explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1069: Alphabet

2014-01-02T09:03:52Z

Tarkov:

That would ''probably'' work anyways. I hear women love it when you play hard to get like that. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it not also relevant that the "ea" in heart and beat are pronounced differently, an example of the irregularity of English orthography. {{unsigned ip|91.89.211.18}}
:...and also in learn, bread, break, beard, bear, create, reality, realize, sergeant. So, 11 different pronunciations. Did I miss any? ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::In what way are the pairs beat/beard and learn/bread pronounced differently? [[Special:Contributions/161.49.249.254|161.49.249.254]] 21:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
:::Beat/beard seems the same. Mistake. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learn?s=t Learn] has the same vowel as "surge", and [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bread?s=t bread] is pronounced with the short "e"-sound, as in "best". –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
::::Those vowels all sound different to me. It all depends on your accent. [[User:Tarkov|Tarkov]] ([[User talk:Tarkov|talk]]) 09:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1075: Warning

2014-01-01T09:34:34Z

Tarkov:

And also that riding in a car is one of the most hazardous activities possible, and people don't realize this, the common view is that walking or riding in a plane is more dangerous when really being in a car is by several orders of magnitude. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 20:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This comic is actally a great justification for repealing all those annoying safety laws. --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 05:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded the explanation (which said evolution had not prepared us for the modern world 'yet'). That implies that we are part-way along an evolutionary process that will see us well suited to motor vehicle travel in the forseeable future, which is not the case and which I don't think was intended by the comic. The sort of evolutionary adaptations required to make us fairly well suited to motor vehicle travel (as opposed to being well suited to walking around all day picking berries and spearing things, as we are now) would take at least several million years, and I think it is extremely unlikely we will still be driving around on highways in cars by then. So there will never be a successor species to the human that is adapted to motor vehicle travel. The main problems with us and cars are (1) reaction time, (2) durability in high-speed impacts and (3) a metabolism that is not adapted to sitting on our backsides whenever we want to get anywhere. For the past 3.5 billion years, none of our ancestors ever had to respond to mishaps at any faster than about 20km/h (running flat out). While our common ancestor with the chimpanzees was probably much better at surviving falls from heights than we are, surviving a collision at highway speeds is not something any of our ancestors ever had to do (at least not often enough to be adapted to it - they weren't adapted to occasional falls from very high cliffs either). Fast vehicles have only appeared in the last couple of hundred years and I would expect it to be many tens or hundreds of thousands of years before these new selection pressures make any noticable (although even then quite inadequate) difference to human physiology. So a very long-winded comment I know, but I hope it will give some perspective. [[User:Tarkov|Tarkov]] ([[User talk:Tarkov|talk]]) 09:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

1075: Warning

2014-01-01T08:49:48Z

Tarkov: Reworded explanation as previous explanation implied that we would at some imaginable point in the future evolve to be suited to motor vehicle travel.

{{comic
| number = 1075
| date = June 29, 2012
| title = Warning
| image = Warning.png
| titletext = Also possibly several miles beyond that.
}}

==Explanation==
This is a re-imagined road sign by Randall. The message is "be careful" because at the most basic level, a motor vehicle is a "box with wheels", and the sudden appearance (relative to evolutionary timescales) of such a device means that human physiology is not adapted to the demands of such high-velocity travel.
The title text mentions that the warning could still apply beyond 5 miles

==Transcript==
:[An American Diamond warning sign with the following message on it: You're in a box on wheels hurtling along several times faster than evolution could possibly have prepared you to go. Next 5 miles.]

{{Comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:1310: Goldbach Conjectures

2013-12-31T10:49:03Z

Tarkov:

If a bot can create the text I read here, we have made great strides in artificial intelligence. Probably a human editor forgot to change the "incomplete/incorrect" heading. [[User:Tenrek|Tenrek]] ([[User talk:Tenrek|talk]]) 05:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:You never know, AI has come a loong way. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

::Let's ask: Tepples, are you a bot? And 199.27.128.62, what about you? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:::Yes, I'm a bot. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.62|199.27.128.62]] 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that <nowiki>{{incomplete|Created by a BOT}}</nowiki> means that the template was inserted by a BOT. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:It does mean that. But as others edit the page, they should keep the "incomplete" reason up-to-date. I've changed it to "incomplete|surely not quite complete yet..." ;) [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
::I will change this text template beginning at the Friday update when I'm back home. Happy NEW YEAR to everybody! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It all seems to work except that the extremely strong seems to imply the opposite of the extremely weak [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 02:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I always find it amusing that people assume that something phrased 'scientifically' is therefore right, whereas something phrased unscientifically (eg religious beliefs taken on faith) are automatically wrong. There seems to be an unexamined assumption that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths. Of course science is really just a methodological system for testing theories. Whenever I try to explain this concept, I try to come up with a general, untestable (non-scientific) assertion that is nonetheless true, alongside a very specific, repeatedly testable (falsifiable) assertion that is therefore eminently scientific, but which happens to be wrong. (Eg "it sometimes rains on Wednesday" and "it rains at least 100mm every Wednesday in Riyadh"). So for me this comic is a commentary on that principle - that the "strength" of a statement is only really impressive if it has also survived testing. [[User:Tarkov|Tarkov]] ([[User talk:Tarkov|talk]]) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1310: Goldbach Conjectures

2013-12-31T10:47:39Z

Tarkov:

If a bot can create the text I read here, we have made great strides in artificial intelligence. Probably a human editor forgot to change the "incomplete/incorrect" heading. [[User:Tenrek|Tenrek]] ([[User talk:Tenrek|talk]]) 05:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:You never know, AI has come a loong way. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

::Let's ask: Tepples, are you a bot? And 199.27.128.62, what about you? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:::Yes, I'm a bot. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.62|199.27.128.62]] 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that <nowiki>{{incomplete|Created by a BOT}}</nowiki> means that the template was inserted by a BOT. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:It does mean that. But as others edit the page, they should keep the "incomplete" reason up-to-date. I've changed it to "incomplete|surely not quite complete yet..." ;) [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
::I will change this text template beginning at the Friday update when I'm back home. Happy NEW YEAR to everybody! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It all seems to work except that the extremely strong seems to imply the opposite of the extremely weak [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 02:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I always find it amusing that people assume that something phrased 'scientifically' is therefore right, whereas something phrased unscientifically (eg religious beliefs taken on faith) are automatically wrong. There seems to be an unexamined assumption that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths. Of course science is really just a methodological system for testing theories. Whenever I try to explain this concept, I try to come up with a general, untestable (non-scientific) assertion that is nonetheless true, alongside a very specific, repeatedly testable (falsifiable) assertion that is therefore eminently scientific, but which happens to be wrong. (Eg "it sometimes rains on Wednesday" and "it rains at least 100mm every Wednesday in Riyadh"). So for this comic is a commentary on that principle - that the "strength" of a statement is only really impressive if it has also survived testing. [[User:Tarkov|Tarkov]] ([[User talk:Tarkov|talk]]) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)