'm disappointed. Don't tell me I didn't "get it" though. I "got it" very well. I love XKCD very much, but not today. I would like to thank Saibot84 and 96.254.46.231 for their heartwarming support. A Reddit post about the edit can be found here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth/comments/1n3rz0/my_protest_against_xkcds_underhanded_defense_of/ My protest against XKCD's underhanded defense of the NSA] -- Yours truly, Redeemer [[Special:Contributions/31.172.30.1|31.172.30.1]] 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::I'm genuinely concerned about internet security issues, and I'm entirely sympathetic to your perspective, Redeemer. But, whatever Randall's background or motivation, this comic stands alone in poking fun at extreme positions on the subject. I don't believe it either trivialises the argument or makes a reasoned statement about an acceptable position - none of the panels show a "normal" perspective. Whether or not Randall intended it to be, there are many more sources of privacy concerns world-wide than the NSA, and many reasons to hold an opinion on NSA network analysis other than support for a political party (which to me rarely means support for every position that they hold). Let's stick to explaining the comic, not meta-analyzing Randall's motivations for posting it. This is not the place, no matter how your perspective may colour your interpretation of the message behind the comic. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])
:::TL;DR, but the current NSA incidents are a source for Randall's ideas here. It should be mentioned. Incomplete done tag by me.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Too impatient, can't be qualified to comment. Randall mentions the NSA in one panel. The issue isn't whether the NSA is a concern, it's that the NSA is not the only source of internet privacy concerns or media scares; if not mentioning it "excuses" the NSA/current US Government, singling it out "excuses" other organizations (other governments and surveillance bodies, Google, Facebook, network operators...) - and Randall himself mentions Google. Don't assume this is just about the NSA. Even if that was Randall's inspiration, it's not the only context for the comic. There have been repeated incidents regarding GCHQ, for example.[[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])

::::You must have some very strict guidelines for TL;DR. It's just a paragraph! [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 05:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

::I also can claim "web scraping, network administration and security <nowiki>[as]</nowiki> my professional area of expertise" (only currently on personal time, hence this pseudo-anonymous IP, which I know wouldn't fool the NSA), but I think you just don't get it, Redeemer. Nor do some of your Reddit contributors. Not wanting to reddit (by a name I'd jump into there with, that is), I won't even attempt to disabuse you of your opinion, however. But you ''do not'' vandalise key areas of wikis with such personal venom. Bad show for doing so, and stick to your blogs. Anyway, for myself: Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2, line 358, second half. [[Special:Contributions/31.109.31.130|31.109.31.130]] 23:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:::"These foils have all a length"?[[Special:Contributions/150.135.210.50|150.135.210.50]] 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::"The rest is silence." according to Shakespeare-navigators.com. Much as I'd love to be educated enough to know that by heart.[[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])

Is it just me, or is it actually Danish instead of Megan in the Nihilist panel? The hair looks too long to be Megan's. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 00:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with "''Since a large percentage of people and companies present in the internet don't have the ability or intention to do strong cryptography''". Strong encryption is extremely available to 100% of people and companies. It is public and free to use. Most significant companies use VPN's and encrypted hard drives. It is just untrue to suggest that strong cryptography is not available to anyone. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:That is the difference between availability and ability. While the necessary software is freely available, people don't understand how to use it (no ability), even don't want to learn how to use it (no intention).
:Also in "strong cryptography" I would require not only algorithms to be strong but also authentication schemes. The current SSL system uses Certificate Authorities, which are broken by design, thus not "strong" in the sense I was meaning it.
:While good companies using VPNs and encrypted hard drives is a good ideal, 90% of the companies do without them to save the money involved (performant hardware + setting up). Additionally they do not use encryption when communicating with others (e.g. their customers). Think of all the websites that cannot be accessed with HTTPS (including this one). -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 10:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::Strong encryption in form of VPN is available to everyone and I believe lot of companies are using it. Also HTTPS is used relatively often, although many sites lack it, only use it for most important areas or only for administration for performance reasons. Thats all. Most importantly, no way of encrypting email is simple enough to be actually used by public, and I seriously doubt that majority of instant messaging is point-to-point encrypted (I know for sure Skype chat aren't - they may be encrypted on wire but keys are available to their servers).
::Note that while centralised solution of Certificate Authorities is less secure that decentralized ones, you can still get usable security in SSL ... unless you need it for HTTPS. The fact that NO HTTPS page is signed by multiple authorities is the real problem. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

At the present moment, what exactly is incomplete in this explanation? When Dgbrt added the incomplete tag, it was because "it should be mentioned that the NSA incidents are a source for Randall's ideas here", however the very first line of the explanation reads "Randall parodies some of the reactions to Edward Snowden's revelations of widespread intrusive surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency" which pretty much covers it. Furthermore, that line was already in place when the incomplete tag was added. Am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/88.9.73.162|88.9.73.162]] 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:Wait, what? That'll teach me to read the comments page rather than checking changes to the explanation. Randall's comic is about reactions to *all* internet privacy concerns. It explicitly mentions Google. Why is everybody assuming that the NSA is the only source of issues here? Sure, there have been recent revelations about the NSA. And GCHQ (indeed, by Snowden). And Google. And Facebook. And every country introducing mandatory network filters. And my employers (and anyone else's with a firewall data sniffer). And quite probably a lot more I don't know about. Can we please stop putting words in Randall's mouth and having a blinkered focus on the NSA as though it's the only source of problems when the comic itself mentions more concerns than that. I didn't think it was my place to remove the incomplete tag, but I now support the assertion that it's inaccurate, rather than incomplete. (Sorry; I was annoyed enough to register here in order to try to balance this bias! Perhaps someone with more seniority can paraphrase?) [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 21:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::NSA is not only source of issues, but it's definitely the most currently debated one. Even mentioned companies are currently debated in context of their collaboration with NSA. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:::The NSA scandal is not the most topical example. Ed Snowden's leaks about the NSA and GCHQ (including GCHQ spying on G20 Summit attendees) happened primarily in May, four months ago. The UK government has been proposing opt-out traffic inspection for porn filtering since July; one of the Australian political parties has made a similar proposal this month. The current Miss Teen USA was the subject of a recent privacy scandal, though webcam related rather than about data inspection. A media watchdog report about Google's expectation of privacy in gmail hit the news in August. Facebook drew criticism for security issues in August, and the inability to manage sex hate issues at the end of May. The NSA relationship with Google, Facebook et al. as part of PRISM is certainly an issue, but not the only, and arguably not greatest, source of concern for many about those companies and other organizations. The Snowden case is, in many places, old news, and - while it may have been reported solely in the context of the NSA in the US, it certainly hasn't been in the UK (other than regarding the issues of his asylum). Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to call out the NSA, and it's not like I avoid Google et al. I just believe that it's blinkered to attribute the comic solely either to the Snowden case in general or to the NSA in particular. I'd be happy with "Randall parodies some extreme reactions to internet security concerns, such as those raised by Edward Snowden's revelations about widespread intrusive surveillance by the NSA and other agencies." Is that reasonable? [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::O.o I'm not sure I entirely agree with the analysis about what Randall wants us to believe (I'm called a "nut" about a number of things without taking offence at any of them, for example), but I'll admit that the current version removes my objection that the explanation was overly-biased in exclusively referring to the NSA. So thank you, Davidy22 (edit war aside), and I'll pick my battles. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 13:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I didn't write that analysis, I just stepped in when another user was autoreverting it for being "too long." It is a pretty good bit of text though. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::Whoops. Thank you *and* 173.72.122.24. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't be the only xkcd reader that's driven crazy by the fact that "data" is used as a singular throughout this, can I? I mean, data isn't imaginary, data '''are''' imaginary!! {{unsigned ip|150.212.131.213}}
:Oh dear. I'll go and get my pedantry circuits checked - I should have noticed that. See how discussing politics and current(ish) affairs contributes to my mental decay? [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

:Unless you talk about {{w|Data_%28Star_Trek%29|Lieutenant Commander Data}}, and I think he would be offended if you call him imaginary. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone photoshop this: ⋈ onto the conspiracist's neck? thanks, [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120|199.27.128.120]] 04:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

;Please remove bias
Can somebody please rewrite the last section which is extremely biased against the comic, seeming to attack the ideas presented and suggesting that Randall doesn't care at all about civil rights. It violates the idea of a neutral explanation and is seen to be pushing the writers point of view. This bias is especially evident to a person who disagrees with this point of view (because, seriously, who cares if the govt. knows about your dinner plans or your big break up or even your love of perfectly legal porn. They don't care. If you do think that they're interested in that, then you are vastly overestimating your importance). Can somebody who is better at writing please rewrite that section with a more neutral (or at least ballanced) tone? --Imamadmad 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

; Page needs simplification

I tend to over-analyze stuff and I have the opinion that this amount of explanation should exist about everything. However, as a user (even though I dislike that word), that's too much text. There should be a more succinct explanation, and the rest of it hidden somewhere but available by a link, button, tab, etc. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 01:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is this explanation a goddamn thesis on the comic? Is all this detail necessary? I call for a simplification of the page. I do not perform the simplification myself because the page as it is bores me too much to revise it. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
:I moved a comment from 2014 to under this topic as it seems relevant to it. Sorry if that's not a legal maneuver.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment on “Beret guy is frequently seen as bizarrely disconnected from reality in a way that is maladaptive” - he can make ridiculous amounts of money just by “being in business”, without knowing or caring about what’s going on. He is always serenely happy and high on existence, and the whole world bends around his whims. What on earth is maladaptive about that?

Talk:1267: Mess

2020-04-07T02:52:31Z

Rereading xkcd:

I do this on purpose whenever people are likely to come over. I mostly clean my house except for a little thing and apologize for the mess. [[Special:Contributions/62.159.14.62|62.159.14.62]] 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:Remind me never to come visit you.[[Special:Contributions/184.57.72.181|184.57.72.181]] 12:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::Never come visit him/her. Is that enough of a reminder? --[[Special:Contributions/24.145.230.197|24.145.230.197]] 05:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
:: you haven't gone and visited him/her - right? we kinda fell down on this social contract, but here's one more reminder: never visit him/her! [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 18:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::A reminder from 2017: never visit him/her!--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.30|172.68.133.30]] 22:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
::And from 2020 - never visit them![[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 02:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"There is a common psychological phenomenon which causes people to mentally magnify their own flaws, while failing to notice the flaws of others." '''Tell that to my ex-wife!''' --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 15:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:There is a common psychological phenomenon which causes future ex-wives to mentally magnify their spouse's flaws while failing to notice their own or the flaws of others. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This comic wierdly mirrors (in contrast) a recently broadcast radio programme (which I doubt Randall will have heard, it being UK's BBC Radio 4 "Thinking Allowed", I think it was, with a segment regarding how normal people react to those not acting 'properly' to social norms) in which the phenomena was mentioned. A lady hostess who unselfconsciously apologises for "not having dusted" (despite dust being possibly shed skin cells and such, it's considered "clean mess"), for her visitor, is then utterly mortified when said visitor breaks the rules and also 'helpfully' points out a coffee-ring stain (considered "dirty mess", for some reason) upon a surface. Doubtless the traditional light and largely insignificant layering of dust possibly somehow prevents highlighting any ''geniuinely'' missed spots (if one had actually dusted ''most'' of the room), yet distinct stains and marks (and dust layers with obvious finger-marks in?) ought to have been cleaned or even prevented in the first place.

(For the record, my own home is a "working mess", much to the chagrin of my mother when she visits. It could definitely be tidier, and there's absolutly no way to convincingly apologise for its state. I consider the whole place to be my "shed", in the grand tradition of "shedology". Mind you, this attitude of mine arises out of the tendency for me to ''lose'' so many things when I deliberately tidy up/pack away "projects in progress" for such esteemed visitors. Better that I can find everything when I need to, IMO. This ''mostly'' works better than with the alternative, under a sometimes Holmesian 'stratified' surface-based filing system.) [[Special:Contributions/178.105.138.196|178.105.138.196]] 15:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

:tl;dr--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I was reminded of..
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-puts-glass-of-water-on-bedside-table-in-case-h,33751/ {{unsigned ip|173.14.162.93}}

People call a clean house messy as a way to seem superior to their guests. They clean it before the guest gets here then say that because they know the guest has not cleaned. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 17:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"There is a common psychological phenomenon which causes people to mentally magnify their own flaws, while failing to notice the flaws of others." How is this phenomenon called? [[Special:Contributions/79.227.152.95|79.227.152.95]] 09:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:false humility [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 05:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Grahame
:No, more like self doubt, which is the exact opposite. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 09:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean "What is this called?" I don't know, I've been trying to research it for the last five minutes and it's never the first result on google. Must not exist. [[Special:Contributions/72.94.35.160|72.94.35.160]] 02:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

>>"In the title text, Cueball's anxiety in further amplified when he recalls that he left out a glass of water from the night before. "

I do not think this is right. I think it is the host who is apologizing about the glass of water as the apology is in quotes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.178|108.162.241.178]] 01:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that it is the host apologizing for the water.

I just noticed, that the picture on the wall is the same motive as in [[1159: Countdown]] (where it even takes multiple lines and different speculations in the explanation), and possibly the one from [[4: Landscape (sketch)]]. Are there more comics containing this motive for a drawing/picture? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1252: Increased Risk

2020-04-06T23:40:37Z

Rereading xkcd:

I think this is to address the old chestnut of "<something> will ''double'' your risk of getting cancer!", or the like, where the risk of getting that cancer (in this example) is maybe 1 in 10,000, so doubling the risk across a population wouldmake that a 1 in 5,000 risk to your health... which you may still consider to be an acceptable gamble if it's something nice (like cheese!) that's apaprently to blame and you'd find abstinence from it gives a barely marginal benefit for a far greater loss of life enjoyment. Also, this sort of figure almost always applies towards a ''specific form'' of cancer, or whatever risk is being discussed, meaning you aren't vastly changing your life expectancy at all. In fact, the likes of opposing "red wine is good/bad for you" studies can be mutually true by this same principle (gain a little risk of one condition, lose a little risk from another). (Note: I don't know of any particular "cheese gives you cancer!" stories doing the rounds, at the moment. I bet they have done, but I only mention it because I actually quite like cheese. And I probably ''wouldn't'' give it up under the above conditions.)

It's also possible that this covers the likes of "<foo> in <country> is 10 times more dangerous than it is <other country>" statements. Perhaps ''only'' ten incidents happened in the former, and a single instance in the latter, out the ''whole'' of each respective country. Or a single incident occured in both, but the second country is ten times the size, so gets 'adjusted for population' in the tables. And, besides which, that was just for one year and was just a statistical blip that will probably revert-towards-the-mean next year.

Finally, for a given risk of some incident happening on the first two trips, with no 'memory' or build-up involved, it pretty much is half-as-likely-again for the incident to have happened (some time!) in three separate trips. (Not quite, if those that lose against the odds and get caught by the incident the first or second trip never get to ''have'' a (second or) third trip... but for negligable odds like thegiven example, of the dog with the handgun, it's near-as-damnit so.) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did "dogs with shotguns" come from? I only saw "handgun" in the comic. Besides, I interpreted the risk as being hit by a negligent discharge from the handgun, not being deliberately attacked by the dog. Also, since probabilities are the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, there are an uncountable number of them. "A x% increase in a tiny risk is still tiny" is an inductive statement, which means it could only be used to argue that a countable set of numbers is tiny. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:If induction base is uncountable, you can prove it for the whole [0; 1]. For example your induction base may be "every risk under 0.00000000000000000001% is tiny". --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

::Aha you caught me. I also realized that if a number is tiny, any number smaller than it is also tiny. So if we can prove that 1 is tiny, then we can prove that all numbers between 0 and 1 (known as probabilities) are tiny. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 15:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that this comic doesn't [[985|distinguish between percentages and percentage points]]. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
: I think it does. It never uses percentage points, and never claims to.[[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it the case that doing something three times increases risk by 50% over two times inherently? I feel like this is the case, but it's early, here. Also, I'm not sure Randall is attacked by a dog, he may be using it as a diversion. I think that he's done this before. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 12:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:(First, good point, DiEvAl, about the percentages/percentage-points. I ''knew'' I'd missed something out in my first thoughts. I actually tend to assume ''against'' percentage points, which is somewhat the opposite from what I've seen in the general public.)
:Actually, depends on how you count it. But I was using the "encounter 'n' incidents per trip", "encounter '2n' incidents per two trips", "encoutner '3n' incidents per three trips" measure, where 3n==2n+50%. But that works best with a baseline of >>1 incidents per trip assumed. In reality, if the chance is a fractional 'p' for an occurance in one instance, it's (1-p) that it ''didn't'' occur thus (1-p)n that it didn't occur in any of 'n' instances and 1-(1-p)n that it did (at least once, possible several times or even all). Not so simple, but for p tending to zero it 'does' converge on 1.5 times for across three what you'd expect for two (albeit because 0*1.5=0). Like they say, "Lies, Damn Lies...", etc. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Randall is being attacked by a dog at all. What he's saying is that if you are going to think getting attacked by a shark is so likely, then you better be watching out for that never-gonna-happen dog scenario too. [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is 0.000001% really "one in a million"?
;If 1% = 1 in 100, then
:0.1% = 1 in a 1,000
:0.01% = 1 in a 10,000
:0.001% = 1 in a 100,000
:0.0001% = 1 in a 1,000,000
:0.00001% = 1 in a 10,000,000
:'''0.000001% = 1 in a 100,000,000'''
Would it be more accurate to leave off the % sign?
Assuming I'm right, I think it'd be less confusing to leave it and reduce the numbers by a couple orders of magnitude.
--Clayton [[Special:Contributions/12.202.74.87|12.202.74.87]] 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

''If the chance of the dog attack is 0.000000001% (one in a billion) on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits is 0.000000002% whereas in three visits it becomes 0.000000003%''

Um, no. Following that logic, if I go to the beach a billion times then I '''will''' get shot by a dog that is packing. Rather, each visit to the beach has it's own odds, like the rolling of dice? On any particular visit there's a one-in-a-billion chance. And that's true on each subsequent visit as well. Tuesday's visit to the beach isn't twice as dangerous just because I was at the beach on Monday. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 16:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:For each visit that is the case. Because it's one visit, that's true. However, if (time not being a factor) one were to have a billion visits planned, the odds over all would be increased. Pretty sure that overall this means that you got the joke faster than I did. Thanks for the clarification! [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
::The odds overall may increase with multiple visits. But not, at least, at the rate listed. Otherwise that billionth trip (if one survived that long as one is likely to do) would be certain death. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 17:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:::Correct. Technically, the odds we are worried about are the "probability of being shot one or more times by a dog". So if the probability is 1/10^9 for any given day, than the odds of not being shot are (10^9-1)/10^9 for any given day, and the odds of not being shot over three days are (10^9-1)^3/10^27, and then the odds of being shot one or more times are 1-((10^9-1)^3/10^27), which is roughly 2.999999997000000001/10^9. That is close, but slightly less, than 3/10^9. [[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Toby Ovod-Everett
::::Absolute incorrect: You always have to look at the single event. More events do not belong together, you always have the same probability at each single event. So, even 10 billion events may or may NOT result in a disaster. Math isn't easy.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::I believe what CFoxx was saying is that if the odds of something happening on any given day are one in three, then the odds of that thing happening at least once during a four day period is NOT 4/3rds! I was pointing out that the proper way to calculate the odds for a four day period is to say that the odds of it not happening on any given day are two in three. You take that probability and raise it to the fourth power, giving the odds that it won't happen at all during a four day period of 16/81, thus the odds that it will happen during that four day period is 65/81. I then did that same calculation for the 1 in a billion chance per day and applied it to the three day period, and recognized that he was correct that the true probability of the event happening one or more times over a three day period was not three times the probability of it happening on any given day, but also noted that the difference for a 1 in a billion chance over a small period is pretty close to the simplistic (but incorrect) approach. My rough estimate for the "one in a billion per day" event happening one or more times during a billion day period is 63.21%.[[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 21:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Toby Ovod-Everett
::::::Wow, we still have many great scientists here!--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::THANK YOU, Toby! [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 18:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: is the title text a reference to the Sorites paradox? --AJ [[Special:Contributions/80.42.221.105|80.42.221.105]] 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rats! I made the newbie mistake of editing something before I found the discussion page. I looked for it, honest I did! I see that UTC has already brought up what I referred to as "Cueball's error" in my (pre-log-in) edit. I did find it hard to believe I'd be the first xkcd fan to notice this error. I think this is worth addressing in the explanation, though I of course won't take offense if someone wants to obliterate my edit and start over. (CLSI){{unsigned|CLSI}}

Maybe he means this: Florida man shot by his dog, police say http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17107343-florida-man-shot-by-his-dog-police-say?lite{{unsigned|Jb}}

Saying that unfortunately Cueball is mistaken in his calculations because he said 50% instead of 49.99999992% is a bit of an exaggeration. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 20:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the "flipping a coin and having it come up with heads 9 times in a row being no indication of future results" thing, I have to throw out that ''that'' is a common misunderstanding in basic logic; it's an example that people throw out all the time without really considering the real-life implications. With a truly fair coin, the situation as described is certainly true. But the odds of a fair coin coming up heads 9 times in a row is 512-to-1 against. That coin is overwhelmingly likely not a fair coin. I would say the odds of that coin flipping heads on the 10th flip is pretty damn close to unity. [[User:Hoopy Frood|Hoopy Frood]] ([[User talk:Hoopy Frood|talk]]) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

;Chaos at explain section
Please stop adding this, it does not explain the comic, it only belongs to this discussion page:

:Note that the 50% figure is an approximation. Assuming the odds of being attacked by a dog is ''x'', the odds of being attacked by a dog at least once in two visits is 1 - (1-''x'')2. The odds of being attacked at least once in three visits is 1 - (1-''x'')3. Therefore, if one visit has one in a billion probability of attack, then two visits have not 2 in a billion, but 1.999999999 in a billion. Similarly, three visits have a probability of 2.999999997 in a billion. Saying 50% instead of 49.99999992% is a reasonable approximation.

:Unfortunately, [[Cueball]] is mistaken in his calculations. This is easier to see with an event that has greater probability, such as a coin toss. Assuming the odds of getting heads in one flip is .5, the odds of getting heads at least once in two flips is .75 (i.e., 1 minus [.5 X .5], the odds of getting tails both times), and the odds of getting heads at least once in three flips is .875 (1 minus [.5 X .5 X .5], the odds of getting three tails in a row). Getting heads in three flips is not 50% more likely than getting heads in two flips. With very low probabilities (such as the probability of attack by a dog swimming with a handgun), Cueball's calculation gives an extremely close approximation of the actual probability, but one can't apply the same logic to events of just any probability.

::Cueball says *statistically* the risk of some bizarre event increases 50%. This is essentially correct as many have pointed out that 49.99999999 is not really statistically different than 50. What is likely bothering a lot of people (including myself) is that the explainxkcd description states "If the chance of the dog attack is one per billion on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits *is* two per billion whereas in three visits it *becomes* three per billion." There are no weasel words like "approximately", "about", "around", etc. This reminds people of flatly incorrect uses of probabilities like the one you describe. But surely the probability of getting heads from a fair coin toss is not on a similar order of magnitude as the probability that a swimming dog shoots someone with a handgun. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:::''What is likely bothering a lot of people (including myself) is that the explainxkcd description states "If the chance of the dog attack is one per billion on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits *is* two per billion whereas in three visits it *becomes* three per billion." There are no weasel words like "approximately", "about", "around", etc.'' '''Exactly.''' Explanations here have been very helpful in explaining some of the more scientific aspects of things Randall includes. Noting this one makes a (albeit slight) mistake in that regard is appropriate. (And the irony of incorrectly using probabilities in explaining a comic about how people do that is amusing.) [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 18:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I had to think of http://xkcd.com/1102/ when reading the first paragraph of the explainxkcd description. (The context is different, but the dubious use of percentages is the same.) [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

;Proof
I believe Cuball's calculation is way off. The odds of a dog attack should increase by 50% when looking at two beach trips rather than one. But the odds of an attack occurring with 3 visits should only increase by about 16.67%. This can be seen by analyzing a fair dice roll or a coin toss. Unless I am missing something, even with extremely small probabilities, this will hold. Can anyone write a proof to show otherwise?{{unsigned ip|174.98.234.239}}
:As far as I understand it: doing something twice doubles your chance of getting the desired outcome. For example, you want to role a dice and get a six. If you role it twice, you have double the chance of getting at least one six. If you role it three times you have triple the chance of getting a six; in other words you increase it from two chances to three chances, which is an increase of 50%. {{unsigned ip|213.86.4.78}}
::It doubles the likely number of sixes, but does not double the chance of getting at least one six. This is because there is a small chance of getting two sixes, and while that counts as two sixes for the number of occurrences, it still only counts as one chance of getting at least one six. The easiest way to visualize this is to look at the probability that you won't get a six in any given roll of the die, which is 5/6ths. Each time you roll, the probability you won't get a six at all goes down by 5/6ths. So the probability for two rolls is 25/36ths, and thus the probability of getting one or more sixes in two rolls is 11/36ths. This is 1/36th less than 2/6ths, and 1/36th is the probability of getting two sixes. Similar (although more complicated) logic applies to rolling it three times, for which the probability of getting at least one 6 is 91/216ths (not 108/216ths, as the naive approach would imply). As others (CFoxx) have pointed out, if you roll a die 6 times, there is still a chance you won't get any sixes. If you roll it a million times, it is still possible (albeit very, very, very unlikely) that you wouldn't get any sixes! As far as the 50% and 16.67% figures given by the original poster, I believe those were calculated for events that have a 50% probability for each event. The increase in probability from 1 to 2 events where 1/x is the probability looks like (1-(1-1/x)^2)/(1/x)-1, which is (1-(1-2/x+1/x^2))*x-1 or (2/x-1/x^2)*x-1 or (2-1/x)-1 or 1-1/x. Thus for an event like a fair coin toss, the increase in probability for two tosses over one toss is 1/2. For a 6-sided die, the increase in probability is 5/6th. For a 1/billion, the increased probability for one or more occurrence for two events compared with one event is 0.999999999. Finally, the probability of the second event being the desired event is always the same. It is unchanged by the first event. It is the probability of either (or both) of the events being desired that we are calculating here. If the first die roll is a six, the probability of the second being a six is still 1/6. If the first die roll is not a six, the probability of the second being a six is still 1/6 (assuming a fair die). But the probability of either or both being a six is the absence of any information about the two rolls is not 2/6, but rather 11/36! [[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 17:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Toby Ovod-Everett

I shared this comic with risk-assessor friends in Massachusetts and got the following responses:
"Tee-hee. If you change the beach to Chatham, however, it's just not as funny!" (Cape Cod beaches have new signs warning of great white shark attacks: http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/08/17/chatham-bold-attempt-become-new-england-great-white-shark-capital/TtfcEZsAo6PN7lUoBKe1kO/story.html)
"Or in our line of work, we worry (in MA) if the risk of cancer is 0.00002 but not if it is 0.00001 or less, which, as the base rate of cancer is around 40%, means that we're worried about a cancer incidence rate of 0.40002 but not 0.40001. And one could almost argue that it'd be pretty hard to distinguish these two, and even that if we presented risks in this form to the general public, they might wonder why we're so concerned..."
"Makes you wonder what the risk was for that Marlin coming on board that boat in Florida - http://www.wfla.com/story/23239959/350-pound-marlin-jumps-in-boat-landing-on-crew?"
I guess it all depends on your point of view. One might argue that the "gambler's fallacy" is the primary driver of lottery income, which, according to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries: "During fiscal year 2012 (which for most jurisdictions ended June 30) U.S. lottery sales totaled $78 billion ($US). Canadian sales reached $9.3 billion ($Can)." (http://www.naspl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=14&pageid=1020). Is "Remember to Play all Lottery Games Responsibly" an oxymoron?{{unsigned|Hoopy}}

I am troubled with this paragraph: "This also can be illustrated by coin flips: if one flips a coin 10 times in a row, no matter what the result of each previous flip is (even if it were nine heads in a row), the odds of getting heads on the next coin flip remains 50%. In other words, past experience does not impact subsequent flips."

This paragraph does not specify the use of a fair coin. If 9 flips all come up heads, then there is strong statistical evidence that the probability of getting a head in a flip is not 50% (P=1/2^9=1/512~0.2%). It is still true that "past experience does not impact subsequent flips", but in this case, our judgment about the true probability should change in light of new data. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.87|199.27.128.87]] 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, (may have been mentioned) the third trip has the same odds as trip one and two, the odds do not increase with past results (not that it matters with such low odds). {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.8}}

...OK, this one has always bugged me. ∀x:tiny(risk(x)) only follows from tiny(risk(x)) → tiny(1.5*risk(x)) if we also assume:
* x > y ∧ tiny(x) → tiny(y) (which is, honestly, a fairly reasonable axiom).
* ∃x:tiny(risk(x)) (which is also *kind of* reasonable, but entirely unsubstantiated).
Pedanticity complete. [[User:Hppavilion1|Hppavilion1]] ([[User talk:Hppavilion1|talk]]) 05:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I do love reading these discussions. Just wanted to add - don’t care about real-world probability, I would NOT set up an expectation like that if beret guy was coming to the beach with me. Who knows what might happen....[[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 23:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:806: Tech Support

2020-03-29T23:46:05Z

Rereading xkcd:

Actually, a shibboleth's meaning is more complex. It's actually a phrase or principle that distinguishes a group of people and can be used to identify people foreign to said group. For example, in WWII, words with lots of L's were used as a shibboleth to identify Japanese spies, as many Japanese pronounce their L's as R's. [[Special:Contributions/67.85.230.8|67.85.230.8]] 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Liz

As such, the term has been modernized to have the meaning of "password". [[Special:Contributions/194.106.220.85|194.106.220.85]] 13:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The "bearded dude with swords" is probably Richard Stallman. See 225 and 344. [[Special:Contributions/84.137.219.112|84.137.219.112]] 22:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This comic perfectly illustrates why I prefer nightmares over dreams in which things are better than in real life. Truthfully!{{unsigned|108.28.72.186}}

There is a company in UK that has XKCD/806 comppliance: http://revk.www.me.uk/2010/10/xkcd806-compliance.html [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.41|108.162.219.41]] 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Cueball asking if anyone has a subway map in their cubicle is likely a reference to Subways (http://xkcd.com/1196/) which is clever cross-marketing as the Subways poster is available for purchase (http://store-xkcd-com.myshopify.com/products/subways). [[User:Lakeside|Lakeside]] ([[User talk:Lakeside|talk]]) 16:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
:Oh, Randall planned in 2010 a reference to a former (oh, future) comic from 2013? It's BS, I'm sorry. Please do more advertisements for Randall, he uses this shop for his own income and all the payment he has to do for the xkcd web site!.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the "bearded dude with swords" = Stallman is a huge stretch. It makes much more sense, and is the simpler of the two explanations, that she would simply be a fantasy fan and have a poster of someone from say LOTR or a sword-and-sorcery book/film/game. [[User:AmbroseChapel|AmbroseChapel]] ([[User talk:AmbroseChapel|talk]]) 06:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:You can think that and be entirely wrong. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.94.124|172.68.94.124]] 16:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just used 'shibboleet' as a shibboleth to identify friends who do not read xkcd. Better unfriend them. Just kidding. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.186.4|172.69.186.4]] 12:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

So I’m guessing this has been taken out in the clean up (which I’m sad about, there were some extremely funny dogmatic opinions expressed) - changing “leth” to “leet” was discussed? It’s a reference in the strip that amused me, but no comment on it here. [[User:Rereading xkcd|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd|talk]]) 23:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)