explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2166: Stack

2019-06-21T17:58:58Z

Schpeelah:

I wasn't sure how to format the transcript, but I put in something for starters - feel free to adjust as needed. I don't think the arrow directions for each layer are significant and are just random. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any significance to the two thin layers inserted between the larger labels in the stack? I don't think so, but I'm not sure either way! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
:I would say that the thin layers are actually boundaries between major parts of the stack. The lower one seems to be a boundary between hardware/firmware and (system & application) software, the upper one a boundary between a software product/system/framework as released/sold and the same system as installed/configured at a particular site (the "customer" layer suggests that to me) -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 16:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
::I was thinking something along those lines, but I thought it was strange there was one inserted between the compromises by a current and a past employee. (A compromise by a past employee was likely implemented while they were employed, maybe as a backdoor they can access after leaving the company.) [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 17:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
:::I think this stack is most supposed to be some form of website. The customer (a site visitor/user) is exploiting a Javascript vulnerability. The former employee is exploiting a deeper vulnerability but still through the browser/otherwise through the web (e.g. an URL-based exploit, like adding "/../"s to url to access files that aren't supposed to be part of the site) that they know about because they worked on it. The current employee is compromising using their access to the code, the database, or the server, hence the division. [[User:Schpeelah|Schpeelah]] ([[User talk:Schpeelah|talk]]) 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1636:_XKCD_Stack XKCD Stack]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.182.232|162.158.182.232]] 15:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the title text a reference to [https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/open-mongodb-databases-expose-chinese-surveillance-data/ when china had some surveillance databases publicly visible]? [[User:Rerere284|Rerere284]] ([[User talk:Rerere284|talk]]) 17:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2166: Stack

2019-06-21T17:58:25Z

Schpeelah:

I wasn't sure how to format the transcript, but I put in something for starters - feel free to adjust as needed. I don't think the arrow directions for each layer are significant and are just random. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any significance to the two thin layers inserted between the larger labels in the stack? I don't think so, but I'm not sure either way! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
:I would say that the thin layers are actually boundaries between major parts of the stack. The lower one seems to be a boundary between hardware/firmware and (system & application) software, the upper one a boundary between a software product/system/framework as released/sold and the same system as installed/configured at a particular site (the "customer" layer suggests that to me) -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 16:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
::I was thinking something along those lines, but I thought it was strange there was one inserted between the compromises by a current and a past employee. (A compromise by a past employee was likely implemented while they were employed, maybe as a backdoor they can access after leaving the company.) [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 17:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
:::I think this stack is most supposed to be some form of website. The customer (a site visitor/user) is exploiting a Javascript vulnerability. The former employee is exploiting a deeper vulnerability but still through the browser/otherwise through the web (e.g. an URL-based exploit, like adding "/../"s to url to access files that aren't supposed to be part of the site) that they know about because they worked on it. The current employee is compromising using their access to the code, the database, or the server, hence the division.
[[User:Schpeelah|Schpeelah]] ([[User talk:Schpeelah|talk]]) 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1636:_XKCD_Stack XKCD Stack]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.182.232|162.158.182.232]] 15:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the title text a reference to [https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/open-mongodb-databases-expose-chinese-surveillance-data/ when china had some surveillance databases publicly visible]? [[User:Rerere284|Rerere284]] ([[User talk:Rerere284|talk]]) 17:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

1594: Human Subjects

2015-10-24T10:10:39Z

Schpeelah:

{{comic
| number = 1594
| date = October 23, 2015
| title = Human Subjects
| image = human_subjects.png
| titletext = After meeting with a few of the subjects, the IRB actually recommended that you stop stressing out so much about safety guidelines.
}}

==Explanation==
This strip plays on certain experiments involving {{w|Human subject research|human subjects}}. [[Ponytail]] is questioning the reliability of [[Megan]]'s experimental results, given that her human subjects appear to be extremely unusual and highly {{w|sociopathic}}.

In the second panel, she mentions that several people in one study had been arrested for {{w|arson}}. Megan begins to suggest that the arson is a {{w|side effect}} of whatever is being tested before she learns that the arsonists are in the {{w|Treatment and control groups|control group}} – that is, the group that is ''not'' subjected to whatever is being tested and is used as a comparison to see the differences in the people who are actually being tested. This result is "troubling", as the control group would not be expected to have such a high rate of incidence of arsonists. The implication is that her subjects are not representative of the general population, but appear to have been selected from some aberrant subpopulation, such as a prison or mental institution. Or she could have recruited them through an announcement that catered in some way to arsonists. An alternate explanation comes from comic [[790: Control]], in which [[Randall]] notes his hobby of sneaking into experiments and giving LSD to the control groups.

The third panel alludes to the {{w|prisoner's dilemma}}, in which two subjects must independently decide whether to "collaborate" with or "betray" the other subject based on different rewards for each choice (often framed as a different length of prison sentence, or a different amount of money). The rewards tier are selected so that the outcomes for each individual from best to worst are: betraying a collaborator, collaborating with a collaborator, betraying a betrayer, collaborating with a betrayer.
The thought experiment is considered interesting as it's uncertain what the most logical course of action, as choosing betrayal always improves one's situation, yet being in identical situations with no knowledge of each other, it's also logical for both prisoners to make the same choice and both collaborating is better than both betraying. Of course, it would not be expected that normal people would simply betray each other for no reason, without benefiting from it in any way.

The last panel references the {{w|Milgram experiment}}, in which subjects were instructed by experimenters to administer electric shocks to an unseen third party. The unseen third party was part of the experiment and pretended to be in agony. As shocks escalated they would beg for them to stop. The results suggest that people will continue to administer harm, despite the pleading of the victim, simply if told to do so by an authority figure, even when no incentive is provided to the subject to continue. In this case, however, the actual experiment did not involved electric shocks, and thus suggests that the subjects, of their own volition, brought equipment to produce electric shock and simply engaged in the activity unprompted.

In each of these cases, the subjects seem to have some "negative" psychological traits. While one or two people with such traits might not be unusual to be found in a randomly selected group, the fact that all three experiments contain multiple subjects with these traits (and seemingly the same traits in each study) is very unusual.

The title text refers to safety procedures normally required by {{w|institutional review board}}s, which are centralized groups within universities that ensure that experiments are ethical and safe. The inference is that for an IRB to recommend dispensing with safety procedures after meeting the subjects, the subjects must really, ''really'' deserve bad treatment. Or the members of the IRB are, like the human subjects, just sociopathically awful people. Or that Megan is selecting for these subjects, or causing these abnormalities, as a side effect of spending (probably significantly) more effort than is necessary to adhere to the procedures.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail and Megan sit at a desk.]
:Ponytail: We're concerned that some of your results may be tainted by the fact that your human subjects are ''awful''.
:Megan: What do you mean?

:[Ponytail picks up a sheet of paper.]
:Ponytail: Several participants in your drug trial were arrested for arson.
:Megan: Side effects can be unpredictable.
:Ponytail: They were in the control group.

:[Zoom in on Ponytail.]
:Ponytail: In your prisoner's dilemma study, 80% of the participants chose to betray their partners '''''before''''' the experimenter had a chance to tell them about the reward.
:Megan (off-panel): Definitely troubling.

:[Ponytail shows Megan another sheet of paper.]
:Ponytail: In one experiment, your subjects repeatedly gave electric shocks to a stranger in another room.
:Megan: That's a famous psychological-
:Ponytail: This was a study of moisturizing creams!
:Megan: Yes, we're not sure how they snuck in all that equipment.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Science]]

1594: Human Subjects

2015-10-23T20:54:32Z

Schpeelah:

{{comic
| number = 1594
| date = October 23, 2015
| title = Human Subjects
| image = human_subjects.png
| titletext = After meeting with a few of the subjects, the IRB actually recommended that you stop stressing out so much about safety guidelines.
}}

==Explanation==
This strip plays on certain experiments involving {{w|Human subject research|human subjects}}. [[Ponytail]] is questioning the reliability of [[Megan]]'s experimental results, given that her human subjects appear to be extremely unusual and highly {{w|sociopathic}}.

In the second panel, she mentions that several people in one study had been arrested for {{w|arson}}. Megan begins to suggest that the arson is a {{w|side effect}} of whatever is being tested before she learns that the arsonists are in the {{w|Treatment and control groups|control group}} – that is, the group that is ''not'' subjected to whatever is being tested and is used as a comparison to see the differences in the people who are actually being tested. This result is "troubling", as the control group would not be expected to have such a high rate of incidence of arsonists. The implication is that her subjects are not representative of the general population, but appear to have been selected from some aberrant subpopulation, such as a prison or mental institution. Or she could have recruited them through an announcement that catered in some way to arsonists. An alternate explanation comes from comic [[790: Control]], in which [[Randall]] notes his hobby of sneaking into experiments and giving LSD to the control groups.

The third panel alludes to the {{w|prisoner's dilemma}}, in which two subjects must independently decide whether to "collaborate" with or "betray" the other subject based on different rewards for each choice (often framed as a different length of prison sentence, or a different amount of money). The rewards tier are selected so that the outcomes for each individual from best to worst are: betraying a collaborator, collaborating with a collaborator, betraying a betrayer, collaborating with a betrayer.
The thought experiment is considered interesting as it's uncertain what the most logical course of action, as choosing betrayal always improves one's situation, yet being in identical situations with no knowledge of each other, it's also logical for both prisoners to make the same choice and both collaborating is better than both betraying. It would not be expected that normal people would simply betray each other for no reason of personal gain without being offered reward to do so.

The last panel references the {{w|Milgram experiment}}, in which subjects were instructed by experimenters to administer electric shocks to an unseen third party. The unseen third party was part of the experiment and pretended to be in agony. As shocks escalated they would beg for them to stop. The results suggest that people will continue to administer harm, despite the pleading of the victim, simply if told to do so by an authority figure, even when no incentive is provided to the subject to continue. In this case, however, the actual experiment did not involved electric shocks, and thus suggests that the subjects, of their own volition, brought equipment to produce electric shock and simply engaged in the activity unprompted.

In each of these cases, the subjects seem to have some "negative" psychological traits. While one or two people with such traits might not be unusual to be found in a randomly selected group, the fact that all three experiments contain multiple subjects with these traits (and seemingly the same traits in each study) is very unusual.

The title text refers to safety procedures normally required by {{w|institutional review board}}s, which are centralized groups within universities that ensure that experiments are ethical and safe. The inference is that for an IRB to recommend dispensing with safety procedures after meeting the subjects, the subjects must really, ''really'' deserve bad treatment. Or the members of the IRB are, like the human subjects, just sociopathically awful people. Or that Megan is selecting for these subjects, or causing these abnormalities, as a side effect of spending (probably significantly) more effort than is necessary to adhere to the procedures.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail and Megan sit at a desk.]
:Ponytail: We're concerned that some of your results may be tainted by the fact that your human subjects are ''awful''.
:Megan: What do you mean?

:[Ponytail picks up a sheet of paper.]
:Ponytail: Several participants in your drug trial were arrested for arson.
:Megan: Side effects can be unpredictable.
:Ponytail: They were in the control group.

:[Zoom in on Ponytail.]
:Ponytail: In your prisoner's dilemma study, 80% of the participants chose to betray their partners '''''before''''' the experimenter had a chance to tell them about the reward.
:Megan (off-panel): Definitely troubling.

:[Ponytail shows Megan another sheet of paper.]
:Ponytail: In one experiment, your subjects repeatedly gave electric shocks to a stranger in another room.
:Megan: That's a famous psychological-
:Ponytail: This was a study of moisturizing creams!
:Megan: Yes, we're not sure how they snuck in all that equipment.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Science]]

1468: Worrying

2015-01-02T12:04:57Z

Schpeelah: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1468
| date = January 2, 2015
| title = Worrying
| image = worrying.png
| titletext = If the breaking news is about an event at a hospital or a lab, move it all the way over to the right.
}}

==Explanation==
This chart is a visual representation of how worried people tend to be by various events in real life compared to the same events in movies. In effect it's poking fun at various cliches and the emphasis on dramatic flair, regardless of realism. The chart's Y-axis indicates how worrying an event is in real life (from "not very worried" to "very worried"), while its X-axis shows how worrying the event is in movies. Nine events are shown in the chart, all of them cliches in the medium of film:

* '''Spilling a drink on your shirt''': In both real life and in movies, this just causes a stain and maybe a little embarrassment.
* '''Nosebleed''': Nosebleeds are common in real life and almost never are serious... almost. Nosebleeds in movies are almost always a sign that something ''is'' seriously wrong -- the common, mundane nosebleeds never come up. (Note: this applies to random nosebleeds with no specific cause. Characters may walk out of fistfights with completely inconsequential nosebleeds, for instance.)
* '''Breaking news''': People in real life commonly don't pay much attention to the news at all, so many breaking stories go unnoticed until much later. Most breaking news stories are also about non-threatening events (eg. presidential addresses) or events that are far removed from the viewer. However, in movies, seeing the news station switch to a "breaking news" broadcast is universally a means to introduce a significant plot element that the characters find worrying, and large numbers of people are often shown watching and being emotionally affected by the news while it's breaking.
* '''Parking ticket''': Tickets in movies are almost always ignored, but in real life they are moderately worrying because they cost money and can tarnish your driving record.
* '''Persistent cough''': In real life, coughing fits can be a sign of serious illness, but usually aren't. (If you have a persistent cough, you should check with a doctor.) In movies, just like with nosebleeds, a person with a persistent cough is almost always extremely ill or infectious.
* '''"We need to talk"''': This phrase is a common, stereotypical lead-in to a serious conversation, usually about a couple's relationship status, that often causes a high level of worry in the recipient. According to this chart, this phrase is equally worrisome both in movies and in real life.
* '''Getting knocked out by a punch''': In movies, a character who is knocked out by a punch always wakes up sometime later with no lasting effects. In real life, however, a person knocked out by a punch can suffer serious brain injuries or even die from the punch itself, or can sustain further injuries from their head hitting the ground.
* '''Chest wounds''': The chart mentions wounds on both your right and left sides. In real life, a chest wound to either side is extremely worrying. But in movies, getting wounded on the right side of the chest will rarely deal lasting damage to the hero or primary villain, to show how badass they are. Wounds on the ''left'' side of the chest (the atrium side of the heart) signify swift death. However, even left-side chest wounds are apparently still less worrisome than nosebleeds. It must also be noted that the term "chest wound" is more broad than what the author of the comic appears to mean. A more narrow terms of "thoracic gunshot wound", "gunshot chest wound", "thoracic ballistic trauma" or "penetrating chest wound" (the latter is slightly broader and includes the damage inflicted by blades and other impaled objects) would be more appropriate, because just a "chest wound" includes such insignificant events as minor skin cuts in the chest area.

The title text refers to "breaking news" reports in movies - whenever the news story covers an event at a hospital (usually an outbreak of some major disease) or a laboratory (a monster escaping, a toxic gas released, an explosion, etc.), these events are universally much more worrisome than any other type of news story since they are guaranteed to be important for the protagonists in short order.

==Transcript==
[A chart is presented with the title "How Worried Should You Be When Various Things Happen To You:". The vertical axis is titled "...In Real Life", and the horizontal axis is titled "...In Movies". Both axes start at "Not very worried" and move outward toward "Very worried".]

[Events, moving from bottom to top of the "In Real Life" scale:]

{| class=wikitable
! In real life !! In movies !! Event description
|-
| Not very worried || Not very worried || Spilling a drink on your shirt
|-
| Not very worried || Extremely worried || Nosebleed
|-
| Slightly worried || Mostly worried || Breaking news
|-
| Slightly more worried || Not at all worried || Parking ticket
|-
| Moderately worried || Very worried || Persistent cough
|-
| Mostly worried || Mostly worried || "We need to talk"
|-
| Mostly worried (slightly more) || Not at all worried || Getting knocked out by a punch
|-
| Very worried || Slightly worried || (Chest wound) ...on your right side
|-
| Very worried || Very worried || (Chest wound) ...on your left side
|}

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