explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1854: Refresh Types

2017-06-23T15:23:00Z

Smith609: /* Explanation */ Third option certainly USED to exist

{{comic
| number = 1854
| date = June 23, 2017
| title = Refresh Types
| image = refresh_types.png
| titletext = The hardest refresh requires both a Mac keyboard and a Windows keyboard as a security measure, like how missile launch systems require two keys to be turned at once.
}}

==Explanation==

This lists five different ways of refreshing a page. The first three are real ways to refresh a page. The last two are absurd options that would give an ordinary user the power to make large changes to the places where data is hosted and/or the internet as a whole.

The difference between the first two options: "soft refresh" and "normal refresh," is that Gmail (Google's email service) allows a user to "refresh" (update) their inbox with a "refresh" button accessed while at a web address, while a "normal refresh" involves pushing the browser's refresh button. The latter option is basically equivalent to closing the web page, then opening up a new window/tab in the browser and going to the same IP address; different websites would handle retaining a user's "logged in" status differently when this is done (often based on options the user selected), while any well-designed webpage would probably not log a user out for using a "soft refresh" on something like an e-mail inbox.

The third option, "hard refresh," refers to a keyboard shortcut to "refresh" their cached files associated with a webpage (now discontinued in many browsers?)

The fourth option, "harder refresh," exaggerates the trend to a silly level by suggesting that a web page user would be allowed to press an increasingly implausible combination of buttons on their keyboard (including the non-standard '[https://askubuntu.com/questions/19558/what-are-the-meta-super-and-hyper-keys HYPER]' key, a feature of the {{w|Space cadet keyboard}}) to reset the power at the entire data center where the web server for the page they are viewing is hosted.

The fifth option, "hardest refresh," implies that if the user activated it, somehow the entire internet would start over from ARPANET, a network funded by the United States Department of Defense that predates the World Wide Web and is important when studying the early history of the internet. (ARPA stands for Advanced Research Projects Agency.) Obviously, this is impossible.

The title text envisions a security measure for the hypothetical godlike power of the "hardest refresh" that is like the security on missile launch systems. It references the comically long keyboard shortcut for listed for the "hardest refresh" that involves both the Windows key and the Apple key, which would not normally be located on the same keyboard.

{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Web page developers must keep in mind an ever-increasing number of shortcuts to force a page to refresh more or less thoroughly, i.e. causing cached local resources to be deleted and re-set.

The first option (soft refresh) uses the "refresh" button present as part of the Gmail interface to retrieve new messages from the server without reloading the whole webpage itself.

The second option (normal refresh) uses a browser refresh button which causes the entire page to reload. This will inherently retrieve new messages from the server, but also must do other tasks required to present the page for the first time.

Randall jokingly proposes a fictional "harder still" refresh option is a fictional refresh that sends a command to the Google Gmail server causing the entire data center where the server lives to power down and reboot everything, the Gmail equivalent of "turning it off and on again." This command would be extremely inconvenient for other users, who would be locked out of their emails until the datacenter reboots.

He goes on to propose a "hardest" refresh with a key combination resembling a 'cheat code' that causes the entire internet to be build anew from its origins in {{w|Arpanet}}.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon. No table is the preferred version, just describe what's in the picture including the special keys.}}
:{| class=wikitable
! Refresh Type
! Example Shortcuts
! Effect
|-
| Soft Refresh
| Gmail REFRESH Button
| Requests update within Javascript
|-
| Normal Refresh
| F5, CTRL-R, ⌘-R
|Refreshes page
|-
|Hard Refresh
| CTRL-F5, CTRL-⇧, ⌘-⇧-R
| Refreshes page including cached files
|-
|Harder Refresh
| CTRL-⇧-HYPER-ESC-R-F5
| Remotely cycles power to datacenter
|-
|Hardest Refresh
|CTRL- ⌘<span style='font-family:wingdings' title="Windows key logo">ÿ</span>⇧#-R-F5-F-5-ESC-O-0-Ø-⏏-SCROLL LOCK
|Internet starts over from Arpanet
|}

{{comic discussion}}

1854: Refresh Types

2017-06-23T15:21:54Z

Smith609: Explain HYPER key

{{comic
| number = 1854
| date = June 23, 2017
| title = Refresh Types
| image = refresh_types.png
| titletext = The hardest refresh requires both a Mac keyboard and a Windows keyboard as a security measure, like how missile launch systems require two keys to be turned at once.
}}

==Explanation==

This lists five different ways of refreshing a page. The first two are real ways to refresh a page. The last two are absurd options that would give an ordinary user the power to make large changes to the places where data is hosted and/or the internet as a whole.

The difference between the first two options: "soft refresh" and "normal refresh," is that Gmail (Google's email service) allows a user to "refresh" (update) their inbox with a "refresh" button accessed while at a web address, while a "normal refresh" involves pushing the browser's refresh button. The latter option is basically equivalent to closing the web page, then opening up a new window/tab in the browser and going to the same IP address; different websites would handle retaining a user's "logged in" status differently when this is done (often based on options the user selected), while any well-designed webpage would probably not log a user out for using a "soft refresh" on something like an e-mail inbox.

The third option, "hard refresh," suggests that a user could use a keyboard shortcut to "refresh" their cached files associated with a webpage.

The fourth option, "harder refresh," exaggerates the trend to a silly level by suggesting that a web page user would be allowed to press an increasingly implausible combination of buttons on their keyboard (including the non-standard '[https://askubuntu.com/questions/19558/what-are-the-meta-super-and-hyper-keys HYPER]' key, a feature of the {{w|Space cadet keyboard}}) to reset the power at the entire data center where the web server for the page they are viewing is hosted.

The fifth option, "hardest refresh," implies that if the user activated it, somehow the entire internet would start over from ARPANET, a network funded by the United States Department of Defense that predates the World Wide Web and is important when studying the early history of the internet. (ARPA stands for Advanced Research Projects Agency.) Obviously, this is impossible.

The title text envisions a security measure for the hypothetical godlike power of the "hardest refresh" that is like the security on missile launch systems. It references the comically long keyboard shortcut for listed for the "hardest refresh" that involves both the Windows key and the Apple key, which would not normally be located on the same keyboard.

{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Web page developers must keep in mind an ever-increasing number of shortcuts to force a page to refresh more or less thoroughly, i.e. causing cached local resources to be deleted and re-set.

The first option (soft refresh) uses the "refresh" button present as part of the Gmail interface to retrieve new messages from the server without reloading the whole webpage itself.

The second option (normal refresh) uses a browser refresh button which causes the entire page to reload. This will inherently retrieve new messages from the server, but also must do other tasks required to present the page for the first time.

Randall jokingly proposes a fictional "harder still" refresh option is a fictional refresh that sends a command to the Google Gmail server causing the entire data center where the server lives to power down and reboot everything, the Gmail equivalent of "turning it off and on again." This command would be extremely inconvenient for other users, who would be locked out of their emails until the datacenter reboots.

He goes on to propose a "hardest" refresh with a key combination resembling a 'cheat code' that causes the entire internet to be build anew from its origins in {{w|Arpanet}}.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon. No table is the preferred version, just describe what's in the picture including the special keys.}}
:{| class=wikitable
! Refresh Type
! Example Shortcuts
! Effect
|-
| Soft Refresh
| Gmail REFRESH Button
| Requests update within Javascript
|-
| Normal Refresh
| F5, CTRL-R, ⌘-R
|Refreshes page
|-
|Hard Refresh
| CTRL-F5, CTRL-⇧, ⌘-⇧-R
| Refreshes page including cached files
|-
|Harder Refresh
| CTRL-⇧-HYPER-ESC-R-F5
| Remotely cycles power to datacenter
|-
|Hardest Refresh
|CTRL- ⌘<span style='font-family:wingdings' title="Windows key logo">ÿ</span>⇧#-R-F5-F-5-ESC-O-0-Ø-⏏-SCROLL LOCK
|Internet starts over from Arpanet
|}

{{comic discussion}}

1854: Refresh Types

2017-06-23T15:17:20Z

Smith609: /* Transcript */ Use Wingdings for windows key glyph

1854: Refresh Types

2017-06-23T15:13:54Z

Smith609: /* Explanation */ Clarify

1854: Refresh Types

2017-06-23T15:11:55Z

Smith609: Use Unicode glyph encodings

1854: Refresh Types

2017-06-23T15:09:59Z

Smith609: Explanation

1854: Refresh Types

2017-06-23T15:07:24Z

Smith609: /* Transcript */ Format table

1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T07:08:19Z

Smith609: /* Explanation */ Add an appropriate link as a reference, and add commenter's thought on "released biannually"

{{comic
| number = 1847
| date = June 7, 2017
| title = Dubious Study
| image = dubious_study.png
| titletext = Sounds fine. I looked up the Academy, and it says on their MySpace page that their journal is peer-viewed and downloaded biannually.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic alludes to the growing industry in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing|disreputable academic journals], many of whom accept articles of dubious merit for publication without rigorous peer review on payment of a fee. In an attempt to sound legitimate (and thus attract submissions), many such publishers publish journals whose names sound mistakably close to (if not identical to) established titles. Here, the ''National Academy of Proceedings'' is a play on the highly regarded academic title ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA''.

The title text implies that this (at present) fictional journal has a dubious online presence in the faded internet site MySpace, where the publishers make claims that are true but misleading: "peer-viewed" sounds similar to "peer-review", the community-led process of establishing a paper's scientific integrity prior to publication, but in fact means only that scientists have viewed the content (as cueball is now). Likewise, some journals might be "published biannually", whereas "downloaded biannually" implies that the journal is ''read'' twice a year. Single articles in high-profile journals such as ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' would expect to receive [http://palgrave.nature.com/nchem/journal/v7/n5/nchem.2243/metrics hundreds to thousands] of views in their first year of publication. The fictional journal publisher no doubt hopes that an inexperienced scientist may mistake these claims for meaningful statements of authority, and thus submit a paper (and eventually pay a fee for its publication).

''The National Academy of Proceedings'' in fact sets itself apart from certain predatory journals by ensuring that the claims on its website are in fact factually accurate (if phrased to mislead article authors, particularly those with English as an additional language); some journals are [http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-journals-recruit-fake-editor-1.21662 openly dishonest] on their websites.

==Transcript==
Megan is standing behind Cueball who is at a computer desk.

:Megan: Are you sure this study is legit?
:Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication.
:Megan: Where?
:Cueball: Hmm... ''The National Academy of Proceedings''.
:Caption: If something is if formatted like a serious scientific paper, it can take me a while to realize it isn't one.

{{comic discussion}}

1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T07:05:18Z

Smith609: Clarify

{{comic
| number = 1847
| date = June 7, 2017
| title = Dubious Study
| image = dubious_study.png
| titletext = Sounds fine. I looked up the Academy, and it says on their MySpace page that their journal is peer-viewed and downloaded biannually.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic alludes to the growing industry in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing|disreputable academic journals], many of whom accept articles of dubious merit for publication without rigorous peer review on payment of a fee. In an attempt to sound legitimate (and thus attract submissions), many such publishers publish journals whose names sound mistakably close to (if not identical to) established titles. Here, the ''National Academy of Proceedings'' is a play on the highly regarded academic title ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA''.

The title text implies that this (at present) fictional journal has a dubious online presence in the faded internet site MySpace, where the publishers make claims that are true but misleading: "peer-viewed" sounds similar to "peer-review", the community-led process of establishing a paper's scientific integrity prior to publication, but in fact means only that scientists have viewed the content (as cueball is now). Likewise, "downloaded biannually" implies that the articles are read twice a year, whereas articles in high-profile journals such as ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' would expect to receive thousands of views in their first year of publication. The fictional journal publisher no doubt hopes that an inexperienced scientist may mistake these claims for meaningful statements of authority, and thus submit a paper (and eventually pay a fee for its publication).

''The National Academy of Proceedings'' in fact sets itself apart from certain predatory journals by ensuring that the claims on its website are in fact factually accurate (if phrased to mislead article authors, particularly those with English as an additional language); some journals are [http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-journals-recruit-fake-editor-1.21662 openly dishonest] on their websites.

==Transcript==
Megan is standing behind Cueball who is at a computer desk.

:Megan: Are you sure this study is legit?
:Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication.
:Megan: Where?
:Cueball: Hmm... ''The National Academy of Proceedings''.
:Caption: If something is if formatted like a serious scientific paper, it can take me a while to realize it isn't one.

{{comic discussion}}

1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T07:03:25Z

Smith609: Add links for further information

{{comic
| number = 1847
| date = June 7, 2017
| title = Dubious Study
| image = dubious_study.png
| titletext = Sounds fine. I looked up the Academy, and it says on their MySpace page that their journal is peer-viewed and downloaded biannually.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic alludes to the growing industry in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing|disreputable academic journals], many of whom accept articles of dubious merit for publication without rigorous peer review on payment of a fee. Many such publishers publish journals whose names sound mistakably close to established titles. Here, the ''National Academy of Proceedings'' is a pun on the ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA''.

The title text implies that this (at present) fictional journal has a dubious online presence in the faded internet site MySpace, where the publishers make claims that are true but misleading: "peer-viewed" sounds similar to "peer-review", the community-led process of establishing a paper's scientific integrity prior to publication, but in fact means only that scientists have viewed the content (as cueball is now). Likewise, "downloaded biannually" implies that the articles are read twice a year, whereas articles in high-profile journals such as ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' would expect to receive thousands of views in their first year of publication. The fictional journal publisher no doubt hopes that an inexperienced scientist may mistake these claims for meaningful statements of authority, and thus submit a paper (and eventually pay a fee for its publication).

''The National Academy of Proceedings'' in fact sets itself apart from certain predatory journals by ensuring that the claims on its website are in fact factually accurate (if phrased to mislead article authors, particularly those with English as an additional language); some journals are [http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-journals-recruit-fake-editor-1.21662 openly dishonest] on their websites.

==Transcript==
Megan is standing behind Cueball who is at a computer desk.

:Megan: Are you sure this study is legit?
:Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication.
:Megan: Where?
:Cueball: Hmm... ''The National Academy of Proceedings''.
:Caption: If something is if formatted like a serious scientific paper, it can take me a while to realize it isn't one.

{{comic discussion}}

1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T06:58:31Z

Smith609: Whoops, misremembered title text - biannually not biennially

{{comic
| number = 1847
| date = June 7, 2017
| title = Dubious Study
| image = dubious_study.png
| titletext = Sounds fine. I looked up the Academy, and it says on their MySpace page that their journal is peer-viewed and downloaded biannually.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic alludes to the growing industry in disreputable academic journals, many of whom accept articles of dubious merit for publication without rigorous peer review on payment of a fee. Many such publishers publish journals whose names sound mistakably close to established titles. Here, the ''National Academy of Proceedings'' is a pun on the ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA''.

The title text implies that this (at present) fictional journal has a dubious online presence in the faded internet site MySpace, where the publishers make claims that are true but misleading: "peer-viewed" sounds similar to "peer-review", the community-led process of establishing a paper's scientific integrity prior to publication, but in fact means only that scientists have viewed the content (as cueball is now). Likewise, "downloaded biannually" implies that the articles are read twice a year, whereas articles in high-profile journals such as ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' would expect to receive thousands of views in their first year of publication. The fictional journal publisher no doubt hopes that an inexperienced scientist may mistake these claims for meaningful statements of authority, and thus submit a paper (and eventually pay a fee for its publication). By making factually accurate statements on its website, ''National Academy of Proceedings'' in fact holds itself to a higher moral standards than some so-called predatory journals.

==Transcript==
Megan is standing behind Cueball who is at a computer desk.

:Megan: Are you sure this study is legit?
:Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication.
:Megan: Where?
:Cueball: Hmm... ''The National Academy of Proceedings''.
:Caption: If something is if formatted like a serious scientific paper, it can take me a while to realize it isn't one.

{{comic discussion}}

1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T06:57:25Z

Smith609: /* Transcript */ Formatting

{{comic
| number = 1847
| date = June 7, 2017
| title = Dubious Study
| image = dubious_study.png
| titletext = Sounds fine. I looked up the Academy, and it says on their MySpace page that their journal is peer-viewed and downloaded biannually.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic alludes to the growing industry in disreputable academic journals, many of whom accept articles of dubious merit for publication without rigorous peer review on payment of a fee. Many such publishers publish journals whose names sound mistakably close to established titles. Here, the ''National Academy of Proceedings'' is a pun on the ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA''.

The title text implies that this (at present) fictional journal has a dubious online presence in the faded internet site MySpace, where the publishers make claims that are true but misleading: "peer-viewed" sounds similar to "peer-review", the community-led process of establishing a paper's scientific integrity prior to publication, but in fact means only that scientists have viewed the content (as cueball is now). Likewise, "downloaded biannually" implies that the articles are only read once every other year, whereas articles in high-profile journals such as ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' would expect to receive thousands of views in their first year of publication. The fictional journal publisher no doubt hopes that an inexperienced scientist may mistake these claims for meaningful statements of authority, and thus submit a paper (and eventually pay a fee for its publication). By making factually accurate statements on its website, ''National Academy of Proceedings'' in fact holds itself to a higher moral standards than some so-called predatory journals.

==Transcript==
Megan is standing behind Cueball who is at a computer desk.

:Megan: Are you sure this study is legit?
:Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication.
:Megan: Where?
:Cueball: Hmm... ''The National Academy of Proceedings''.
:Caption: If something is if formatted like a serious scientific paper, it can take me a while to realize it isn't one.

{{comic discussion}}

1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T06:56:46Z

Smith609: /* Explanation */ Expand

{{comic
| number = 1847
| date = June 7, 2017
| title = Dubious Study
| image = dubious_study.png
| titletext = Sounds fine. I looked up the Academy, and it says on their MySpace page that their journal is peer-viewed and downloaded biannually.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic alludes to the growing industry in disreputable academic journals, many of whom accept articles of dubious merit for publication without rigorous peer review on payment of a fee. Many such publishers publish journals whose names sound mistakably close to established titles. Here, the ''National Academy of Proceedings'' is a pun on the ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA''.

The title text implies that this (at present) fictional journal has a dubious online presence in the faded internet site MySpace, where the publishers make claims that are true but misleading: "peer-viewed" sounds similar to "peer-review", the community-led process of establishing a paper's scientific integrity prior to publication, but in fact means only that scientists have viewed the content (as cueball is now). Likewise, "downloaded biannually" implies that the articles are only read once every other year, whereas articles in high-profile journals such as ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' would expect to receive thousands of views in their first year of publication. The fictional journal publisher no doubt hopes that an inexperienced scientist may mistake these claims for meaningful statements of authority, and thus submit a paper (and eventually pay a fee for its publication). By making factually accurate statements on its website, ''National Academy of Proceedings'' in fact holds itself to a higher moral standards than some so-called predatory journals.

==Transcript==
Megan is standing behind Cueball who is at a computer desk.

:Megan: Are you sure this study is legit?
:Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication.
:Megan: Where?
:Cueball: Hmm...the national academy of proceedings.
:Caption: If something is if formatted like a serious scientific paper, it can take me a while to realize it isn't one.

{{comic discussion}}

1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T06:48:47Z

Smith609: Provide information

1826: Birdwatching

2017-04-19T15:09:55Z

Smith609: /* Explanation */ Grammar

{{comic
| number = 1826
| date = April 19, 2017
| title = Birdwatching
| image = birdwatching_small.png
| titletext = No, tell the park rangers to calm down, it's fine--I put a screen on the front. I just want to get the birds a little closer.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic was was originally published with a large picture size, much larger than the standard screen, due to its link pointing to [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/birdwatching_huge.png birdwatching_huge.png]. It was later updated to point to an image at the usual size.

The actual joke of the comic appears to be that Cueball wants to use the vacuum cleaner to pull in the birds. This is physically impossible with such a small device. Even if the shop vac created a perfect vacuum, it can only pull out air at the speed of sound, which amounts to approximately 1 cubic meter per second considering the apparent size of the hose. This is not enough to create a significant amount of wind or affect the atmosphere.

The title text refers to park rangers, who would naturally be distressed by birds being forced to coalesce via an extremely powerful vacuum. If such a vacuum were created and used for this purpose, it probably would pose a threat to said birds. Cueball says he has solved this problem by placing a perforated screen in front. In doing so, he can safely attract the birds without trapping them inside the vacuum. He implies that this should remove the danger to the birds, which is not the case. While the birds can no longer enter the vacuum itself, having a large number of birds pulled into a (presumably small) screen would probably fare poorly for the birds, so Cueball's solution is rather poor.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Beanie Man are standing with camera and binoculars.]
:Cueball: Birdwatching is hard. They're all too small and far away.

:[Both raise tool eyepiece.]
:Cueball: That Hawk is over a mile up! How did you even spot it?

:[Both, lower eyepiece. Cueball looks down, fuming.]

:[Cueball now has a SHOP VAC and has it pointed to the sky.]
:Shop Vac: WHRRRRRR
:[Beanie Guy looks at Cueball, confused.]

{{comic discussion}}

1826: Birdwatching

2017-04-19T15:09:22Z

Smith609: Image link now updated to 'normal size'

{{comic
| number = 1826
| date = April 19, 2017
| title = Birdwatching
| image = birdwatching_small.png
| titletext = No, tell the park rangers to calm down, it's fine--I put a screen on the front. I just want to get the birds a little closer.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic was was originally published with a large picture size, much larger than the standard screen, due to its link pointing [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/birdwatching_huge.png birdwatching_huge.png]. It was later updated to point to an image at the usual size.

The actual joke of the comic appears to be that Cueball wants to use the vacuum cleaner to pull in the birds. This is physically impossible with such a small device. Even if the shop vac created a perfect vacuum, it can only pull out air at the speed of sound, which amounts to approximately 1 cubic meter per second considering the apparent size of the hose. This is not enough to create a significant amount of wind or affect the atmosphere.

The title text refers to park rangers, who would naturally be distressed by birds being forced to coalesce via an extremely powerful vacuum. If such a vacuum were created and used for this purpose, it probably would pose a threat to said birds. Cueball says he has solved this problem by placing a perforated screen in front. In doing so, he can safely attract the birds without trapping them inside the vacuum. He implies that this should remove the danger to the birds, which is not the case. While the birds can no longer enter the vacuum itself, having a large number of birds pulled into a (presumably small) screen would probably fare poorly for the birds, so Cueball's solution is rather poor.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Beanie Man are standing with camera and binoculars.]
:Cueball: Birdwatching is hard. They're all too small and far away.

:[Both raise tool eyepiece.]
:Cueball: That Hawk is over a mile up! How did you even spot it?

:[Both, lower eyepiece. Cueball looks down, fuming.]

:[Cueball now has a SHOP VAC and has it pointed to the sky.]
:Shop Vac: WHRRRRRR
:[Beanie Guy looks at Cueball, confused.]

{{comic discussion}}